G.R. No. 183641 ; April 22, 2015
BENJAMIN GUERRERO, Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR, LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU, FLORANTE EDWARD R. BENITEZ, PROJECT EVALUATION OFFICER III, LEGAL DIVISION; and HEIRS OF MARCELO BUSTAMANTE, Represented by CORA Z. BUSTAMANTE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Guerrero obtained a miscellaneous sales patent and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-28 over a parcel of land in Quezon City. The issuance was protested by Angelina Bustamante (wife of Marcelo Bustamante) before the Director of Lands, alleging encroachment on an area subject to Marcelo’s patent application. This protest was dismissed by the Director of Lands, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and initially by the Office of the President. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the Office of the President remanded the case to the DENR for ocular investigation and resurvey, and later directed the DENR to take action for correction of the technical description of Guerrero’s title. Consequently, the Director of Lands filed a Petition for Amendments of the Plan and Technical Description of OCT No. 0-28 with the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC dismissed the petition, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately by the Supreme Court in its March 28, 2006 Decision in Republic v. Guerrero, which held there was no proof Guerrero employed fraud in obtaining his title.
Despite this final Supreme Court decision, the heirs of Marcelo Bustamante, represented by Cora Bustamante, filed a new Protest with the Land Management Bureau (LMB) on February 1, 2007, again seeking the cancellation of Guerrero’s title based on allegations of fraud and encroachment. The LMB, through Director Arthus T. Tenazas, issued an Order of Investigation dated May 9, 2007, giving due course to the protest and directing an investigation. Hearing Officer Florante Edward R. Benitez then ordered the parties to submit position papers. Guerrero filed the present petition/complaint to cite respondents for contempt for alleged forum shopping.

ISSUE

Whether the private respondents (heirs of Marcelo Bustamante) committed forum shopping by filing a new protest with the LMB after the Supreme Court had already rendered a final and executory decision on the same matter in Republic v. Guerrero.

RULING

Yes, the private respondents committed forum shopping and are liable for contempt of court. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
The Court found that the elements of res judicata, specifically “bar by prior judgment,” were present. The four requisites concur: (1) the prior judgment in Republic v. Guerrero was final; (2) the courts that rendered it had jurisdiction; (3) it was a judgment on the merits; and (4) there was identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the prior case and the new LMB protest. Both cases involved the same parties (the Bustamantes/heirs versus Guerrero), the same subject matter (the amendment or cancellation of Guerrero’s OCT No. 0-28), and the same cause of action (alleged encroachment of Guerrero’s titled property on land claimed by the Bustamantes).
By filing the subsequent protest, the private respondents engaged in forum shopping, as the final judgment in the first case amounted to res judicata in the second. The Court emphasized the public policy behind the finality of judgments and the doctrine of res judicata to prevent endless litigation. The LMB’s act of giving due course to the protest, despite the final Supreme Court ruling, was improper. Accordingly, the private respondents were found liable for indirect contempt.