Case DOCTRINE/ NOTES

1. Joseph vs. Bautista In a vehicular accident causing injury to the plaintiff, there
is only ONE CAUSE OF ACTION. In this case, only one
injury was sustained by petitioner from the separate acts
of the defendants. Therefore, the respondent judge
correctly held that the recovery by petitioner from Sioson,
Villanueva, and Pagarigan bars him from recovering from
Perez. The basis of this law against double recovery for
the same act or omission is founded on the fundamental
rule against unjust enrichment.

2. Monzon vs. Spouses Relova vs. Addio Properties Whether or not failure to appear in a hearing constitutes
default.

NO. No. In its decision in Rosario, et al., vs. Alonzo, et al.,

the Court ruled that the sole ground for default is failure to
file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period,
and not failure to appear at the hearing. An exception to
the rule is when the failure of the defendant to appear at a
pre-trial conference allows the plaintiff to present evidence
ex parte and a judgment based thereon may be rendered
against the defendant, as provided by Sec. 5 of Rule 18.

3. PNCC vs. CA Prayer for award of sums of money

Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action given the

fact that PNCC failed to pay the remaining balance
despite several demands.

PNCC contention is that the cause of action is premature,

since it is still on the process of satisfying its obligation to
MCS and has not yet violated the latters rights.

A: THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION. All requisites for a

valid COA are present.

(a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means

and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an
obligation on the part of the defendant to respect and
not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on
the part of the defendant constituting a violation of the
plaintiffs right or breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff.
4. Viewmaster Construction vs. Roxas Whether or not there was a cause of action given the fact
that Roxas failed to comply with the conditions of the
agreement despite demand of Viewmaster.

NONE.

We have carefully scrutinized the allegations in the

complaint and we arrived at one conclusion: the complaint
does not state a cause of action. The facts as given are
not sufficient enough for the court to arrive at an equitable
judgment.

"In the case at bench, the money which Allen Roxas used
to bid for the purchase of the shares of stock in State
Investment does not belong to Viewmaster. In fact, the
complaint clearly states that the funds were borrowed by
Allen Roxas from FMIC (which were already fully paid).
Thus, we cannot conclude that Allen Roxas holds in trust
for Viewmaster 50% of his controlling interest in State
Investment and the two parcels of land owned by State
Investments subsidiaries.

5. San Lorenzo Village Association vs. CA ADEC HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION.

"the allegation of ADEC that it is the owner of the property

on the strength of the deed of sale should be deemed
hypothetically admitted, giving it capacity to file the
proceedings below. The trial court was correct in saying
that `[p]laintiff has shown its interest in the subject
property, . . . As successor in interest of the registered
owner, plaintiff step into the shoes of the latter,
consequently, it can sue and be sued.

In this case, all three elements were present. The

complaint included the title of the vendor who sold the
land to ADEC, the status of ADEC as successor-in-
interest, and the altered physical environment along
Pasay road, which are all allegations well within the
hypothetical admission principle.

lack/absence of cause of action(insufficiency of factual

basis)
- demurrer of evidence results in res judicata

failure to state cause of action( insufficiency of allegations

in the complaint)
- Motion to Dimiss - can still file amended complaint
6. Zepeda vs. China Banking Corp China bank sold their mortgaged property in a public
auction not withstanding the fact that they requested for
loan restructuring which was allegedly granted by
Chinabank.

WAS THERE A CAUSE OF ACTION?

YES.
In the instant case, petitioners specifically alleged that
respondent bank acted in bad faith when it extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgaged property notwithstanding the
approval of the restructuring of their loan obligation. They
claimed that with such approval, respondent bank made
them believe that foreclosure would be held in abeyance.
They also alleged that the proceeding was conducted
without complying with the posting and publication
requirements.

Assuming these allegations to be true, petitioners can

validly seek the nullification of the foreclosure since the
alleged restructuring of their debt would effectively modify
the terms of the original loan obligations and accordingly
supersede the original mortgage thus making the
subsequent foreclosure void. Similarly, the allegation of
lack of notice if subsequently proven renders the
foreclosure a nullity in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

7. Sea Land Service vs. CA The Court ruled that in the determination of whether or not
the complaint states a cause of action, the annexes
attached to the complaint may be considered, they being
parts of the complaint.

The reason is such annexes are considered parts of the

complaint.

8. Progressive Devt Coprt vs. CA WON respondent can file two separate suits in forcible
entry, one for recovery of possession and the other for
damages

NO. The court prohibits splitting of a single cause of

action. In this case, the restoration of possession and
demand for actual damages in the case before the MeTC
and the demand for damages with the RTC both arise
from the same cause of action, i.e., the forcible entry by
petitioner into the leased premises.
9. Umale vs. Canoga Park
10. Flores vs. Mallare Philipps
11. Lorbes vs. CA
Whether or not the two cases filed involves the same
cause of action will give rise to litis pendecia.
No, the Court ruled that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210
involve different causes of action.
The filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the
violations on the stipulation of the contract.
The second ejectment case was grounded on the
expiration of the lease contract, an event not yet existent
at the time of the institution of the first complaint.
TESTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER TWO SUITS
RELATE TO A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION:
1. Same evidence test
2. Whether the same defenses in one case may be used to
substantiate the complaint in the other
3. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed
at the time of the filing of the first complaint
Whether or not the trial court correctly
ruled on the application of the permissive
joinder of parties under the Rules of Court.
"where the claims or causes of action joined in a single
complaint are separately owned by or due to different
parties, each separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional
test
In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the
jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of
parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful
scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is a
misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against
respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate and
distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction.
It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations
therein that determine the nature of the action, and the
Court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and
the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.
The designation or caption is not controlling for it is not
even an indispensable part of a complaint.