GR 178611; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178611 ; January 14, 2013
ESTRELLA ADUAN ORPIANO, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ANTONIO C. TOMAS and MYRNA U. TOMAS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Estrella Aduan Orpiano is the widow of Alejandro Orpiano. Part of their conjugal estate was a lot in Quezon City. In 1979, Alejandro obtained a court decision declaring Estrella an absentee spouse and authorizing him to sell the lot. In 1996, Alejandro sold the lot to respondent spouses Antonio and Myrna Tomas on installment. When the spouses allegedly failed to pay the full price, Alejandro filed a collection case to recover the balance. During its pendency, Alejandro died, and Estrella was substituted as a party-plaintiff.
Estrella moved to amend the complaint in the collection case to one for annulment of the sale, arguing the 1979 declaration of her absence was void, but the court denied her motion. She then moved to be dropped as a party, which was also denied. Subsequently, Estrella filed a separate annulment case against the Tomas spouses, seeking to nullify the 1996 sale and cancel the title issued to them, on the ground that the underlying authority to sell was obtained through fraud.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Estrella Aduan Orpiano is guilty of forum shopping for filing the annulment case while the collection case initiated by her late husband was still pending.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court held that petitioner was guilty of forum shopping. The Court explained that forum shopping exists when a party institutes two or more actions based on the same cause, with the hope of securing a favorable judgment in one. The test is whether a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.
Here, both cases involved the same property, the same sale, and substantially the same parties. A final judgment in the collection case, which sought to enforce the contract of sale by demanding payment, would necessarily affirm the validity of that sale. This would bar a subsequent declaration of its nullity in the annulment case. The Court rejected Estrella’s argument that she was unwillingly substituted into the collection case and had no other recourse. Her proper remedy was to seek a review via certiorari of the orders denying her motions in the collection case, not to file a separate and duplicative suit. The Court emphasized that procedural rules must be strictly followed, and considerations of expediency or a perceived meritorious cause cannot justify procedural shortcuts like forum shopping.