GR 199423; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199423 , March 09, 2020
Sps. Norberto De Guzman and Felicitas C. De Guzman, Petitioners, v. Republic of the Philippines and the Toll Regulatory Board, Respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from a Complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation filed by petitioners against respondents before the RTC of Valenzuela, Branch 171 (Civil Case No. 180-V-06). Planters Development Bank was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. V-71509, which was subdivided into three lots. On November 15, 2004, respondents filed a Complaint for expropriation against Planters Bank over Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 (90 sq.m.) before the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 75 (Civil Case No. 264-V-04). On November 22, 2005, Planters Bank sold the entire property to petitioners. Petitioners filed a Complaint In Intervention in the expropriation case, alleging they were the new owners and that respondents had converted another portion, Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 (185 sq.m.), for road widening, seeking payment of just compensation for that taking. The RTC granted the intervention. Petitioners later demanded payment from the TRB for Lot 1047-C-2-D-2, and upon refusal, filed the separate complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation for that lot. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among others, forum shopping. The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of forum shopping, finding identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for between the expropriation case (with intervention) and the recovery of possession case. The CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are guilty of forum shopping in filing the complaint for recovery of possession and/or payment of just compensation after filing a complaint in intervention in the expropriation case.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and Resolution, and ordered the consolidation of the two cases. The Court held that petitioners were not guilty of forum shopping. While there was identity of parties, there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The expropriation case involved the taking of Lot 1047-C-2-D-1 (90 sq.m.) where the government’s right to take was conceded, and the only issue was the amount of just compensation. The recovery of possession case involved Lot 1047-C-2-D-2 (185 sq.m.), where the government had taken possession without expropriation proceedings, and the issues were whether there was a taking and the amount of just compensation, or alternatively, recovery of possession. The same evidence would not sustain both actions. The Court ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 264-V-04 (expropriation with intervention) and Civil Case No. 180-V-06 (recovery of possession) to expedite proceedings.