G.R. No. 195445. December 07, 2016.
ANGELINA DE GUZMAN, GILBERT DE GUZMAN, VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR., AND ANTHONY DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, V. GLORIA A. CHICO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioners’ property in Makati was sold at a public auction for tax delinquency, with respondent Gloria Chico as the winning bidder. After the petitioners failed to redeem the property within the statutory period, the respondent consolidated her title. The Register of Deeds cancelled the petitioners’ title and issued a new one in the respondent’s name. The respondent initially moved for a writ of possession in the same registration case (LRC Case No. M-4992), but the motion was denied for procedural defects. Subsequently, the respondent filed a separate and independent Ex Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession (LRC Case No. M-5188), which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The petitioners moved to cite the respondent in contempt and to nullify the proceedings in LRC Case No. M-5188, arguing that the petition contained a defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping. They contended that the filing of a new case for the same relief constituted forum shopping. The RTC denied their motion, ruling that an ex parte petition for a writ of possession is not an initiatory pleading requiring such a certification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the petitioners’ motion, specifically in holding that the ex parte petition for a writ of possession did not require a certification of non-forum shopping and that its grant was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed rulings. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, on the procedural requirement, the Court held that a certification of non-forum shopping is mandated only for complaints or other initiatory pleadings filed in court. An ex parte petition for a writ of possession, while denominated as a “petition,” is not an initiatory pleading that commences an original action. It is a subsequent incident in the execution process following a final judgment of consolidation of title. Therefore, the absence of the certification was not fatal.
Second, on the substantive matter of forum shopping, the Court found none. Forum shopping exists when a party seeks substantially the same relief in different courts, risking the possibility of conflicting decisions. Here, the respondent’s first motion for a writ of possession in LRC Case No. M-4992 was denied without prejudice. The subsequent filing of LRC Case No. M-5188 was a legitimate recourse to obtain a ministerial writ after the prior denial. There was no simultaneous pursuit of multiple remedies, and the issuance of a writ of possession, being a ministerial duty of the court after consolidation of title, does not constitute a judgment on the merits that could give rise to conflicting adjudications. The Court also noted that the validity of the tax sale and consolidation of title was already final and beyond review.