G.R. No. 172585 - Buston-Arendain vs. Gil

On 24 October 1995, Antonia Gil and her children Miguel Antonio, Marlyn, and Manolo Gil filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 16 (Civil Case No. 23963-95) against spouses Domingo Arendain and Irene Taroy-Arendain, spouses Bautista Arendain and Cristita Buston-Arendain, the Register of Deeds of Davao City, the Community Environment Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Davao City, and the Director of Lands.
The complaint sought: declaration of nullity of titles, quieting of title, recovery of possession, accounting, damages, notice of lis pendens, and prayer for receivership.

Respondents claimed to be co-owners of parcels totalling 50,130 square meters in Cabantian, Davao City, covered by original certificates of title (OCTs) issued in their favor as early as 1976:

Respondents accused spouses Domingo and Irene and spouses Bautista and Cristita of fraudulently acquiring, in March 1981, OCT No. 10541 in Domingo Arendain’s name covering land registered under OCT No. P-6079, and OCT No. P-10522 in Bautista Arendain’s name covering land under OCT No. P-6080.
Since 1976, through threats and force, petitioners allegedly deprived the Gils of possession and enjoyment over the disputed parcels by extending and enlarging their lots.

CENRO explained ongoing administrative proceedings involving overlapping claims between OCT No. P-10552 (Bautista Arendain) and OCT No. P-6080 (Antonia Gil), ordering investigation per Lands Administrative Order No. 6.
CENRO stated it could not determine preference among certificates pending administrative resolution but had no objection to litigation if the administrative case was withdrawn.
Petitioners (spouses Domingo and Irene; spouses Bautista and Cristita) sought dismissal citing absence of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Petitioners declared in default after failure to file pre-trial briefs and failure to appear for pre-trial.
Bautista and Cristita Arendain filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals assailing default order but this was dismissed.
Their Petition for Review to the Supreme Court was also dismissed for being filed out of time.
RTC rendered judgment on 28 October 1998 declaring:

OCT No. P-10522 (Bautista Arendain) as null and void;
OCT No. 10541 (Domingo Arendain) as null and void only insofar as it covered the 10,771 sq.m. under P-6079;
Ordered cancellation of the aforementioned OCTs and vacation of possession by petitioners over the parcels covered by OCT Nos. P-6075, P-6079, and P-6080.

Only Bautista and Cristita appealed to the Court of Appeals; spouses Domingo and Irene did not, rendering the RTC Decision final as to them.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on 20 January 2006, reasoning that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies only to public lands; once registered and covered by certificate of title, the land is private property over which administrative agencies have no jurisdiction.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court raising two issues:

The Court of Appeals erred in affirming nullification of OCT No. P-10522 without exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Petitioners had not committed forum shopping.

Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies such that the petitioners’ failure to await administrative resolution bars the judicial claim to declare the OCTs null and void.

Whether the petitioners committed forum shopping in filing the present judicial action despite earlier related administrative or judicial proceedings.