ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135418. January 20, 1999]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. vs. PUERTO AZUL LAND, INC., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, or your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 20, 1999.

G.R. No. 135418 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Puerto Azul Land, Inc., et al.)

Before us is a petition for review of the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0175 dated March 12, 1998 dismissing the case filed in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines by the Presidential Commission on Good Government against Puerto Azul Land, Inc., et al., and the Sandiganbayan's Resolution of September 11, 1998 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said dismissal.

The facts, as found by the Sandiganbayan, are as follows:

In July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG, filed with the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) Civil Case No. 0014, against Modesto Enriquez, Trinidad Diaz- Enriquez, Rebecco Panlilio, Erlinda Enriquez-Panlilio, Lenadro Enriquez, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Don Ferry, Roman A. Cruz, Jr., Guillermo Gastrock, Ernesto Abalos and Gregorio R. Castillo for "reconveyance, revision, accounting, restitution, and damages." On October 8, 1991 the PCGG filed a Third Amended Complaint impleading new parties including herein defendants Ternate Development Corporation (TDC,) Monte Sol Development Corporation (MSDC and Olas Del Mar Development (ODMDC) which are former registered owners of the parcels of land now registered in the name of defendant Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI) and subject of the present complaint. On the basis of the Third Amended Complaint, the PCGG caused the annotations of notices of lis pendens on the properties of TDC, MSDC and ODMDC. Said notices of lis pendens were subsequently lifted per the Court Resolution dated December 15, 1995 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal. This Court declared the annotation of notices of lis pendens as null and void ab initio for the reason that the same were annotated on the transfer certificates of title over properties owned by the movant corporations therein which have not been impleaded in the original complaint and thus, the PCGG had no actionable right over the said properties. Hence the present complaint in Civil Case No. 0175 was instituted by the plaintiff to lay the basis for annotation of lis pendens on the transfer certificates of title over the same properties now registered in the name of PALI which the Sandiganbayan has earlier ruled as not validly included in the PCGG's sequestration and ill-gotten wealth claims against the group of companies associated with the Panlilio family.

On October 17, 1996, the PCGG filed a Motion For Leave to File Petition in Intervention in the case of Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Purto Azul Land, Inc. G.R. No. 125469, now pending before the Supreme Court, alleging that herein defendants TDC, MSDC, and ODMDC which formerly owned the real properties, subject matter by defendant PALI, are sequestered and that therefore the said properties are likewise sequestered. Notwithstanding the said Motion for Leave to File Petition In Intervention before the Supreme Court, the PCGG filed the instant complaint for reconveyance against substantially the same parties raising the same issues and casuse of action. The inclusion of the Philippine Stock exchange, Inc., Boulevard Property Holdings, Inc. BPHI), and Jose Marcel E. Panlilio as additional defendants in the amended complaint in the above-entitled Civil Case No.0175 is merely intended to make the present action appear to be somewhat different from the said Petition in Intervention of the PCGG in G.R. No. 125469 before the Supreme Court and from Civil Case No. 0014. In view of the pendency of G.R. No. 125469 and Civil Case No. 0014 involving the same cause of action before the Supreme Court and the Sandiganbayan (Second Division), respectively, the PCGG, by filing the above entitled Civil Case No. 0175 not only violated the rule on Litis Pendencia but also deliberately engaged in forum shopping thereby rendering its present action (Civil Case No. 0175) dismissible pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative circular No. 09-94 effective April 1, 1994. Under section 1(e) of Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an action can be dismissed on the ground "that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause." Subsequently, adding other defendants should not circumvent the rule against forum shopping as well as the said provision of section 1(c) of Rule 16.

The rule is clear that in order to constitute a ground for the abatement or dismissal of an action, litis pendencia must exhibit the following requisites: (a) identity of the parties, or at best, such as representing the same interest on both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; (c) the identity in two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata on the other (National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 506 [1996]). All these requisites are met in the case at bar. Except for the inclusion of the Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc., Boulevard Property Holdings, Inc. and Jose Manuel E. Panlilio, the parties in this case are the same as those in the Petition for Intervention of the PCGG in G.R. No. 125469 pending before this Court; and in Civil Case No. 0014 pending with the Sandiganbayan. In all these cases, the reliefs prayed for are the same: "reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages."

The Sandiganbayan did not, therefore, commit any reversible error when it dismissed the instant case, for like res judicata, as a doctrine, litis pendencia is a sanction of public policy against multiplicity of suits. (Andresons Group, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 423).

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE