G.R. No. 134090 - Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

In 1975, respondent spouses Jose and Miguela Lomotan purchased a parcel of land at No. 16 Tawiran Street, Interior Evangelista, Santolan, Pasig City, covering 4,689 square meters, from Jose San Pedro.
The Transfer Certificate of Title No. 477687 was issued in their favor, and an affidavit by the vendor attested that the property was not tenanted.
After the acquisition, the respondent spouses temporarily left for the United States.

Upon returning from the United States in 1996, the respondent spouses subdivided the land into smaller lots and enclosed it with a concrete fence.
Prior to this development, the petitioners (Ernesto Cruz, Guillermo Coquilla, and Lucita Nicio) had already been occupying the land, having constructed houses there; they claimed to have started residing on the property since 1964, with their father Braulio Cruz having used the lot since 1948.
The respondent spouses, upon discovering the petitioners’ occupation, sent written demands for them to vacate the property, which the petitioners not only refused but also obstructed the construction workers hired to erect the fence.

On December 6, 1996, the respondent spouses filed a petition for an injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City, aiming to enjoin the petitioners from preventing the construction of the perimeter fence.
The petitioners countered the petition on the same day by filing their answer, asserting their long-standing possession of the property and claiming that eviction would leave them isolated due to the impending fencing.

On December 18, 1996, before the RTC could resolve the injunction case, the respondent spouses instituted a separate case for unlawful detainer (ejectment) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) in Pasig City.
In the unlawful detainer complaint, respondent spouses alleged that Braulio Cruz had originally requested permission to plant on the lot, with the understanding that he and his family would vacate when the Lomotans required the property. However, the petitioners had built shanties and occupied the area.
On January 6, 1997, the RTC denied the petitioners’ request for a TRO in the injunction case, and on the same day, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of forum shopping, among other technicalities.
Similarly, a motion for contempt for forum shopping was raised by the petitioners in the ejectment case before the MTC; however, both motions were denied by the respective courts.
On August 11, 1997, the MTC rendered a decision in the unlawful detainer case, ordering the petitioners to vacate the property and to pay reasonable compensation for use and occupation, along with attorney’s fees and costs.

The petitioners subsequently appealed the MTC decision to the RTC and later elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on October 24, 1998.
On February 19, 1998, the CA found that the respondent spouses engaged in forum shopping by filing similar actions in different courts.
The CA ordered the dismissal of the RTC injunction case (Civil Case No. 6625) but affirmed the MTC’s unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 5771).
The petitioners moved for a partial reconsideration to dismiss the unlawful detainer case, but the CA denied this motion on June 9, 1998.
Finally, the petitioners filed the present petition alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA for not dismissing the MTC case despite the interrelated issues of possession and ownership, and for its selective dismissal approach.

Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) had jurisdiction to determine the issue of de facto possession even though the question of ownership was also involved.
Whether the resolution of the issue of possession necessitated a dismissal of the separate injunction case and/or whether the CA erred in dismissing one case (injunction) but retaining the other (unlawful detainer).

Whether the simultaneous filing of two cases involving the same parties, causes of action, and issues amounted to forum shopping and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be.
Whether dismissing both cases would undermine the judicial function of resolving an actual controversy pending before lower courts.

Whether the dismissal of the injunction case by the CA, based solely on forum shopping, should have res judicata effect on the unlawfull detainer suit pending before the MTC.
Whether the dismissal in the absence of a trial on the merits could legally preclude the resolution of the petitioners’ defense over possession and ownership.

Whether the petition should have been filed as a Petition for Review under Rule 45 instead of a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65.