Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

101 Phil 142:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10458. April 22, 1957.]

VICENTE MIJARES and SULPICIA GUANZON, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and PASTORA ALVAREZ GUANZON, Respondents.

Luis G. Torres, for Petitioners.

Antonio Y. de Pio and Pedro T. Garcia for respondent Pastora A. Guanzon.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION; WHEN NOT ALLOWED; CASE AT BAR. — There is a misjoinder of causes of action in the present case not only as regards venue but also as regards the defendants. The first cause of action stated in the complaint refers to the annulment of a deed of sale of certain real properties situated in the province of Negros Occidental, and of a deed of donation inter vivos of another set of real properties situated in the province of Cebu. They therefore refer to two different transactions which affect properties situated in two different provinces. The venue has therefore been improperly laid as regards the properties in Negros Occidental. With regard to the second cause of action, the deed of sale which is sought to be annulled was made in favor of one of the defendants whereas the deed of donation was made in favor of another defendant, and there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the two defendants have a common interest that may be joined in one cause of action. On the contrary, their interest is distinct and separate. They cannot therefore be joined in one cause of action.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin respondent Judge from enforcing his order requiring petitioners to answer the complaint and proceed with the trial in Civil Case No. R-3822 and asking at the same time that said order be set aside and the case be dismissed as regards said petitioners.

On December 24, 1954, Pastora Alvarez Guanzon filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against her husband Jose M. Guanzon containing two causes of action: one for the annulment of a deed of sale in favor of Sulpicia Guanzon of certain real properties situated in the province of Negros Occidental, and the annulment of a deed of donation inter-vivos in favor of Joven Salvador Guanzon of another set of real properties situated in the province of Cebu; and another for the separation of their conjugal properties, which include both real and personal acquired during marriage (Civil Case No. R- 3823).

On October 19, 1955, plaintiff filed a motion to bring into the case Sulpicia Guanzon and her husband Vicente Mijares as parties defendants alleging that their presence therein is indispensable. This motion was granted and said defendants were duly summoned in accordance with law.

On January 17, 1956, the new defendants Sulpicia Guanzon and Vicente Mijares, instead of filing their answer, filed a motion to dismiss based on three grounds, to wit: (1) that venue is improperly laid, (2) that there is a misjoinder of causes of action and of parties defendants, and (3) that the court has no jurisdiction over the persons of said defendants. After hearing the parties on this motion, the court denied the same on February 7, 1956, holding that the action is in personam as it does not affect title to real property, that there is no misjoinder of causes of action, and that it has jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. The movants filed a motion for reconsideration, and when this was denied, they interposed the present petition for prohibition and certiorari seeking to set aside the two orders adverted to.

The present case involves the rule which allows the joinder of several causes of action, the pertinent provision of which is embodied in Rule 2, section 5, which provides that "Subject to rules regarding venue and joinder of parties, a party may in one complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party claim state, in the alternative or otherwise, as many different causes of action as he may have against an opposing party."cralaw virtua1aw library

While this rule appears simple, however, difficulties may arise in its application, for it does not state specifically the cases where several causes of action may be joined, each case apparently depending upon the nature of the transactions involved. But one thing is clear: That the joining of causes of action must be subject to the rules regarding venue and joinder of parties. If these rules are violated, then a misjoinder of causes of action may arise.

Former Chief Justice Moran gives several illustrations of how this rule may be applied which are interesting. On this point he makes the following comment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This rule, which is now expressly extended to counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims, is subject to the limitation regarding venue, whereby several causes of action with no common venue cannot be joined. For instance, if A, a resident of Manila, has against B, a resident of Baguio, two causes of action, one for money, and another for title to real property located in Zamboanga, he cannot join them in a single complaint, for the venue of the first action, which is either Manila or Baguio, is different from the venue of the second, which is Zamboanga.

The rule is likewise subject to the limitation regarding joinder of parties. For instance, if plaintiff A has a cause of action against B, another cause of action against C, and another cause of action against D, the three causes of action cannot be joined, because there would be a misjoinder of parties defendant, each of them being interested in the cause of action alleged against him but not in the other causes of action pleaded against the others. 1 A claim on a promissory note against three defendants may not be joined with a claim on another promissory note against two of the defendants, for again there is a misjoinder of parties, the third defendant in the first cause of action not having an interest in the second cause of action." 2 (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. I, 1952 Ed., p. 24).

In the light of the instances cited by former Chief Justice Moran, it may be stated that there is a misjoinder of causes of action in the present case not only as regards venue but also as regards the defendants. With regard to the first, it should be noted that the first cause of action stated in the complaint refers to the annulment of a deed of sale of certain real properties situated in the province of Negros Occidental, and of a deed of donation inter vivos of another set of real properties situated in the province of Cebu. They therefore refer to two different transactions which affect properties situated in two different provinces. The venue has therefore been improperly laid as regards the properties in Negros Occidental. With regard to the second, it also appears that the deed of sale which is sought to be annulled was made in favor of Sulpicia Guanzon whereas the deed of donation was made in favor of Joven Salvador Guanzon, and there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the two defendants have a common interest that may be joined in one cause of action. On the contrary, their interest is distinct and separate. They cannot therefore be joined in one cause of action.

In the light of the above considerations, it may therefore be stated that the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners in so far as the cause of action involving the annulment of the deed of sale covering the properties in Negros Occidental is well taken and should have been sustained by the lower court.

Petition is granted. The orders of respondent Judge dated February 7, 1956, and March 5, 1956 are hereby set aside. The complaint in so far as the cause of action affecting petitioners is hereby dismissed, leaving the complaint valid as regards the other defendants, with costs against respondent Pastora Alvarez Guanzon.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Gacula v. Martinez Et. Al., 80 Phil., 142.

2. Federal Housing Administrator v. Christianson, 1 Fed. Rules




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452