G.R. No. 147417. July 8, 2005. SPS. VICTOR & MILAGROS PEREZ and CRISTINA AGRAVIADOR AVISO, petitioners, v. ANTONIO HERMANO, respondent.

FACTS: This petition was filed after the CA dismissed the petitioners’ original action for certiorari for being filed out of time. The original action filed with the CA questions the decision of the RTC ruling that there was a misjoinder in the causes of action in the civil case filed by the petitioners, consequently dropping respondent Hermano from the said case.

Petitioner Spouses Perez and Aviso filed three causes of action based on the following allegations:

• 1st cause of action (enforcement of the contract to sell). Sometime in November 1997, Petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with Zecson Land Inc. through its President Zenie Sales-Contreras as the buyer for five parcels of land valued at P19,104,000. In the said agreement, Zecson Land Inc. shall pay a down payment to Petitioners, another portion of the purchase price will be given as cash advance upon the execution of the contract, while the rest shall be used by Zecson as payment for loans earlier contracted by the three from the company 

• 2nd cause of action (annulment or rescission of mortgage contracts). Petitioners contend that they were tricked to sign other documents simultaneous with the execution of the Contract to Sell. Two of the said documents were mortgage deeds over the same five (5) properties in favor of respondent Hermano, whom they have never met. Sales-Contreras allegedly explained to them that “the mortgage contracts would merely serve to facilitate the payment of the price agreed upon in their Contract to Sell.” However, Petitioners asserted that it was never their intention to mortgage their properties to Hermano and that they never received a single centavo from mortgaging their properties to him. They then sought a TRO against Hermano who informed them that he would be foreclosing the subject properties.

• 3rd cause of action (damages against defendants). Petitioners prayed for damages against Zecson Land, Inc. and/or Zenie Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele and Antonio Hermano. They claimed that they were entitled to damages from the defendants for their failure to comply with their obligations under their Contract to Sell and for misleading and misrepresenting them into mortgaging their properties to Hermano, who in turn, had not paid them any of the proceeds. 

A joinder was made on these causes of action and a civil case for Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction against Zecson Land, Inc. and/or its President Zenie Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele and against the respondent herein Antonio Hermano were filed before the RTC. 

Hermano denied the spouses and Aviso’s allegations through his Answer with Counterclaim. Hermano also filed a “Motion with Leave to Dismiss the Complaint or Ordered Severed for Separate Trial" which was granted by the trial court on the ground that there was a misjoinder in the causes of action. As a consequence, Hermano was dropped from the civil case. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but were also denied by the trial court. Hence, they filed an original action for certiorari before the CA. 

The CA dismissed the petition "for having been filed beyond the reglementary period pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended." The subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was also denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in dropping Hermano in the civil action and ruling that there was a misjoinder in the causes of action. 

RULING: Yes. The statutory intent behind the provisions on the joinder of causes of action is to encourage and permit the joinder of causes of action, legal or equitable, where there is some substantial unity between them. While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as many separate claims as he may have, there should nevertheless be some unity in the problem presented and a common question of law and fact involved, subject always to the restriction regarding jurisdiction, venue, and joinder of parties. Unlimited joinder is not authorized. 

The Supreme Court noted that the joinder of causes of action may involve the same parties or different parties. If the joinder involves different parties, as in this case, there must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions. 

Based on the averments made in the complaint, there were, indeed, questions of fact and law common to both Zecson Land, Inc. and Hermano arising from a series of transactions over the same properties. 

For instance, there is the question of fact as to whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., indeed misled Petitioners to sign the mortgage deeds in favor of respondent Hermano. Likewise, the question of which of the four contracts was validly entered into by the parties. Note that under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, for a mortgage to be valid, it is imperative that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged. Thus, respondent Hermano would definitely be affected if it were subsequently declared that what was entered into by Petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc., was a Contract of Sale (as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by them) because this would mean that the contracts of mortgage were void as Petitioners were no longer the absolute owners of the properties mortgaged. Finally, there was also the question of whether or not Zecson Land, Inc. and respondent Hermano committed fraud against Petitioners to make them liable for damages.

Thus, the petition was granted, the Orders of the RTC were annulled and set aside, and the RTC was ordered to add respondent Antonio Hermano as one of the defendants in the Civil Case filed by spouses Perez and Aviso.