Case Digest (G.R. No. 150798)
Facts:
Rudecon Management Corporation v. Sisenando S. Singson, G.R. No. 150798, March 31, 2005, the Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Rudecon Management Corporation (RMC); respondent is Sisenando S. Singson. The Court reviewed two Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64281: the denial of RMC’s omnibus motion to dismiss and the denial of its motion for reconsideration.The factual background centers on condominium units in Tempus Place I and II. The spouses Pablo and Ma. Theresa Tolentino owned Room 302 (CCT No. 8876). In 1993, RMC executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying Room 404 (CCT No. 3295) to the Tolentinos. Singson owned two units in Tempus Place II (CCT Nos. 5013 and 5014). On April 18, 1997, the Tolentinos and Singson executed a Deed of Exchange whereby Singson purportedly acquired Rooms 302 and 404 in exchange for his Units A and B.
RMC earlier filed an unlawful detainer action (MeTC Civil Case No. 18436) to evict Ramon Veluz from Room 404; that decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC Civil Case No. 35326). On September 3, 1998, Singson sued RMC in RTC (Civil Case No. Q-98-35444, later appealed as CA-G.R. CV No. 64281) for reconveyance of Room 404 (CCT No. 3295) and for damages, alleging among other things that he acquired Room 404 by the exchange and that RMC, despite knowledge of his ownership and of a lease to Veluz, filed unlawful detainer and refused to turn over CCT No. 3295.
Singson amended his complaint to allege the validity of the unnotarized Deed of Absolute Sale to Pablo Tolentino, the subsequent Deed of Exchange, and that RMC had mortgaged the subject unit to Allied Banking Corporation. RMC moved to dismiss under Rule 16, claiming (inter alia) that it was not a party or privy to the Deed of Exchange and that the requested reconveyance was not a proper remedy because CCT No. 3295 was validly registered in its name. The trial court granted RMC’s motion and dismissed the complaint on April 7, 1999; this decision was preserved on reconsideration but the presiding judge was inhibited, and Singson appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 64281).
Separately, Singson filed another case in RTC (Civil Case No. Q-00-39794) against Allied Banking Corporation and the Sheriff contesting the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of Room 302 (CCT No. 8876), seeking annulment of the sheriff’s sale and injunctive relief. Singson executed verifications/affidavits of non-forum shopping in both complaints in which he certified, under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 and later Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, that he had not commenced any other action involving the same issues or would report any such filing within five days.
RMC filed an omnibus motion in the CA arising from the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 64281, alleging forum shopping and seeking dismissal of Singson’s appeal and contempt for failure to comply with the non-forum-shopping undertakings. T...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition under Rule 45 a proper mode of appeal from the Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying the omnibus motion to dismiss?
- Did respondent commit forum shopping by failing to report the pendency of another action and by submitting a false certification on non-forum shopping as prohibited by SC Adm. Cir. No. 04-94 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court?
- Was there an identity of causes of action (litis pendentia) between Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 (CA-G.R. CV No. 64281) and Civil Case No. Q-00-39794 such that the CA erred in deny...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)