University of the Philippines v. Susi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, the University of the Philippines (UP), acquired its Diliman Campus through a Deed of Sale and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 9462, which was later subdivided into five other TCTs. Respondent Gertrudes V. Susi claims ownership of a portion of this campus, allegedly covered by her TCT Nos. 68134, 68135, and 68136. After unsuccessful attempts to enter and fence the disputed portion, respondents filed an action for damages and injunction against UP on August 22, 1994 (Civil Case No. Q-94-21425). Procedural History: On September 13, 1994, UP filed an action for cancellation of respondents' titles (Civil Case No. Q-94-21637). Both cases were consolidated and assigned to Branch 225 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The respondents in the damages case moved to dismiss UP's cancellation of titles case on the ground of forum shopping. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed UP's case on May 13, 1997. The Petition: UP filed a petition for review, assailing the RTC's Resolution dismissing its case for cancellation of titles due to alleged forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the cancellation of titles case was properly dismissed on the ground of forum shopping in view of the pendency of the damages case. Whether a separate and direct action is required for the cancellation of titles under the Torrens system.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of May 13, 1997, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. Q-94-21637 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the cancellation of titles case was properly dismissed on the ground of forum shopping: The Court held that the dismissal was erroneous. Forum shopping exists when a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties and the same subject matter, arising from the same cause of action, or seeking the same relief. In this case, the damages case filed by respondents sought to recover damages from UP and its officials for alleged violation of their ownership rights. Conversely, UP's action sought the cancellation of respondents' titles. While both cases involved the same parties and stemmed from a dispute over the land, the reliefs sought were distinct. The damages case did not seek the cancellation of UP's titles, nor did the cancellation of titles case seek damages from UP. Therefore, the issues were not identical, and the remedies sought were not the same, negating the existence of forum shopping. On whether a separate and direct action is required for the cancellation of titles: The Court affirmed the settled doctrine that certificates of title issued under the Torrens system of registration cannot be collaterally attacked. A collateral attack occurs when the validity of a title is challenged indirectly in a proceeding where the primary issue is not the title itself. To assail the validity of a Torrens title, a direct proceeding for the cancellation or annulment of the title must be instituted. Since UP's action was a direct action specifically for the cancellation of respondents' titles, it was a necessary and proper remedy, distinct from the action for damages. The counterclaim in the damages case, which referred to a compulsory claim for damages and attorney's fees, did not seek the cancellation of respondents' titles. Thus, the filing of the second case was justified and did not constitute forum shopping.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a case for cancellation of titles on the ground of forum shopping is erroneous if the other pending case, which is an action for damages, does not involve the issue of title cancellation, as certificates of title under the Torrens system cannot be collaterally attacked and require a separate, direct action for their cancellation.