In the recent case of CITY OF MAKATI, JEJOMAR BINAY and ERNESTO S. MERCADO vs. MUNICIPALITY (NOW CITY) OF TAGUIG, et. al., EN BANC, G.R. No. 163175, June 27, 2008, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing doctrine of LITIS PENDENCIA.
On March 13, 1992, then President Corazon C. Aquino approved Republic Act No. 7227 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. 40 placing under the administration of the BCDA portions of Fort Bonifacio which are identified and described in Plans Swo-00-001265 and Swo-00-001266. 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.
In its complaint, Taguig prayed for the declaration of the unconstitutionality and nullity of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2475 and 518, 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.
On January 20, 1995, then President Ramos issued Special Patent No. 3595 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. 3596 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.
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.
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.
On September 25, 1998, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 141, issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 96-554.
On June 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC-Makati ruling.
Hence, this petition.
.
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, 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, 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, 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.
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.
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.
By:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
