Jimenez v Camara (Civil Procedure)

Digest #1

G.R. No. L-14718 March 30, 1960
VICENTE JIMENEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CARMELO S. CAMARA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Enrique F. Marino for appellants. Benedicto, Sumbingco and Associates, for appellees.
BARRERA, J.: 

FACTS:
MORTGAGE & FORECLOSURE (JIMENEZ & PNB)
Plaintiffs Vicente Jimenez, Arturo Jimenez and Filomeno Jimenez, together with four others were originally the registered co-owners of 24 lots, situated in Isabela, Bago and La Carlota, Negros Occidental. All 24 lots were mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank. Due to the owners mortgagors' failure to pay their indebtedness on time, the said bank foreclosed the mortgage and acquired the said properties in public auction, subject to redemption.

RENUNCIATION OF RIGHT OF REDEMPTION, SUBSEQUENT REDEMPTION (GOLEZ)
The mortgagors renounced their right of redemption in favor of one Adriano Golez, who appointed Vicente Jimenez, one of herein plaintiffs, as his attorney-in-fact.

SELL OF RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN MORTGAGED PROPERTIES TO CAMARA
LEASE TO CAMARA (7 out of 24 lots)
In order to redeem said properties from the Philippine National Bank, Adriano Golez and said Vicente Jimenez obtained the intervention and services of defendant Carmelo S. Camara, and on December 29, 1931, a document entitled "Escritura de Compromiso de Venta" (Annex A) was duly executed by said bank in favor of Camara, wherein the former promised to sell to the latter all its rights and interests in the mortgaged properties for the sum of P55,160.00.
To give effectivity to said contract, the conformity of the judgment debtors was necessary; and this conformity was given, subject to the condition that defendant Camara should reconvey to Adriano Golez whatever rights and interests Camara may acquire from the Philippine National Bank over said properties.
On December 31, 1931, Golez and his attorney-in-fact Vicente Jimenez, with the conformity of the previous owners-mortgagors executed a contract of lease known as "Escritura de Arrendamiento" (Annex B), in favor of defendant Camara over seven (7) of the 24 lots for a period of 8 agricultural years, with 2 years option, and ending with agricultural year 1941-1942. With the execution of the aforementioned contracts,

the possession, control, use and enjoyment of the 7 the leased lots comprising Haciendas Buenavista and Aurelia were delivered to Camara. The other properties (17 lots) situated in Bago and La Carlota remained in possession of plaintiffs.

CAMARA PAID THE ENTIRE OBLIGATION OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTIES
By virtue of said contracts, Camara, on January 25, 1945, paid the entire obligation of the mortgaged properties to the Philippine National Bank, in the amount of P34,541.18 as the balance of said debt, plus interests. As a consequence of said debt, plus interests.

CAMARA REGISTERED THE PROPERTIES IN HIS NAME.
As a consequence of said payment (totalling P55,160.00), said bank, on January 3, 1946, executed a document of absolute sale known as "Escritura de Venta Definitiva" on all of the aforesaid properties in favor of Camara. Thereafter, Camara caused to be registered in his name all the said 24 lots in the Office of the Register of Deeds, without notice to plaintiffs, notwithstanding his commitment under said contracts, Annexes A and B to re-transfer and reconvey all said properties to Adriano Golez, or to his assigns, successors-in-interests and/or cessioners, the contract of lease (Annex B) having terminated on November 1, 1942.
Because of Camara's refusal to relinquish possession of the 7 lots comprising Haciendas Buenavista and Aurelia notwithstanding the expiration of the lease, a complaint was filed.
In this case, the true import of the lease contract as well as the resulting relationship between the parties, was put in issue.

1ST SET OF DECISION OF COURTS:
*CFI - Negros: favored Camara.
*SC (on appeal): held that indebtedness should first be settled by the appellant before he is entitled to a conveyance of the land in question.
In compliance with said decision of this Court, Adriano Golez, on March 26, 1954, through his attorney-in-fact Vicente Jimenez, deposited with the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental the sum of P386.33 in cash, and P25,000.00 in P.N. 13. Cashier's check or a total of P25,386.33.
Thereupon, two questions arose again in the lower court
(1) whether the deposit in check was valid, and
(2) whether Camara was under obligation to reconvey to Golez only the 7 lots under lease or all the 24 lots acquired by him from the Philippine National Bank in virtue of the contracts Annexes A and B.

2ND SET OF DECISIONS:
*trial court: sustained the validity of the deposit and also ordered the reconveyance of the 24 lots.
Camara appealed from this order and again the case reached this Court.

Pending this appeal in this Court, (in G. R. No. L-9160)* the present plaintiffs- appellants, as assignees of Golez, filed the instant case (No. 3364) on March 12, 1955, in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros against the same Camara, praying, inter alia, that defendant be ordered to execute the necessary deeds of conveyance in their favor of the remaining 17 lots acquired by Camara from the Philippine National Bank in the manner already narrated.
On August 8, 1955, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that
(1) the complaint states no cause of action, and
(2) the action is violative of the rule on splitting a cause of action under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.

3RD SET OF DECISIONS:
*CFI-Negros: granted the motion to dismiss.
Hence, present petition. Plaintiffs, however, argue that there is no splitting of a cause of action because the issue involved in said Civil Case No. 306 was recovery of possession of Haciendas Buenavista and Aurelia, after the lease contract expired which defendant refused to surrender to Adriano Golez, whereas the issue in the present case is the reconveyance of the titles of the 17 lots mentioned in the "Escritura de Compromiso de Venta".

ISSUE:
Was the dismissal proper?

HELD: 
YES.
The two contracts are not separate from or independent of each other. They are both part of a single transaction: to carry out and facilitate the redemption from the Philippine National Bank of the mortgaged properties. The lease contract was resorted to provide a mode of payment to the bank by the delivery of 1,000 piculs of sugar a year, which is the agreed rental of 7 of the mortgaged lots. In fine, both actions are founded on one and the same contract, and the rule is that where the covenant or contract is entire and the breach total, there can be only one action. (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corporation, 55 Phil., 226.).
When a trial is had, it is intended that all matters growing out of the controversy are to be finally determined in one and the same suit. The object is to prevent a multiplicity of actions and to prevent the possibility of one part of the cause being tried before one judge which would unnecessarily harass the parties and produce needless litigations and accumulate costs. (Pascua vs. Sideco, 24 Phil., 26; Strong vs. Gutierrez
Also, the SC has already decided (in a previous case GR L-1960) that all 24 lots need to be reconveyed by Camara. In the light of the above ruling by this Court, it is clear that the question involved in the instant case has become moot or res adjudicata. 


Digest # 2

Vicente Jimenez et. Al.v. Carmelo S. Camara et. Al.

Overview:

The rule is that where the covenant or contract is entire and the breach total, there can be only one action.

*appeal is certified by the CA from the decision of CFI

Facts:

·       Petitioner (including Vicente Jimenez, later attorney-in-fact of Golez) are owners of 24 lots which they mortgaged with PNB;

·       Because they were not able to pay, PNB foreclosed the property with right of redemption;

·       Petitioners renounced their right of redemption of the said lot to Adriano Golez

·       In order to redeem said property to the bank, petitioner and Golez obtained the intervention and services of Carmelo Camara;

·       A contract was then executed between PNB and Camara where the former promised to sell all his rights and interests in the mortgaged properties to the latter for P55,160.00;

·       Since conformity of judgment debtors was needed, conformity was given by petitioner, subject to the condition that Camara should reconvey to Adriano Golez whatever rights and interests Camara may acquire from the bank;

·        A lease contract between the petitioners and Golez, on one side, and Camara, on the other, was made for the 7 lots for two years ending on November 1941 while the other 17 lots remained in possession of the petitioners;

·       Consequently, Camara paid of all the debts of petitioners to the bank and a deed of absolute sale was made in Camara’s favor and he registered all 24 lots under his name, without notice to the petitioners, notwithstanding his commitment under said contracts (to reconvey them to Adriano Golez);

·       After the expiration of the lease contract,  Camara refused to relinquish possession of the 7 lots, a complaint was filed before the CFI of Negros Occ.

·       CFI decided in favor of Camara but SC, subsequently, decided in favor of Golez (the lease contract was merely to accommodate redemption of the subject property from the PNB) and the SC ordered Golez to pay Camara the necessary payment for redemption;

·       So, in compliance, Golez deposited with the CFI of Negros Occ. a PNB Cashier’s Check but another question was raised by Camara at the CFI:

(1)  won deposit in check was valid, and

(2)  won reconveyance is for the whole 24 lots or only 7 of them;

·       The CFI sustained the validity of deposit in check and the reconveyance for the 24 lots;

·       Camara appealed the CFI decision until it eventually reached the SC again;

·       While pending in the SC, assignees of Golez filed in CFI of Negros Occ against Camara, the reconveyance of the 17 remaining lots;

·       Camara filed a motion to dismiss on ground of violation of splitting of causes of action;

Lower court ruling:

CFI of Negros Occ: Dismissed the complaint.
There is splitting of cause of action since their predecessor in interest (Adriano Golez) has already sought for recovery of the 7 lots and also demanded therein the reconveyance of the other 17 lots.

Issue: WON there is splitting of causes of action

Ruling: Yes, there was a splitting of causes of action.

*petitioner contention*

Petitioners (assignees of Golez) argue that there is no splitting of causes of action because the issue involved in the one previous case was for recovery of possession of the 7 lots subject of the lease contract which already expired while the present case is for the reconveyance of the 17 lots mentioned in the contract where Camara is to convey all rights and interests in the property he may obtain from the bank.

This is not exactly the case. The two contracts are not separate from or independent of each other. They are both part of a single transaction: to carry out and facilitate the redemption from the PNB of the mortgaged properties. The lease contract was resorted to provide a mode of payment to the bank of the delivery of 1,000 piculs of sugar a year, which is the agreed rental of 7 of the mortgaged lots.

In fine, both actions are founded on one and the same contract, and the rule is that where the covenant or contract is entire and the breach total, there can be only one action.