8/11/2019 Rule 2 - civil procedure

1/3

Case Digests

August 2 Rule 2

Cause of Action weng 1

G.R. No. 147417 July 8, 2005SPS. VICTOR & MILAGROS PEREZ and CRISTINA

AGRAVIADOR AVISO,Petitioners, vs.ANTONIO HERMANO,Respondent.

Facts:The civil case filed by the petitioners before the trial

court against the respondents for Enforcement ofContract and Damages with Prayer for TRO(Branch 224) presented three (3) causes of action:first, enforcement of contract to sell entered intobetween petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc.; second,for the annulment or rescission of two contracts ofmortgage entered into between petitioners andrespondent Hermano; and third, for damages againstall defendants.

First cause of action:Sometime in 1997, petitioners

entered into a Contract of Sell with Zescon throughSales-Contreras, for the purchase of 5 parcels of landin the total amount of P19,104,000.00. as part of theiragreement, a portion of the purchase price would bepaid to them as downpayment, another portion to begiven to them as cash advance upon the execution ofthe contract and another portion to be used by thebuyer, Zescon, to pay for loans earlier contracted bypetitioners which loans were secured by mortgages.

Second cause of action:In a tricky machination and

simultaneous with the execution of the aforesaidContract of Sell, they were made to sign otherdocuments, two of which were Mortgage deeds overthe same 5 properties in favor of respondentHermano, whom they had never met. It was allegedlyexplained to them by Sales-Contreras that themortgage contracts would merely serve to facilitatethe payment of the price as agreed upon in theirContract to Sell. They claim that it was never theirintention to mortgage their property to Hermano, moreso that they have never received a single centavo

from the latter.

As to third cause of action, they prayed for damagesagainst all defendants.

In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,respondent Hermano denied petitioners allegations.He then filed a civil case for Judicial Foreclosure ofReal Estate Mortgage (Branch 216) against

petitioner Aviso. He also filed a Motion with Leaveto Dismiss the Complaint Against Him or OrderedSevered for Separate Trial before Branch 224,arguing that there was a mis-joinder of causes ofaction under Rule 2, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.

The trial court (Branch 224) granted the said motion

over the opposition of the petitioners, holding thatrespondent Hermano should be dropped as one of thedefendants in this case and whatever claims petitionermay have against Hermano, they can set it up by wayof an answer to said judicial foreclosure. Petitionersmotion for reconsideration was also dismissed.

They filed a petition for certiorari to the CA under Rule65, however it was dismissed on mere technicality, thepetition having been filed out of time. Hence, thispetition after the denial of their motion for

reconsideration.

Issue:Whether or not there was mis-joinder of causes ofaction.

Ruling:NONE. Thestatutory intent behind the provisions onjoinder of causes of action is to encourage joinder ofactions which could reasonably be said to involvekindred rights and wrongs, although the courts have

not succeeded in giving a standard definition of theterms used or in developing a rule of universalapplication. The dominant idea is to permit joinder ofcauses of action, legal or equitable, where there issome substantial unity between them. While the ruleallows a plaintiff to join as many separate claims as hemay have, there should nevertheless be some unity inthe problem presented and a common question of lawand fact involved, subject always to the restrictionthereon regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder ofparties. Unlimited joinder is not authorized.

Our rule on permissive joinder of causes of action,with the proviso subjecting it to the correlative rules onjurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties and requiringa conceptual unity in the problems presented,effectively disallows unlimited joinder.

In herein case, petitioners have adequately alleged intheir complaint that after they had already agreed toenter into a contract to sell with Zescon Land, Inc.,

8/11/2019 Rule 2 - civil procedure

2/3

Case Digests

August 2 Rule 2

Cause of Action weng 2

through Sales-Contreras, the latter also gave themother documents to sign, to wit: A Deed of AbsoluteSale over the same properties but for a lowerconsideration, two mortgage deeds over the sameproperties in favor of respondent Hermano withaccompanying notes and acknowledgment receipts forTen Million pesos (P10,000,000) each. Petitioners

claim that Zescon Land, Inc., through Sales-Contreras, misled them to mortgage their propertieswhich they had already agreed to sell to the latter.

From the above averments in the complaint, itbecomes reasonably apparent that there arequestions of fact and law common to both ZesconLand, Inc., and respondent Hermano arising from aseries of transaction over the same properties. Thereis the question of fact, for example, of whether or notZescon Land, Inc., indeed misled petitioners to sign

the mortgage deeds in favor of respondent Hermano.There is also the question of which of the fourcontracts were validly entered into by the parties. Notethat under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, for amortgage to be valid, it is imperative that themortgagor be the absolute owner of the thingmortgaged. Thus, respondent Hermano will definitelybe affected if it is subsequently declared that whatwas entered into by petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc.,was a Contract of Sale (as evidenced by the Deed ofAbsolute Sale signed by them) because this would

mean that the contracts of mortgage were void aspetitioners were no longer the absolute owners of theproperties mortgaged. Finally, there is also thequestion of whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., asrepresented by Sales-Contreras, and respondentHermano committed fraud against petitioners as tomake them liable for damages.

Prescinding from the foregoing, and bearing in mindthat the joinder of causes of action should be liberallyconstrued as to effect in one action a complete

determination of all matters in controversy involvingone subject matter, we hold that the trial courtcommitted grave abuse of discretion in severing fromthe complaint petitioners cause of action againstrespondent Hermano.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolutionof the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 2000dismissing petitioners petition forcertiorari and itsResolution dated 02 March 2001 denying petitioners

motion for reconsideration are REVERSED and SETASIDE. The petition for certiorari is herebyGRANTED. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court ofQuezon City, Branch 224, dated 28 February 2000and 25 May 2000 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.The RTC is further ordered to reinstate respondentAntonio Hermano as one of the defendants in Civil

Case No. Q-98-34211. No costs.

NOTES:Requisites for Joinder of Causes of Action(a)It will not violate the rules on jurisdiction, venue

and joinder of parties; and(b)The causes of action arise out of the same

contract, transaction or relation between parties,or are for demands for money or are of the samenature and character

Objectives of the rule or provision(a)To avoid multiplicity of suits where the same

parties and subject matter are to be dealt with byeffecting in one action a complete determinationof all matters in controversy and litigation betweenthe parties involving one subject matter; and

(b)To expedite the disposition of litigation atminimum cost

Should be construed so as to avoid suchmultiplicity, where possible, without prejudice to the

rights of the litigants

Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. -Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground fordismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of actionmay, on motion of a party or on the initiative of thecourt, be severed and proceeded with separately.

Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. - Apartymay in one pleading assert, in the alternative orotherwise, as many causes of action as he may

have against an opposing party, subject to thefollowing conditions:

(a) The party joining the causes of action shallcomply with the rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civilactions or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between thesame parties but pertain to different venues orjurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the

8/11/2019 Rule 2 - civil procedure

3/3

Case Digests

August 2 Rule 2

Cause of Action weng 3

Regional Trial Court provided one of thecauses of action falls within the jurisdiction ofsaid court and the venue lies therein; and

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of actionare principally for recovery of money, theaggregate amount claimed shall be the test ofjurisdiction.