De Leon vs. Chu

Consolidation of cases renders moot the ground for dismissal based on litis pendentia, and issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal.

Dispute over a 50-square meter parcel of land in Nueva Ecija, originally part of a 600-square meter property owned by Domingo. The conflict arose from competing claims of ownership: Rowena asserting a valid purchase from Domingo, and Lolita asserting prior purchase of the entire property and alleging that Rowena forged documents to usurp a portion of it.

• Original Filing: RTC of Gapan, LRC Case No. 1322 (Filed by Rowena against Lolita on Nov 18, 1999, for surrender of title)
• Second Filing: RTC of Gapan, Civil Case No. 2257 (Filed by Lolita and Domingo against Rowena on May 17, 2000, for annulment of deed and cancellation of title)
• Lower Court Decision: RTC Branch 35, August 28, 2006 — Ruled in favor of Lolita and Domingo; declared the 1993 Deed of Sale and Subdivision Agreement null and void; ordered cancellation of Rowena's TCT; dismissed LRC Case No. 1322.
• Appeal: CA-G.R. CV No. 88241 — Rowena appealed, raising forum shopping as her lone assignment of error.
• CA Decision: December 17, 2007 — Denied Rowena's appeal. Held that false certification of non-forum shopping constitutes indirect contempt, not automatic dismissal, and Rowena failed to pursue proper remedies or prove willful forum shopping.
• CA Resolution: February 3, 2009 — Denied Rowena's motion for reconsideration.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

• The 1990 Sale: On December 17, 1990, Domingo sold his 600-square meter property (Lot G-2-A) to Lolita, executing a Deed of Absolute Sale. Before leaving for Japan in September 1992, Lolita entrusted the document to Rowena.
• The Alleged 1993 Sale and Forgery: Rowena claimed she bought a 50-square meter portion from Domingo, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 19, 1993. Lolita and Domingo claimed Rowena forged their signatures on the March 19, 1993 Deed of Sale, a Joint Affidavit dated March 25, 1993, and an Agreement of Subdivision dated April 30, 1993, to subdivide and register the 50-square meter lot (Lot G-2-A-1-A) under her name (TCT No. 228526).
• The Competing Suits: Rowena filed LRC Case No. 1322 to force Lolita to surrender the title. Lolita and Domingo filed Civil Case No. 2257 to annul the 1993 Deed of Sale and cancel Rowena's TCT.
• Consolidation and RTC Ruling: Lolita moved to suspend LRC Case No. 1322 due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 2257. The RTC initially denied the motion because LRC Case No. 1322 was filed first. However, upon motion of both parties, the cases were consolidated on February 8, 2002. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of Lolita and Domingo, finding that Rowena falsified their signatures.

• Respondents are guilty of forum shopping for filing Civil Case No. 2257 while LRC Case No. 1322 was pending, warranting the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2257.
• Respondents failed to include an indispensable party (the Register of Deeds) in their complaint, preventing complete relief.
• The RTC erred in dismissing LRC Case No. 1322 because the certificate of title in Lolita's possession belongs to Rowena.
• The lower courts erred in applying the Rules of Evidence in favor of the respondents.
• The lower courts erred in not finding Rowena as a buyer in good faith.

• (Implied from CA ruling and SC discussion) Submission of a false certificate of non-forum shopping only constitutes indirect contempt and does not warrant automatic dismissal unless willful and deliberate.
• Rowena failed to pursue the proper remedies to address the alleged false certification (did not move to dismiss or cite for contempt in the lower court).
• Rowena herself moved to consolidate the cases, effectively absolving respondents from sanctions for forum shopping and curing the litis pendentia.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether respondents are guilty of forum shopping warranting the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2257.
  • Whether the failure to implead the Register of Deeds as an indispensable party is fatal to the case.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the lower courts erred in applying the Rules of Evidence in favor of respondents.
  • Whether the lower courts erred in not finding petitioner as a buyer in good faith.
  • Whether the RTC erred in dismissing LRC Case No. 1322 based on ownership of the certificate of title.

• Procedural:
  • On forum shopping/litis pendentia: No, respondents are not guilty of willful and deliberate forum shopping warranting dismissal. Under Rule 7, Section 5, submission of a false certification constitutes indirect contempt, not automatic dismissal, unless the acts clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping. Rowena never moved to dismiss the case or cite respondents for contempt in the lower court, raising the issue only on appeal. Furthermore, under Rule 9, Section 1, while a court may dismiss a case motu proprio for litis pendentia, the ground must be evident from the pleadings. Here, Rowena agreed to consolidate the cases, which removed the "another action between the same parties for the same cause" scenario, rendering the litis pendentia ground moot.
  • On indispensable party: No, the failure to implead the Register of Deeds is not fatal. This issue was raised for the first time on appeal and is thus barred. Regardless, the Register of Deeds is merely a nominal party whose participation is not necessary to adjudicate the rights of the parties.
• Substantive:
  • The SC did not rule on the merits of the substantive issues (application of rules of evidence, good faith, ownership of title). These issues were never raised before the CA despite an adverse RTC ruling. Rulings of the trial court on these issues are already final and cannot be raised at this late stage.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping (Rule 7, Sec. 5) — The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with undertakings constitutes indirect contempt. Summary dismissal with prejudice applies only if the acts clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping. A violation other than willful and deliberate forum shopping does not authorize dismissal without motion and hearing.
• Litis Pendentia and Consolidation — A court may dismiss a case motu proprio when there is another pending action between the same parties for the same cause, provided the ground is evident from the pleadings or evidence on record. Consolidation of cases removes the "another pending action" scenario, rendering the ground for litis pendentia moot.
• Waiver of Issues on Appeal — No questions will be entertained on appeal unless raised in the lower court. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not, and ordinarily will not, be considered by a reviewing court.

• Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court — Certification against forum shopping. Applied to clarify that false certification equates to indirect contempt, while willful and deliberate forum shopping warrants summary dismissal. Petitioner failed to move for dismissal or prove willful/deliberate forum shopping.
• Rule 9, Section 1, Rules of Court — Defenses and objections not pleaded. Applied to justify motu proprio dismissal for litis pendentia, but interpreted to show that consolidation of cases negates the "another pending action" requirement for litis pendentia.