National Housing Authority v. A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development & Builders Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207262. July 24, 2019.]

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.A.P. FAR EASTERN REALTY DEVELOPMENT & BUILDERS CORPORATION, GRAND PIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SOLAR RESOURCES, INC., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 207262 (National Housing Authority v. A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development & Builders Corporation, Grand Pin Development Corporation and Solar Resources, Inc.). — The issue of whether or not forum shopping was committed by a party involves a question of law which is a proper subject of a Rule 45 petition. An important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. Where no such vexation was caused, as a plain examination of the causes of action involved negates forum shopping, and no intention to commit that procedural abuse is evident from a party's conduct, the Court should not hesitate to rectify a ruling that forum shopping was committed.

In 1979, Proclamation No. 1826 1 was issued, reserving for the National Government Center (NGC) a parcel of land situated in Constitution Hills, Quezon City, covering an area of 4,440,466 square meters. Subsequently, in 2003, Republic Act No. 9207 2 was passed which amended Proclamation No. 1826 and declared certain portions of the NGC site open for disposition to bona fide residents. The law designated the National Housing Authority (NHA) as trustee of the project, serving as fund manager of the project trust fund and custodian of titles to the properties within the NGC project. One of the areas administered by the NHA is a portion of land with an area of 108,516 square meters and registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-34293 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City under the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 3

The case originated from the Order (Demolition Order) dated February 13, 2006 issued by Branch 220, Regional Trial Court-Quezon City (RTC-QC) in Special Civil Action No. 94-19971, entitled Luzviminda Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Ismael Mathay, Jr., in his capacity as Mayor of Quezon City, et al.4 The demolition order granted the ex-parte motion to continue the demolition filed by respondent A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development & Builders Corporation (A.P. Realty), registered owner of parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 86929 and 86932. On April 27, 2006, Sheriff Nilo R. Lapid (Sheriff Lapid) issued a Notice of Demolition to bona fide beneficiaries of the NGC Housing Project (NGCHP). This was followed by the demolition of their structures on May 9, 2006. Demolition activities continued despite repeated demands for them to stop since the structures being demolished were situated in the area administered by the NHA and covered by TCT No. RT-34293. However, A.P. Realty was eventually able to gain possession of the property. 5 CAIHTE

On May 15, 2006, the NHA filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari and injunction with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 94478 (CA petition). 6 The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC-QC in issuing the Demolition Order, and on the part of the sheriff for issuing the Notice of Demolition. The NHA argued that the demolished structures were situated in areas embraced by TCT No. RT-34293 issued to the Republic, and belonged to qualified beneficiaries of the NGCHP. It thus prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, and later a writ of injunction, to stop the further implementation of the February 13, 2006 Demolition Order, and for the CA to declare that order void. 7

On September 7, 2006, the NHA moved for the withdrawal of the CA petition. This, after realizing that it had no personality or standing to question the Demolition Order since it was not a party to the RTC case. 8

On October 3, 2006, the NHA filed a complaint 9 for quieting of title with recovery of possession, damages and with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (RTC complaint) against A.P. Realty and Grand Pin Development Corporation (Grand Pin), buyer of Lot 2 of subdivision plan Psd-18008 described in TCT No. 86929. The case was raffled to Branch 224 RTC-QC. On October 20, 2006, the NHA filed an amended complaint to implead Solar Resources, Inc. (Solar) to whom A.P. Realty sold Lot 1 of subdivision plan Psd-18008 described in TCT No. 86932. 10

On December 14, 2006, A.P. Realty and Solar filed a joint motion to dismiss the RTC complaint, contending that it involves "the same transactions, essential facts and circumstances and raised identical causes of action, subject matter and issues" as the CA petition. They thus prayed for the dismissal of the RTC complaint on the ground of forum shopping. 11

Meanwhile, on December 11, 2006, the CA granted NHA's motion to withdraw its petition and deemed the CA petition closed and terminated. 12

On February 26, 2007, the NHA filed a manifestation with Branch 224, RTC-QC stating that its motion to withdraw petition had been granted by the CA. Consequently, the sole ground relied upon by the motion to dismiss filed by A.P. Realty and Solar had been rendered moot. 13

Nonetheless, Branch 224, RTC-QC issued an Order 14 dated March 14, 2007 dismissing the RTC complaint on the ground of forum shopping. The NHA filed an appeal before the CA, 15 but the latter denied it through the assailed Decision 16 dated August 31, 2012.

The CA affirmed the ruling of Branch 224, RTC-QC that the NHA was guilty of forum shopping. First, it held that there was identity of parties. While the CA petition was filed against the Presiding Judge of Branch 220, RTC-QC, Sheriff Lapid and A.P. Realty, and the RTC complaint was filed against A.P. Realty, Grand Pin and Solar, there is commonality of interests by the parties which satisfies the element of identity of parties. 17

Second, there is identity of reliefs sought since both actions prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against the Demolition Order and the corresponding demolition. The filing by a party of two apparently different actions but with the same objectives constitutes forum shopping. 18

Finally, the CA held that the NHA filed the RTC complaint while the motion to withdraw the CA petition remained unresolved. The fact that the petition for certiorari was still pending constitutes a clear case of litis pendentia. The NHA should have waited for the resolution of the CA petition before filing the RTC complaint. 19

The NHA moved for the reconsideration of the CA Decision, but the latter denied it through the assailed Resolution 20 dated May 10, 2013. Hence, this petition 21 where the Court is called upon to decide the sole issue of whether or not NHA is guilty of forum shopping that warrants the dismissal of the RTC complaint.

Before we tackle this issue, it is imperative to first address the argument of respondents Grand Pin and Solar that the NHA availed of the wrong remedy in filing the instant petition since the issue of whether forum shopping was committed involves a question of fact and not of law. 22 We disagree. DETACa

Petitioner Solar itself explained, citing jurisprudence, that there is a question of fact "when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts." 23 Here, the Court is not called upon to plough the record and examine the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties — the existence and relevancy of specific circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation. Rather, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. A question of law exists if the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts. 24 The test is whether the Court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. 25 In this case, the Court only needs to determine if forum shopping results from a given set of circumstances that are not at issue. Hence, given that the NHA initiated two seemingly related lawsuits, is it guilty of forum shopping? This is undoubtedly a question of law. Indeed, we have held in several cases that the issue of whether forum shopping was committed is a question of law. 26

Coming now to the main issue presented for our resolution, i.e., whether or not the NHA committed forum shopping in filing the CA petition and the RTC complaint, we hold that it did not.

The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. 27

For emphasis, the cases under consideration are the following: (a) National Housing Authority v. Hon. Judge Jose G. Paneda, RTC-QC Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Nilo R. Lapid, Sheriff IV, RTC-QC, Quezon City, and A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development and Builders Corporation, CA-G.R. No. 94478 (for certiorari, injunction, with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order), Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila (CA petition); 28 and (b) National Housing Authority v. A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development & Builders Corporation, Grand Pin Development Corporation, and Solar Resources, Inc., Civil Case No. Q-06-58966 (for quieting of title with recovery of possession, damages and prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction), Branch 224, RTC-QC (RTC complaint). 29

There is no question that the first element is satisfied, i.e., the parties are identical or represent the same interests in both actions. Demolition was ordered of structures located on land being administered by the NHA and over which A.P. Realty (mistakenly or not) claims ownership. Grand Pin's and Solar's titles in the subject land originated from A.P. Realty's title. Hence, the private parties in both cases represent the same interests.

The second element for forum shopping to exist, however, is not satisfied. There is no identity in the causes of action of both cases. The CA petition was intended to annul the demolition order issued by Branch 220, RTC-QC in SPL. Civil Case No. 94-19971. Petitioner alleged that respondent A.P. Realty was not a party in SPL. Civil Case No. 94-19971 and participated in the proceedings only by way of special appearance. Yet, by filing two ex-parte motions, it was able to prevail upon the RTC to issue orders directing the continued demolition of the structures on the disputed land. 30 These are the facts on which petitioner anchored its allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge and the sheriff who implemented his orders. aDSIHc

The RTC complaint for quieting of title, on the other hand, asserted the Republic's title over the land which had been the site of the demolition activities. The NHA alleged that its geodetic engineer plotted the technical descriptions of the lands subject of TCT No. RT-34293 in the name of the Republic and TCT Nos. 86932 and 86929 in the name of A.P. Realty and found that the lots covered by the latter titles are different from those subject of the demolition. 31 Moreover, separate reports rendered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Chief of Surveys Division and the Land Registration Authority reveal many anomalies in A.P. Realty's land titles. The NHA thus prayed for the Republic's title to and right of possession over the land covered by TCT No. RT-34293 to be quieted from the claims of A.P. Realty, Grand Pin and Solar, and that the latter's unfounded and unmeritorious claims be declared null and void. 32

It can readily be gleaned from the foregoing that there is no similarity in the causes of action between the two cases. That being said, it follows that a final judgment in one case will not amount to res judicata in another. Indeed, a decision to be rendered by the CA granting the petition for certiorari will annul the Demolition Order issued by Branch 220, RTC-QC, but not bar an action for quieting of title which asserts the Republic's title to the disputed property. Contrariwise, a decision to be rendered by Branch 224, RTC-QC on the quieting of title case will not have an effect on the certiorari case, the gravamen of which is the grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC judge and sheriff, respectively. To reiterate, litis pendentia 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. 33 Certainly, that is not the case here.

The Court acknowledges that there is a similarity in the two cases, which lies in the identical prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, and eventually a writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the demolition of structures within the NHA-administered property. 34 However, this does not necessarily constitute the malpractice of forum shopping. Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes of action and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue. 35

Here, the Court does not see how conflicting decisions may be rendered by the CA and the RTC on the prayer for ancillary reliefs, when petitioner had filed a motion to withdraw the CA petition about a month before it filed the RTC complaint. Petitioner cannot be blamed for not waiting for the resolution of its motion before filing a case with the RTC since it does not have a hold on its outcome. In the meantime, it has an interest to protect. At any rate, the Court has stressed that technical rules should promote and not defeat substantial justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be avoided. Hence, the RTC complaint should not have been cursorily dismissed.

We find no intention on the part of petitioner to abuse court remedies, and no vexation that was caused to the courts and the parties involved. On the contrary, petitioner exhibited accountability, candor and transparency in seeking to terminate what it perceived was a wrong remedy lodged with the CA, pursuing the correct one with the RTC, and duly informing the RTC and the parties of the pendency of the CA case. To the mind of the Court, the circumstances of the case do not instigate the evils that the rule on forum shopping seeks to prevent. Hence, it should not hesitate to grant the petition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 31, 2012 and Resolution dated May 10, 2013 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 for further proceedings. ETHIDa

SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., on official leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2680 dated July 12, 2019.

 

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Reserving for National Government Center Site a Parcel of Land Situated in the Constitution Hill Quezon City Metro Manila Containing an Area of Four Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Six Square Meters.

2. National Government Center Housing and Land Utilization Act of 2003.

3.Rollo, pp. 39-40.

4. RTC records, pp. 74-89.

5.Rollo, pp. 40-41.

6.Id. at 43, 86-102. The case is entitled "National Housing Authority v. Hon. Judge Jose G. Paneda, Branch 220, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Nilo R. Lapid, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, and A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development and Builders Corporation."

7.Id. at 43, 95.

8.Id. at 43.

9. RTC records, pp. 2-13.

10.Rollo, pp. 44, 104-116.

11.Id. at 44, 121-129.

12.Id. at 44.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15. The case is entitled "National Housing Authority v. A.P. Far Eastern Realty Development & Builders Corporation, Grand Pin Development Corporation and Solar Resources, Inc." docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 90279.

16.Rollo, pp. 38-51; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with the concurrence of Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a retired Associate Justice of this Court), and Romeo F. Barza.

17.Id. at 46-47.

18.Id. at 47.

19.Id. at 48.

20.Id. at 53-54.

21.Id. at 10-31.

22.Id. at 209, 274.

23.Id. at 209, citing Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., G.R. No. L-22533, February 9, 1967, 19 SCRA 289.

24.Dio v. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., G.R. No. 189532, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 244.

25.Tongonan Holdings and Development Corporation v. Atty. Escaño, Jr., G.R. No. 190994, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 306.

26.Barnes v. Hon. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 160753, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 533; Daswani v. Banco de Oro Universal Bank, G.R. No. 190983, July 29, 2015, 764 SCRA 160.

27.Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014, 716 SCRA 175, 178.

28.Rollo, pp. 86-102.

29.Id. at 73-84.

30.Id. at 93-94.

31.Id. at 77.

32.Id. at 83.

33.Zamora v. Quinan, G.R. No. 216139, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 251.

34.Rollo, pp. 80-82, 99-100.

35.Supra note 33 at 262.