HECTOR CASIMIRO LLADOC AND BENJAMIN LLADOC, REPRESENTED BY AUREA I. LLADOC, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ANGELES S. VELASQUEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL C…
DACUDAO, J.:
The factual background:
Sometime in August 1973, Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc (now deceased), represented by their attorney-in-fact and sister-in-law Aurea I. Lladoc, filed before the then Court of First Instance of Albay, Tenth Judicial District, at Legaspi City, Land Registration Case No. N-581, an Application for Registration of Title over a parcel of land known as Lot No. 2103 of the Cadastral Survey of Ligao situated at Centro, Ligao, Albay, consisting of more or less One Thousand Seven Hundred Five (1,705) Square Meters, as described in Plan AP-05-000012. No decision was rendered thereon.
Some thirty-two years after, or on March 2, 2005, the petitioner Aurea I. Lladoc filed before the Regional Trial Court at Ligao City, a Petition for Re-application for Registration of Title.[3] Now thereat docketed as LRC Case No. 157, it is therein alleged, amongst others, that the petitioner is the attorney-in-fact of the petitioners Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc, who pursuant to a Deed of Partition, filed an application for registration of title of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 2103; that said case was docketed as Land Reg. Case No. N-581, LRC Rec. No. N-44964; that no decree of registration was, or has been issued, covering said lot; that no cadastral decision was moreover rendered in that case; that on January 7, 2000, a certification was issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Legaspi City, stating that the records of said Land Registration Case No. N-581, LRC Reg. No. N-44964 could not be found in the archives of the said Court; that petitioners have been in actual possession of the subject property since 1940; and that the petitioner Aurea I. Lladoc is the successor-in-interest of the lawful owners of the said lot, her ownership thereof being evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on November 24, 1994 by Hector Casimiro Lladoc, and by an Extrajudicial Partition and Sale executed on April 10, 2001 by the heirs of Benjamin Lladoc. Therein petitioners thus prayed that, after due notice and hearing, Land Reg. Case No. 581, LRC Rec. Rec. NO. 44694 be revived and that petitioners “be allowed to continue presentation of their evidence after republication and reposting of the required notices.”
To this, private respondent Flora Relevante tendered a “Vigorous Opposition and/or Objection,”[4] thereunder arguing that the filing of the Petition for Re-application for Registration of Title in LRC Case No. 157, is a violation of the rule on non-forum shopping as she (private respondent) had earlier filed a Petition for Reconveyance of Ownership and Possession, Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title and Damages against the petitioner Aurea I. Lladoc and one Gina Quigaman, which petition is still pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Ligao City, whereat it is docketed as Civil Case No. 2184.
Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion[5] praying that the Cadastral Case Number assigned to the aforementioned petition, LRC No. 157, be recalled and cancelled, and that, in lieu thereof, it be referred to by its previous cadastral case number N-581, LRA Record No. N-44964.
Resolving the motion, Her Honor issued an Order on November 14, 2005, therein finding and disposing:
“In Petitioners’ Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping, Aurea I. Lladoc in allegation No. 3 stated the following: ‘To the best of our/my knowledge, no other action is pending or filed therein, inasmuch as LRC Case No. 140 filed by a certain Flora S. Relevante had been dismissed by the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 11, in Ligao City, Philippines on July 26, 2000 and became final and executory on August 27, 2000’. From the said statement, Aurea I. Lladoc was trying to imply that a case previously filed by Flora S. Relevante was dismissed on the merits of the case. This is not so. The records of LRC Case No. 140 show that Flora S. Relevante filed the case on September 23, 1997 but the said application was dismissed without prejudice by the Court on July 26, 2000, by agreement of the parties. A Motion for Revival and Reinstatement of the Case and a second motion for Revival and Reinstatement of the Case was (sic) denied by the Court on December 12, 2001. The Order denying the Motion to Reinstate says, ‘not to defeat the purpose of Publication, and to give notice to all, it becomes necessary to refile the case and the application published anew.’ The dismissal of the LRC Case No. 140 filed by Flora Salvo Relevante was not on the merits, but simply to deny the Motion for Reinstatement of the case. The Court simply states that Flora Salvo Relevante has to refile the case and the application be published anew.
“Likewise the claim of Aurea I. Lladoc that there is not other action pending between the parties is a contumacious lie considering the fact that there is a pending case for recovery of ownership and possession of land by Flora Salvo Relevante, petitioner versus Aurea Iguico Lladoc, Gina S. Quigaman and all persons claiming right over them, denominated as Civil Case No. 2184 and pending before Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court, Ligao City. Civil Case No. 2184 was filed by Flora Relevante on December 3, 2001. The application for land registration in the present case, LRC Case No. 157 was filed only on March 2, 2005. Such being the case, the LRC Case No. 157 is definitely forum shopping, knowing for a fact that there is another pending case between the parties in another court. The resolution of the present case will amount to res judicata in the said Civil Case No. 2184. In Solid Homes Inc. versus CA, 271 SCRA 157, it is said that the test to determine whether a party violated the rule against FORUM SHOPPING is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
“In Golongo versus CA, 283 SCRA 493, the Supreme Court stated that what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not, is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts upon the same issues. The most important of the above jurisprudence which are actually indicia of forum shopping are: when the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, or where the cases filed are substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, or raising substantially the same issues, or more importantly, where there exists the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different for a upon the issues.
“Counsel for the applicant must be aware that forum shopping is an act of malpractice and is proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It is improper conduct that degrades the administration of justice. The Rule ordains that a violation of the rule shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or parties concerned.
“This being the case and on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the filing of this petition, LRC Case No. 157 is therefore ordered DISMISSED.
“SO ORDERED.
“Ligao City, November 14, 2005.
“(Sgd.) ANGELES S. VASQUEZ
“Judge”
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereon, but this motion[6] was denied for lack of merit. Her Honor ruled:
“In the present case LRC Case No. 157 is sought to be amended by changing the docket case number to conform to the former Land Registration Case No. N-581. Is Aurea I. Lladoc claiming ownership over Lot No. 2103 of the Cadastral Survey of Ligao, Albay or is she merely representing Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc? The answer to that question is found in Paragraph 3 of the present petition which is hereto quoted: “that Aurea Lladoc is the successor-in-interest of the lawful owners of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 2103 where ownership thereof being evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale issued on November 24, 1994 by Hector Casimiro Lladoc and an Extra-Judicial Partition and Sale issued on April 10, 2001 by the Heirs of Benjamin Lladoc’ (copies of the Deed of Absolute Sale and Extra-Judicial Partition and Sale are hereto attached and marked as Annex B and C, respectively). From this averment, it is patently clear that the primitive or the previous petitioners in Land Registration Case No. N-581 namely, Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc are no longer parties in the interest considering the fact that both of them had already sold their rights of ownership to the present movant Aurea I. Lladoc. In the instant case, LRC Case No. N-157, Aurea I. Lladoc is actually the person in interest considering the fact that her predecessors had already sold the property to her. Be this as it may, instead of amending the application for registration in Land Registration Case No. N-581, LRC Record No. N-44964 by omitting the original petitioner Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc, the movant for one reason or another chose to represent herself as only the Attorney-in-fact of the previous petitioners when according to her she is already the owner of the property in question.
”The administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Benedicto B. Ulep, in a letter dated July 28, 2005, addressed to the original petitioners including the movant Aurea Lladoc stated: ‘Such being the case, to avoid multiplicity of suit, it is suggested that applicant files a Motion for Reconstitution/Reinstatement of the case based on certified true copies of all records of the case on file in the Authority. If granted, the case number and Record number must be retained. Case No. 157 must be cancelled and the petition filed INCLUDING AURORA LLADOC AS PETITIONER BE CONSIDERED AN AMENDED PETITION FOR CASE NO. N-581.’ Even the Land Registration Authority administrator had already knew (sic) the fact that Aurea Lladoc is not only acting as an Attorney-in-fact but a person who has personal interest in Lot No. 2103, Cadastral Survey of Ligao, subject matter of this case and in Civil Case No. 2184 now pending before Branch 11 of this Court. Civil Case No. 2184 is for Reconveyance of ownership and possession, cancellation of transfer certificate of title and damages. The premise that the causes of action and issues in Civil Case No. 2184 does not and cannot touch on the issue of ownership by the petitioners Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc of the subject property is a falsity of facts because the original petitioners are no longer the owners of the property in question but one Aurea I. Lladoc who claims to be the vendee of the parcel of land originally owned by the Lladocs. If the land in question will be registered in the name of Aurea I. Lladoc, naturally, that declaration by the Court will affect Civil Case No. 2184, the issue of which is pure and simple ownership of Lot No, 2103, cadastral Survey of Ligao, Albay. WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
“SO ORDERED.
“Ligao City, December 12, 2005.“(Sgd.) ANGELINA S. VAZQUEZ
“Judge”
Hence the present recourse, with petitioners now contending that:
“I.
“THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED LRC CASE NO. 157 FOR RE-APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE ON THE GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING
“II.
“THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT HOLDING THAT SINCE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS HECTOR CASIMIRO LLADOC AND BENJAMIN LLADOC ARE NO LONGER OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BUT AUREA I. LLADOC, WHO CLAIMED TO BE THE VENDEE OF THE PARCELS OF LAND ORIGINALLY OWNED BY THE LLADOCS, THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE AFFECTED.
“III.
“THE DENIAL OUTRIGHT BY THE RESPONDENT COURT OF PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR RE-APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE MERELY ON THE GROUND OF FORUM SHOPPING WITHOUT TOUCHING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS BASED ON TECHNICALITIES WHICH IS GRAVELY PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR CASE AND OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE APPEALED CASE IS EXTREMELY MERITORIOUS, BUT ALSO CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.”[7]
The petition will not lie.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy in bringing this case before us via this original special civil action of certiorari. An order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order; hence such an order is a proper subject of appeal, not of certiorari.[8] For this reason alone, the present Petition ought to be outrightly dismissed.
Nevertheless, we shall proceed to briefly discuss the merits of case in the interest of justice.
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.[9]
In this case, it is petitioners’ thesis that the causes of action and issues in Civil Case No. 2184 (Flora Salvo Relevante, Plaintiff v. Aurea Iguico-Lladoc, Gina S. Quigaman, and all persons claiming under them, for recovery of ownership and possession of land) pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Ligao City do not and cannot touch on the issue of ownership raised by the petitioners Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc in said Petition for Re-Application for Registration in LRC Case No. 157; and that the resolution of the said Civil Case No. 2184 would not in any manner affect, or would have no bearing whatsoever upon, the title of ownership to be issued to the petitioner Aurea. In short, they argue that there are no identity of parties and no identity of causes of action in, or between, the two cases.
We do not agree.
It cannot be gainsaid that the complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession of Land, docketed as Civil Case No. 2184, filed by private respondent, Flora S. Relevante and the Petition for Re-Application for Registration filed by petitioners in LRC Case No. 157, both involve the issue of ownership of Lot 2103 of the Ligao Cadastre. And, considering that petitioner Aurea is the successor-in-interest of Hector Casimiro Lladoc and Benjamin Lladoc, the granting of the Petition for Re-Application for Registration in LRC Case No. 157 would necessarily constitute res judicata on Civil Case No. 2184.
Equally untenable is petitioners’ contention that the dismissal of the Petition for Re-Application for Registration in LRC Case No. 157, without any hearing, constitutes a denial of their right to due process. Indeed, willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping, as in this case, is a ground for the summary dismissal of the case.[10]
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the petition at bench is DENIED DUE COURSE, and consequently DISMISSED. Costs shall be assessed against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Carandang and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 38 – 40.
[2] Id., pp. 41 – 43.
[3] Id., pp. 44 – 50.
[4] Id., pp. 81 – 84.
[5] Id., pp. 90 – 92.
[6] Id., pp. 94 – 97.
[7] Id., pp. 11 – 12.
[8] Fajardo v. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 102193-97, May 10, 1994 232 SCRA 291.
[9] NBI-Microsoft Corporation v. Hwang, G.R. No. 147043, June 21, 2005 460 SCRA 428.
[10] De la Cruz v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 162788. July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 576.