GR 130912; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130912; February 14, 2003
University of the Philippines vs. Gertrudes V. Susi, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner University of the Philippines (UP) holds title to its Diliman Campus, originally acquired from the government in 1949. Respondent Gertrudes V. Susi, and later respondents Leonardo P. Dimaculangan and Femar Realty and Development Corporation, claim ownership over a portion of this campus based on their own Transfer Certificates of Title. After three unsuccessful attempts to fence off the disputed area, these respondents filed an action for damages and injunction against UP and its officials (Civil Case No. Q-94-21425), alleging violation of their ownership rights.
Subsequently, UP filed a separate action for the cancellation of the respondents’ titles (Civil Case No. Q-94-21637). The two cases were consolidated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City. The respondents then moved to dismiss the cancellation case on the ground of forum shopping, arguing it was filed while the damages case was pending. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the cancellation case.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the action for cancellation of titles on the ground of forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal, ruling that there was no forum shopping. The legal logic is clear: a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The action for damages filed by the respondents primarily sought compensation and injunctive relief for alleged interference with their possession and ownership. This case could not validly adjudicate the fundamental issue of the validity and cancellation of the respondents’ certificates of title, as such a remedy requires a direct action specifically for that purpose.
Conversely, UP’s compulsory counterclaim in the damages case was limited to claims for damages and attorney’s fees; it did not constitute a direct action for cancellation. Therefore, the filing of the separate cancellation case was not only proper but necessary, as the issue of title validity could not be litigated in the damages suit. Since the causes of action, reliefs sought, and issues in the two cases are distinct, the element of forum shopping—filing multiple cases to secure a favorable ruling—is absent. The Supreme Court reinstated Civil Case No. Q-94-21637 for cancellation of titles.