G.R. No. 232176 , February 17, 2021
Spouses Rolando/Rolly and Fe Tobias, Petitioners, vs. Michael Gonzales and Mario Solomon Gonzales, as represented by their Attorneys-in-Fact, Jemima G. Atiga and/or Mario M. Atiga, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Michael Gonzales and Mario Solomon Gonzales filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages (unlawful detainer) against petitioners Spouses Rolando and Fe Tobias before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, alleging ownership of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 024-2013000860, which petitioners possessed and occupied. Respondents had sent a notice to vacate, which petitioners refused. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss based on litis pendentia and forum shopping, arguing that respondents had previously filed an unlawful detainer case involving the same property before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Petitioners contended both cases had the same cause of action aimed at gaining possession. They also claimed the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping was defective as it was signed only by attorneys-in-fact, and the Special Power of Attorney referred to a different TCT number. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding litis pendentia and forum shopping. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the RTC Order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the causes of action in the unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 495) and the complaint for recovery of possession based on ownership (Civil Case No. 01546-T) are different.
2. Whether respondents are guilty of forum shopping.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.
1. On the difference in causes of action: The causes of action are different. An unlawful detainer case (accion interdictal) deals solely with the issue of physical or material possession (possession de facto) independent of ownership, where ownership is only provisionally considered. In contrast, an action for recovery of possession based on ownership (accion reivindicatoria) is a plenary action that seeks to recover possession as an element of ownership, wherein the issue of ownership is directly resolved. The evidentiary requirements also differ: unlawful detainer requires proof of prior lawful possession that became unlawful, while accion reivindicatoria requires proof of ownership.
2. On forum shopping: There is no forum shopping. Forum shopping requires identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. Here, while the parties and subject matter are the same, the causes of action and reliefs are distinct. The unlawful detainer case seeks to resolve the right to physical possession, while the accion reivindicatoria aims to settle ownership, which includes recovery of possession. Consequently, litis pendentia is not present as the second and third requisites (identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for) are lacking.