Eg Plaintiff vs Defendant for Forcible Entry Subsequently Defendant files a

Eg plaintiff vs defendant for forcible entry

This preview shows page 34 - 35 out of 47 pages.

>Eg. Plaintiff vs Defendant for Forcible Entry. Subsequently, Defendant files a case against Plaintiff for quieting of title. Plaintiff files an MD on the ground of Litis Pendentia. Grant? NO. Is there identity of parties? Yes, they just exchanged roles, but interest is the same. Is there identity of subject matter? Yes. Is there identity as to reliefs sought? NO. Forcible Entry (better right to possess) is different from Quieting (ownership is the issue). Thus, these are 2 separate cases. So deny the MD. Can these cases proceed simultaneously? Yes. Can there be 2 different judgments? Yes. >As a rule, what gives rise to Litis Pendentia? A second case. But it is not always true that the second case is always the one to be dismissed due to Litis Pendentia. >Eg. Both P and D claims ownership of land, and D is in possession of said land. 1 year period is over so forcible entry - ejectment can no longer be filed, so plaintiff files a case of accion publiciana or recovery of possession (1 st case). Then, in the 2 nd case, the defendant files a MD on the ground of Litis Pendentia and quieting of title. There is Litis Pendentia, but the 1 st case is to be dismissed and the 2 nd case is retained, because this is the case that will thresh out the issues between the parties. Defendant is already in possession and thus files quieting. Retain the case that will resolve all the issues between parties and Dismiss the other under the ground of LP. However, P may file a counterclaim for recovery of possession. >Supposing the first case is on Appeal, then a second case is filed. Can defendant’s son raise Litis Pendentia? Yes. For as long as a decision as to the first case has not yet become final, there is still Litis Pendentia. If decision becomes final and executor, ground now becomes “Res Judicata”. > RES JUDICATA – Law of the case. Decision is final and executor. For Res Judicata to set in, the above 3 requirements must be present in addition to (4) a judgment that has become final and executory, (5) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (6) and court rendered judgment under trial on the merits. >Trial on the merits- parties were given equal opportunity to present their respective evidence (unlike judgment by default where evidence are presented ex parte). >Because these are the additional requirements, there is no longer an issue as to what case is to be dismissed. The decision in the first case is already the law of the case, and therefore that law of the case will prevail all throughout. Any other subsequent cases shall be dismissed. Will result in the dismissal of the 2 nd and subsequent cases. >Eg. P vs D for accion reinvindicatoria (recovery of ownership). Defendant filed his answer. Case went to trial and a judgment was rendered in favor of P. Thus, he recovers ownership. Judgment becomes final and executory, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction after trial on the merits. Subsequently, P and D died.
Image of page 34
Image of page 35

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 47 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • MTC

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture