GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE vs CANOGA PARK PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CORPORATION G.R. No. 167246 July 2! 211 Facts: On January 4, 2000, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease on an eight hundred sixty (860!s"uare!#eter pri#e $ot $ocated in Ortigas Center, %asig City o&ned 'y the respondent )he respondent ac"uired the su'*ect $ot fro# Ortigas + Co Ltd %artnership through a eed of -'so$ute .a$e, su'*ect to the so#e conditions On Octo'er /0, 2000, 'efore the $ease contract expired, the respondent fi$ed an un$a&fu$ detainer case against the petitioner 'efore the etropo$itan etropo$itan )ria$ )ria$ Court Court ( MTC !1ranch !1ranch 68, %asig City )he respondent used as a ground for e*ect#ent the petitioners 3io$ation of stipu$ations in the $ease contract regarding the use of the property )C decide in fa3or of the respondent )C!1ranch )C!1ranch /55 affir#ed )he case, ho&e3er, &as re!raff$ed to the )C!1ranch )C!1ranch 26, granted the petitioners #otion, there'y re3ersing and setting aside the )C!1ranch 68 decision -ccording$y, -ccording$y, Ci3i$ Case 7o 8084 &as dis#issed for 'eing pre#ature$y fi$ed )hus, the respondent fi$ed a petition for re3ie& &ith the C- uring the pendency of the petition for re3ie&, the respondent fi$ed on ay , 2002 another case for un$a&fu$ detainer against the petitioner 'efore the )C espondent used as a ground for e*ect#ent the expiration of the parties $ease contract contract )C rendered rendered a decision in fa3or of the respondent respondent On appea$, appea$, the )C!1 )C!1ranch ranch 68 re3ersed re3ersed and set aside the decision of the )C!1ranch /, and dis#issed Ci3i$ Case 7o 92/0 on the ground of litis pendentia ssue: ;hether Ci3i$ Case 7os 8084 and 92/0 in3o$3e the sa#e cause of action no&n as the ?sa#e e3idence@ test,or &hether the defenses in one case #ay 'e used to su'stantiate the co#p$aint in the other -$so -$so funda#enta$ is the test of deter#ining /&#%&#$ %&# 'us# o- '%(o* (* %&# s#o*+ 's# #0(s%#+ '% %&# %(# o- %&# -(l(* o- %&# -($s% o3l'(*%.
Of the three tests cited, the third one is especia$$y app$ica'$e to the present case, i.e, &hether the cause of action in the second case existed at the ti#e of the fi$ing of the first co#p$aint A and to &hich &e ans&er in the negati3e )he facts c$ear$y sho& that the fi$ing of the first e*ect#ent case &as grounded on the petitioners 3io$ation of stipu$ations stipu$ations in the $ease contract, &hi$e the fi$ing of the second case &as 'ased on the expiration of the $ease contract -t the ti#e the respondent fi$ed the first e*ect#ent co#p$aint on Octo'er /0, 2000, the $ease contract 'et&een the parties &as sti$$ in effect )he $ease &as fixed for a period of t&o (2 years, fro# January /6, 2000, and in the a'sence of a rene&a$ agreed upon 'y the parties, the $ease re#ained effecti3e unti$ January /5, 2002 t &as on$y at the expiration of the $ease contract that the cause of action in the second e*ect#ent co#p$aint accrued accrued and #ade a3ai$a'$e to the respondent as a ground for e*ecting the petitioner petitioner )hus, the cause of action in the second case &as not yet in existence at the ti#e of fi$ing of the first e*ect#ent case )hus, the respondent cannot 'e said to ha3e co##itted a &i$$fu$ and de$i'erate foru# shopping
