Case Digest (G.R. No. 208543)
Facts:
Goodland Company, Inc. v. Banco de Oro‑Unibank, Inc., and Goodgold Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 208543, February 11, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Goodland Company, Inc. owned a Makati parcel under TCT No. S‑97436 (451440). In 1999 Gilbert Guy, on behalf of Goodland and several related corporations (including Goodgold Realty and Development Corporation), obtained loans from Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (EPCI). The debtor corporations failed to pay interest and negotiated a dacion en pago whereby a Goodgold property (TCT No. 218470) was to be applied as full payment; a Deed of Cession was executed on July 30, 2004 but EPCI alleged Goodgold refused to turn over transfer documents. EPCI later merged with respondent Banco De Oro‑Unibank, Inc. (BDO).
On January 16, 2009, BDO filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with Application for Preliminary Attachment in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 (Civil Case No. MC09‑3902). On February 2, 2009, the RTC granted preliminary attachment and attached several titles, including Goodland’s TCT No. S‑97436. After motions to lift and partial discharges, the RTC issued orders on March 3, 2010 and October 4, 2010 which discharged some properties and reinstated attachment of others, including Goodland’s TCT No. S‑97436.
BDO filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA‑G.R. SP No. 117223. On June 6, 2011, the CA granted BDO’s petition, reinstating attachment on Goodland’s property and Guy’s properties while limiting attachment on TCT No. 218470 to P69,821,702.77; a clerical correction was later made on November 29, 2012. Guy’s appeal to the Supreme Court was unsuccessful and an Entry of Judgment issued July 31, 2013.
Goodland separately filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition in the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 119327) contesting the RTC’s attachment orders; on February 22, 2013 the CA dismissed Goodland’s petition in view of the CA’s June 6, 2011 decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 117223, holding there was identity of parties and issues (litis pendentia/res judicata). The CA denied reconsideration on July 30, 2013.
Petitioner Goodland then filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assigning errors that the writ of preliminary attachment was null and void for lack of fraud and excessive attachment, that the ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing petitioner Goodland’s petition for certiorari in CA‑G.R. SP No. 119327 on the ground of litis pendentia and/or res judicata?
- Was the writ of preliminary attachment on petitioner Goodland’s property (TCT No. S‑97436) null and void for failure by respondent BDO to show fraudulent intent or because the attachment was excessive?
- Did the trial court and the appellate court gravely abuse their discretion in reinstating the at...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)