Case Digest (G.R. No. 197384)
Facts:
Sps. Norberto De Guzman and Felicitas C. De Guzman (petitioners) bought from Planters Development Bank a property covered by TCT No. V-71509, subdivided into Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 (90 sq.m.) and Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 (185 sq.m.). On November 22, 2004, the Republic of the Philippines and the Toll Regulatory Board (respondents) filed Civil Case No. 264-V-04 for expropriation of Lot 1047-C-2-D-1, for toll facilities along NLEX. Petitioners later filed a complaint in intervention in that case, asserting ownership by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale and seeking just compensation.During the pendency of the expropriation case, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 180-V-06 for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation, alleging that respondents had taken and used Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 (185 sq.m.) for road widening without paying just compensation and prayed for payment or reconveyance if payment was refused. The RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 171 dismissed the complaint for forum shopp
Case Digest (G.R. No. 197384)
Facts:
- Parties and their capacities
- Sps. Norberto De Guzman and Felicitas C. De Guzman (petitioners) filed civil actions against Republic of the Philippines and Toll Regulatory Board (TRB; collectively respondents).
- Planters Development Bank (Planters Bank) was the registered owner of the subject land under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. V-71509.
- Properties covered by TCT No. V-71509
- Planters Bank was the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 1,238 sq.m.
- The parcel was subdivided into three lots:
- Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 (90 sq.m.)
- Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 (185 sq.m.)
- Lot 1047-C-2-D-3 (963 sq.m.)
- Expropriation suit over Lot 1047-C-2-D-1
- On November 15, 2004, respondents filed a Complaint for expropriation against Planters Bank before the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, docketed as Civil Case No. 264-V-04.
- The expropriation was for the construction and/or rehabilitation of toll facilities along North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) as part of the NLEX Project.
- Sale to petitioners and intervention in the expropriation case
- On November 22, 2005, Planters Bank sold the entire property covered by TCT No. V-71509 to petitioners.
- On December 1, 2005, petitioners filed a Complaint in Intervention in Civil Case No. 264-V-04, alleging they were the owners by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale.
- The RTC granted petitioners’ intervention.
- Alleged road widening and demand for just compensation
- In the intervention, petitioners alleged that respondents converted another portion consisting of 185 sq.m. (Lot 1047-C-2-D-2) for road widening.
- In a letter dated August 30, 2006, petitioners informed the TRB that they were the new owners.
- Petitioners demanded payment of P1,572,500.00 as just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, which the TRB allegedly converted into a road, and also sought just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-1.
- The TRB refused and failed to pay.
- Filing of recovery of possession and/or just compensation case over Lot 1047-C-2-D-2
- On September 12, 2006, petitioners filed this Complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation before the RTC of Valenzuela, Branch 171, docketed as Civil Case No. 180-V-06.
- Petitioners alleged they should be paid just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, included by respondents for widening an existing roadway.
- If respondents refused to pay just compensation, petitioners prayed for reconveyance of the lot.
- Motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 180-V-06
- Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging:
- The complaint lacked a cause of action.
- Petitioners failed to comply with SC Administrative Circular 04-94 and Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.
- The suit was against the State, which allegedly had not given consent to be sued.
- Respondents asserted that in eminent domain, government bound itself only to deal with registered owners and that payment of just compensation should be made only to Planters Bank, not to petitioners.
- Respondents also claimed the complaint was not properly verified and that petitioners failed to state in the certification of non-forum shopping that their prayer for payment of just compensation and recovery of possession for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 had already been raised in the expropriation case.
- RTC order dismissing on the ground of forum shopping
- On April 9, 2006, the RTC issued an order dismissing the complaint for violation of the non-forum shopping rule.
- The RTC considered petitioners’ admission that they intervened in the expropriation proceedings pending before the RTC, Branch 75, as evidence of forum shopping.
- The RTC ruled that:
- The expropriation-with-intervention case and the recovery-of-possession case involved the same parties.
- There was identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.
- Petitioners sought compensation for the same adjoining lot allegedly covered by TCT No. V-71509 in Planters Bank’s name and allegedly covered by the Deed of Sale in favor of petitioners.
- Petitioners would present the same evidence in both cases to prove ownership and entitlement to just compensation.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in an RTC order dated August 28, 2007.
- CA decision and resolu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Main issue on forum shopping
- Whether petitioners were guilty of forum shopping in filing a complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation after filing a complaint in intervention in the expropriation case.
- Petitioners’ theory
- Petitioners claimed there was no forum shopping because there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.
- Petitioners argued that a judgment in one case would not amount to *res judicata* in the other case.
- Petitioners asserted that the 185 sq.m. property in the recovery-of-possession case was entirely different and separate from the 90 sq.m. lot subject of the expropriation case.
- Petitioners maintained that although they sought just compensation for the 185 sq.m. lot in the expropriation case, the RTC could not grant that relief because the expropriation case pertained only to the 90 sq.m. property.
- Respondents’ theory
- Respondents asserted that petitioners violated the rule against forum shopping.
- Respondents invoked the elements of litis pendentia:
- Identity of parties.
- Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)