G.R. No. 186522 - De Leon vs. Chu

Rowena C. De Leon initiated a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Gapan against Lolita Chu, demanding the surrender of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 228526 covering a 50-square meter parcel of land in San Roque, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija.
The case was initially filed as LRC Case No. 1322, after Rowena alleged that prior to leaving for Saudi Arabia in June 1997, she had entrusted the title to Lolita who then refused to return it.
A related dispute arose when evidence showed that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 March 1993 involved the sale of a property from Domingo Delos Santos to Lolita, with a separate transfer allegedly involving a 50-square meter portion to Rowena.

Rowena claimed she had paid consideration for the 50-square meter portion and contended that an internal arrangement existed among her, Lolita, and Domingo; specifically, that her exclusion from the deed was due to pending approval of the subdivision plan by the Bureau of Lands.
Contrarily, Lolita and Domingo alleged that the signatures in the disputed documents were forged and that Rowena’s role was limited to having been entrusted with the title before departing abroad.
In the litigation that followed, Lolita and Domingo initiated a separate case before the RTC (Civil Case No. 2257) seeking the annulment of the Deed of Sale and cancellation of TCT No. 228526.

Although Lolita filed a motion to suspend proceedings in LRC Case No. 1322 due to the pendency of the Civil Case No. 2257, the RTC denied the motion.
Upon the motion of both parties, the cases were consolidated under Branch 35 on 8 February 2002.
After trial, on 28 August 2006, the RTC ruled in favor of Lolita and Domingo, finding that Rowena had falsified signatures and declaring the relevant Deed of Sale and subdivision agreement null and void. The court also ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 228526 registered under Rowena’s name.

Rowena appealed the RTC decision, raising an assignment of errors before the Court of Appeals (CA) centered on several issues, including allegations of forum shopping and evidentiary misapplications.
The CA, while addressing the submission of a false certificate of non-forum shopping and issues related to litis pendentia, upheld the RTC’s ruling.
Rowena’s appeal was denied twice by the CA – first by a Decision on 17 December 2007 and subsequently by a Resolution on 3 February 2009 after a motion for reconsideration.

Whether the respondents (Lolita and Domingo) were guilty of forum shopping.
Whether the submission of what was deemed a false certificate of non-forum shopping warranted the dismissal of the case.

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision despite Rowena’s later argument that the respondents failed to include an indispensable party in her complaint.
Whether failing to implead the Register of Deeds—which was in possession of the certificate of title—should have resulted in a different ruling.

Whether the lower courts committed errors in applying the rules of evidence in favor of the respondents.
Whether the trial court erred in not finding Rowena to be a buyer in good faith.

Whether raising new issues on appeal, which were not properly presented in the RTC or CA, should be entertained by the appellate court.
Whether the consolidation of Civil Case No. 2257 with LRC Case No. 1322 affected the availability of the dismissal ground based on litis pendentia.