Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17593. May 24, 1962.]

INES SAPONG CASEÑAS and AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICARDO JANDAYAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Juan L. Pastrana, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; CONTINUING ACTS OF DISPOSSESSION; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION 3, RULE 72; RULES OF COURT. — Where it is alleged in the complaint filed within a period of one year, that defendant employed force, threat, intimidation, stealth and strategy to enter upon plaintiff’s land, and that defendant continues occupying or usurping possession of the land, plaintiff’s remedy is an action of forcible entry and detainer under Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. With respect to the continuance of the acts of usurpation and entry, he may, in the same action, secure a writ of preliminary injunction under Section 3 of said rule.

2. MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS; PENDING ACTION FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER A BAR TO ANOTHER ACTION. — In view of the pendency of an action for forcible entry and detainer filed by plaintiffs against defendants, plaintiffs should not be permitted to file another action in the court of first instance for injunction, in view of the principle against the multiplicity of suits.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, Hon. Montano A. Ortiz, presiding, dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiffs upon motion of defendant. chanrobles.com:cralaw:nad

The facts alleged in the complaint may be briefly summarized as follows: That plaintiff Ines Sapong Caseñas is in actual and material possession and occupation of a parcel of land known as lot No. 412 of the Cadastral survey of Butuan, her possession thereto having been peaceful, continuous, open, etc., devoting a portion of the land to the cultivation of palay; that said plaintiff has declared the land in her name for taxation purposes and paid taxes thereon; that in July, 1957, the said plaintiff filed a free patent application with the Bureau of Lands for the land described above; that while said petition was pending the defendant through force, threat, intimidation, strategy and stealth, entered upon a small portion of the land and succeeded in building a house thereon with a nipa roof; that because of this entry plaintiffs filed an action of forcible entry against the defendant in the municipal court of Butuan City, but this case is still pending before the said court; that in June, 1959, the Director of Lands ordered the investigation of the free patent application of plaintiff Ines Sapong Caseñas and so the Lands officer informed said plaintiff and Pilar Piencanaves Vda. de Jandayan, in representation of Juan Jandayan, to appear for investigation in Butuan City on July 28, 1959; that Juan Jandayan had allegedly filed a homestead application over the land since 1951, having possessed the land since 1938 until his death, and that upon his death his heirs succeeded him thereto; and that the widow and children of said Jandayan had filed a homestead application for six months after plaintiff Ines Sapong Caseñas had filed her free patent application.

The most important allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint are contained in paragraphs 11 and 14 which are hereinbelow quoted for purposes of clarity.

"That in or about the month of June, 1959, before the commencement of the investigation ordered by the Director of Lands and set for hearing on July 28, 1959, by the District Land Officer at Butuan City, the herein defendant, emboldened to be sure by the dismissal of the forcible entry case against him mentioned in paragraphs VI and VII above, employing again force, threat, intimidation, stealth and strategy, entered upon another area of about two (2) hectares of the land in question, over the protest of plaintiff Ines Sapong Caseñas through her overseer and tenant, the area newly usurped being rice land and coconut land located alongside the Buenavista-Butuan Provincial Road, and by force, threat, intimidation, stealth and strategy, and over the protest of said plaintiff, caused the said area to be plowed and planted to palay and had the fruits of the coconut trees gathered, converted the same to his own exclusive use; and intends and threatens to gather the harvest of palay on the land also by force, threat and intimidation, for his own exclusive use, to the great damage and prejudice of the herein plaintiffs, unless restrained on time by this Honorable Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

"x       x       x

"That the defendant, taking advantage of the delay in the termination of the investigation referred to above and relying on mere brute force and on his being related to a member of the Philippine Constabulary now stationed at Butuan City, is committing, threatens or is about to commit a new incursion and usurpation by entering by force, threat, intimidation, stealth and strategy upon the remainder of the cleared and cultivated portion of about twelve (12) hectares of the land in question; and is building, threatens or is about to build another house thereon, the materials of which can now be seen piled in the premises, all in flagrant violation of the plaintiffs’ rights respecting the subject of the action and of the investigation being conducted by the District Land Officer at Butuan City, upon order of the Director of Lands, as above alleged, which investigation has not yet been finished and terminated, and tending to render the judgment or decision that may be rendered by the Director of Lands after the conclusion of said investigation, ineffectual and illusory."cralaw virtua1aw library

The prayer of the complaint is for a writ of preliminary injunction to issue against the defendant to prevent him from building another house on the land, or from performing any work thereon such as cultivation, ploughing, or planting or gathering the harvest, during the pendency of the investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands, etc.

The defendant having been summoned, he promptly filed a motion to dismiss alleging that assuming without admitting that plaintiffs had a valid cause of action the same is barred by the pendency of another action and that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the motion for dismissal. After a hearing the court dismissed the complaint reasoning as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Court believes and so holds that an independent action of injunction is not the remedy. Since the issue herein is physical, actual and natural possession from which the plaintiffs were allegedly deprived by force, threat, intimidation, stealth and strategy, the plaintiffs should have filed a case of forcible entry in the inferior court with a petition for preliminary injunction. This Court could very well disregard the title of the herein complaint by considering it as forcible entry but this cannot be done because the acts of illegal occupation were committed on June 19, 1959, within the period of one year after the unlawful deprivation, and this falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is against the above order of dismissal that this appeal has been prosecuted. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In this Court, counsel for plaintiffs-appellants argues that the proper action that plaintiffs have is one of preliminary injunction and not forcible entry and detainer. It is further argued that under paragraph 14 of plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant is committing a new incursion and usurpation and is building or threatening to build another house, while in paragraph 15 it is alleged that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for, which consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of; and in paragraph 16 it is alleged that great and irreparable injury would result to the plaintiffs unless a preliminary injunction is issued ex parte.

The above argument of plaintiffs-appellants’ counsel would be correct if the above allegations are the only ones made in the complaint. But paragraph 11 thereof alleges that in June, 1959 defendant employed force, threat, intimidation, stealth and strategy to enter upon an area of two hectares of the land in question; and in paragraph 14, it is alleged that the defendant threatens or is about to commit a new incursion and usurpation by the same means. So that according to the plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant entered upon the land in June, 1959, and continues occupying or usurping possession of said land of the plaintiffs; so that the defendant is committing a continuing usurpation or occupation and not an isolated act of usurpation or entry in June, 1959 and another at a later date.

The remedy of the plaintiffs is clearly an action of forcible entry and detainer under Rule 72. In connection with the continuance of the acts of usurpation and entry, these need not be the subject of another action but may be remedied under Section 3 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 3. Preliminary injunction. — The Court may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 60 hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is, therefore, clear that the remedy of the plaintiffs is an action of forcible entry and detainer, and in the said action he may secure the writ of preliminary injunction that he prays for in the complaint.

There is another reason for dismissing the action, and that is the fact that there is a pending action for forcible entry and detainer filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. In view of the pendency of this action the plaintiffs should not have been permitted to file another action in view of the principle against the multiplicity of suits. chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the order dismissing the complaint should be, as it hereby is, affirmed, without costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




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






May-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962 - CARLOS CUNANAN v. JORGE TAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-15580 May 10, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-19593 May 10, 1962 - DELFIN B. ALBANO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14975 May 15, 1962 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12658 May 18, 1962 - FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL. v. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14573 May 18, 1962 - CONCEPCION FELICIANO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17041-17042 May 18, 1962 - TOMAS LITIMCO v. LA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-17524 May 18, 1962 - FELICIANO VERGARA v. CIRIACO VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-18883 May 18, 1962 - PEDRO ESTELLA v. PEDRO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-10457 May 22, 1962 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA, ET AL. v. PEDRO P. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16472 May 23, 1962 - JUANA VDA DE MARTEL, ET AL. v. JULIANA F. ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16628 May 23, 1962 - VIVENCIO LASALA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-18420 May 24, 1962 - DALMACIO PREPOTENTE v. JOSE SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17788 May 25, 1962 - LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15345 May 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15915 May 26, 1962 - MARCELINO T. MACARAEG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18069 May 26, 1962 - ALFONSO DY CUECO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16732 May 29, 1962 - RAMON AUGUSTO, ET AL. v. ARCADIO ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17622 May 29, 1962 - IN RE: FERNANDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12613 May 30, 1962 - FARM IMPLEMENT MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13250 May 30, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13555 May 30, 1962 - SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14010 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS M. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14207 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-15680 May 30, 1962 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16383 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE LUMANTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16407 May 30, 1962 - ARCADIO G. MATELA v. CHUA TAY

  • G.R. No. L-16828 May 30, 1962 - SI NE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16850 May 30, 1962 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16955 May 30, 1962 - SALVADOR PANLILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17013 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: YAN HANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17025 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: SY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17338 May 30, 1962 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. CITY ATTORNEY OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17394 May 30, 1962 - AMADOR D. SANTOS v. DOLORES BANZON TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 - CECILIO PE, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PE

  • G.R. No. L-17458 May 30, 1962 - DANILO DAVID v. ALASKA LUMBER COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17502 May 30, 1962 - A. V. H. & COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17588 May 30, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. MAXIMA BLOUSE DE POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17591 May 30, 1962 - CLEOTILDE LAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17616 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABUY

  • G.R. No. L-17656 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO TAYLOR v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17663 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAURO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. Nos. L-17684-85 May 30, 1962 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17757 May 30, 1962 - MAMERTA DE LA MERCED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17896 May 30, 1962 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. ANGAT LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17920 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-17932 May 30, 1962 - JOSE D. DE LA CRUZ v. SULPICIO DOLLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17977 May 30, 1962 - JEREMIAS MONTEJO v. DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18023 May 30, 1962 - ANGEL OTIBAR, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO G. VINSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18026 May 30, 1962 - SAN FELIPE IRON MINES, INC. v. JOSE A. NALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18165 May 30, 1962 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18530 May 30, 1962 - JOSE ALCANTARA v. DIONISIA YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18535 May 30, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ COMPANY, INC. v. L. S. SARMIENTO, CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18871 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO SOTTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11357 May 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. OLLADA, ETC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-11621 May 31, 1962 - ANTONIA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MARASIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12719 May 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLUB FILIPINO, INC., DE CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16045 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: CHUA CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16185-86 May 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17437 May 31, 1962 - MENO PE BENITO v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-17520 May 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BALANCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17603-04 May 31, 1962 - CEFERINA SAMO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17835 May 31, 1962 - GONZALO SANTOS RIVERA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17852 May 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17955 May 31, 1962 - PILAR LAZARO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL. v. SALUD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL.