You are on page 1of 9

IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS.

303168 AND
303169 AND ISSUANCE OF OWNERS DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN LIEU OF
THOSE LOST, ROLANDO EDWARD G. LIM, Petitioner. G.R. NO. 156797 July 6, 2010

For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transaction, same
essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and
issues. Clearly, it does not exist where different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of
action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought

Facts:

On December 29, 1998, Lim filed in the RTC his petition for judicial reconstitution of TCT No.
303168 and TCT No. 303169 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, and for the issuance of
owners duplicate copies of said TCTs. On October 15, 1999, when the petition was called for
hearing, no oppositors appeared despite notice. Whereupon, Lim was allowed to present
evidence ex parte before the Branch Clerk of Court whom the RTC appointed as commissioner
for that purpose.

On November 4, 1999, Lim formally offered his documentary exhibits. However, on
August 23, 2000, the RTC received the report from the LRA that Certificates of Title Nos.
303168 and 303169, covering Lot 7, Block 586 and Lot 5, Block 585 respectively, both of the
subdivision plan Psd-38199 are also applied for reconstitution of titles under Administrative
Reconstitution Proceedings, (Republic Act 6732).

On the basis of the LRA report, the RTC dismissed Lims petition on November 23, 2000,

In view of the report of the LRA that the subject titles are also applied for reconstitution of titles
under Administrative Reconstitution Proceedings, the Court resolves to dismiss the instant
petition, it appearing that there is forum-shopping in the instant case, considering further the
strict requirements of the law on the reconstitution of titles.

ISSUE: Did the RTC correctly dismiss the petition of Lim on the ground of forum shopping?

Ruling

We hold that the dismissal was unwarranted and arbitrary for emanating from an erroneous
application of the rule against forum shopping. Thus, we undo the dismissal and reinstate the
application for judicial reconstitution.

Lim was not guilty of forum shopping, because the factual bases of his application for
the administrative reconstitution of the TCTs and of his petition for their judicial
reconstitution, and the reliefs thereby sought were not identical.

Thus. are sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. Although the bases for the administrative reconstitution were the owners duplicate copies of TCT No. those for judicial reconstitution would be other documents that in the judgment of the court. Rule 7. 1998. of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. allowing the relief prayed for. 26. for Section 5. 303169. The RTC should have also noted soon enough that his resort to judicial reconstitution was not because his earlier resort to administrative reconstitution had been denied (in fact. When he applied for the administrative reconstitution in the LRA on July 21.1988. the submission of a false certification of non-forum shopping did not automatically warrant the dismissal of the proceeding. to wit: . Neither did the petitioners omission from the petition for judicial reconstitution of a reference to the application for administrative reconstitution in the LRA justify the dismissal of the petition. the LRA had resolved in his favor). he came to court as the law directed him to do. has been clear and forthright. The RTC should have easily discerned that forum shopping did not characterize the petitioners resort to judicial reconstitution despite the previous proceeding for administrative reconstitution. The petition for judicial reconstitution and the application for administrative reconstitution addressed different situations and did not have identical bases. Specifically. even if it might have constituted contempt of court. Indeed. but because the intervening loss to fire of the only permissible basis for administrative reconstitution of the TCTs mandated his resort to the RTC. but by the time the LRA resolved his application on November 3. 303168 and TCT No. A violation of the rule against forum-shopping other than a willful and deliberate forum shopping did not authorize the RTC to dismiss the proceeding without motion and hearing. unlike the litigant involved in the undesirable practice of forum shopping who would go from one court to another to secure a favorable relief after being denied the desired relief by another court. The motu proprio dismissal of the petition for judicial reconstitution by the RTC although the Government did not file a motion to dismiss grounded on the petitioners supposed failure to comply with the contents of the required certification was yet another glaring error of the RTC. 1998. only the RTC could grant or deny any relief to him at that point. his co-owners duplicate copies of the TCTs had meanwhile been destroyed by fire on February 24. he still had his co-owners duplicate copies of the TCTs in his possession. the intervening loss of the owners duplicate copies that left the favorable ruling of the LRA no longer implementable gave rise to his need to apply for judicial reconstitution in the RTC pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. Besides.

I find and hold that the State already lost the right to prosecute respondents for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. REGALA. MARIA CLARA L. Reckoning the prescription period from February 8.000. ROLANDO P. ALMEDA.000 Class C non-voting common shares. 3019 is Act No.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE. COJUANGCO. CONCEPCION.000 Class B voting common shares. I note that the State itself presented the Amended Articles of Incorporation to establish its allegations because the Amended Articles of Incorporation showed that UNICOM had increased its capital stock to P1. ZAYCO. JR. 3326 . JOSE C. 1980 is indisputably the only trustworthy evidence that proved the dilution. LOBREGAT.000. . Instead. Although it did not reflect the subject investment of UCPB.000. There was no interruption of 10 year period even assuming that said respondent had truly been absent from the country in that period. 139930 June 26. or ten years after UNICOM filed its Amended Articles of Incorporation. The applicable rule for computing the prescriptive period of a violation of Republic Act No. EMMANUEL M. JOSE R. the Amended Articles of Incorporation filed on February 8.The relevant provision is Section 2. SIGFREDO VELOSO AND JAIME GANDIAGA. URSUA. JR. The filing in the SEC and the subsequent approval by the SEC of the Amended Articles of Incorporation on February 8.000. PALMA. 2012 CONCURRING OPINION I CONCUR with the Majority Opinion written by Justice Abad. PINEDA.R.000 Class A voting common shares.. and if the same be not known at the time. DOUGLAS LU YM. TEODORO D. LEO J.00. ESCUETA. 1990. REYES. 1980 indubitably consummated the unlawful transaction alleged in the information. Like him. NARCISO M. 400. EDUARDO M. HERMENEGILDO C. I find it more logical to reckon the commission of the offense to the filing of the Amended Articles of Incorporation on February 8. LAZATIN. DELA CUESTA. DANILO S. which states: Section 2. Reckoning the prescription period I disagree that the commission of the offense should be reckoned from the filing of the 1980 General Information Sheet (GIS). ELEAZAR. 1980 in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). divided as follows: 500. EDUARDO U.000. ELEAZAR B. No. MENDEZONA. G. from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.00 per share. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law. VICTOR P. 1980 was really warranted by the records.. and 100. 3019 by February 8. all having a par value of P1.000. IAKI R.

In People v. and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Section 2 of Act No. that is. As between Section 2 of Republic Act No. The transaction in question had already left the boardrooms of both UCPB and UNICOM when the SEC approved the increase in capitalization. when criminal proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. the filing of the complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription. Hence. or initiates its own investigation of the violations. This interpretation also accords most with the nature of prescription as a statute of repose whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time and surprising the parties or their representatives when . called for the use of the date-of- commission rule. No.A. 3326 expressly provides only one instance in which the prescriptive period is interrupted. As Justice Abads Majority Opinion sufficiently indicates. I certainly doubt that the omission by the Legislature from Act No. This construction entirely precludes the application of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code even in a suppletory manner. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. the government agency established to protect both domestic and foreign investments and the public. I construe the silence of Act No. Here. the omission does not give to the Court the license to apply Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code at will in order to supply the omission. Lastly. such as when it is evidenced by public documents or is a matter of public record open to inspection. I need to remind that in the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes. the former is controlling due to its being more favorable to the accused. Sandiganbayan. the State will not be permitted to plead ignorance of the act of the accused in order to evade the operation of the Statute of Limitations. that which is most favorable to the accused is to be adopted. therefore. Prescription should run from the date of discovery instead of the date of the commission of the offense. the Court applied the date- of-commission rule as the start of the reckoning because the illegal transaction involved had passed the hands of several public officials. this case was not like a criminal prosecution based on the secretive granting of behest loans as to which reckoning the period from the date of discovery of the offense would be justified. 3326 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. 3326 of the effect on the running of the prescriptive period of the absence of the accused from the country was an inadvertent drafting error on the part of the Legislature. In that regard. the prescriptive period for criminal violations of R. the fact that the increased capitalization was approved and certified by no less than the SEC. Bearing in mind that prescription is a matter of positive legislation and cannot be established by mere implications or deductions. I cannot accept the Minoritys insistence. There is good authority for the view that when the offense has not been concealed. As such. 3326 on the effect of the absence of the accused from the country as a clear and undeniable legislative statement that such absence does not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period for violations of special penal laws. The transaction in question was evidenced by public instruments and records. 3019 is tolled only when the Office of the Ombudsman either receives a complaint.

moved for the reconsideration of the judgment granting the petition for certiorari.the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of witnesses. as a statute of limitation. was a substantial compliance with the proper mode of appeal. the petitioners appealed to the CA by petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. I VOTE to deny the petition. and that his repeated demands for the Municipality of Iba to vacate the property had remained unheeded. prescription. No. and Zambales. the MTC ruled in favor of Bueno. Issue Whether the petition for review. but the MTC denied due course to the notice of appeal. 1999. albeit the wrong mode. he brought an ejectment suit in the MTC of Iba against the Municipality of Iba.R. is equivalent to an act of amnesty. 162217. The petitioners. The case was assigned to Branch 69 which ultimately granted the petition for certiorari. 4 Thence. observing that the assailed orders had been issued by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. who meanwhile substituted Bueno upon his death. Respondent. the Municipality of Iba filed its notice of appeal. vs. the Municipality of Iba filed its petition for certiorari in the R TC in Iba. Zambales to assail the denial of due course by the MTC. (IN SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS OF MELECIO BUENO). July 22. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA. The petitioners should have faithfully complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. The motion for reconsideration of the petitioners was ultimately denied by the CA. On October 18. ZAMBALES. HELD: . Aggrieved. Iba. Province of Zambales. G. HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA I. We have' always looked at appeal as not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. 2015 The plea for liberality is unworthy of any sympathy from the Court. Bueno was the tenant-farmer beneficiary of an agricultural land located in Poblacion. which shall begin to run upon the commission of the offense rather than upon the discovery of the offense. Facts: The late Melecio R. The CA "dismissed" the petitioners' petition for review for not being the proper mode of appeal. Petitioners. After due proceedings. but the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. 3claiming that in 1983. Their failure to do so forfeited their privilege to appeal. Thus. More than being an act of grace. the Municipality of Iba had constructed the public market on a substantial portion of his land without his consent.

exists after the trial in the first instance. The procedure taken after the perfection of an appeal under Rule 41 also significantly differs from that taken under Rule 42. the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. which refers to the right to seek the review by a superior court of the judgment rendered by the trial court. the clerk of court of the RTC is burdened to immediately undertake the transmittal of the records by verifying the correctness and completeness of the records of the case. the discretionary appeal.. while the RTC shall lose jurisdiction upon perfection thereof and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The filing of the notice of appeal within the period allowed by Section 3 sets in motion the remedy of ordinary appeal because the appeal is deemed perfected as to the appealing party upon his timely filing of the notice of appeal. ( c). and is a ground to dismiss the appeal under Section 1. (n) The petitioners should have filed a notice of appeal in the RTC within the period of 15 days from their notice of the judgment of the RTC. In such cases. The distinctions between the various modes of appeal cannot be taken for granted. and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties that the RTC shall lose jurisdiction over the case. It is upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time. except upon order of the CA when deemed necessary. an appeal filed under Rule 42 is deemed perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely filing of the petition for review before the CA. the non compliance with which is fatal to the appeal. or lightly treated.-In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved. (c) Appeal by certiorari. and within the same period should have paid to the clerk of the RTC the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees.The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. the transmittal to the CA must be made within 30 days from the perfection of the appeal. Under Section 10 of Rule 41. The appeal by notice of appeal under Rule 41 is a matter or right. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. but the appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 is a matter of discretion. which is taken from the decision or final order rendered by a court in the exercise of its primary appellate jurisdiction. An appeal as a matter of right.. (b) Petition for review. or easily dismissed. 18 This requirement of transmittal of the records does not arise under Rule 42. 19 . the non-payment of the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period as required by Section 4. the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. In contrast. The compliance with these requirements was the only way by which they could have perfected their appeal from the adverse judgment of the RTC. In contrast. may be disallowed by the superior court in its discretion.The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.Rule 41 is the correct remedy of a party aggrieved by the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the special civil action for certiorari brought by the defendant in an ejectment suit (a) Ordinary appeal. On the other hand.

R. then the Chairman of the Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines (APMP). Their failure to do so forfeited their privilege to appeal. Acceding to their plea would conceal their shortcomings in procedure. Hence. the petitioners did not give any good reason or cause that could warrant the relaxation of the rules in their favor. . Facts: On May 23. INC. We cannot allow that to happen. secondly. We have allowed exceptions only for the most persuasive of reasons. Respondents. it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. Petitioner. February 01. Moreover. (APMP). Wilfredo A. and thereby belittle the lofty objectives of instituting rules of procedure. 2006. Firstly. thereby reducing the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) rates on products covered by Executive Order (E.As borne out in the foregoing. SERENO. was a substantial compliance with the proper mode of appeal. held a meeting in which it resolved to recommend to President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo the lifting of the suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on petrochemicals and certain plastic products. MARIO JOSE E. insisting that their petition for review. 161 from 7% or 10% to 5% starting July 2005. On June 9. Director Mendoza denied the request through her letter of June 20. No. to which the respondent filed its Opposition dated January 26. And. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA) . like relieving the litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 2005.O. an office under the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). v. 2005. the main industry association in the petrochemical sector. The petitioners should have faithfully complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. the CTRM. for doing so would sacrifice the smooth administration of justice guaranteed to every litigant. The plea for liberality is unworthy of any sympathy from the Court. 2005. the petitioners' resort to the petition for review under Rule 42 was wrong. We have' always looked at appeal as not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. the CA did not err in denying due course to the petition for review. the information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest. G. 175210. the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction dated January 3. 2005. Their bare plea for substantial justice was not enough ground to suspend the rules. Paras (Paras). wrote to request a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on May 23. 2016 Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus.) No. 2006 and Motion to Dismiss dated February 16. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES. the petitioners plead for liberality. Thereafter. 2006. albeit the wrong mode. Yet.

2005 meeting was classified as a closed-door Cabinet meeting by virtue of the committee's composition and the nature of its mandate dealing with matters of foreign affairs. In that regard. trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters. 31 that the recommendations submitted for the . closed- door Cabinet meeting and executive sessions of either house of Congress.22 Both terms cover a wide-range of issues that the public may want to be familiar with either because the issues have a direct effect on them or because the issues "naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.” Hence. 200612 dismissing the petition for mandamus for lack of merit. Firstly. as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. the position of the petrochemical industry as an essential contributor to the overall growth of our country's economy easily makes the information sought a matter of public concern or interest. Thus. HELD: The dismissal of the petition for mandamus by the RTC is affirmed. The respondents are correct. and provides essential input requirements for the agricultural and industrial sectors of the country. The second requisite is that the information requested must not be excluded by law from the constitutional guarantee. And. The Philippine petrochemical industry centers on the manufacture of plastic and other related materials. The respondents claim exemption on the ground that the May 23. It is always necessary. The RTC declared that the "CTRM is an advisory body composed of various department heads or secretaries and is classified as cabinet meetings and inter-agency communications. Subsequently. 2005 meeting based on the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern and the State's policy of full public disclosure. given the highly important and complex powers to fix tariff rates vested in the President. secondly.16 ISSUE: Whether or not the CTRM may be compelled by mandamus to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the minutes of the May 23. the information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest. the RTC rendered its assailed decision on October 16. trade and policy-making. this appeal directly to the Court on questions of law."14 and that the record of the communications of such body "falls under the category of privileged information because of the sensitive subject matter which could seriously affect public interest. 25 Equally excluded from coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence.RTC denied the Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction but directed the parties to file their respective memorandums after noting that the controversy involved a pure question of law. the Court has already declared that the constitutional guarantee of the people's right to information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information. As to the first requisite. whether or not the information sought is of public interest or public concern is left to the proper determination of the courts on a case to case basis." 23 As such. Two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus. there is no rigid test in determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern or public interest.

or that the same is exempted from the coverage of the constitutional guarantee. Legislative and Judicial power. therefore.” Every claim of exemption. free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties. 36 We reiterate. 35 In case of denial of access to the information. there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the people and the interest of the Government to be protected. is liberally construed in favor of disclosure and strictly against the claim of confidentiality. The Court has expressly recognized in Chavez v. the claim of privilege as a cause for exemption from the obligation to disclose information must be clearly asserted by specifying the grounds for the exemption. . Here. being a limitation on a right constitutionally granted to the people. However.President's consideration be well-thought out and well-deliberated. In case of conflict. the need to ensure the protection of the privilege of non-disclosure is necessary to allow the free exchange of ideas among Government officials as well as to guarantee the well-considered recommendation free from interference of the inquisitive public. Public Estates Authority32 that "a frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments. it is the government agency concerned that has the burden of showing that the information sought to be obtained is not a matter of public concern. that the burden has been well discharged herein. is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential.