REPUBLIC V MANGOTARA

Facts:

(Long and confusing case) 7 consolidated cases stemmed from the 1914 case of Cacho v. Government of
the United States (1914 Cacho case).

1914 Cacho Case In the early 1900s, the late Dona Demetria applied for the registration of 2 parcels of
land in the Municipality of Iligan, Moro Province (now called Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte). Only the
Government opposed Doña Demetria's applications for registration on the ground that the two parcels
of land were the property of the United States and formed part of a military reservation, generally
known as Camp Overton. The land registration court ruled that the applicant Doña Demetria Cacho is
owner of the portion of land occupied and planted by the deceased Datto Anandog only; and her
application as to all the rest of the land solicited in said case is denied. Moreover, the applicant should
present the corresponding deed from Datto Darondon on or before the above-mentioned 30th day of
March, 1913. Final decision in these cases is reserved until the presentation of the said deed and the
new plan. Dissatisfied, Doña Demetria appealed to the Supreme Court. SC affirmed the LRC Decision. 83
years later, the Court was again called upon to settle a matter concerning the registration of the Lots in
the case of Cacho v. CA.

1997 Cacho case Teofilo Cacho (Teofilo), claiming to be the late Doña Demetria's son and sole heir, filed
before the RTC a petition for reconstitution of two original certificates of title (OCTs). RTC granted
Teofilo's petition and ordered the reconstitution and reissuance of Decree Nos. 10364 and 18969. The
original issuance of these decrees presupposed a prior judgment that had become final. CA reversed the
RTC Decision. Teofilo appealed to the SC. The SC reversed the judgment of the CA and reinstated the
decision of the RTC approving the re-issuance of Decree Nos. 10364 and 18969. The Court found that
such decrees had in fact been issued and had attained finality, as certified by the Acting Commissioner,
Deputy Clerk of Court III, Geodetic Engineer, and Chief of Registration of the then Land Registration
Commission. MR denied. Hence, the decrees of registration were re-issued bearing new numbers and
OCTs were issued for 2 parcels of land in Dona Demetria‘s name.

THE ANTECENT FACTS OF THE PETITIONS AT BAR The dispute did not end with the termination of the
1997 Cacho case. Another 4 cases involving the same parcels of land were instituted before the trial
courts during and after the pendency of the 1997 Cacho case. These cases are: (1) Expropriation Case (2)
Quieting of Title Case (3) Ejectment or Unlawful Detainer Case and (4) Cancellation of Titles and
Reversion Case. These cases proceeded independently of each other in the courts a quo until they
reached the SC, that consolidated the seven Petitions. Note: I‘ll just discuss the expropriation issue, the
case is very long with lots of different issues The Complaint for Expropriation was originally filed by the
Iron and Steel Authority (ISA), now the NSC, against Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation (MCFC), and
the latter's mortgagee, the Philippine National Bank (PNB). During the existence of ISA, Pres. Marcos
issued Presidential Proclamation No. 2239, reserving in favor of ISA a parcel of land in Iligan City. MCFC
occupied certain portions of this parcel of land. When negotiations with MCFC failed, ISA was compelled
to file a Complaint for Expropriation. When the statutory existence of ISA expired during the pendency
of Civil Case No. 106, the RTC-Branch 1 allowed the substitution of the Republic for ISA as plaintiff in Civil
Case No. 106. Alleging that the lots involved in the 1997 Cacho case encroached and overlapped the
parcel of land subject of the case, Republic filed with the RTC a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Complaint and to Admit the Attached Supplemental Complaint, seeking to implead Teofilo Cacho and
Demetria Vidal and their respective successors-in-interest, LANDTRADE and AZIMUTH. However, the
RTC denied the Motion of the Republic for leave to file and to admit its Supplemental Complaint. RTC
agreed with MCFC that the Republic did not file any motion for execution of the judgment of this Court
in the ISA case. Since no such motion for execution had been filed within the prescriptive period of 5
years, RTC ruled that its Order dated November 16, 2001, which effected the substitution of the
Republic for ISA as plaintiff in the case, was an honest mistake. MR of the Republic denied because
MCFC (the only defendant left in the case) is NOT a proper party defendant in the complaint for
expropriation. Hence, the case was dismissed. The Republic filed with the SC the consolidated Petition
for Review on Certiorari and Petition for Certiorari under Rules 45 and 65.

Issues:

1. Who are the proper parties in an expropriation proceeding?

2. W/N forum shopping was committed by the Republic with the filing of the expropriation and
reversion complaint

First Issue: The court ruled that defendants in an expropriation case are NOT limited to the owners of
the property to be expropriated, and just compensation is not due to the property owner alone. They
include all other persons owning, occupying or claiming to own the property. In the American
jurisdiction, the term 'owner' when employed in statutes relating to eminent domain to designate the
persons who are to be made parties to the proceeding, refer, as is the rule in respect of those entitled to
compensation, to all those who have lawful interest in the property to be condemned, including a
mortgagee, a lessee and a vendee in possession under an executory contract. Every person having an
estate or interest at law or in equity in the land taken is entitled to share in the award. If a person
claiming an interest in the land sought to be condemned is not made a party, he is given the right to
intervene and lay claim to the compensation. At the time of the filing of the Complaint for Expropriation,
possessory/occupancy rights of MCFC over the parcels of land sought to be expropriated were
undisputed. Letter of Instructions No. 1277 expressly recognized that portions of the lands reserved by
Presidential Proclamation No. 2239 for the use and immediate occupation by the NSC, were then
occupied by an idle fertilizer plant/factory and related facilities of MCFC. It was ordered in the same
Letter of Instruction that NSC shall negotiate with the owners of MCFC, for and on behalf of the
Government, for the compensation of MCFC's present occupancy rights on the subject lands. Being the
occupant of the parcel of land sought to be expropriated, MCFC could very well be named a defendant
in the case. The RTC evidently erred in dismissing the Complaint for Expropriation against MCFC for not
being a proper party. Also erroneous was the dismissal by the RTC of the original Complaint for
Expropriation for having been filed only against MCFC, the occupant of the subject land, but not the
owner/s of the said property. Dismissal is not the remedy for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. The
owner of the property is not necessarily an indispensable party in an action for expropriation. According
to Rule 67, Section 1, expropriation proceedings may be instituted even when "title to the property
sought to be condemned appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private
individuals." The same rule provides that a complaint for expropriation shall name as defendants "all
persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest" in the property sought to
be condemned. Clearly, when the property already appears to belong to the Republic, there is no sense
in the Republic instituting expropriation proceedings against itself. It can still, however, file a complaint
for expropriation against the private persons occupying the property. In such an expropriation case, the
owner of the property is not an indispensable party. To recall, Presidential Proclamation No. 2239
explicitly states that the parcels of land reserved to NSC are part of the public domain, hence, owned by
the Republic. Letter of Instructions No. 1277 recognized only the occupancy rights of MCFC and directed
NSC to institute expropriation proceedings to determine the just compensation for said occupancy
rights. Therefore, the owner of the property is not an indispensable party in the original Complaint for
Expropriation. Moreover, the right of the Republic to be substituted for ISA as plaintiff in Civil Case No.
106 had long been affirmed by no less than this Court in the ISA case. The failure of the Republic to
actually file a motion for execution does not render the substitution void. A writ of execution requires
the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the terms of the writ. The Order of
the RTC should be deemed as voluntary compliance with a final and executory judgment of this Court,
already rendering a motion for and issuance of a writ of execution superfluous. Second Issue: The
Republic did not commit Forum shopping Forum-shopping takes place when a litigant files multiple suits
involving the same parties, either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment. Thus,
it exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, namely: (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, the
elements of litis pendencia are wanting. There is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in
Civil Case No. 106 (expropriation) and Civil Case No. 6686 (cancellation of OCTs of Dona Demetria
because the certificates exceeded the areas granted by the LRC – reversion). Expropriation vis-à-vis
reversion The Republic is not engaging in contradictions when it instituted both expropriation and
reversion proceedings for the same parcels of land. The expropriation and reversion proceedings are
distinct remedies that are not necessarily exclusionary of each other. The filing of a complaint for
reversion does not preclude the institution of an action for expropriation. Even if the land is reverted
back to the State, the same may still be subject to expropriation as against the occupants thereof. Also,
Rule 67, Section 1 of the Rules of Court allows the filing of a complaint for expropriation even when "the
title to any property sought to be condemned appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, although
occupied by private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff
cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners." Hence, the filing by the Republic of
the Supplemental Complaint for Expropriation impleading Teofilo, Vidal, LANDTRADE, and AZIMUTH, is
not necessarily an admission that the parcels of land sought to be expropriated are privately owned. At
most, the Republic merely acknowledged in its Supplemental Complaint that there are private persons
also claiming ownership of the parcels of land. The Republic can still consistently assert, in both actions
for expropriation and reversion, that the subject parcels of land are part of the public domain. In sum,
the RTC erred in dismissing the original Complaint and disallowing the Supplemental Complaint. The
Court reinstates the Complaint for Reversion of the Republic.