Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 163175 June 27, 2008
CITY OF MAKATI, JEJOMAR BINAY and ERNESTO S. MERCADO, petitioners,
vs.
MUNICIPALITY (NOW CITY) OF TAGUIG, METROPOLITAN MANILA, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REGISTER OF DEEDS VICENTE A. GARCIA and THE LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU DIRECTOR, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated June 6, 2003 and Resolution2 dated March 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54692 affirming the September 25, 1998 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 141, dismissing petitioners’ petition for prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.
The facts are as follows:
On March 13, 1992, then President Corazon C. Aquino approved Republic Act No. 72274 creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). Section 4 (a) of Rep. Act No. 7227 provides that one of the purposes of the BCDA is "to own, hold and/or administer the military reservations of John Hay Air Station, Wallace Air Station, O’Donnell Transmitter Station, San Miguel Naval Communications Station, Mt. Sta. Rita Station (Hermosa, Bataan) and those portions of Metro Manila military camps which may be transferred to it by the President."
On December 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 4 (a) of Rep. Act No. 7227, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 405 placing under the administration of the BCDA portions of Fort Bonifacio which are identified and described in Plans Swo-00-0012656 and Swo-00-001266.7 Per Plans Swo-00-001265 and Swo-00-001266, said portions of Fort Bonifacio are located in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila.
On November 22, 1993, the Municipality of Taguig (Taguig) filed in the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 153, an action for judicial confirmation of its territory and boundary limits against the Municipality (now City) of Makati (Makati), Teofisto P. Guingona in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Angel Alcala in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and Abelardo Palad, Jr. in his capacity as Director of the Land Management Bureau. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 63896.8
In its complaint, Taguig prayed for the declaration of the unconstitutionality and nullity of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518,9 which transferred to the City of Makati certain parts of Fort Bonifacio that were allegedly within the boundary of the Municipality of Taguig, despite the absence of authority on the part of the President and without the benefit of a plebiscite as required by applicable provisions of the Constitution. Taguig likewise sought a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to restrain Secretary Alcala and Director Palad, Jr. from disposing of the lots covered by Proclamation No. 518, and to restrain the Municipality (now City) of Makati from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or otherwise treating as part of its territory: (1) the area of 74 hectares that was uninhabited or otherwise consisted of farmlands or wide open spaces before the issuance of Proclamation No. 2475 in 1986; and, (2) the remaining portion of Parcel 4, Psu-2031, and a part of Parcel 3, Psu-2031 which together constitute the "Inner Fort" or military camp proper of Fort Bonifacio. The Municipality of Taguig also prayed that after due hearing, the injunction be made final and permanent and that judgment be rendered confirming the Fort Bonifacio military reservation, which consists of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, to be part of the Municipality of Taguig.10
On January 20, 1995, then President Ramos issued Special Patent No. 359511 conveying to the BCDA "the tracts of land of the public domain situated in Barangay Fort Bonifacio, Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, identified and more particularly described as Lot Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, Swo-00-001265, containing an area of 877,318 square meters, and Lot Nos. 1 to 23 and 25, Swo-00-001266, containing an area of 2,344,300 square meters."
On February 7, 1995, then President Ramos issued Special Patent No. 359612 canceling Special Patent No. 3595 and granting to the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC) "the tracts of land of the public domain situated in Barangay Fort Bonifacio, Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, identified and more particularly described as Lot Nos. 1, 2 and 6, Swo-00-001265, containing an area of 673,979 square meters, and Lot Nos. 17, 21, 22 and 23, Swo-00-001266, containing an area of 1,497,837 square meters."
On February 10, 1995, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. SP-001 covering the tracts of land mentioned in Special Patent No. 3596 was issued to FBDC.13
On April 18, 1996, the City of Makati, together with its mayor, vice mayor, members of its city council, the congressional representative for the first district of Makati, the Barangay Captains of Barangays Post Proper Northside and Post Proper Southside and a concerned citizen, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus (with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction) against the respondents herein before the RTC of Makati, Branch 141. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-554.14
In its complaint, the City of Makati, et al. prayed that a temporary restraining order be issued directing the Municipality of Taguig to cease and desist from requiring and accepting payment of real estate taxes and other taxes or fees on lands located in Fort Bonifacio or Barangays Post Proper Northside and Post Proper Southside; from requiring business permits and licenses; and from imposing on, collecting and accepting permit/license fees from the residents of said Barangays or Fort Bonifacio. The City of Makati, et al. likewise prayed that the BCDA and FBDC be directed to cease and desist from paying to the Municipality of Taguig realty taxes and other municipal taxes and permit/license fees in connection with or for the tracts of land granted to them or either of them under Special Patent No. 3596 dated February 7, 1995, and respondent Register of Deeds to cease and desist from further acting on OCT No. SP-001.
On May 23, 1996, the Municipality of Taguig moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 96-554 on the grounds that the RTC-Makati has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action; there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; the petition violates the rule on forum shopping, the petition states no cause of action; and the venue is improperly laid.15
FBDC also filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 1996, citing as bases thereof that petitioners have no cause of action against FBDC; the RTC has no jurisdiction over the petition; the petition is not the appropriate remedy for the annulment of Special Patent No. 3596 and Original Certificate of Title No. SP-001; there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and the petition constitutes a violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of the Supreme Court.16 BCDA likewise filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition does not state a cause of action against it, and that BCDA was improperly impleaded as respondent in the case.17
On September 25, 1998, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 141, issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 96-554. The RTC-Makati held:
x x x x
After a careful evaluation and study of the arguments adduced by both parties, this Court finds and so holds that this case must be dismissed on at least two grounds, namely: litis penden[t]ia and violation of the anti[-]forum shopping circular.
Undisputedly, Civil Case No. 63896 earlier filed with and still pending before the Pasig RTC involved the tracts of land covered by Special Patent No. 3596 and O.C.T. No. SP-001. In said case, respondent Taguig sought to recover them or that the same be declared within its territorial jurisdiction. ...
x x x x
All the foregoing requisites of litis penden[t]ia are herein obtaining. While it may [be] true that of 20 petitioners in this case only the City of Makati is a party to Civil Case No. 63896, the 19 others represent the same interest as petitioner City of Makati over the disputed tracts of land. The fact that the position of the parties was [reversed], the plaintiff in the first case being the defendants in the second case and vice versa does not negate identity of parties for the purpose of litis penden[t]ia. In both cases[,] the factual issue is the location of the subject tracts of land, and the resolution of the first case, that is, the Pasig case, would constitute res judicata to the instant case.
x x x x
It being that litis penden[t]ia is herein obtaining, petitioners have violated Administrative Circular No. 09-94 of the Supreme Court, prohibiting forum shopping. ...
The Court finds no merit in the other grounds interposed by the movants. There is no need to discuss them in view of the foregoing ruling.
WHEREFORE, let this [case] be dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.18
On June 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC-Makati ruling. The Court of Appeals held:
The requisites of litis pendentia having concurred, petitioners-appellants clearly violated the rule on forum-shopping when they filed Civil Case No. 96-554. The established rule is that forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present.
With this finding and conclusion, We see no necessity to dwell on the other issues raised in this appeal. It suffices to recapitulate that the Makati Regional Trial Court was right in dismissing the duplicitous suit lodged before it due to litis pendentia and forum-shopping.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Order is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.19
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners raise the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE RULES ON FORUM SHOPPING[;]
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS LITIS PENDENTIA BETWEEN THE MAKATI CITY RTC PETITION AND THE TAGUIG CITY RTC CASE[;]
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN DECIDING THE APPEAL A QUO ONLY ON THE ISSUES OF LITIS PENDENTIA AND FORUM SHOPPING[.]20
Simply put, in this petition the issues are: (1) Is litis pendentia present? and (2) Did petitioners violate the rules on forum shopping?
Petitioners, in their Memorandum,21 argue that they did not violate the rules on forum shopping since there is no identity of parties, no identity of rights or causes of action asserted, and no identity of reliefs sought between those in Civil Case No. 96-554 and Civil Case No. 63896. They argue that Civil Case No. 96-554 is a petition for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order raising the issue of whether or not then President Ramos committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Special Patent No. 3596; and whether or not OCT No. SP-001 in favor of BCDA is null and void, whereas Civil Case No. 63896 is a complaint filed by the Municipality of Taguig for judicial confirmation of its boundaries. Petitioners argue that if the validity of Special Patent No. 3596 and OCT No. SP-001 is not addressed, a situation may arise wherein the boundaries of the Municipality of Taguig as determined by the RTC-Pasig City case will clash with Special Patent No. 3596 and OCT No. SP-001 declaring certain areas of Fort Bonifacio to be within the Municipality of Taguig. Petitioners argue that Civil Case No. 63896 and Civil Case No. 96-554 do not seek the same relief, such that a judgment in one will constitute res judicata in the other and vice versa. Since there can be no forum shopping in this case, petitioners argue that the requirements of litis pendentia are not met.
On the other hand, respondent Municipality of Taguig, in its Memorandum,22 maintain that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal of petitioners on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. The FBDC, in its Memorandum,23 reiterate that the Makati case was properly dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia, that it was filed in violation of the rule against forum shopping, and that the dismissal of the Makati case insofar as it concerns FBDC should be upheld on the ground of lack of cause of action. As to petitioners’ argument that former President Ramos gravely abused his discretion in issuing Special Patent No. 3596, this issue was properly ignored by the Court of Appeals because said matters were not taken up below and therefore cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
As to the first issue, litis pendentia is a Latin term which literally means "a pending suit." It is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. While it is normally connected with the control which the court has over a property involved in a suit during the continuance proceedings, it is interposed more as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action pending in court.24
Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. For litis pendentia to be invoked, the concurrence of the following requisites is necessary:
(a) identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.25
In this case, the first requisite, identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions, is present. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the fact that there is no absolute identity of parties in both cases will not preclude the application of the rule of litis pendentia, since only substantial and not absolute identity of parties is required for litis pendentia to lie. Except for Antonio Sinchioco, who joined the action as citizen and taxpayer, the other petitioners in Civil Case No. 96-554 have a community of interest with the City of Makati.
The second requisite, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts, is also present.
A review of the records would show that the reliefs sought by both parties are actually the same. Although petitioners insist that what they seek is a nullification of Special Patent Nos. 3595 and 3596 and that the issue boils down to whether or not then President Ramos committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Special Patent Nos. 3595 and 3596, what petitioners wish to nullify is not Special Patent Nos. 3595 and 3596, but the wordings therein that the property is located in the Municipality of Taguig. To do so would entail going into the issue of boundaries of Makati and Taguig, which is the issue in Civil Case No. 63896.
Likewise present is the third requisite that the identity of the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution dated June 6, 2003 and March 26, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54692 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
*MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
*CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
*ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice |
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* On official leave.
1 Rollo, pp. 9-24. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Lucas P. Bersamin concurring.
2 Id. at 26-27.
3 Records, Vol. III, pp. 769-773. Penned by Judge Manuel D. Victorio.
4 An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations into Other Productive Uses, Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority for this Purpose, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, approved on March 13, 1992.
5 Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 7227 Authorizing the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to Raise Funds Through the Sale of Metro Manila Military Camps Transferred to BCDA to Form Part of its Capitalization and to be Used for the Purposes Stated in Said Act, dated December 8, 1992.
6 Rollo, pp. 286-289.
7 Id. at 290-300.
8 Id. at 84-96.
9 Excluding from the Operation of Proclamation No. 423 Dated July 12, 1957 Which Established the Military Reservation Known as "Fort William Mckinley" (now Fort Andres Bonifacio) Situated in the Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Pateros and Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City (Now Metropolitan Manila) as Amended by Proclamation No. 2475 Dated January 7, 1986, Certain Portions of Land Embraced Therein Known as Barangays Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo and Pitogo, Situated in the Municipality of Makati, Metropolitan Manila and Declaring the Same Open for Disposition Under the Provisions of Republic Act No. 274, and Republic Act No. 730 in Relation to the Provisions of the Public Land Act, as Amended, done on January 31, 1990.
10 Rollo, pp. 94-95.
11 Id. at 143-144.
12 Id. at 145-146.
13 Id. at 162-169.
14 Records, Vol. I, pp. 6-47.
15 Records, Vol. II, pp. 444-459.
16 Id. at 467-484.
17 Records, Vol. III, pp. 642-645.
18 Records, Vol. III, pp. 771-772.
19 Rollo, p. 23.
20 Id. at 698.
21 Id. at 685-744.
22 Id. at 664-684.
23 Id. at 510-556.
24 Agilent Technologies Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. v. Integrated Silicon Technology Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 154618, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 593, 601.
25 Id.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
