Case Digest (G.R. No. 179025)
Facts:
Cebu State College of Science and Technology (CSCST) v. Misterio, G.R. No. 179025, June 17, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from a Deed of Sale dated December 31, 1956 in which Asuncion Sadaya sold Lot No. 1064 (4,563 sq. m., TCT No. 13086) in Lahug, Cebu City to Sudlon Agricultural High School (SAHS), reserving in favor of the vendor the right to repurchase the lot “after the aforementioned SAHS shall (have) ceased to exist or shall have transferred its school site elsewhere.” The sale was later reflected in TCT No. 15959, with the vendor’s right annotated.
On March 18, 1960, the Province of Cebu donated 41 parcels (including Lot 1064) to SAHS subject to conditions including automatic reversion to the province if SAHS ceased to operate and a prohibition on alienation. On June 10, 1983, BP Blg. 412 converted various schools into CSCST, transferring to CSCST SAHS’s properties, personnel and records. The Province later sought recovery of the donated parcels.
Respondents (heirs of Sadaya) notified the provincial governor and CSCST of their intention to repurchase (1988–1990). On December 23, 1993 they filed Civil Case No. CEB-15267 (RTC Branch 18) against CSCST for nullity of sale and/or redemption, alleging SAHS had no juridical personality and that BP Blg. 412 had caused SAHS to cease to exist. On November 29, 1995 the RTC ruled for the plaintiffs. CSCST appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 53592).
While that appeal was pending, respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion for Injunction alleging CSCST intended to abandon the property and transfer its site; this was acknowledged by the CA. On October 3, 1997 CSCST executed a Deed for Reversion to the Province; TCT No. 146351 issued in the Province’s name, annotated with pending cases. On July 31, 2000 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in CA-G.R. CV No. 53592, finding respondents’ right to repurchase had prescribed as of June 10, 1987 under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code; this Court affirmed that CA decision on June 23, 2005 (Misterio v. CSCST, 499 Phil. 733).
During the pendency of the earlier appeal, respondents filed an Amended Complaint on February 5, 2001 in RTC Branch 23 as Civil Case No. CEB-25746 impleading the Province and Register of Deeds and basing relief on the second suspensive condition (alleged transfer of school site). The RTC (Branch 23) dismissed the amended complaint on October 1, 2002 for litis pendentia and forum shopping, finding substantial identity with the earlier pending case. The CA, however, in a Decision dated July 25, 2007 (CA-G.R. CV No. 77329) reversed the RTC, holding there was no identity of causes of action because the first case was based on cessation of existence of SAHS while the second was based on transfer of site.
CSCST filed a petition for review on certi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC’s dismissal of Civil Case No. CEB-25746 on the ground of litis pendentia/forum shopping?
- If not barred by litis pendentia, does respondents’ second cause of action (redemption based on transfer of school site) afford them a valid, timely right to repurchase the property despite prior failure to exercise the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)