Guerrero vs. Director, Land Management Bureau

Filing a second protest or suit seeking the cancellation of a title already upheld with finality by the Supreme Court constitutes forum shopping and direct contempt of court, where the elements of res judicata — finality of the prior judgment, jurisdiction, judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action — are all present, even if the parties in the second action are successors-in-interest of those in the first.

Petitioner Benjamin Guerrero holds Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-28, covering 174 square meters of land in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City, issued on August 27, 1982, pursuant to Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 8991. The Bustamante family — first through Angelina Bustamante, wife of Marcelo Bustamante, and later through their heirs — has long contested this title on the ground that it encroaches upon property covered by Marcelo's own patent application. The administrative and judicial contest over this encroachment claim has spanned multiple tribunals over more than two decades, culminating in a final Supreme Court decision in 2006. The Land Management Bureau (LMB), successor to the Bureau of Lands, exercises jurisdiction over protests involving public land under Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act), while amendments to certificates of title require court proceedings under Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree).

Petitioner Benjamin Guerrero obtained a miscellaneous sales patent and, eventually, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-28 over a 174-square-meter parcel of land located at Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. The title was issued in his name by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on August 27, 1982. The issuance of the title, however, became the subject of a protest by Angelina Bustamante, the wife of Marcelo Bustamante, before the then Director of Lands. The ground of the protest was the title's alleged encroachment on the area subject of Marcelo's own patent application.

The protest by Bustamante was initially dismissed by the Director of Lands, and was similarly dismissed in subsequent appeals to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Office of the President. The latter office rendered its dismissal in a Decision dated October 10, 1986. However, on Angelina Bustamante's motion for reconsideration, the Office of the President, on October 30, 1987, ordered the case remanded to the DENR for the conduct of an ocular investigation and resurvey of the disputed area. Then, in another Order dated January 10, 1989, the Office of the President directed the DENR to "take action" for the correction of the technical description of the property covered by OCT No. 0-28, based on the findings of the ocular investigation and relocation survey.

Pursuant to the Office of the President's directive, on November 7, 1989, the Director of Lands filed a Petition for Amendments of the Plan and Technical Description of OCT No. 0-28 in the name of Benjamin Guerrero with the RTC of Quezon City. On July 13, 1995, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77, rendered its Decision dismissing the petition for lack of basis and merit. The dismissal was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision on February 12, 1998. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court. In its Decision in Republic of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Guerrero, dated March 28, 2006, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC, dismissing the government's petition based on the protest filed by Bustamante. It was held that there was no proof that the titleholder, Guerrero, employed fraud in obtaining his title.

Undeterred by the final decision, the heirs of Marcelo Bustamante, this time represented by Cora Bustamante, filed another Protest with the Land Management Bureau on February 1, 2007, again questioning Guerrero's title. The protest alleged that the title in Guerrero's name covers 83 square meters on which the house of Marcelo is standing. The heirs again claimed that "fraud, strategy, stealth and intent to defraud" was employed by Guerrero in causing the survey of the land and the eventual issuance of his title, supposedly warranting cancellation of his title. Acting on the protest, the LMB, through Director Arthus T. Tenazas, gave due course via an Order of Investigation dated May 9, 2007, directing Florante Edward R. Benitez, Project Evaluation Officer III of the Legal Division, to conduct an investigation. Following the directive, the Hearing Officer ordered the parties to file their respective position papers. Guerrero then filed the present petition/complaint praying that respondents be held in indirect contempt on the ground of forum shopping. Meanwhile, Guerrero also filed a separate complaint for ejectment with damages with the MeTC of Quezon City against the private respondents.

• Forum Shopping: Petitioner maintained that private respondents committed forum shopping by filing a second protest with the LMB seeking the cancellation of his title, when the same issue had already been resolved with finality by the Supreme Court in Republic vs. Guerrero.
• Res Judicata: Petitioner argued that all the elements of res judicata were present, as there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions, and the prior judgment had attained finality.
• Contempt Against Public Respondents: Petitioner sought to hold public respondents (LMB officials) liable for indirect contempt for giving due course to the second protest.

• Jurisdiction of LMB: Respondents argued that the LMB "has the right and power" to investigate whether there was an encroachment on the defendant's alleged property, invoking the LMB's jurisdiction over public land protests under Commonwealth Act No. 141.
• No Forum Shopping: Respondents did not directly dispute or address the operation of res judicata or the fact of forum shopping in their comment to the petition.

• Forum Shopping: Whether the filing of a second protest by the heirs of Marcelo Bustamante with the LMB, after the Supreme Court had already ruled with finality on the validity of Guerrero's title, constitutes forum shopping.
• Res Judicata: Whether the requisites of res judicata are present such that the second protest is barred by the prior final judgment in Republic vs. Guerrero.
• Identity of Parties: Whether substantial identity of parties exists between the first and second actions, given that the second protest was filed by the heirs (successors-in-interest) of the original protestants.
• Contempt of Private Respondents: Whether private respondents should be held in contempt of court for willful and deliberate forum shopping.
• Contempt of Public Respondents: Whether public respondents (LMB officials) should be held liable for indirect contempt.

• Forum Shopping: Yes. The filing of the second protest constituted forum shopping, as it involved the same cause of action and the same prayer as the prior case, which had already been finally resolved, making the subsequent case susceptible to dismissal based on res judicata.
• Res Judicata: Yes. All four requisites of res judicata as "bar by prior judgment" were present: finality of the former judgment, jurisdiction of the rendering court, judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
• Identity of Parties: Yes. Substantial identity of parties was satisfied because the private respondents, as successors-in-interest of the original protestants, shared a community of interest with their predecessors, and privity of interest bound them to the prior ruling.
• Contempt of Private Respondents: Yes. Private respondents were found guilty of direct contempt of court for forum shopping and penalized with a collective fine of ₱2,000.00.
• Contempt of Public Respondents: No. The charge of indirect contempt against public respondents was denied, there being no allegation or showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, and public officers are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of their duty.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping is manifest whenever a party 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 either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. It may be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action with the same prayer before the previous case is resolved (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer after the previous case has been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting causes of action). The present case falls under the second mode, as the second protest was filed after the Supreme Court had already rendered a final decision. The private respondents were essentially repeating and relitigating what had already been settled through the case filed by their predecessors-in-interest, which constitutes plain and simple forum shopping deserving of sanction.

• Res Judicata: Res judicata as "bar by prior judgment" requires four essential requisites: (a) finality of the former judgment; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. All four were present. First, Republic vs. Guerrero had attained finality and had not been altered or reversed. Second, the Supreme Court rendered it in affirmation of the RTC and Court of Appeals decisions, all of which had jurisdiction. Third, the judgment was on the merits, declaring the respective rights and duties of the parties based on disclosed facts after a full-blown trial. Fourth, the parties, subject matter, and causes of action were the same: the common parties were the protestants (Bustamante or their heirs) and the protestee (Guerrero); the subject matter was the amendment or cancellation of Guerrero's title; and the cause of action was the alleged encroachment of Guerrero's titled property on property allegedly belonging to the Bustamantes.

• Identity of Parties: To invoke res judicata as a test of forum shopping, absolute identity of parties is not required; substantial identity is sufficient. Substantial identity exists when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and that in the second, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first. Identity of parties exists not only when the parties are the same but also between those in privity with them, such as successors-in-interest. The private respondents, as successors-in-interest of Marcelo and Angelina Bustamante who initiated the first case, have a community of interest with the latter and are bound by the previous ruling under the criterion of privity of interest. They have no more right to reopen an already terminated case.

• Contempt of Private Respondents: Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal and may also constitute direct contempt of court. The private respondents' act of essentially repeating and relitigating what had already been settled via the case filed by their predecessors-in-interest amounts to direct contempt. The Court has previously held persons in contempt for similar conduct, as in Heirs of De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, where parties who filed a new complaint over property whose ownership had already been settled in a final judgment were found guilty of both direct and indirect contempt.

• Contempt of Public Respondents: The contempt charge against the public respondents partakes of a civil character and may not prosper absent any clear accusation and showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. A contempt proceeding is civil in nature when it is for the enforcement of some duty and when it is availed of as a remedy to preserve and enforce the rights of a private party. Public officers are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of their duty and cannot be held civilly liable unless contrary evidence overcomes that presumption. Petitioner made no allegation that public respondents acted with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, nor did he present evidence of the same. Hence, the public respondents were absolved.

• Finality of Judgment — Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable; it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, regardless of whether the modification is attempted by the rendering court or the highest court. The only exceptions are: (1) correction of clerical errors, (2) nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, and (3) void judgments. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the decision in Republic vs. Guerrero, having attained finality, could no longer be disturbed, and the private respondents' attempt to relitigate the same issues was impermissible.

• Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment) — A final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. The four essential requisites are: (a) finality of the former judgment; (b) jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) judgment on the merits; and (d) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. The Court found all four present, barring the second protest.

• Forum Shopping — The repetitious filing of multiple suits based on the same cause of action and essential facts, raising substantially the same issues, either pending or already resolved adversely. It may be committed in three ways: (1) multiple cases with the same cause of action and prayer before resolution of the prior case (litis pendentia); (2) multiple cases with the same cause of action and prayer after final resolution of the prior case (res judicata); and (3) multiple cases with the same cause of action but different prayers (splitting causes of action). Willful and deliberate forum shopping constitutes direct contempt and is ground for summary dismissal with prejudice, as well as administrative sanctions against counsel.

• Substantial Identity of Parties — Absolute identity of parties is not required for res judicata or forum shopping; substantial identity suffices. Substantial identity exists when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and that in the second, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first. Identity of parties exists between those in privity, such as successors-in-interest. The heirs of Bustamante, as successors-in-interest, were bound by the prior ruling under privity of interest.

• Presumption of Regularity of Public Officers — Public officers are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of their duty and cannot be held civilly liable unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. The Court applied this to absolve the LMB officials of the contempt charge, petitioner having adduced no evidence of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.

• "Forum shopping is manifest whenever a party 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 either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court." — This passage provides the canonical definition of forum shopping and is the ratio decidendi for holding the private respondents liable for direct contempt.

• "To invoke res judicata as a test of whether forum shopping was committed, absolute identity of parties is not required. A substantial identity of parties is sufficient." — This articulates the doctrinal rule relaxing the identity-of-parties requirement in the context of forum shopping, which was critical to binding the heirs as successors-in-interest to the prior judgment.

• "This move by private respondents is plain and simple forum shopping and deserves sanction from this Court." — This is the Court's direct conclusion characterizing the private respondents' conduct and justifying the contempt sanction.

• "Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land." — This is the standard formulation of the immutability of final judgments, cited to underscore why the prior decision in Republic vs. Guerrero could not be revisited.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. Guerrero, 520 Phil. 296 (2006) — The prior final judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the validity of Guerrero's title and finding no fraud. This case is the linchpin of the res judicata and forum shopping analysis; the second protest was held to be a repetition of the same cause of action already resolved therein.

• Heirs of De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 466 Phil. 697 (2004) — Parties who filed a complaint for reconveyance, damages, and quieting of title over property whose ownership had already been settled in a final judgment were held guilty of both direct and indirect contempt. The Court relied on this case to support its finding that the private respondents' conduct constituted forum shopping punishable as direct contempt.

• Estate of Sotto vs. Palicte, 587 Phil. 586 (2008) — A lawyer was held in direct contempt for helping clients file multiple suits in different venues while disregarding res judicata. The Court cited this case as basis for directing Atty. Millora to show cause why he should not be cited in direct contempt for facilitating the forum shopping.

• Flores vs. Abesamis, 341 Phil. 299 (1997) — A party-litigant who repeatedly filed administrative and criminal charges against a judge over the same issues, despite consistent findings of no merit, was found guilty of contempt. Cited to illustrate the Court's willingness to sanction repetitive litigation.

• Spouses Oliveros vs. Sison, 591 Phil. 140 (2008) — Complainants in an administrative case against a judge were found guilty of indirect contempt for failing to inform the Court of a pending petition for certiorari on the same order. Cited as an example of contempt for forum shopping-related conduct.

• Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court — Certifies against forum shopping and provides that willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case and may constitute direct contempt of court. The Court applied this provision to hold the private respondents guilty of direct contempt.

• Rule 71, Sections 1, 3(a), and 7, Rules of Court — Governs contempt of court: Section 1 defines and penalizes direct contempt (fine not exceeding ₱2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 10 days, or both, for courts of equivalent or higher rank than the RTC); Section 3(a) defines indirect contempt to include disobedience of or resistance to a lawful judgment; Section 7 penalizes indirect contempt (fine not exceeding ₱30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both). The Court applied Section 1 to penalize the private respondents with a ₱2,000 fine for direct contempt, and considered Sections 3(a) and 7 in denying the indirect contempt charge against public respondents.

• Rule 39, Sections 1 and 47, Rules of Court — Section 1 governs execution upon judgments or final orders; Section 47 prescribes the effect of judgments or final orders, providing that a judgment is conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. The Court invoked these provisions to reinforce the doctrines of finality of judgment and res judicata.

• Section 91, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) — vests in the Director of Lands sole, exclusive, and original jurisdiction to investigate protests involving public land. The LMB invoked this provision to justify taking cognizance of the second protest, but the Court held that the issue was not the LMB's power but whether the private respondents had already litigated the same matter to finality.

• Section 108, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that no erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after entry of a certificate of title except by order of the proper court. Referenced in the procedural backdrop of the Director of Lands' earlier petition for amendment of technical description.

• Sections 38 and 39, Book I, Chapter 9, Revised Administrative Code — Provide that a public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the performance of official duties unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, and that subordinate officers are liable only for willful or negligent acts contrary to law. The Court applied these provisions to absolve the public respondents of contempt liability.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.