Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
F&E DE CASTRO CORPORATION, ELISA DE CASTRO and
FEDERICO DE CASTRO, Petitioners, - versus - ERNESTO
G. OLASO and AMPARO
M. OLASO,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 183349 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, SERENO,* JJ.
Promulgated: September 14, 2011 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Challenged
in this petition for review on certiorari is the October 22, 2007 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA),
which annulled and set aside the January 5, 2006 Order of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna (RTC), suspending the proceedings in
Civil Case No. SPL-0991 pending the final outcome of Civil Case No. SPL-0356,
and its
The Facts
Forfom
Development Corporation (Forfom) is
the registered owner of the 114-hectare Villa Olympia Subdivision in Barrio San
Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna. On
On August
23, 1989, a Supplemental Agreement was further concluded between the parties
whereby F&E Corporation undertook to complete the development of Phase I
and I-A of the project within 120 days, in accordance with the original plan
and amendments approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). With the development of said
phases still ongoing, Forfom entered into yet another contract with F&E
Corporation, this time for the development of Phase II of the same project. As F&E
Corporation incurred delays in the completion of said phases of the project, Forfom
decided to rescind the Subdivision Project Agreement, the Supplemental
Agreement and the contract relative to the development of Phase II of the same
subdivision project.
On
In view of
said developments, F&E Corporation demanded payment from Forfom for the
expenses it purportedly incurred in the development of the subdivision project,
including its 40% share in the price of the 407 developed lots already sold as
well as 37 more lots as its share in the remaining 94 lots then unsold. Charging
that Forfom refused to heed its demands, F&E Corporation instituted an action
for Delivery of Lot Titles, Sum of Money and Damages which was docketed as
Civil Case No. SPL-0356.
During the pendency of the case, Elisa De
Castro, F&E Corporations Vice-President and Treasurer, requested the Register
of Deeds of Laguna for the annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim as well
as a notice of lis pendens on the certificates of title covering
subdivision lots which were still registered in Forfoms name. Forfom sought
the lifting of the notice of lis pendens but it was denied. Similar efforts
for the cancellation of said encumbrances were exerted by individual lot buyers,
among them respondents Ernesto and Amparo Olaso (Olasos), but they were opposed by F&E Corporation and rejected
by the Register of Deeds of Laguna.
On November
18, 2003, as buyers of Lot 10, Block 30, Phase IV of the Villa Olympia
Subdivision which had already been registered in their names under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 164843, the Olasos filed a complaint for Damages,
Cancellation of Lis Pendens and Writ of Preliminary Injunction against F&E
Corporation, Elisa De Castro and her husband, Federico De Castro, as well as
the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna, which was docketed as Civil Case No.
SPL-0991.
F&E
Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies, failure to implead Forfom as an indispensable party to the
controversy, forum shopping, and litis pendentia in view of the pendency of Civil
Case No. SPL-0356.
Citing the
pendency of Civil Case No. SPL-0356, F&E Corporation moved for the
suspension of the proceedings in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 on the ground that the
issues in the former case partook the nature of a prejudicial question and
are determinative of those proffered in the latter.
Decision of the RTC
On
The actions involved in this case and Civil Case No. SPL-0356 being civil
in nature, it is quite apparent that technically, there is no prejudicial
question to speak of. Equally apparent, however, is the intimate correlation
between the said two civil actions as indeed, the right of herein plaintiffs to
the cancellation of the lis pendens or any lien or encumbrance of any kind
annotated in TCT No. T-166472 depends primarily on the resolution of SPL-0356.
The Court is of the view that where the rights of plaintiffs in this case
cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in Civil Case No. SPL-0356
are settled, the more prudent course is to hold the instant case in abeyance
until after a determination of SPL-0356. Indeed, in the interest of good order,
the Court can very well suspend on one case pending the final outcome of
another case closely interrelated or linked to the first. It cannot be denied
that SPL-0356 is closely interrelated or linked to the instant case considering
that the outcome in SPL-0356 will definitely affect the proceedings in this
case.
Consequently, the Court hereby orders the suspension of the proceedings
in the instant case pending the final outcome of Civil Case No. SPL-0356.
SO ORDERED.
Decision of the CA
On
The
CA stated that although F&E Corporation earlier sued the subdivision owner,
Forfom, the RTC lost sight of the fact that, in addition to the collection of
sum of money and damages, the cause of action in Civil Case No. SPL-0356 was
for the delivery of the certificates of title over 37 lots situated in Phases I
and I-A of the same subdivision project. Therefore, it would appear that the
matter of cancellation of the notice of lis
pendens on the title of the Olasos can proceed independently of Civil Case
No. SPL-0356.
It added that in primarily seeking to
collect its 40% share in the sold and unsold lots in Phases I and I-A of the
Villa Olympia Subdivision, F&E Corporation clearly did not assert a claim
of possession or ownership over the same in Civil Case No. SPL-0356. Said
action was clearly a personal action that only incidentally affected the 37 lot
titles on which the corresponding notices of lis pendens were annotated. Hence, it would logically follow that
any judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 0356 would bind Forfom but not
necessarily the Olasos. The RTCs
suspension of the proceedings for the cancellation of the annotation of the
notice of lis pendens on the Olasos title
was derogatory to the purpose for which Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957, otherwise known as
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree had been issued.
F&E Corporations motion for
reconsideration was denied prompting the latter to file this petition anchored on
the following
GROUNDS
In sum, the crucial issue to be resolved in this case is
whether or not the CA abused its discretion in ruling against the suspension of
the proceedings in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 (action for damages, cancellation of notice of lis pendens and writ of
preliminary injunction between the Olasos and F&E Corporation) pending the litigation of Civil
Case No. SPL-0356 (action for
delivery of titles, sum of money and damages between F&E Corporation and
Forfom).
F&E Corporations Position
F&E
Corporation claims that the Olasos in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 did not show any
proof that a Notice of Lis Pendens had
been annotated on their title. Thus, it prays that the case should be remanded
to the CA or RTC to determine factually whether or not a Notice of Lis Pendens has been annotated on the
subject title. It further argues that the complaint of the Olasos should have
been filed with the HLURB, and not with the courts. It insists that the CA
should have dismissed the petition outright for violating the rules on forum
shopping and litis pendentia.
The Olasos
Position
The Olasos argue that this petition
for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court should
be dismissed because it raises questions of jurisdiction, and not questions of
law. They likewise allege that F&E Corporation submitted a false affidavit
of non-forum shopping because it had knowledge of several other cases where it
is involved based on the same facts and issues and that this petition is but a
clone of several others previously decided by the Court of Appeals.
The Olasos lament that they would be denied
their constitutional right to speedy justice should they be required to wait
for the outcome of Civil Case No. SPL-0356 before they could seek relief in
Civil Case No. SPL- 0991. They assert that the subject matter or res
involved in the two cases are distinct, separate and different considering that
F&E Corporation seeks to recover lots located in Phase 1 and 1-A of Forfoms
subdivision while their fully paid lot is located in Phase 6. The Olasos add
that the parties in Civil Case No. SPL-0356 are F&E Corporation as
subdivision developer and Forfom as subdivision owner, while in Civil Case No.
SPL-0991 they are the plaintiffs, as fully paid subdivision lot buyers, and
F&E Corporation is the defendant, as the annotator of the notice of lis pendens.
Moreover,
the Olasos call the attention of the Court to the fact that Presidential Decree
No. 957 mandates the subdivision owner and developer to deliver a clean title,
free from all liens and encumbrances, to a fully paid lot buyer. Hence, the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens
in their title must be deleted.
Finally,
the Olasos point out that Civil Case No. SPL-0356 was filed on
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
A stay in the proceedings in Civil
Case No. SPL-0991 in order to give way to the proceedings in Civil Case No.
SPL-0356 is not judicious as there is no prejudicial question.
First, the
subject matter or res involved in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 is different
from those in Civil Case No. SPL-0356. F&E Corporation seeks to recover
subdivision lots located in Phase 1 and 1-A of Forfoms subdivision while the Olasos
seek to recover their fully paid lot in Phase VI of the same subdivision.
Second, the
parties in both cases are different. The litigation in Civil Case No. SPL-0356
is between the developer, F&E Corporation, and the subdivision owner, Forfom,
while the parties in the proceedings in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 are F&E
Corporation, as annotator of the Notice of Lis
Pendens and the Olasos, as fully paid lot buyers.
Third, the prayers are different. In Civil
Case No. SPL-0991, the Olasos want to cancel the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens stamped on their certificate
of title over the piece of property described as
For
said reasons, the proceedings in Civil Case No. SPL-0991 can continue
independently of Civil Case No. SPL-0356.
As the CA aptly observed, F&E
Corporation does not assert a claim of possession or ownership over the sold
and unsold lots in Phase 1 and 1-A of the Villa Olympia Subdivision when it
primarily sought to collect its 40% share in the price of the development of
the subdivision. F&E Corporations action was clearly a personal action
that only incidentally affected the 37 lot titles on which the corresponding
notices of lis pendens were
annotated. Hence, any judgment in Civil Case No. SPL-0356 would only affect
F&E Corporation but not necessarily the Olasos. In the same manner, a
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens
in Civil Case No. SPL- 0991would have no effect on the merits of the case in
Civil Case No. SPL-0356.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
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 Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as
additional member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1028 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 32-48. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De
Guia-Salvador and concurred in by
Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario.
[2] Rollo, pp. 47-48.
[3]