EMILIA R. AQUINO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARY JOSEPHINE P. LAZARO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO, BRANCH 74, AND THE HEIRS OF BUENAVEN…
BATO, JR., J.:
On 29 August 2008, private respondents Heirs of Buenaventura Valle, represented by Ester N. Valle, filed a Complaint[2] for quieting of title, reconveyance, recovery of possession with damages against petitioner Emilia R. Aquino. Said complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 08-8595 and raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Lazaro.
Private respondents alleged in their complaint that they are the owners of a parcel of land situated in Brgy. San Juan, Taytay, Rizal with an area of 8,399 square meters, more or less. Said land has been declared for taxation purposes under the name of their predecessor-in-interest, Buenaventura Valle, as evidenced by Tax Declaration (TD) No. 04-05171. After said lot was traversed by Hi-way 2000, the actual lot area became 5,625 square meters, more or less, covering portions of Cad Lot Nos. 3082 and 3087. Sometime recently, they discovered that the petitioner had been issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 372 covering Lot 3087-E, based on plan Csd-04-014957, Cad 688-D, Cainta-Taytay Cadastre. Consequently, they took steps to protect their rights over that portion of the land by registering their adverse claim with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Unfortunately, the adverse claim was not given due course. Thus, they prayed, among others, that the petitioner be ordered to reconvey to them the lot covered by OCT No. 372.
In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim[3], petitioner denied all the material allegation of the Complaint. By way of affirmative defenses, she countered that the Complaint should be dismissed on grounds of lack of legal capacity to sue and forum shopping. The plaintiff “Heirs of Buenaventura Valle” is not a juridical entity authorized by law to be a party in a case. Moreover, although it is alleged in the complaint that Ester N. Valle represented all the heirs of Buenaventura Valle, the special power of attorney granted to her is only to sell, transfer or compromise the rights and interests of the other heirs over a parcel of land subject of Civil Case No. 00-5949. There is nothing in said special power of attorney authorizing Ester N. Valle to file the instant case.
On the issue of forum shopping, petitioner pointed out that the private respondents have previously filed two (2) other cases against different defendants claiming recovery of the same lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 04-5171. That is, on 17 October 2000, private respondents filed a Complaint[4] for reconveyance and damages against spouses Ildefonso and Adoracion Losloso (“Spouses Losloso”), which was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-5949 before the RTC of Antipolo. In said case, private respondents alleged that they discovered that OCT No. 1706 was issued to the spouses Losloso pursuant to Free Patent No. 045813-98-3589 covering Lot 3082, Cad 688-D, Cainta-Taytay Cadastre. Subsequently, the said certificate of title was cancelled and TCT Nos. 652369 and 652370 were issued in lieu thereof, also in the names of the Spouses Losloso. Upon verification, it was determined that Lot 3082 cover portions of the land owned by the Heirs of Buenaventura Valle.
During the pendency of Civil Case No. 00-5949, private respondents, as represented by Nolina N. Valle, filed another Complaint[5] on 01 December 2004, this time for quieting of title against the Heirs of Flaviano Valera. Said case was docketed as Civil Case No. 04-7419 in the RTC of Antipolo. Private respondents alleged that their lot covered by TD No. 04-5171 has been divided into two parts – one part denominated as Lot 3081 declared in the name of Flaviano Valera, and the other part denominated as Lot 3082 declared in the name of Bienvenido Valle. Thus, the division of the property of the late Buenaventura Valle into Lots 3081 and 3082 appears to put some cloud on his and private respondents’ title or interest over the aforesaid parcel of land.
Petitioner then filed a “Motion for a Preliminary Hearing of the Affirmative Defenses in the Answer which are Grounds for a Motion to Dismiss.”[6]
By way of Comment/Objection[7] to the said motion, private respondents argued that the Heirs of Buenaventura Valle, as represented by Ester Valle, is authorized by law to be a party to a case. It has been ruled that the defendant’s legal heirs are his legal representatives if there is no pending proceeding for the settlement of his estate. Moreover, Ester Valle can file the complaint without being joined by the rest of the heirs so long as the cause of action is for the benefit of all the co-heirs or co-owners. On the issue of forum shopping, private respondents claimed that they were never informed by Nolina Valle of Civil Case No. 04-7419 against the Heirs of Flaviano Valera, nor did they authorize Nolina Valle to file said case. It was only after Nolina Valle died that they learned about said case. Immediately thereafter, they filed a Motion to Withdraw[8] said complaint.
In an Order[9] dated 15 June 2010, respondent Judge, denied petitioner’s Motion for a Preliminary Hearing of the Affirmative Defenses in the Answer. Pertinent portions thereof are hereunder quoted:
“In the exercise of sound discretion as provided for under Section 6 Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, the Court hereby denies the said motion, considering that the plaintiffs were able to substantially rebut the alleged lack of legal capacity to sue and forum shopping in their comment/objection. Further, to set the Motion for a Preliminary Hearing of the Affirmative Defenses in the Answer which are Grounds for a Motion to Dismiss for hearing is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
On 08 November 2012, petitioner filed a “Motion to Dismiss the Case on the Ground of Forum Shopping and on the Ground of Plaintiffs’ (private respondents herein) Failure to Appear at the Pre-trial.”[10] On the issue of forum shopping, petitioner reiterated that the private respondents had earlier filed two (2) other similar cases using the same justification in claiming ownership of the lot, i.e., TD No. 04-5171. Anent her contention that the private respondents failed to appear at the pre-trial, petitioner argued when the case was set for initial pre-trial on 24 October 2012, private respondents’ counsel submitted a special power of attorney (SPA)[11] dated 23 October 2012 executed by Ester N. Valle, as a justification for the non-appearance of the rest of the plaintiffs. However, all the heirs of Buenaventura Valle should appear at the pre-trial pursuant to Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure of all the heirs to appear at the pre-trial will cause the dismissal of the case pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the same Rule. Moreover, Ester Valle has no authority to execute said SPA. As pointed out in her answer, Ester Valle does not even have the authority to file a case against her.
In their Comment/Opposition,[12] private respondents pointed out that the petitioner merely reiterated the grounds/issues that they had raised in their motion for hearing on affirmative defenses, which have already been resolved by the respondent Judge in her 15 June 2010 Order.
On 02 April 2013, respondent Judge issued the first assailed Order[13] disposing as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the instant Motion to Dismiss on the Ground of Forum-shopping and on the Ground of Failure to Appear at the Pre-trial is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.”
Respondent Judge ratiocinated that petitioner’s motion to dismiss based on forum shopping is actually a motion for reconsideration of the 15 June 2010 Order. Hence, the same was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. As to the alleged failure of the private respondents to appear at the pre-trial, the respondent Judge ruled that Ester N. Valle, being the representative of the real party-in-interest, may execute a special power of attorney appointing her lawyer to represent the Heirs of Buenaventura Valle in the pre-trial.
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the above order but the same was denied by the respondent Judge in the second assailed Order[14] dated 31 October 2013.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition, contending that:
“[R]espondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying our ‘Motion to Dismiss The Case On the Ground Of Forum Shopping And On The Ground Of Plaintiff’s Failure to Appear At The Pre-trial’ and in denying as well our Motion For Reconsideration thereto.”[15]
In their Comment,[16] private respondents pointed out that the issues on forum shopping and their alleged failure to appear at the pre-trial are mere reiterations of the issues long resolved by the respondent Judge.
Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction.[17] There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[18] Through time, the meaning of grave abuse of discretion has been expanded to include any action done contrary to the constitution, the law or jurisprudence.[19]
Premised on the foregoing, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent Judge.
Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[20] Among its elements are identity of the parties, identity of the subject matter and identity of the causes of action in the two cases.[21]
In the case at bar, petitioner’s insistence that forum shopping is present must fail. Petitioner is the defendant in Civil Case No. 08-8595 pending before the court a quo. On the other hand, in Civil Case No. 00-5949, named defendants therein were the Spouses Losloso. As for Civil Case No. 04-7419, the defendants were the Heirs of Flaviano Valera. Clearly, the element of identity of parties is wanting.
Petitioner cites the case of Canuto, Jr. vs. NLRC,[22] to support her contention that forum shopping can exist even if the defendant is different. Nonetheless, the ruling in said case is not applicable to the instant case. A reading thereof would reveal that although there was no “literal” identity of parties in the two cases, there was “substantial” identity of parties since there was a community of interest between the defendants in the first and second case. Notably, the dismissed employees therein filed a labor case against the corporation and filed a separate civil case for damages against the corporation’s officers. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that there was indeed forum shopping since from the very same act of termination, petitioners therein seek damages either from the corporation which they claim unlawfully fired them, or failing therein, from the corporation’s officers whom they claim terminated them without the sanction of the corporation.
The factual antecedents in the petitioner’s cited case is clearly different from the instant case. Here, it cannot be said there is substantial identity of defendants in the three cases. Nor can it be said that there is identity of the causes of action in the 3 cases. Note that in the main case pending before the court a quo, i.e., Civil Case No. 08-8595, petitioner is being sued because she was issued OCT No. 372 covering Lot 3087-E, which the private respondents claim is part of the land they inherited from Buenaventura Valle. On the other hand, in Civil Case No. 00-5949, therein respondent Spouses Losloso were sued because they were issued OCT No. 1706, which the private respondents claim covers a portion of Lot 3082 owned by them. While in Civil Case No. 04-7419, the defendants therein, Heirs of Flaviano Valera, were sued because of the private respondents’ claim that the lot of the late Buenaventura Valle was divided into Lots 3081 and 3082. And that Lot 3082 was erroneously declared in the name of Flaviano Valera.
Petitioner’s contention that the respondent Judge should have dismissed the main case for failure of all the private respondents to appear during the pre-trial, must likewise fail.
Settled is the rule that in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.[23]
In the case at bar, it is clear from the complaint that the same was filed precisely to recover possession of the property allegedly owned in common by the heirs of Buenaventura Valle. All the co-owners will be benefited if the complaint would prosper. Ester Valle, as one of the co-owners, may very well sign the verification of the complaint. Moreover, it was within her right to execute an SPA authorizing her lawyer to represent her in the pre-trial conference. Therefore, the presence of the other co-owners during the pre-trial conference was not necessary.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Barrios, and Diy, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-35.
[2] Rollo, pp. 46-50.
[3] Rollo, pp. 68-87.
[4] Rollo, pp. 37-41.
[5] Rollo, pp. 42-44.
[6] Rollo, pp. 110-111.
[7] Rollo, pp. 112-113.
[8] Rollo, p. 115.
[9] Rollo, p. 116.
[10] Rollo, pp. 119-136.
[11] Rollo, p. 117.
[12] Rollo, pp. 140-142.
[13] Rollo, pp. 54-56.
[14] Rollo, pp. 57-58.
[15] Petition, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[16] Rollo, pp. 175-180.
[17] Vda. De Bacaling vs. Laguna, 54 SCRA 243, p. 251 [1973]; Bacelonia vs. CA, 397 SCRA 286, p. 291 [2003].
[18] Cuison vs. CA, 289 SCRA 159, p. 171 [1998]; Benito vs. COMELEC, 349 SCRA 705, p. 712 [2001].
[19] Republic vs. Cocofed, 372 SCRA 462, p. 493 [2001].
[20] Reyes vs. Alsons Development and Investment Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 153936, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 244, 251.
[21] Nery vs. Leyson, 393 Phil. 644, 654 (2000).
[22] G.R. No. 110914, June 28, 2001.
[23] Ampil vs. Manahan, G.R. No. 175990, October 11, 2012 citing Celino vs. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, 479 Phil. 617 and Carandang vs. Heirs of De Guzman, 538 Phil. 319.