G.R. No. 156797; July 6, 2010
IN RE: RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 303168 AND 303169 AND ISSUANCE OF OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN LIEU OF THOSE LOST, ROLANDO EDWARD G. LIM, Petitioner.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolando Edward Lim filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of TCT Nos. 303168 and 303169 and for issuance of owner’s duplicate copies, alleging both the original titles in the Registry of Deeds and the owner’s duplicates in his custody were lost in separate fires. The RTC set the petition for hearing, complied with publication and notice requirements, and, receiving no opposition, allowed Lim to present evidence ex parte. However, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) reported that the same titles were subjects of an earlier administrative reconstitution proceeding under Republic Act No. 6732, initiated by Lim, but were not reconstituted administratively because the owner’s duplicates were also lost. Based solely on this LRA report indicating a prior administrative application, the RTC dismissed Lim’s judicial petition for forum-shopping. It found Lim violated his certification against forum-shopping by failing to disclose the pending administrative reconstitution.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for judicial reconstitution on the ground of forum-shopping.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal, finding no forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party, to increase chances of a favorable ruling, files multiple suits involving the same parties and causes of action in different courts or agencies. The Court clarified that administrative reconstitution under R.A. No. 6732 and judicial reconstitution under R.A. No. 26 are distinct and mutually exclusive remedies with different prerequisites. Administrative reconstitution is available only when the owner’s duplicate certificate is available and intact. Judicial reconstitution is the proper recourse when, as in this case, the owner’s duplicate is also lost. Therefore, Lim’s prior administrative application, which was incapable of proceeding to completion due to the absence of the required owner’s duplicate, did not constitute a pending “action or proceeding” that would bar the subsequent judicial petition. The two petitions did not involve the same cause of action or seek the same relief, as the administrative route was a legal impossibility from the outset. The RTC’s dismissal was an erroneous and arbitrary application of the rule against forum-shopping. The Court reinstated Lim’s petition for judicial reconstitution.