Facts:
The dispute arose over a stretch of road connecting Multinational Village in Parañaque with Ninoy Aquino Avenue and involved
Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. as petitioner and
Multinational Realty and Development Corporation as private respondent, with the
Court of Appeals as respondent in the certiorari proceeding; the private respondent filed a complaint on March 15, 1989, in the
Regional Trial Court of Makati for enforcement of ownership rights, injunctions and damages, alleging that it was the owner of the road, that it had permitted the Association use of the road and that the Association and G-Man Security Agency had thereafter prevented the Corporation from transporting construction materials to develop adjacent lots; after hearing, Judge Job B. Madayag granted preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions on April 4, 1989, ordering removal of the guardhouse and compelling peaceful possession, the defendants filed an answer on April 13, 1989, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and *litis pendentia* on July 20, 1989, which motion was denied on October 3, 1989, the Association sought certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction in the
Court of Appeals, which denied relief on January 29, 1991, and the Association then petitioned this Court while an earlier administrative complaint the Association filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board on May 28, 1987, and its subsequent appeal to the Office of the President remained pending.
Issues:
Does the
Regional Trial Court of Makati have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by
Multinational Realty and Development Corporation rather than the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board under
PD 957?; Does the pending administrative appeal to the Office of the President by
Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. bar the civil action under the doctrine of
litis pendentia?; Does the filing of the civil action constitute
forum-shopping in view of the earlier administrative proceedings initiated by
Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc.?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: