De Leon v. Chu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute centers on a parcel of land in San Roque, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. Rowena C. De Leon claimed ownership of a 50-square meter portion, alleging she purchased it from Domingo Delos Santos and was given the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 228526 for safekeeping by Lolita Chu. Conversely, Lolita Chu and Domingo Delos Santos asserted that Domingo had sold the entire 600-square meter property to Lolita, and that Rowena subsequently forged signatures on documents to fraudulently acquire a portion of the land and register it under her name. Rowena filed a case to compel Lolita to surrender the title, while Lolita and Domingo filed a separate case to annul the deed of sale and cancel Rowena's title. Procedural History: Rowena C. De Leon initiated LRC Case No. 1322 on November 18, 1999, seeking the surrender of TCT No. 228526. Subsequently, Lolita Chu and Domingo Delos Santos filed Civil Case No. 2257 on May 17, 2000, seeking the annulment of the Deed of Sale dated March 19, 1993, and the cancellation of TCT No. 228526. Despite an initial denial of a motion to suspend proceedings in LRC Case No. 1322, the two cases were consolidated by order of the court on February 8, 2002. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on August 28, 2006, in favor of Lolita and Domingo, declaring the deed of sale and subdivision agreement void, ordering the cancellation of Rowena's TCT, and dismissing LRC Case No. 1322. Rowena appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied her appeal on December 17, 2007, and subsequently denied her motion for reconsideration on February 3, 2009. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari filed by Rowena C. De Leon. The petition raises several issues, primarily arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding the respondents guilty of forum shopping. Rowena also contends that the appellate court erred in affirming the RTC's decision despite the alleged failure to implead an indispensable party, in affirming the dismissal of LRC Case No. 1322 despite her claim of ownership of the title, and in applying the rules of evidence in favor of the respondents, thereby failing to recognize her as a buyer in good faith. The petition seeks to overturn the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents were guilty of forum shopping. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision despite the alleged failure to implead an indispensable party. Whether the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of LRC Case No. 1322 despite the petitioner allegedly possessing the title, the application of evidence, and whether the CA and RTC erred in not finding the petitioner as a buyer in good faith.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision, which declared the Deed of Sale and Agreement of Subdivision null and void and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 228526, was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court reiterated that Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court mandates that failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment and shall be cause for dismissal, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and hearing. However, the submission of a false certification or non-compliance does not automatically warrant dismissal, even if it constitutes contempt, unless willful and deliberate forum shopping is proven. Significantly, the petitioner did not move for dismissal or cite the respondents for contempt at the trial court level. Instead, she raised the issue of forum shopping only on appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner's agreement to consolidate Civil Case No. 2257 and LRC Case No. 1322 rendered the potential ground for dismissal based on litis pendentia moot, as it indicated the parties' consent to have both cases jointly resolved. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the appeal on this ground. On the issue of failure to implead an indispensable party: The Court held that this issue was raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, could not be entertained. It is a settled rule that questions not raised in the lower courts will not be considered on appeal. Even if considered, the Court noted that the Register of Deeds, cited as the allegedly indispensable party, is merely a nominal party whose participation is not essential for the adjudication of the rights between the petitioner and respondents. On the issue of the title and the application of evidence/good faith: The Court found that these issues were not raised on review before the Court of Appeals despite an adverse ruling by the RTC. Consequently, the rulings of the trial court on these matters had become final, and there was no cogent reason for the Supreme Court to take them up at that late stage. The Court emphasized that issues not appealed are deemed waived and are no longer subject to review.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion to consolidate cases renders moot any potential ground for dismissal based on litis pendentia, as it signifies the parties' agreement to have the cases jointly resolved. Furthermore, the submission of a false certification against forum shopping does not automatically warrant dismissal unless willful and deliberate forum shopping is proven, and the issue must be raised at the earliest opportunity.