You are on page 1of 2

Gochan  v  Gochan  (2001)  

 
Facts:  
 

The  Respondent  Gochans  are  stockholders  in  the  Felix  Gochan  and  Sons  Realty  Corp  and  Mactan  

Realty   Development   Corp   who   offered   to   sell   to   Petitioner   Gochans   their   shares   of   stock   for   Php   200  
Million.   Petitioner   Gochans   paid   and   the   Respondent   Gochans   in   turn   issued   receipts   and   their  
respective  release,  waiver  and  quitclaim.  Through  Crispo  Gochan  Jr.,  Respondent  Gochans  also  made  the  
Petitioner   Gochans   execute   “promissory   notes”   not   to   divulge   the   amount   they   paid   for   the   said   shares,  
however,   the   promissory   notes   were   later   on   altered   by   Crispo   adding   the   phrase   “said   amount   is   in  
partial  consideration  of  the  sale”.  The  Respondent  Gochans  filed  for  specific  performance  and  damages  
against  Petitioner  Gochans  stating  that  the  real  deal  was  in  exchange  for  the  of  254  shares  in  the  Felix  
Gochan  and  Sons  Realty  Corporation  and  1,624  shares  of  stock  in  the  Mactan  Realty  Development,  the  
consideration   for   the   sale   are:   Php   200M,   2   hectares   of   the   fishpond   in   Gochan   compound,   a   999   sq.   m.  
lot  in  Gochan  Compound,    3,000  sq  m  of  Villas  Magallanes  in  Mactan,  Cebu  and  the  New  Gem  Building,  
as   stated   in   the   Provisional   Memorandum   of   Agreement   that   the   parties   executed.   The   answer   of  
Petitioner  Gochans  raised  several  affirmative  defenses  such  as  lack  of  jurisdiction  by  the  trial  court  for  
non-­‐payment  of  the  correct  docket  fees,  unenforceability  of  the  obligation  to  convey  real  properties  due  
to   lack   of   a   written   memorandum   thereof,   pursuant   to   the   Statute   of   Frauds,   extinguishment   of   the  
obligation   by   payment,   waiver,   abandonment   and   renunciation   by   respondent   of   all   their   claims   against  
petitioners   and   non-­‐joinder   of   indispensable   parties.   Subsequently,   Petitioner   Gochans   filed   for   a  
motion  of  preliminary  hearing  on  the  affirmative  defenses  but  the  trial  court  dismissed  this.    Petitioner  
Gochans  filed  for  MR  which  was  again  denied.  And  afterwards,  they  filed  a  Petition  for  Certiorari  in  the  
CA  which  was  again  dismissed.  An  MR  was  thereafter  filed  but  was  also  dismissed.  And  lastly,  they  filed  
this  petition  for  review.  
 
Issues:  1.  W/N  the  proper  docket  fees  were  paid  
 

2.  W/N  the  Petitioner  Gochans  committed  forum  shopping    

*there  were  other  issues  but  I  think  ito  yung  mga  related  sa  Rule  7  

 
Held:   1.   NO.   The   rule   is   well-­‐settled   that   the   court   acquires   jurisdiction   over   any   case   only   upon   the  
payment  of  the  prescribed  docket  fees.   Respondents  Gochan  say  that  they  paid  the  correct  docket  fees  
while   Petitioner   Gochans,   contend   that   the   complaint   is   in   the   nature   of   a   real   action   which   affects   title  
to   real   properties;   hence,   respondents   should   have   alleged   therein   the   value   of   the   real   properties  

What   is   truly   important   to   consider   in   determining   whether   forum-­‐shopping   exists   or   not   is   the   vexation   caused   the   courts   and   the   parties-­‐litigant   by   a   person   who   asks   different   courts   and/or   administrative  agencies  to  rule  on  the  same  or  related  causes  and/or  grant  the  same  or  substantially   the  same  reliefs.   or   the   estimated   value  thereof.  the  case  was  actually  a  real  action.   is   the   conveyance   or   transfer   of   real   property.   Even   if   the   caption   of   the   complaint   was   denominated   as   one   for   “specific   performance   and   damages.  The  first  one  was  about  the   propriety  of  the  affirmative   defenses   relied   upon   by   Petitioner   Gochans   and   the   second   was   questioning   whether   Judge   Dicdican   was   guilty   of   manifest   partiality   warranting   his   inhibition   from   further   hearing   of   the   (original)   civil   case.   however.  Although  the  Petitioner  Gochans  filed  two  petitions  in  the  CA.  there  was  no  identity  of  issues  or   identity  of  reliefs  sought  in  the  two  petitions.   the   execution   of   deeds   of   conveyance   in   their   favor   of   the   real   properties   enumerated   in   the   provisional   memorandum   of   agreement.    Consequently.  in  the  process  creating  the  possibility  of  conflicting  decisions  being  rendered  by  the   different  fora  upon  the  same  issues.  although  ostensibly  denominated  as  one  for  specific  performance.   or   ultimately.   Therefore.  affecting  as  it  does  title  to   or   possession   of   real   property.  the  basis   for   determining   the   correct   docket   fees   shall   be   the   assessed   value   of   the   property.   .     2.   the   complaint   filed   with   the   trial   court   was   in   the   nature   of   a   real  action.which   shall   be   the   basis   for   the   assessment   of   the   correct   docket   fees.    Under  these  circumstances.    NO.”   the   relief   sought.