Facts:
Petitioners,
City of Makati,
Jejomar Binay, and
Ernesto S. Mercado, challenged by petition for review on certiorari the
Court of Appeals’ Decision dated June 6, 2003 and Resolution dated March 26, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 54692, which affirmed the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 141 Order dated September 25, 1998 dismissing petitioners’ petition for
prohibition with a prayer for
temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction. The underlying controversy arose from the conversion of military reservations into productive uses through
Republic Act No. 7227 creating the
Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). On March 13, 1992, then President Corazon C. Aquino approved
Republic Act No. 7227, and on December 8, 1992, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued
Executive Order No. 40 placing under BCDA administration the portions of
Fort Bonifacio identified in Plans Swo-00-001265 and Swo-00-001266, which were located in the
Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila. On November 22, 1993, the Municipality of Taguig filed in the
RTC of Pasig City, Branch 153 an action for judicial confirmation of its territory and boundary limits against the Municipality (now City) of Makati, the
Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Director of the Land Management Bureau, docketed as
Civil Case No. 63896. In that case, Taguig prayed for a declaration of the unconstitutionality and nullity of
Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518, which allegedly transferred portions of Fort Bonifacio to Makati without authority and without a plebiscite. Taguig also sought injunctive relief to restrain officials from disposing of the lots and to restrain Makati from exercising jurisdiction or treating certain areas as part of its territory, and prayed, after due hearing, for judgment confirming that the Fort Bonifacio military reservation, consisting of specified parcels, should form part of Taguig. After this, on January 20, 1995, President Ramos issued
Special Patent No. 3595 conveying described tracts of land in Barangay Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, to BCDA, and on February 7, 1995, issued
Special Patent No. 3596 canceling Special Patent No. 3595 and granting described tracts to the
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC); thereafter, on February 10, 1995,
OCT No. SP-001 was issued to FBDC. Subsequently, on April 18, 1996, the
City of Makati and various local officials and a citizen filed in the
RTC of Makati, Branch 141 a petition for
prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against the same respondents herein, docketed as
Civil Case No. 96-554. In that petition, Makati sought to restrain Taguig from requiring and accepting real estate taxes and other taxes or fees, business permits and licenses, and related permit/license fees from residents in the named Barangays or Fort Bonifacio, and also prayed that BCDA and FBDC cease paying Makati realty and other municipal taxes and fees in connection with the tracts under Special Patent No. 3596, while also asking the
Register of Deeds to cease acting on OCT No. SP-001. The Municipality of Taguig moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 96-554, among others, on the ground of
litis pendentia, forum shopping, and other procedural and substantive grounds; FBDC and BCDA likewise moved to dismiss on related grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action, and improper impleader. On September 25, 1998, the RTC-Makati dismissed the case, holding that the suit must be dismissed on at least two grounds:
litis pendentia and
violation of the anti-forum shopping circular. The RTC reasoned that Civil Case No. 63896 filed earlier in the Pasig RTC involved the same tracts covered by Special Patent No. 3596 and OCT No. SP-001, that the requisites of litis pendentia were present, and that the absence of absolute identity of parties did not prevent the application of litis pendentia because only substantial identity was required and the parties represented the same interests. The RTC further held that petitioners violated the rule against forum shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the concurrence of the requisites of litis pendentia meant that petitioners violated the rule on
forum shopping, rendering discussion of other issues unnecessary. Hence, petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no forum shopping because there was no identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and that Civil Case No. 96-554 was fundamentally different from Civil Case No. 63896, involving grave abuse in the issuance of the special patent and the validity of OCT, while the other case sought confirmation of boundaries. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues:
Whether
litis pendentia was present between
Civil Case No. 96-554 and
Civil Case No. 63896, and whether petitioners therefore violated the rule on
forum shopping.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: