Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24515)
MTCC’s Order on Certification Against Forum-Shopping
On February 9, 2005, the MTCC directed BUCCI to show cause why its complaint should not be dismissed for failing to include in its certification against forum-shopping the pendency of Civil Case No. MAN-1669, a separate action for recovery of ownership involving Lot 3-F and another parcel, Lot 3-C.
MTCC’s Dismissal of the Unlawful Detainer Case
Finding that BUCCI’s certification omitted any reference to the ownership recovery suit still pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the MTCC, in an order dated March 31, 2005, dismissed the summary action with prejudice.
RTC’s Affirmation of MTCC Dismissal
BUCCI appealed to the RTC of Mandaue City (Civil Case No. MAN-5126-A). In a decision dated March 13, 2006, Branch 56 of the RTC affirmed the MTCC’s dismissal, holding that BUCCI was guilty of forum-shopping by failing to disclose the pending ownership case in its certification. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 23, 2006.
Court of Appeals’ Decision and Ruling
In CA-GR. SP No. 01935, the Court of Appeals, by decision dated December 10, 2010, upheld both lower court orders. The CA concluded that BUCCI’s failure to disclose the pendency of the recovery-of-ownership suit violated Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and that any judgment in the ownership case would operate as res judicata in the unlawful detainer action. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 26, 2011.
Issue Presented
Whether BUCCI committed forum-shopping by filing the unlawful detainer case during the pendency of the ownership recovery suit and by failing to disclose such pendency in its certification against forum-shopping.
Petitioner’s Arguments
BUCCI contended that only one of the four elements of litis pendentia—identity of parties—was present. It argued:
• The causes of action differ (ownership versus possession).
• The reliefs prayed for are distinct (declaration of ownership versus material possession).
• No risk of res judicata as determination of ownership would not automatically resolve the summary ejectment proceeding.
Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents asserted that non-disclosure of a pending case involving the same parties and property constituted a fatal defect under Section 5, Rule 7. They maintained that such omission, regardless of differences in issues, warranted dismissal without prejudice for non-compliance with the certification requirement.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Forum-Shopping
Under Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court, a plaintiff must certify under oath:
(a) no previous action involving the same issues is pending, or
(b) if pending, a complete statement of its status.
Failure to comply mandates dismissal without prejudice. The essence of forum-shopping is filing multiple actions on the same cause to secure favorable outcomes. The requisites for litis pendentia are identity of parties, rights, reliefs, and that a judgment in one case would be res judicata in the other.
Distinction Between Unlawful Detainer and Ownership Actions
The Court reaffirmed that unlawful detainer actions address only material or physical possession (possession de facto), whereas recovery of ownership suits resolve legal title (do
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-24515)
Facts
- In 1997, UCCPI and MBC filed Civil Case No. MAN-1669 (RTC, Mandaue City) to recover ownership of Lots 3-F and 3-C from BUCCI.
- RTC ruled for BUCCI on October 13, 1997; UCCPI and MBC’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 10, 2005.
- BUCCI filed Civil Case No. 4936 (MTCC Branch 2, Mandaue City) for unlawful detainer and damages to recover material possession of Lot 3-F from respondents.
- MTCC required a certification against forum-shopping; BUCCI did not disclose the pending Civil Case No. MAN-1669.
- MTCC dismissed Civil Case No. 4936 with prejudice on March 31, 2005 for non-compliance with certification requirements.
Procedural History
- BUCCI appealed to the RTC (MAN-5126-A); RTC Branch 56 affirmed MTCC’s dismissal on March 13, 2006, finding BUCCI guilty of forum-shopping.
- BUCCI’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied on June 23, 2006.
- BUCCI filed CA-GR SP No. 01935; the Court of Appeals dismissed it on December 10, 2010, and denied reconsideration on January 26, 2011.
- BUCCI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue
- Did BUCCI commit forum-shopping by filing an unlawful detainer case during the pendency of an ownership recovery suit and failing to disclose that in its certification against forum-shopping?
Petitioner's Arguments
- Litis pendentia demands identity of parties, rights, reliefs founded on the same facts, and potential res judicata.
- Only iden