GR L 38510; (March, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38510. March 25, 1975. SPOUSES DOLORES MEDINA and MOISES BERNAL, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE NELLY L. ROMERO VALDELLON OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, SPOUSES CIPRIANO VILLANUEVA and RUFINA PANGANIBAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners-spouses Dolores Medina and Moises Bernal filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages (Civil Case No. 4353-M) against respondent-spouses Cipriano Villanueva and Rufina Panganiban before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan. They alleged ownership of a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, purchased in 1967. As family friends, respondents were allegedly allowed to build a house on the land subject to the condition that they would return possession upon demand, specifically by 1969. Upon respondents’ refusal to vacate, petitioners sought to recover possession, monthly compensation for use, and litigation expenses.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of litis pendentia, citing the pendency of Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 2814 involving the same parties and property in another branch (Branch VI) of the same CFI. The respondent Judge, presiding Branch I, granted the motion and dismissed Civil Case No. 4353-M. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of a land registration case bars the institution of a separate action for recovery of possession.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal order and directed the consolidation of the two cases. The Court clarified the distinct nature of the two actions. An action for recovery of possession, such as Civil Case No. 4353-M, is an accion publiciana aimed at recovering the right of possession based on a better right of possession. In contrast, a land registration case is a proceeding in rem primarily concerned with the adjudication and confirmation of title or ownership. The causes of action and the reliefs sought are fundamentally different. A judgment in a recovery of possession case is conclusive only on the issue of possession and does not bind or settle the question of ownership. Conversely, a land registration case decides ownership but does not typically adjudicate claims for damages arising from possession.
The Court emphasized that the mere existence of a land registration case does not divest a court of its jurisdiction over a possessory action. The defense of litis pendentia requires identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for, which was absent here. The dismissal was therefore erroneous. To promote judicial economy and expedite resolution, the Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of LRC No. 2814 and Civil Case No. 4353-M for joint trial in one branch of the CFI of Bulacan, as the evidence on possession and ownership, while pertaining to different issues, are interrelated. The orders of dismissal were declared null and void.