RODRIGO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. VS. SOCORRO RAMOS, ET. AL.; GR 16797, 2/27/63

TOPIC: LOAN/S SECURED BY A MORTGAGE IN RELATION TO SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

RODRIGO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.  VS. SOCORRO RAMOS, ET. AL.; GR 16797, 2/27/63

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is a direct appeal made by Socorro upon the decision of the CFI against her averment that the Enriquez and the spouses Dizon are guilty of splitting a single cause of action.

FACTS: Rodrigo Enriquez and the spouses Urbano Dizon and Aurea Dizon sold to Socorro Ramos 11 parcels of land located in Quezon City which are covered by their corresponding certificates of title. The lands were sold to Ramos for the price of P101, 000 through a notarial deed. Ramos paid P5,000 down, P2,500 cash, and P2,500 by check drawn against the PNB. Ramos agreed to pay the remaining P96,000 balance within 90 days. For security, Ramos mortgaged the eleven parcels of land in favor of the vendors in the same deed of sale. Additionally, Ramos, as attorney-in-fact of her children and as judicial guardian of her minor child, executed another morgage on a lot situated in Malinta.

            Ramos failed to comply with some conditions of the mortgage so Enriquez and the spouses Dizon filed an action for foreclosure of the mortgage. In response, Ramos moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Enriquez and the spouses Dizon had previously filed an action against her in the CFI of Manila for the recovery of P2,500 paid by check as part of the down payment accrued and demandable. Enriquez and the spouses Dizon, then, are guilty of splitting a single cause of action under sec. 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. The filing of the first action for P2,500 was a defense that could be pleaded in abatement of the second suit.

            Enriquez and the spouses Dizon opposed Ramos' motion to dismiss, which was granted by the CFI of Quezon City. But, Ramos repleaded her aforementioned averments as a special defense in her answer.

CFI: Its decision was against Ramos and she was ordered to pay P96,000 with 12% interest from Feb. 24, 1959 ntil payment, 10% of the amount due as attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit; and further decreed the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged properties in case of non-payment within ninety (90) days.

RAMOS: She insists that the action should be dismissed on account of the alleged splitting of appellee's cause of action, and that the obligation not having fixed a period, although one was intended, the court below should have set first a date of maturity before ordering payment or foreclosure.

ENRIQUEZ, ET.AL. : They did not split a single cause of action. They are correct in filing two cases against Ramos. The first case they filed was for collection of the unsecured portion of the consideration of the sale or collection of the check drawn by Ramos, while the second was to foreclose the mortgage used as security on the balance.

ISSUE: WON the case filed by Enriquez, et. al. should be dismissed on the ground of splitting their cause of action.

HELD: No, the Court finds no merit on this appeal.

An examination of the first complaint filed against appellant in the Court of First Instance of Manila shows that it was based on appellants' having unlawfully stopped payment of the check for P2,500.00 she had issued in favor of appellees; while the complaint in the present action was for non-payment of the balance of P96,000.00 guaranteed by the mortgage. The claim for P2,500.00 was, therefore, a distinct debt not covered by the security; and since the mortgage was constituted on lands situated in Quezon City, the appellees could not ask for its foreclosure in the Manila courts. The two causes of action being different, section 4 of Rule 2 does not apply.