De Guzman v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners purchased a parcel of land covered by TCT No. V-71509 from Planters Bank. The Republic of the Philippines and the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) filed an expropriation case against Planters Bank for a 90 sq.m. portion (Lot 1047-C-2-D-1) for the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) Project. Petitioners intervened in the expropriation case, claiming ownership of the entire property and seeking just compensation for another portion, 185 sq.m. (Lot 1047-C-2-D-2), which they alleged was taken by respondents for road widening. Procedural History: The RTC granted petitioners' intervention. Petitioners then filed a separate complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2. Respondents moved to dismiss this complaint, citing lack of cause of action, failure to comply with procedural rules, and the State's immunity from suit. Respondents argued that payment should only be made to the registered owner (Planters Bank) and that the complaint failed to disclose the pendency of the intervention in the expropriation case, constituting forum shopping. The RTC dismissed the complaint for forum shopping, finding identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's dismissal. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that there was no forum shopping as the properties and reliefs sought in the two cases were distinct.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners are guilty of forum shopping in filing a separate complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation after filing a complaint in intervention in the expropriation case. Whether there is an identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between the expropriation case and the recovery of possession case; and the nature of the recovery of possession case, evidence, subject matter, and consolidation of the cases.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the consolidation of the expropriation case and the recovery of possession case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that the petitioners are not guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping is defined as the act of a litigant who repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues. The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. The Court found that while there was an identity of parties, there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. On the identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; the nature of the recovery of possession case; evidence and subject matter; and consolidation: The Court clarified that the expropriation case involved a 90 sq.m. property (Lot 1047-C-2-D-1) necessary for the NLEX Project. Petitioners intervened to claim ownership and just compensation for this lot. In contrast, the recovery of possession case concerned a separate 185 sq.m. lot (Lot 1047-C-2-D-2), which petitioners alleged was taken by respondents for road widening without expropriation proceedings and without just compensation. The Court emphasized that these were distinct lots, although covered by the same original title. The relief sought in the recovery of possession case included reconveyance if just compensation was not paid, a remedy not available in the expropriation case itself. The Court characterized the taking of the 185 sq.m. lot as a de facto expropriation, where the government takes private property for public use without initiating expropriation proceedings and without paying just compensation. In such instances, the landowner has the remedy to recover the property if feasible, or demand payment of just compensation. The Court cited several cases where it addressed similar situations, consistently ruling that just compensation is the value of the property at the time of taking. Although the Deed of Absolute Sale would be presented in both cases to prove petitioners' ownership, the Court noted that the subject matters were different. The 185 sq.m. lot was not the subject of the expropriation case. The expropriation case was proceeding with the government willing to pay just compensation for the 90 sq.m. lot, while the recovery of possession case required petitioners to prove the area taken and the amount of compensation due for the 185 sq.m. lot. Given that the two cases involved the same parties and some overlapping issues, the Court ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 264-V-04 (expropriation with intervention) and Civil Case No. 180-V-06 (recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation) to expedite proceedings and ensure a just resolution.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a separate complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation for a property taken by the government for public use without expropriation proceedings, while a complaint in intervention seeking similar relief for the same property is pending in an expropriation case, does not constitute forum shopping if there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and the subject matters of the two cases are distinct, even if they originated from the same title.