GR 150798; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150798 ; March 31, 2005
RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. SISENANDO S. SINGSON, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rudecon Management Corporation (RMC) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in 1993 over a condominium unit (Room 404) in favor of spouses Pablo and Ma. Theresa Tolentino. In 1997, the spouses Tolentino and respondent Sisenando S. Singson executed a Deed of Exchange, wherein Singson exchanged his two condominium units for the Tolentinos’ units, including Room 404. RMC, however, retained the Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) for Room 404.
RMC later filed an unlawful detainer case against a lessee of Room 404. Consequently, Singson filed a complaint for reconveyance against RMC, seeking to compel RMC to deliver CCT No. 3295 (Room 404) to him. Separately, Singson also filed another complaint (Civil Case No. Q-00-39794) against Allied Banking Corporation and RMC, seeking to nullify the foreclosure and sale of Room 404, which RMC had mortgaged to the bank. RMC moved to dismiss the reconveyance case, arguing that Singson violated the rule against forum-shopping by not disclosing the pendency of the nullification case in his certification against forum-shopping.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the reconveyance case on the ground of forum-shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. There was no forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party files multiple cases grounded on the same cause, with the same relief, before different courts to increase the chances of a favorable ruling. The test is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present: identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs.
Here, the two cases involved different causes of action and primary reliefs. The reconveyance case (Civil Case No. Q-98-35444) sought to compel RMC to deliver the title to Room 404 to Singson, premised on his ownership derived from the Deed of Exchange. The nullification case (Civil Case No. Q-00-39794) sought to annul the mortgage foreclosure and sale of the same unit to the bank. The principal issues were distinct: one was an action for reconveyance based on contract, and the other was an action to annul a foreclosure sale. While the amended complaint in the reconveyance case incidentally prayed for the unit to be freed from encumbrances, this did not create an identity of causes of action. Therefore, Singson was not mandated to report the pendency of the other case in his certification, and no forum-shopping was committed.