DIGEST/ ANDRINO/ BRADFORD UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC., Petitioner, v. DANTE ANDO, ABENIGO AUGIS, EDGAR CARDONES, ZACARIAS GUTIERREZ, CORNELIO IBARRA, JR., ZENAIDA IBARRA, TEOFILOI LIRASAN, EUNICE LIRASAN, RUTH MISSION, DOLLY ROSALES & EUNICE TAMBANGAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MANDAUE BRADFORD CHURCH COUNCIL MEMBERS; MANDAUE BRADFORD CHURCH; AND UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents./2016

BRADFORD UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC., Petitioner, v. DANTE ANDO, ABENIGO AUGIS, EDGAR CARDONES, ZACARIAS GUTIERREZ, CORNELIO IBARRA, JR., ZENAIDA IBARRA, TEOFILOI LIRASAN, EUNICE LIRASAN, RUTH MISSION, DOLLY ROSALES & EUNICE TAMBANGAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MANDAUE BRADFORD CHURCH COUNCIL MEMBERS; MANDAUE BRADFORD CHURCH; AND UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents.

Facts:

Before Branch 2 of the MTCC of Mandaue City, the petitioner Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. (BUCCI) filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against herein respondents, in their capacities as Members of the Mandaue Bradford Church Council, the Mandaue Bradford Church (MBC), and the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. (UCCPI). This Complaint was docketed thereat as Civil Case No. 4936. In an Order dated February 9, 2005, the MTCC directed BUCCI to show cause why its Complaint should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with the requirement on the certification against forum-shopping under Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.⁶ According to the MTCC, BUCCI failed to mention in its certification against non-forum-shopping a complete statement of the present status of another case concerning the recovery of ownership of certain parcels of land earlier filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) by the UCCPI and the MBC against BUCCI. The recovery of ownership case also involved Lot 3-F, the same parcel of land subject of the unlawful detainer case, and yet another parcel of land, denominated simply as Lot 3-C. On October 13, 1997, the RTC of Mandaue City-rendered its judgment in the recovery of ownership case against therein plaintiffs UCCPI and MBC and in favor of therein defendant BUCCI. On November 19, 1997, both the MBC and the UCCPI filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision but their motion was denied by Order of March 10, 2005.

In the MTCC Branch 2 of Mandaue City, issued an Order dated March 31,2005 dismissing the unlawful detainer case with prejudice for BUCCI's failure to comply with the rule on certification against forum shopping. BUCCI appealed to the RTC which was docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-5126-A. The RTC of Mandaue City, Branch 56, affirmed the MTCC's dismissal thereof, with prejudice. The RTC held that BUCCI was guilty of forum-shopping because it failed to certify under oath that there was another action involving the same parties and the same Lot 3-F still pending before another court.

BUCCI moved for reconsideration but it was denied in the Order of June 23,2006. Aggrieved, BUCCI filed a Petition for Review before the CA docketed as CA-GR. SP No. 01935. the CA held that the MTCC and the RTC correctly dismissed the unlawful detainer case. The CA opined that whatever decision mat would be rendered in the action for recovery of ownership of the parcels of land in question would amount to res judicata in the unlawful detainer case. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in holding that the petitioner is guilty of forum-shopping.

Ruling:

The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. On the other hand, for litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.

Here, there is only identity of parties between the summary action of unlawful detainer and the land ownership recovery case. However, the issues raised are not identical or similar in the two cases. The issue in the unlawful detainer case is which party is entitled to, or should be awarded, the material or physical possession of the disputed parcel of land, (or possession thereof as a fact); whereas the issue in the action for recovery of ownership is which party has the right to be recognized as lawful owner of the disputed parcels of land.

With respect to res judicata, the following requisites must concur to bar the institution of a subsequent action: "(1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and [over] the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action." It bears notice that in its certification against non-forum shopping, now attached to this instant Petition, BUCCI mentioned that the decision in the land ownership recovery case was still pending appeal before the CA, a claim that was not controverted at all by respondents. Simply put, this means that the former judgment is not yet final. Furthermore, the causes of action in the two cases are not identical or similar. To repeat, in the summary action of unlawful detainer, the question to be resolved is which party has the better or superior right to the physical/material possession (or de facto possession) of the disputed premises.  Whereas in the action for recovery of ownership, the question to be resolved is which party has the lawful title or dominical right (i.e., owner's right) to the disputed premises. Thus, in Malabanan v. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. the petitioner therein asserted, among others, that the complaint for unlawful detainer against him must be dismissed on grounds of litis pendencia and forum-shopping in view of the pending case for annulment of an action for dacion en pago and for the transfer certificate of title in another case, this Court reiterated the well-settled rule that a pending action involving ownership neither suspends nor bars the proceedings in the summary action for ejectment pertaining to the same property, in view of the dissimilarities or differences in the reliefs prayed for.

The CA thus erred in holding that, "[a]n adjudication in respondents' recovery of ownership, case would constitute an adjudication of petitioner BUCCI's unlawful detainer case, such that the court handling the latter case would be bound thereby and could not render a contrary ruling in the issue of physical or material possession." It bears belaboring that BUCCI alleged in the instant Petition that although the RTC dismissed the complaint against it in the ownership recovery case, it still filed the unlawful detainer case because there was never a ruling in the former case as to who between the parties had the better right to the material or physical possession (or possession de facto) of the subject property. Of course, no less significant is the assertion by BUCCI that although it had previously tolerated or put up with the lawful occupation of the disputed property by the respondent MBC, it nonetheless had to put an end to such tolerance or forbearance, because all possible avenues for reconciliation or compromise between the parties in this case had already been closed. Thus, a favorable ruling for BUCCI in the action for recovery of ownership would not at all compel or constrain the other court (here the MTCC of Mandaue City) to also obligatorily rule in the summary action of ejectment that BUCCI is entitled to the material or physical possession, (or possession de facto) of the disputed Lot 3-F because even if it be proved that it has the lawful title to, or the ownership of, the disputed lots, there is still the need and necessity to resolve in the summary action of unlawful detainer whether there are valid or unexpired agreements between the parties that would justify the refusal to vacate by the actual occupants of the disputed property. Indeed, in a summary action of ejectment, even the lawful owner of a parcel of land can be ousted or evicted therefrom by a lessee or a tenant who holds a better or superior right to the material or physical (or de facto) possession thereof by virtue of a valid lease or leasehold right thereto.