De Guzman v. Republic

A later action for recovery of possession and/or just compensation does not constitute forum shopping with a pending expropriation case where the later action concerns a separate lot not included in the expropriation case, even if both lots are covered by the same certificate of title and the same deed of sale is used to prove ownership, because there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.

Planters Development Bank held registered title over a parcel covered by TCT No. V-71509, which was subdivided into three lots. The Republic and the Toll Regulatory Board were the government entities involved in the NLEX Project, which required toll facilities and road widening along the expressway.

Planters Development Bank was the registered owner of a 1,238-square-meter parcel covered by TCT No. V-71509, which was subdivided into Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 (90 sq.m.), Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 (185 sq.m.), and Lot 1047-C-2-D-3 (963 sq.m.). On November 15, 2004, the Republic and the Toll Regulatory Board filed a complaint for expropriation against Planters Bank over Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 before the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, docketed as Civil Case No. 264-V-04. The expropriation was necessary for the construction and/or rehabilitation of toll facilities along the North Luzon Expressway as an integral part of the NLEX Project.

On November 22, 2005, Planters Bank sold the entire property covered by TCT No. V-71509 to petitioners. Petitioners then filed a Complaint in Intervention in the expropriation case, stating that they were the new owners by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. In the same intervention, petitioners alleged that respondents had converted another portion of the property, the 185-sq.m. Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, for road widening, and sought payment of just compensation for that taking. The RTC granted the intervention.

In a letter dated August 30, 2006, petitioners informed the TRB that they were the new owners of the lot and demanded P1,572,500.00 as just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, which the TRB had converted into a road, together with payment of just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-1. The TRB refused and failed to pay. On September 12, 2006, petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation, alleging that they should also be paid just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, which respondents had included in the widening of an existing roadway. In the event respondents refused to pay just compensation for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, petitioners prayed that the lot be reconveyed to them.

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the complaint lacked a cause of action, that petitioners failed to comply with SC Administrative Circular 04-94 and Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, and that the suit was against the State, which had not given its consent to be sued. Respondents averred that in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the government is only bound to deal with registered owners and that payment of just compensation must be made only to Planters Bank and not to petitioners. They also claimed that the complaint was not properly verified and that petitioners failed to state in the certification of non-forum shopping that their prayer for payment of just compensation and recovery of possession of Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 had already been raised in the expropriation case.

The RTC found that petitioners had admitted intervening in the expropriation proceedings pending before Branch 75; that the expropriation with intervention case and the recovery of possession case had the same parties and identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; and that petitioners would present the same evidence in the expropriation case to prove ownership and entitlement to just compensation. The CA noted that while the expropriation case involved Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 and the recovery case involved Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, both lots were covered by a single certificate of title, TCT No. V-71509.

• Identity of Rights and Reliefs: Petitioners argued that there is no forum shopping in the second case because there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and the judgment in one case would not amount to res judicata in the other.
• Subject Matter of the Two Cases: Petitioners maintained that the 185-sq.m. property in the recovery case is entirely different and separate from the 90-sq.m. lot subject of the expropriation case.
• Impossibility of Relief in the Expropriation Case: Petitioners argued that while they had been asking for just compensation for the 185-sq.m. lot in the expropriation case, that relief is impossible to be granted by the RTC because the expropriation case pertains only to the 90-sq.m. property.

• Forum Shopping / Litis Pendentia: Respondents countered that petitioners violated the rule against forum shopping; the elements of litis pendentia are present: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and a judgment in the recovery case would amount to res judicata in the expropriation case.
• Ownership in the Expropriation Court: Respondents posited that the issue of ownership should be litigated in the expropriation court, which is empowered to entertain conflicting claims of ownership of the condemned property and adjudge the rightful owner, given the intimate relationship between ownership and the claim for expropriation payment.
• Verification and Certification: Respondents argued that the complaint was not properly verified and that petitioners failed to state in the certification of non-forum shopping that their prayer for payment of just compensation and recovery of possession of Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 had already been raised in the expropriation case.
• Lack of Cause of Action / Suit Against the State: Respondents argued that the complaint lacked a cause of action and that the suit was against the State, which had not given consent to be sued; in eminent domain, the government is bound to deal only with registered owners and to pay just compensation only to Planters Bank, not petitioners.

• Forum Shopping: Whether petitioners are guilty of forum shopping in filing the complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation after filing a complaint in intervention in the expropriation case.

• Forum Shopping: No. The elements of litis pendentia are not present because there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; the expropriation case concerns the 90-sq.m. Lot 1047-C-2-D-1, while the recovery case concerns the separate 185-sq.m. Lot 1047-C-2-D-2.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively availed 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, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. The elements are (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 SC found identity of parties because petitioners became parties to the expropriation case when their intervention was granted, but found no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The expropriation case filed by respondents concerned the 90-sq.m. Lot 1047-C-2-D-1, which was needed for the construction and/or rehabilitation of toll facilities along NLEX; petitioners intervened as new owners and sought just compensation. The recovery case concerned the separate 185-sq.m. Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, which petitioners alleged was taken and used by respondents for road widening without expropriation proceedings or payment of just compensation. The 185-sq.m. lot was not even made subject of the expropriation case. The same Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 22, 2005 would be presented in both cases, but it would only prove that petitioners bought the property from Planters Bank, the registered owner, and that just compensation should be paid to them; the subject matters remained different. In the expropriation case, respondents were already willing to pay just compensation for the 90-sq.m. lot, subject only to judicial determination of the amount; in the recovery case, petitioners had to prove the area taken and used by the government and the amount of compensation justly due. The SC applied the rule that when the government takes property for public use without initiating expropriation proceedings and without payment of just compensation, the landowner may recover the property if return is still feasible or, if not, demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. What happened to the 185-sq.m. lot was a de facto expropriation. Just compensation is the value of the property at the time of taking. Since the elements of litis pendentia were not present, there was no forum shopping. The SC nevertheless ordered consolidation of Civil Case No. 264-V-04 and Civil Case No. 180-V-06 because the two cases involved the same parties and some of the same issues, in order to expedite the proceedings.

• Forum shopping — The act of a litigant who repetitively availed 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, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another. It is prohibited malpractice because it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice, and adds to congested dockets. The SC found no forum shopping because the two cases did not involve the same rights and reliefs.
• Litis pendentia elements — The elements are: (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 SC found only identity of parties; the rights and reliefs differed because the expropriation case involved the 90-sq.m. lot while the recovery case involved the separate 185-sq.m. lot.
• Identity of causes of action / same evidence test — The test is whether the same evidence would sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions; if the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. Other tests are whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other, and whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. The SC held that the Deed of Absolute Sale would only prove ownership and entitlement to compensation, but the subject matters and the reliefs remained different.
• De facto expropriation — When the government takes property for public use without initiating expropriation proceedings and without payment of just compensation, the landowner may recover the property if its return is still feasible or, if return is not feasible, demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. Just compensation is the value of the property at the time of taking. The SC applied this to the 185-sq.m. Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, which respondents took and used for road widening without condemnation proceedings or payment.
• Consolidation of related cases — The SC ordered consolidation of the expropriation case and the recovery case because they involved the same parties and some of the same issues, in order to expedite the proceedings.

• "Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively availed 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, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another." — This defines forum shopping and supplies the rationale for the prohibition; the SC used it to frame the litis pendentia/res judicata test.
• "Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements 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, amounts to res judicata in the action under consideration." — This sets the elements the SC applied; it found no identity of rights and reliefs.
• "Jurisprudence clearly provides for the landowner's remedies when his property is taken by the government for public use without the government initiating expropriation proceedings and without payment of just compensation: he may recover his property if its return is still feasible or, if it is not, he may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken." — This states the remedies for de facto expropriation, which the SC applied to the 185-sq.m. lot taken for road widening.
• "The elements of litis pendentia are not present in the two cases. There is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in the expropriation case and the recovery of possession case." — This is the core holding on forum shopping.

• Dy vs. Yu, 763 Phil. 491 (2015) — Cited for the definition of forum shopping.
• Heirs of Marcelo Sotto vs. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691 (Resolution), February 17, 2014 — Cited for the prohibition against forum shopping and the elements of litis pendentia.
• Grace Park International Corporation vs. Eastwest Banking Corporation, 791 Phil. 570 (2016) — Cited for the same-evidence test and the other tests for identity of causes of action.
• National Power Corporation vs. Posada, 755 Phil. 613 (2015) — Cited for the nature of expropriation as forced taking of private property for public use with payment of just compensation.
• Rebadulla vs. Republic, G.R. Nos. 222159 & 222171, January 31, 2018 — Cited for the landowner's remedies when property is taken without expropriation proceedings and without just compensation.
• National Power Corp. vs. Sps. Malijan, 802 Phil. 727 (2016) — Cited for the same remedies and for the rule on just compensation in de facto expropriation.
• Mun. of La Carlota vs. Spouses Gan, 150-A Phil. 588 (1972) — Cited for de facto expropriation.
• Sec. of the DPWH vs. Sps. Tecson, 713 Phil. 55 (2013) — Cited for the rule that just compensation is the value of the property at the time of taking.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petition was filed under Rule 45; the SC reviewed the CA decision and resolution.
• Rule 7, Section 4, Rules of Court — Requires verification and a certification against forum shopping; respondents invoked petitioners' alleged failure to state in the certification that the claims had already been raised in the expropriation case. The SC found no forum shopping, so the dismissal on that ground could not stand.
• SC Administrative Circular 04-94 — Prohibits forum shopping; respondents invoked it in the motion to dismiss. The SC applied the litis pendentia/res judicata test and found no violation.