Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 AND 303169 AND
ISSUANCE OF OWNER’S DUPLICATE
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN LIEU OF THOSE LOST, ROLANDO
EDWARD G. LIM, Petitioner. |
G.R. NO. 156797 Present: CARPIO
MORALES, Chairperson BRION BERSAMIN, ABAD,*
and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: July
6, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Petitioner
Rolando Edward Lim (Lim) seeks to reverse the decision rendered on
We
hold that the dismissal was unwarranted and arbitrary for emanating from an
erroneous application of the rule against forum shopping. Thus, we undo the
dismissal and reinstate the application for judicial reconstitution.
Antecedents
On
The
petition prayed thus:
(1) to declare null and void, the originals of the OWNER'S DUPLICATE of TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE nos. 303168 and 303169 which are lost;
(2) xxx after due adjudication and hearing, order and direct the Register of Deeds for Quezon City to reconstitute the original copy of Transfer Certificate Title Nos. 303168 and 303169 in the name of the registered owners, in exactly the same terms and conditions and on the basis of (i) the copies of the same Certificates of Title as previously issued by the Register of Deeds for Quezon City attached to the petition and (ii) the separate relocation plans and technical descriptions pertaining to the real estate properties covered by the Transfer Certificates of Title No. 303168 and 303169, duly approved by the Lands Management Services of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources and once accomplished;
(3) the Registry of Deeds for
On
On
On
November 4, 1999, Lim formally offered his documentary exhibits to prove: (a) his compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements; (b) his
authority to represent the registered co-owners of the parcels of land covered
by the TCTs; (c) his and his wife’s co-ownership
of the parcels of land; (d) the facts
and circumstances surrounding the loss of the originals of the owner’s
duplicate copies; and (e) the fact
that the TCTs were among the records burned during the fire that razed the
Quezon City Hall.
On
xxx
(2) Our record
shows that Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 303168 and 303169, covering Lot
7, Block 586 and
xxx
On
the basis of the LRA report, the RTC dismissed Lim’s petition on
In view of the report of the LRA that the subject titles are also applied for reconstitution of titles under Administrative Reconstitution Proceedings, the Court resolves to dismiss the instant petition, it appearing that there is forum-shopping in the instant case, considering further the strict requirements of the law on the reconstitution of titles.
Petitioner failed to disclose that he also applied for administrative reconstitution and in fact stated in his Petition that:
xxx xxx xxx
4. To the best of the Petitioner's knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and
5. If the Petitioner should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, the Petitioner undertakes to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Court wherein the original pleading and Sworn Certification contemplated herein has been filed.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.[4]
Lim’s
motion for reconsideration filed on
Hence,
this appeal directly to the Court via
petition for review on certiorari.
Issues
Lim
poses several questions of law, namely: [5]
I.
Whether or not the subsequent filing by the petitioner of his petition for judicial reconstitution of the originals of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 303168 and 303169 after the said loss of the exclusive sources from which certificates of title may be administratively reconstituted under Republic Act No. 6732 is the proper legal alternative under Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 and is in accordance with the procedure under Republic Act No. 26;
II.
Whether or not under the stated facts and circumstances, petitioner can be deemed to have engaged in forum shopping;
III.
Whether or not under the stated facts and circumstances, the non-disclosure by the petitioner of the previous filing of the application for administrative reconstitution of the originals of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 303168 and 303169 in his Certification against Forum Shopping incorporated in the petition for judicial reconstitution is a violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and
IV.
Whether or not the petitioner, who had no fault at all in the destruction of the original certificates of title safekept in the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City may be unjustly deprived of his proprietary right to obtain and possess reconstituted certificates of title over the real estate properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 303168 and 303169 specially where he complied with all the strict requirements of judicial reconstitution under Presidential Decree No. 1529 and in accordance with the procedure under and requirements of Republic Act No. 26.
The
foregoing issues may be restated thus: Did the RTC correctly dismiss the
petition of Lim on the ground of forum shopping?
Ruling
Forum shopping is the act of a party
litigant against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum
seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than
by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution
of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause or supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[6]
Forum shopping happens when, in the two or more pending cases, there is
identity of parties, identity of rights or causes of action, and identity of
reliefs sought.[7] Where
the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment
in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, there is forum
shopping.[8] For litis pendentia to be a ground for the
dismissal of an action, there must be: (a)
identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in
both actions; (b) identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts; and
(c) the identity in the two cases
should be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one would, regardless
of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other.[9]
For forum
shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transaction, same
essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action,
subject matter and issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders
were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were raised, and two
objectives were sought.[10]
The petition has merit.
Lim
was not guilty of forum shopping, because the factual bases of his application
for the administrative reconstitution of the TCTs and of his petition for their
judicial reconstitution, and the reliefs thereby sought were not identical.
When he applied
for the administrative reconstitution in the LRA on July 21,1988,[11] he
still had his co-owner’s duplicate copies of the TCTs in his possession, but by
the time the LRA resolved his application on November 3, 1998, allowing the
relief prayed for,[12]
his co-owner’s duplicate copies of the TCTs had meanwhile been destroyed by
fire on February 24, 1998, a fact that he had duly reported in an affidavit
dated May 29, 1998 presented on June 1, 1998 to the Office of the Register of Deeds
for Quezon City.[13] The
loss by fire was corroborated by the certification issued by the Chief of Fire
District I of
The RTC
should have easily discerned that forum shopping did not characterize the
petitioner’s resort to judicial reconstitution despite the previous proceeding
for administrative reconstitution. Although the bases for the administrative
reconstitution were the owner’s duplicate copies of TCT No. 303168 and TCT No. 303169,
those for judicial reconstitution would be other documents that “in the judgment of the court, are
sufficient and proper
basis for
reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.”[16] The
RTC should have also noted soon enough that his resort to judicial
reconstitution was not because his earlier resort to administrative
reconstitution had been denied (in fact, the LRA had resolved in his favor),[17] but
because the intervening loss to fire of the only permissible basis for
administrative reconstitution of the TCTs mandated his resort to the RTC.[18] Indeed,
he came to court as the law directed him to do, unlike the litigant involved in
the undesirable practice of forum shopping who would go from one court to
another to secure a favorable relief after being denied the desired relief by
another court.[19]
Neither
did the petitioner’s omission from the petition for judicial reconstitution of
a reference to the application for administrative reconstitution in the LRA
justify the dismissal of the petition. The petition for judicial reconstitution
and the application for administrative reconstitution addressed different
situations and did not have identical bases. Besides, only the RTC could grant
or deny any relief to him at that point.
The
motu proprio dismissal of the
petition for judicial reconstitution by the RTC although the Government did not
file a motion to dismiss grounded on the petitioner’s supposed failure to
comply with the contents of the required certification was yet another glaring
error of the RTC. A violation of the rule against forum-shopping other than a
willful and deliberate forum shopping did not authorize the RTC to dismiss the
proceeding without motion and hearing. Specifically, the submission of a false
certification of non-forum shopping did not automatically warrant the dismissal
of the proceeding, even if it might have constituted contempt of court, for Section
5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, has been
clear and forthright, to wit:
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping.--The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues
in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of
a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or
his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall
be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as cause for administrative sanctions.
In Young v Keng
Seng,[20]
which involved a false certification of
non-forum shopping, the Court cogently held that:
The foregoing certification is obviously inaccurate, if not downright false, because it does not disclose the filing of the First Case. Had this violation been appropriately brought up in the Motion to Dismiss, it could have resulted in the abatement of the Second case.
Nonetheless, strengthening our ruling on the First issue, we hold that substantial justice requires the resolution of the present controversy on its merits.
By
its outright and undiscerning application of the sanction against forum shopping,
the RTC plunged into an unwanted limbo the petitioner’s and his co-owners’ ownership
of the realties. A modicum of care and discernment could have avoided such a
prejudicial result. We now put an end to such limbo by cautioning all judges to
exercise care and discernment in their enforcement of the rule against forum
shopping, that they may not unduly trench on the valuable rights of litigants.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated
The petition
for the judicial reconstitution of the petitioner’s Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 303168 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 303169 of the Registry
of Deeds for
The Regional
Trial Court, Branch 226, in Quezon City is directed to forthwith resume proceedings
thereon, and to render its decision on the merits as soon as practicable.
No
pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN D. VILLARAMA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No.
843 dated
[1] Penned by
Presiding Judge Leah S. Domingo-Regala.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 61-62.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Government
Service Insurance System v. Bengson
Commercial Builders, Inc., G.R. No.
137448 & 141454, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 431, 439; Roxas v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 207, 217; MSF Tire
and Rubber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128632, August 5, 1999, 311
SCRA 784, 790.
[7] R & E
Transport, Inc. v. Latag, G.R. No. 155214, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 698,
710; Veluz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139951, November 23, 2000, 345
SCRA 756, 764; International School, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
131109, June 29, 1999, 309 SCRA 474, 480; First Philippine International
Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil 280, 306.
[8] Cooperative
Development Authority v. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative,
Inc. G.R. No. 137489, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 552, 575; Republic v. Carmel
Development, Inc, G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002, 377 SCRA 459, 471; R
& M General Merchandise, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144189,
October 5, 2001, 366 SCRA 679, Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and
Trust Company, G.R. No. 131247, January 12, 1997, 302 SCRA 74, 83.
[9] Cruz v.
Caraos, G.R. No. 138208, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 510; R & M General Merchandise, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
144189, October 5, 2001, 366 SCRA 679; Cebu
International Finance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123031, October
12, 1999, 316 SCRA 488.
[10] Yulienco
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131692,
[11] Rollo, pp. 52-53.
[12] The order of
the LRA states:
WHEREFORE, pursuant to
Republic Act 6732 and LRA Circular No. 13 dated 26 July 1989, THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO RECONSTITUTE the original of TCT
Nos. 374983, 303168, 303169,
115896, 383006, x x x, based on the owner's duplicates certificates of titles
including all subsisting restrictions, liens and encumbrances and to annotate
all deeds, documents and other papers and court orders, notices of attachment, Lis
Pendens and other adverse claims
which were presented and duly noted in the entry books and are intact in the
Office of the Registry of Deeds, but the registration thereof were not
accomplished at the time the certificates of titles were lost or destroyed if
any, provided that no other certificates of titles covering the same parcels of
land exist in the record of said registry and provided further that after reconstitution, the owner's duplicates or
co-owner's duplicate exhibited as basis for the reconstitution shall be
surrendered to the Register of Deeds pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act
6732.
SO ORDERED.
See Record,
Vol. I, pp. 205-206.
[13] Record, Vol.
I, pp. 83 and 84
[14]
[15] The provision
states:
Section 12. Petitions for
reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f),
3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court],
by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in the
property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the
following: (a) that the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been
lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner's mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had
been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed;
(c) the location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and
description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to
the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such
buildings or improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or
persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining
properties and all persons who may have any interest in the property; (f) a
detailed description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and
(g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have
been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof
has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies
thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the petition for
reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided,
That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in section 2(f) of 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
be accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly
approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a
certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title
covering the same property.
[16] Republic Act
No. 26 (An Act Providing A Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title
Lost or Destroyed) provides:
Section 3. Transfer
certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder
enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a) The owner's duplicate of
the certificate of title;
(b) The co-owner's
mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title;
(c) A certified copy of the
certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal
custodian thereof;
(d) The deed of transfer or
other document, on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description of
the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had
been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer
certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in
the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given
in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy
of said document showing that its original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document
which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for
reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
[17] The
dispositive portion of the LRA's Order dated
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Republic Act 6732 and LRA Circular
No. 13 dated 26 July 1989, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY IS HEREBY
DIRECTED TO RECONSTITUTE the original of TCT Nos. 374983, 303168, 303169, 115896, 383006, x
x x, based on the owner's duplicates certificates of titles including all
subsisting restrictions, liens and encumbrances and to annotate all deeds,
documents and other papers and court orders, notices of attachment, Lis
Pendens and other adverse claims
which were presented and duly noted in the entry books and are intact in the
Office of the Registry of Deeds, but the registration thereof were not
accomplished at the time the certificates of titles were lost or destroyed if
any, provided that no other certificates of titles covering the same parcels of
land exist in the record of said registry and provided further that after reconstitution, the owner's duplicates or
co-owner's duplicate exhibited as basis for the reconstitution shall be
surrendered to the Register of Deeds pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act
6732,
SO ORDERED.
Record, Vol. I, pp.
205-206.
[18] Section 12,
Republic Act No. 26, supra, note 15.
[19] Philippine
National Construction Corporation v. Dy, G.R. No. 156887, October 3, 2005,
472 SCRA 1; Roxas v. Court of Appeals,
supra, note 6.
[20] G.R. No. 143464,