FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 182151, September 21, 2015
IGLICERIA VDA. DE KARAAN, Petitioner, v. ATTY. SALVADOR AGUINALDO, MARCELINA AGUINALDO, JUANITA AGUINALDO AND SERGIO AGUINALDO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Igliceria vda. de Karaan to assail the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 28 September 20071 and Resolution dated 12 March 20082 in CA-G.R. SP No. 85862. Petitioner questions the CA's finding of forum shopping, which led to the dismissal of her complaint for damages against respondents Salvador Aguinaldo, Marcelina Aguinaldo, Juanita Aguinaldo and Sergio Aguinaldo.3
Anent the damages and right of way cases, the requisites for litis pendentia are present. Thus, the Public Respondent gravely erred in denying the Petitioners' prayer for the dismissal of the damages case.On 11 October 2007, petitioner sought reconsideration of the Decision.28 Her motion was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 12 March 2008.29
The dismissal of the damages case is, therefore, proper under the circumstances by reason of forum-shopping and not on the basis of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of some of the defendants and over the subject matter.
With all the foregoing disquisitions, We find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Public Respondent in denying the dismissal of the damages case on the ground of forum-shopping.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order(s) dated April 11, 2003 and May 18, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 78, in Civil Case No. 99-38762, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is ordered DISMISSED. Costs against the Respondents.27 (Italics and underscoring in the original)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (which makes the cases susceptible to dismissal based on litis pendentia); (2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (which makes the subsequent case susceptible to dismissal based on res judicata); and (3) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (which amounts to splitting of causes of action, which renders the cases susceptible to dismissal on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata).ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn this case, the CA found petitioner guilty of forum shopping and ordered the dismissal of her Complaint on the basis of litis pendentia.43 It ruled that the parties and the claims raised in this case are identical with those in Civil Case No. 7345:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
With regard to the case for damages and the case filed with the RTC of Balanga, Bataan (for right of way), however, there is identity of parties and causes of action. The plaintiffs in the case for damages were the defendants in the right of way case, and the plaintiffs in the right of way case were the Petitioners, with the municipal government of Morong, Batan, the government of Brgy. Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan as co-plaintiffs. In the same manner, the Petitioners, on the other hand, were the defendants in the damages case. Furthermore, the right of way case includes a claim for damages arising not only from the commencement of the action but also by reason of the demolition undertaken by the Petitioners. From the records, it appears that the case for damages filed with the RTC of Quezon City stemmed from, the demolition of the Respondent's constructed structures in Bataan, and the right of way case before the RTC of Bataan also carried with it a claim for damages arising from the same demolition. Thus, in this instance, there is forum shopping.44ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryWe reverse.
7. Unfortunate, despite the fact that herein plaintiff is not a party to the said two (2) cases and despite the fact that she had not been issued or even the subject of any writ of execution or demolition order made by the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 2, all the herein defendants with the assistance of many PNP Officers who were all fully armed as if they were going into an actual war and coming from the various towns of Bataan as well as hired armed goons illegally and maliciously with the use of brute and naked force and perpetuated with evident and wanton bad faith demolished some of the structures located inside the plaintiff's Fine Sand Beach Resort as clearly shown by the herein attached copies of the pictures showing the said illegal demolition which are hereto attached and marked as Annexes "B" and "B-1", respectively. Plaintiff even tried repeatedly to stop the said naked and brute use of force, but, she was instead threatened with death and simply overpowered then;cralawlawlibraryOn the other hand, Civil Case No. 7345 involves a claim for easement of right of way over respondents' property in Morong, Bataan, based on Article 649 of the Civil Code.56 The Complaint in that case states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
8. In view of the said illegal and unjustified act, plaintiff's two (2) air-conditioned cottages plus five (5) cottages as well as one (1) cottage partially damaged including the elevated water tank and the concrete fence were illegally, maliciously and unceremoniously destroyed with the use of a bulldozer driven by defendant Sergio Aguinaldo with the consent, permission, knowledge and upon the instruction of all the herein defendants as well as their lawyers and they were also aided by their PNP Officers, cohorts and hired armed goons at that time:
9. In view of the said unjustified acts committed by all the herein defendants by illegally and maliciously demolishing some of the structures located inside the plaintiff's beach resort, the latter suffered actual damages amounting to around P2,000,000.00 including the unearned income or unrealized earnings coming from both domestic and foreign tourists considering that the said illegal demolition was deliberately time [sic] with the peak summer season to cause great damage and prejudice to the herein plaintiff;55ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
12. Herein private plaintiffs, including defendants in paragraph No. 11, are owner-operators of their respective beach resorts located in Sitio Crossing, Brgy. Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan.The reliefs sought in the two cases are likewise different. The Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-99-38762 prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, in connection with the demolition of structures inside Fine Sands Beach Resort.58 The reliefs sought in Civil Case No. 7345, however, pertain exclusively to the right-of-way claim over the Morong property. Although damages were included in the reliefs prayed for in Civil Case No. 7345, the claim referred to attorney's fees and costs of suit, and not to damages caused by the demolition of any structure. The prayer included in the Complaint in Civil Case No. 7345 is reproduced in full below:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
13. Adjacent to the properties of plaintiffs and defendants in paragraph No. 11 is the property owned by the main defendant, the Aguinaldo family;cralawlawlibrary
14. At the same time, the opposite side of the subject property of defendant Aguinaldo family is the National Road;cralawlawlibrary
15. It goes without mentioning that the properties of the plaintiffs have no adequate outlet to the National Road because they are isolated by the property of the Aguinaldo family;cralawlawlibrary
16. However, more than 30 years ago, even before the issuance of land Titles to the Aguinaldo family, a road-right-of-way, which has a width of at least five (5) meters, has already been in existence and is being used by the residents of the barangay, in general, and the plaintiffs and tourists, in particular, in going to the open seas and the beach resorts. This traverses the property of the Aguinaldo family from the National Road going to the beach resorts and fishing areas of Brgy. Nagbalayong;cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
20. That, for about two dry or summer seasons now, defendants, the Aguinaldo family, refused plaintiffs, in particular, entry to their place of business, and the public or beach-goers, in general. The Aguinaldo family built a toll gate along the road-right-of-way to prevent the plaintiffs, tourists, and the whole community from access to the beach resorts and water resources of the community;cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
27. The plaintiffs' cause of action is based on Article 649 of the Civil Code, and well-settled jurisprudence;57ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, in the following manner:Since the causes of action and the reliefs sought in the two cases are completely different, a decision in either case will not amount to res judicata in the other.
a. Declare the existence of the long-established "road-right-of-way" from the National Road traversing the Aguinaldo property to the shoreline;cralawlawlibrary
b. Order the measurement or survey of the road-right-of-way;cralawlawlibrary
c. Order the annotation of the "road-right-of-way" on the Titles of the defendant Aguinaldo family;cralawlawlibrary
d. Order defendants Aguinaldo family to demolish the gate and structures preventing the ingress and egress in going to and from, the properties of the plaintiffs and stop the illegal collection of toll fees;cralawlawlibrary
e. Order the amendment of the Aguinaldo land titles by excluding therefrom the road-right-of-way after a survey shall have been done;cralawlawlibrary
f. Order defendants in Nos. 2 to 9 to share in the indemnity, as may be ordered or determined by the Honorable Court, for the payment of the "road-right-of-way";cralawlawlibrary
g. Order each defendant, Nos. 2 to 9, to pay plaintiffs' counsel the sum of P25,000.00 for Acceptance Fee;cralawlawlibrary
h. Order defendant Aguinaldo family to reimburse plaintiffs the amount of P150,000.00 for Acceptance Fee and P2,000.00 for Appearance Fee, as and by way of Attorney's Fees;cralawlawlibrary
i. Order all defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the cost of this suit;cralawlawlibrary
Other reliefs and remedies are likewise prayed for which are just and equitable under the premises.59ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, who is under the Court's Wellness Program from 16-30 September 2015, per S.O. No. 2188 dated 16 September 2015.
1Rollo, pp. 128-142; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizzaro and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta.
2 Id. at 152-153.
3 Id. at 140-141.
4 Id. at 25-29.
5 Id. at 25.
6 Id. at 26.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 25-26.
9 Id. at 30-32.
10 Id. at 36.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 35-40; penned by Judge Percival Mandap Lopez.
13 Id. at 48-54.
14 Id. at 49-51.
15 Id. at 52.
16 Id. at 51-52.
17 Id. at 51.
18 Id. at 69.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 70-76.
21 Id. at 79-80.
22 Id. at 81-112.
23 Id. at 128-142.
24 Id. at 134-137.
25 Id. at 139-140.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 141.
28 Id. at 143-150.
29 Id. at 151-154.
30 Id. at 14.
31 Id. at 15.
32 Id. at 16.
33 Id. at 16-17.
34 Id. at 156-164.
35 Id. at 159.
36 Id. at 160.
37 Id. at 161.
38 Id. at 166-172.
39 Id. at 166-168.
40 Id. at 169-170.
41 G.R. No. 186322, 8 July 2015.
42 G.R. No. 183641, 22 April 2015.
43Rollo, p. 139-141.
44 Id. at 139-140.
45Villamor, Jr. v. Manalastas, G.R. No. 171247, 22 July 2015.
46Rollo, p. 55-63.
47 Id. at 15.
48 Id. at 51.
49 Id. at 66-68.
50 Id. at 70-76.
51 Id. at 81-112.
52 Id. at 77-78.
53 Id. at 113-126.
54 Id. at 143-150.
55Rollo, p. 26.
56 Article 649 of the Civil Code states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryArticle 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.57Rollo, pp. 58-60.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
58 Id. at 27-28.
59 Id. at 61-62.