D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
Before
us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45[1] filed by the Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP), assailing the Decision[2] and Resolution[3] of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47097 promulgated on 21 September 1998 and 25
February 1999, respectively.
On 04
March 1997, a Complaint for Annulment of Consolidation of Titles was
filed by La Campana Development Corporation (La Campana) against DBP
and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 225.[4] The case was docketed as
Civil Case No. Q-97-30426.
In the
Complaint, La Campana alleged, among other things:
1.
It has various real properties located in Quezon City originally
covered by T.C.T. Nos. 33035, 33036, 45869, 45870, 45871, 42868 and
23617, and later reconstituted, for which new titles were issued
bearing T.C.T. Nos. RT-10009 (45870), RT-10010 (45871), RT-10011
(45869), RT-10012 (42868), RT-10013 (33036), RT-10014 (33035) and
RT-10015 (23617);
2.
Pursuant to various mortgages which it has constituted over the
above-mentioned properties, the same were foreclosed allegedly on 25
March 1976 and on 31 March 1976, for which a Certificate of Sale was
issued and inscribed on 30 April 1976 as PE-9167/T-23617;
3.
Pursuant to the order of the Honorable Court of Appeals, the said
Certificate of Sale inscribed was ordered cancelled on 28 March 1977,
and which was inscribed on 29 March 1977 as PE-1522/T-23617;
4.
The said Certificate of Sale has not been re-annotated after its
cancellation even up to the present, hence, the right of redemption of
the plaintiff has not yet expired and accordingly, DBP cannot as yet
consolidate in its name the said titles;
5.
Despite such lack of right to consolidate the said titles as La
Campana’s right of redemption has not yet expired, DBP, in wanton
violation of law had caused the consolidation of the titles in its
name, and new titles were issued;
6.
In a case decided by the Honorable Court of Appeals which was docketed
as CA-G.R. CV No. 34856, said court rendered a Decision promulgated on
03 November 1994 in favor of DBP, however, said Decision did not
authorize DBP to consolidate the questioned titles in its name and
neither did the Decision order the cancellation of the titles in the
name of La Campana;
7.
The consolidation resorted to by DBP, of the titles in question, was in
violation of the express terms of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals. (Emphases ours).[5]
Accordingly,
La Campana prayed that the consolidated titles in the name of DBP be
declared null and void, and that it be declared to be the registered
owner of the same. It likewise prayed that the Register of Deeds
of Quezon City be ordered to cancel the consolidated titles in the name
of DBP, and to reinstate its cancelled titles.
La
Campana filed an Urgent Motion For The Issuance Of A Writ of
Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
dated 14 March 1997 before the trial court.
On 18
March 1997, the trial court issued an Order[6] enjoining DBP from
proceeding to oust La Campana and its tenants from possession of the
premises involved before the matter of the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction can be heard.
DBP
then filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, Cite Plaintiff, Ricardo S.
Tantongco, and Counsel in Contempt of Court, and to Reconsider Order
dated 18 March 1997.[7] DBP raised the following grounds in
support of the motion:
a. La
Campana’s right of redemption had already expired per Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856, hence, the case is already
barred by the principle of res judicata;
b.
La Campana’s attempt to revive and to relitigate the case constitutes
forum shopping, hence, the case is dismissible pursuant to Supreme
Court Circular No. 04-94; and
c.
Plaintiff, Ricardo S. Tantongco, and Counsel are guilty of contempt of
court due to forum shopping.
A
Manifestation and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss[8] dated 04 April 1997
was further filed by DBP. Through it, DBP informed the trial
court that because of the finality of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856, it filed a Motion for the Issuance of
Writ of Execution[9] before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 76 (the court
of origin of CA-G.R. CV No. 34856), which was granted in an Order[10]
dated 31 March 1997.
In a
Resolution,[11] dated 18 April 1997, the trial court dismissed the
complaint of La Campana on the ground of res judicata. An
exchange of pleadings thereafter ensued.[12] On 28 October 1997, the
trial court issued the first assailed Order[13] reinstating the
complaint of La Campana. The decretal portion of said Order is
quoted as follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court’s resolution dated April 18, 1997 is
hereby reconsidered and set aside. The instant complaint is hereby
reinstated. The hearing on the issue of whether there is still a need
for registering and/or re-annotating the allegedly cancelled annotation
of the certificate of sale is hereby set on February 9, 1998 at 2:00
o’clock in the afternoon, Hall of Justice, Annex Building, Quezon City.
DBP
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[14] dated 17 November 1997 of the
aforementioned Order. An Opposition/Comment[15] was thereafter
filed by La Campana dated 05 December 1997.
On 08
January 1998, the trial court issued the second assailed Order[16]
denying the Motion for Reconsideration of DBP, which is hereunder
reproduced:
After a careful
review of the arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by defendant Development Bank of the Philippines thru counsel on
November 21, 1997, and the Opposition/Comment thereto filed by
plaintiff thru counsel on December 8, 1997, the Court hereby DENIES the
motion for being bereft of merit.
DBP
filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Pre-Trial Brief on 02
February 1998 and 06 February 1998, respectively, where it made a
reservation, thus:
Defendant DBP
reserves the right to question in a proper proceeding in due time the
incorrectness/impropriety of the issuance of the Order dated October
28, 1997 (which reconsidered and set aside the Resolution dated April
18, 1997 which ordered the dismissal of the instant case) and the Order
dated January 8, 1998, which denied DBP’s Motion for Reconsideration
dated November 17, 1997 (Re: Order dated October 28, 1997).
This
Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim is filed as a matter of extreme
caution only.[17]
DBP,
thus, filed a petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court before the Court of Appeals, citing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction. This petition
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46906. It was later dismissed by
the Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Division, on a technicality due to
improper affidavit of non-forum shopping and lack of certified true
copy of the assailed Order dated 08 January 1998.[18]
Rather
than take issue with the Court of Appeals, DBP filed a Manifestation
dated 11 March 1998 stating that it was abiding with the ruling of the
Court of Appeals, and will be re-filing said petition so as not to
delay the resolution of the substantive issues raised in the
petition.[19]
Indeed,
the petition was re-filed with the Court of Appeals on 16 March 1998,
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 47097.[20]
On 28
May 1998, the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals issued a
Resolution[21] quoted as follows:
Acting on the
private respondent’s [La Campana’s] “Manifestation/Comment Ad Cautelam”
and considering the petitioner’s [DBP’s] Comment filed thereto, the
manifestation filed by the private respondent praying for the dismissal
with finality of the instant petition is hereby Denied for lack of
merit.
Private
respondent is hereby given ten (10) days from receipt hereof to file
its Comment/Answer to the petition. Petitioner is given a period of
five (5) days from receipt of private respondent’s Comment/Answer
within which to file its Reply.
On 21
September 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision,[22] a part
of which reads:
Viewed against
the factual backdrop of this case, petitioner failed to clearly show
that the respondent Court, in issuing the assailed orders, acted with
grave abuse of discretion as defined by the foregoing time-tested legal
standards. On the contrary, respondent Court acted cautiously and
judiciously in reinstating the complaint of private respondent. Stated
differently, the subject orders merely gave the contending parties an
opportunity to present their cases with regard to the issues raised in
the complaint.
ACCORDINGLY,
the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby DENIED
DUE COURSE and consequently DISMISSED.
DBP
filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[23] On 25 February 1999, the Court
of Appeals issued a Resolution[24] denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.
The
aforementioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are now
the subjects of the petition for review on certiorari[25] before this
Court.
The
only issue raised by DBP in the petition, which private respondent also
points out as one of its inquiries, is whether or not both respondent
courts (RTC Branch 225, Quezon City and the Court of Appeals [Twelfth
Division]) committed grave and reversible error and/or abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when said courts did not
order the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-97-30426, on the grounds of res
judicata and forum shopping.[26]
Stated
another way, did the finality of the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856 dated 03 November 1994, entitled “La Campana
Food Products, Inc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines and the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City,” constitute res judicata on the
filing of Civil Case No. Q-97-30426?
DBP
contends that the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
34856 constitutes a bar to the review/re-litigation of the same issue
in this case.
Res
judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the
merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights
of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in the former suit.[27]
The
elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or
order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits;
(3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (4) there must be, between the first
and the second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of
cause of action.[28]
All
the aforementioned requisites must be present for res judicata to apply.
CA-G.R.
CV No. 34856 originated from a Complaint for Release of Titles and
Cancellation of Mortgages filed before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 76,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-47948 by La Campana against DBP and the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
The
issues in that case, as outlined by the Court of Appeals, are the
following:
1. whether
the foreclosure sale was held on June 30, 1975 or on March 25, 1976;
2.
whether or not DBP’s right as the purchaser in the foreclosure sale has
been extinguished by prescription; and
3.
whether or not DBP’s right to deficiency judgment has prescribed.[29]
The
instant petition is for the Annulment of Consolidation of Titles filed
by La Campana against DBP and the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City. The issue being raised by La Campana in this case is that
fraud, which was never hoisted in the other case, was employed in the
consolidation of the subject titles. It contends that the
redemption period did not actually run because while the Certificate of
Sale was annotated in the titles, the annotations were cancelled, and
had not been re-annotated since. Therefore, the requirement that
the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale must be annotated in the titles
before the redemption period shall begin to run, was not complied
with. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals in the present
case:
the
Complaint for Annulment of Consolidation of Titles which deals with the
issue of the validity of titles, i.e., whether or not they were
fraudulently issued, is a question which “[c]an only be raised in an
action expressly instituted for that purpose.”[30]
The
causes of action, and logically, the issues in the two cases, are
crystal clear, very much different, requiring divergent
adjudications. In short, while there is identity of parties,
there is NO identity of subject matter and cause of action. This
being so, different causes of action and circumstances in different
cases would make reliance on the doctrine of res judicata
misplaced.[31] Res judicata cannot be interposed to bar the
determination of a subsequent case if the first and second cases
involve different subject matters and seek different reliefs.[32]
Further,
based on the records, it appears that the consolidation of the titles
was undertaken by DBP in February 1997.[33] The present case was
filed on 04 March 1997 with the trial court. It cannot be said
that the complaint had been barred by prior judgment because it was
precisely the consolidation done in February 1997 which gave rise to
the cause of action which was used by La Campana as basis in filing the
Complaint for Annulment of Consolidation of Titles.
Lastly,
we quote the propitious observation of the Court of Appeals:
The respondent
Court’s caution in this regard could hardly be faulted for the
resolution of the issue on whether or not the registration of this
Court’s Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856 in the manner it was annotated
automatically reinstated the previously cancelled registered
Certificate of Sale is a highly contentious question which merits a
full-blown trial.
Assuming
arguendo that res judicata may be applicable to the case at bench
although the issue of whether or not private respondent’s right of
redemption over the subject lands has expired was not passed upon in
CA-G.R. CV No. 34856, its applicability rests on infirm legal
foundations given the facts prevailing in this case.[34] (Emphases ours)
We now
come to the ancillary issue of forum shopping, as both parties have
accused each other of this offense.
In the
case of Veluz vs. Court of Appeals,[35] we held:
Forum shopping
exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.
For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present:
1. Identity
of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same
interests in both actions;
2.
Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being
founded on the same facts; and
3.
Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two
cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata
in the other case.
Based
on the foregoing requisites, neither party is guilty of forum shopping.
DBP
accused La Campana, its President Ricardo S. Tantongco, and counsel of
forum shopping because Civil Case No. Q-97-30426 had already been
barred by the finality of the Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 34856.[36]
La
Campana, on the other hand, accused DBP of forum shopping because of
the two petitions filed before the Court of Appeals which raised
exactly the same grounds and arguments.[37] These cases were docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 46906 and CA-G.R. SP No. 47097.
However,
as we have discussed earlier, the two cases may involve the same
parties, but there are different issues, causes of action and reliefs
prayed for between them. The elements of litis pendentia are,
therefore, incomplete, negating the existence of forum shopping.
Also,
it is significant to note that the first petition for certiorari under
Rule 65[38] filed by DBP with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 46906 was dismissed on technicalities. In DBP’s
Manifestation dated 11 March 1998, it manifested before the Court of
Appeals that it was abiding by the Resolution dated 27 February 1998,
and it will be re-filing the petition, which it did, so as not to delay
the resolution of the substantive issues. In a Resolution dated 28 May
1998, the Court of Appeals not only denied La Campana’s motion to deny
instantly the second petition filed by DBP, but also required it to
file its Comment/Answer to the petition, and for DBP to file its Reply
thereafter.[39] This is a clear indication that even the Court of
Appeals did not see the first petition as a bar to the filing of the
subsequent one. As no judgment may be rendered in CA-G.R. SP No.
46906, the third requisite therefore, of litis pendentia, is
lacking. No judgment to speak of may be rendered therein which
may affect the judgment in the subsequent petition of the same nature.
Another
issue raised by La Campana in its Memorandum is whether or not the
present action, premised under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure, is proper, considering that it originated from a denial of a
motion to dismiss an interlocutory order.
The
instant petition under Rule 45[40] before this Court is proper because
DBP, as appellant, is appealing a final decision of the Court of
Appeals. This is specifically sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
Under
the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals likewise had jurisdiction
to rule on the denial of the motion to dismiss, albeit an interlocutory
order.
Basic
is the doctrine that the denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash,
being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by certiorari; it cannot be
the subject of appeal, until final judgment or order is rendered.[41]
The remedy against an interlocutory order is not to resort forthwith to
certiorari, but, to continue the case in due course and, when an
unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner
authorized by law.[42] However, under certain situations, recourse to
the special civil action for certiorari or mandamus is considered
appropriate:
(a)
when the trial court issued the order without or in excess of
jurisdiction;
(b)
where there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court; or
(c)
appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an
appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious
effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiff’s
baseless action and compelling the defendant needlessly to go through a
protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by another futile
case.[43]
The
exceptions, as cited above, apply in this case, as the petitioner is of
the belief that the principle of res judicata obtains.
WHEREFORE, finding no reason to
disturb the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 21
September 1998 and its Resolution promulgated on 25 February 1999, both
are hereby AFFIRMED. The
Regional Trial Court, Branch 225, Quezon City, is hereby directed to
proceed with the trial of Civil Case No. Q-97-30426 until its
termination. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Puno,
J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
[1]
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (now Supreme Court
Associate Justice) with Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz and
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., concurring.
[3] Id.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 213-215.
[5] Id.
[6]
Rollo, p. 266.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 267-287.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 315-318.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 307-314.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 319-322.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 561-565.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 350-361; 362-365; 368-371; 380-388; 389-391.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 190-191.
[14]
Rollo, pp. 395-405.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 406-413.
[16]
CA Rollo, p. 27.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 426-427.
[18]
Rollo, p. 444.
[19]
Rollo, pp. 517-518.
[20]
Rollo, p. 518.
[21]
CA Rollo, p. 292.
[22]
Rollo, pp. 8-31.
[23]
Rollo, pp. 107-131.
[24]
Rollo, pp. 33-38.
[25]
Rule 45, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
[26]
Rollo, p. 51; Petition, p. 11.
[27]
Taganas vs. Emuslan, G.R. No. 146980, 02 September 2003, 410 SCRA 237.
[28]
Ibid., citing Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, 19
November 1999, 318 SCRA 516.
[29]
Rollo, p. 298.
[30]
Rollo, p. 93.
[31]
Siapian vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111928, 01 March 2000, 327 SCRA
11.
[32]
Orosa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111080, 05 April 2000, 329 SCRA
652.
[33]
Rollo, p. 516.
[34]
Rollo, pp. 94-95.
[35]
G.R. No. 139951, 23 November 2000, 345 SCRA 756, 765, citing
Alejandrino vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114151, 17 September 1998,
295 SCRA 536, 554 and Dasmariñas Village Association, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127276, 03 December 1998, 299 SCRA 598, 604.
[36]
Rollo, pp. 68-69
[37]
Rollo, p. 482.
[38]
Rules of Court.
[39]
Rollo, p. 518.
[40]
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
[41]
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Pingol Land Transport System
Company, Inc., G.R. No. 145908, 22 January 2004, 420 SCRA 652.
[42]
Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
143706, 05 April 2002, 380 SCRA 285.
[43]
Bank of America NT & SA vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120135, 31
March 2003, 400 SCRA 156, 166.
|