cases et al

7/29/2019 cases et al

1/19

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 101783. January 23, 2002]

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINECONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., EDGARDO S. ISIP, HON.JUDGE MANUEL M. CALANOG, JR., and HON. JUDGE TIRSOD'C. VELASCO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,J .:

Interest republicae ut sit finis litium[1]- it is to the interest of the publicthat there should be an end to litigation by the same parties and their privies over asubject fully and fairly adjudicated. From this overwhelming concern springs the doctrineofres judicata an obvious rule of reason according stability to judgments.

Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari are the a) Decision in Civil CaseNo. Q-89-3659 dated January 16, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, QuezonCity;[2]and b) its Order dated September 10, 1991 [3]denying the motion forreconsideration of the said Decision.

The pertinent facts are:

On September 11, 1974, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, with the objectiveof enabling the grantees of electric franchises to reduce their rates "within the reach ofconsumers",[4]promulgated Presidential Decree No. 551[5]providing for the reduction from5% to 2% of the franchise tax paid by electric companies, thus:

SECTION 1. Any provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary

notwithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all grantees of franchises to generate,

distribute and sell electric current for light, heat and power shall be two (2%) of their

gross receipts received from the sale of electric current and from transactions incident

to the generation, distribution and sale of electric current.

On February 5, 1982, the Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc., (PCFI) filed withthe Board of Energy (BOE) a "Petition for Specific Performance, Damages and Violationof P. D. No. 551"[6]against the Manila Electric Company (Meralco), docketed as BOECase No. 82-198. PCFI sought for the immediate refund by Meralco to its customers ofall the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551, through the reduction of its franchise taxfrom 5% to 2%, with interest at the legal rate; and for the payment of damages and a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn1


2/19

fine in the amount of P50, 000.00 for violating P.D. 551. It moored its petition onSection 4 of P.D. No. 551 which provides:

Sec. 4. All the savings realized by electric franchise holders from the reduction of the

franchise tax under Section 1 and tariff reductions and tax credits under Sections 2

and 3, shall be passed on to the ultimate consumer. The Secretary of Finance shallpromulgate rules and regulations and devise a reporting systems to carry out the

provisions of this Decree.

In its answer to the petition, Meralco alleged that it was duly authorized by the BOEin its Order dated March 10, 1980 in BOE Case No. 79-692 to retain the disputedsavings; and that the said Order had long become final.

On November 25, 1982, the BOE issued its Decision dismissing PCFI's petition,declaring that Meralco was indeed authorized by the BOE, in BOE Case No. 79-692, toretain the disputed savings under P.D. 551, thus:

It is at once evident from the foregoing controlling facts and circumstances,

particularly the Order of this Board dated March 10, 1980, as confirmed by the

reply-letter dated March 3, 1981, that Meralco has been duly authorized toretain the savings realized under the provisions of P.D. 551. The authority granted

in the said Order and letter is so clear and unequivocal as to leave any room for

contradictory interpretation. This Board, therefore, holds as untenable petitioners

claim that respondent Meralco was never authorized under the said Order and letter

to hold on to the savings realized under the said decree.

"The Board likewise finds to be devoid of merit petitioners contention that pursuantto Opinion No. 140, Series of 1979, of the Minister of Justice, it is absolutely

mandatory on the part of respondent Meralco to pass on to its customers the savings

under consideration. It must be pointed out that the Order of March 10, 1980 was

issued by this Board on the basis of the recommendation contained in the

Memorandum dated November 30, 1979 of the Minister of Finance, which was

approved by the President of the Philippines in his directive to this Board dated

December 11, 1979 issued thru Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave. This

Board believes and so holds that the approval by the President of the Philippines of

the aforesaid Finance Ministrys recommendation had the effects of (a) reversing or

modifying the aforementioned Opinion of the Minister of Justice; and (b) confirmingthe promulgation by the Ministry of Finance, conformably with the specific authority

granted it under P.D. No. 551, of an additional rule or regulation for the

implementation of the said decree for the guidance of this Board. In issuing the Order

of March 10, 1980, therefore, the Board has done no more than follow and be guided

by the said additional rule or regulation.


3/19

"It is noteworthy to mention also that the registered oppositors in BOE Case No.

79-692 (formerly BPW Case No. 72-2146), where the respondent herein

originally filed its motion requesting for authority to defer the passing on to its

customers of the franchise tax reduction benefits under P.D. No. 551, have done

nothing to seek relief from or to appeal to the appropriate forum, the said Order

of March 10, 1980. As a consequence, the disposition contained therein have long

become final.

x x x x x x

"That Meralco has been authorized to retain the savings resulting from the

reduction of the franchise tax under P.D. No. 551 is, therefore beyond

question."[7](Emphasis supplied)

PCFI filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the BOE. Hence, PCFI

filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 63018. In aResolution dated October 22, 1985, this Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit,holding that:

We see no grave abuse of discretion warranting the setting aside of the BOE order.

"P.D. No. 551 ordered the Minister of Finance to issue implementing rules and

regulations. The Minister authorized all grantees of electric franchises, not Meralco

alone, whose rates of return on their rate bases were below the legal allowable level to

either ask for increased rates or to defer the passing on of benefits under the decree to

consumers until just and reasonable returns could be had. Lengthy investigations,audits, hearings, and determinations over practically an eight year period preceded the

questioned decision. The petitioners failed both below and in this petition to

successfully refute the facts ascertained in the audits and examinations. The BOE

approved option formed the basis of subsequent determinations of Meralco rates and

the adopted formula became the basis of computations. When this petition was filed

on January 27, 1983, the November 25, 1982 ruling was already final and

executory. Moreover, the March 10, 1980 judgment rendered in BOE Case No.

79-692, where Meralco had filed a motion for authority to defer passing on to

customers the savings from the reduction of franchise taxes, was not appealed or

questioned by the petitioners. Instead, they filed BOE Case No. 82-198 onFebruary 5, 1982 or almost two years later, raising the same issues against the

same parties. BOEs questioned decision in Case No. 82-198 used the facts in

BOE Case No. 79-692 for its conclusions. Not only had the March 10, 1980

decision confirmed the findings of the Minister of Finance on Meralcos accounts

and finances but in filing the second case, the petitioners were asking for a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn7


4/19

readjudication of the same issues in another challenge to these same findings.x x x.[8](Emphasis supplied)

Four years thereafter, PCFI and a certain Edgardo S. Isip, private respondentsherein, filed with respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, Quezon City, a petition for

declaratory relief, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-3659. Private respondents prayedfor a ruling on who should be entitled to the savings realized by Meralco under P.D. No.551. Once again, they insisted that pursuant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 551, the savingsbelong to the ultimate consumers.

Meralco, in its answer, prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of resjudicata, citing this Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 63018 which affirmed the BOE'sDecision in BOE Case No. 82-198.

On January 16, 1991, respondent RTC rendered the assailed Decision declaringnull and void the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 63018 and on the basis of theDissenting Opinion of the late Justice Claudio Teehankee, held that the disputed

savings belong to the consumers, thus:

Respondent Meralcos theory is devoid of merit. As correctly stated in the

dissenting opinion of the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in the October 22,

1985 resolution of the Supreme Court in SC G.R. No. 63018, the decision of theBoard of Energy is ultra vires, hence, null and void.x x x."It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, it leaves

no room for interpretation. The memorandum issued by the Minister of Finance which

was made the basis of the decision of the Board of Energy has no legal effect because

Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 551 is clear and unequivocal.

x x x x x x

"Since the law is clear, what is left to be done by the administrative body or agency

concerned is to enforce the law. There is no room for an administrative interpretation

of the law. In the instant case, the Board interpreted PD 551 and chose not only to

enforce it but to amend and modify the law on the basis of a Memorandum and the

authority issued by the Minister of Finance to all grantees of electric-franchises, not

Meralco alone, whose rates of return on their rate basis were below the legal

allowable level, to either ask for an increased rates or to defer the passing on ofbenefits under the decree to consumers, until just and reasonable return could be had.

This is beyond the authority granted by PD 551 to the Minister of Finance. PD 551

merely ordered the Minister of Finance to issue implementing rules and regulations.

He cannot amend or modify the clear mandate of the law. The act therefore of the

Minister of Finance was ultra vires,hence, null and void. Considering that said

act became the basis of the Board of Energys decision, it follows that said
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn8


5/19

decision is likewise null and void and the Supreme Court resolution affirming

said decision is also null and void having proceeded from a void judgment, hence,

cannot be considered as valid judgment that will be a bar to the presentaction."[9](Emphasis supplied)

Meralco moved for a reconsideration of the above Decision but was denied byrespondent court in its Order of September 10, 1991.

Hence, Meralco's petition for review on certiorari anchored on the followinggrounds:

"I

RESPONDENT JUDGES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CIVIL CASE NO. 89-

3659 IS NOT BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT.

II

RESPONDENT JUDGES ERRED IN DECLARING NULL AND VOID A

RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.

III

RESPONDENT JUDGES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REMEDY OF

DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS STILL AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE

RESPONDENTS.

IV

RESPONDENT JUDGES ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION

FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF."[10]

Meralco contends that Civil Case No. Q -89-3659 is already barred by priorjudgments, referring to a)this Courts Resolution inG.R. No. 63018 sustaining theBOE's Decision in BOE Case No. 82-198; and b) the Order dated March 10, 1980 ofthe same Board in BOE Case No. 79-692, both holding that Meralco is authorized toretain its savings realized under P.D. 551. Meralco likewise argues that respondentRTC cannot annul the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 63018 considering that trial

courts cannot set aside decisions of a superior court. And lastly, Meralco maintains thatprivate respondents can no longer avail of the remedy of an action for declaratory reliefin view of the rule that such action should be filed before a violation of the statuteoccurred.[11]

In their comment,[12]private respondents argue that this Court's Resolution in G.R.No. 63018 cannot be a bar to Civil Case No. Q-89-3659for declaratory relief considering that it did not delve on the essential issue raised in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn9


6/19


7/19

disposed of the controversy by resolving the rights of the parties under P.D. No. 551. Inits Decision, the BOE declared in clear and unequivocal manner that Meralco "has beenduly authorized to retain the savings realized under the provisions of P.D. No. 551" andthat private respondent PCFIs argument to the contrary is "untenable." The BOE'sDecision was upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 63018.

Re: FOURTH REQUISITE - there must be between the two cases identity ofparties, subject matter and causes of action:

There is identity of parties between the two cases. BOE Case No. 82-198 was acontest between private respondent PCFI, as petitioner, and Meralco, asrespondent. Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 involves the same contenders, except thatrespondent Edgardo Isip joined PCFI as a plaintiff. But his inclusion as such plaintiff isinconsequential. A party by bringing forward, in a second case, additional partiescannot escape the effects of the principle ofres judicata when the facts remain thesame. Res judicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties, as it does notrequire absolute but only substantial identity of parties.[18]

The subject matters of BOE Case No. 82-198 and Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 arelikewise identical since both refer to the savings realized by Meralco from the reductionof the franchise tax under P.D. No. 551. The subject matter of an action refers to thething, wrongful act, contract or property which is directly involved in the action,concerning which the wrong has been done and with respect to which the controversyhas arisen.[19]In both cases, the controversy is how the disputed savings shall bedisposed of - whether they shall be retained by Meralco or be passed on to theconsumers.

With respect to identity of causes of action, this requisite is likewise present. Inboth cases, the act alleged to be in violation of the legal right of private respondents is

Meralco's retention of the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551. While it is true thatBOE Case No. 82-198 is one for specific performance, while Civil Case No. Q-89-3659is for declaratory relief - in the ultimate - both are directed towards only one relief, i.e.,the refund of the disputed savings to the consumers. To seek a court's declaration onwho should benefit from the disputed savings (whether Meralco or the consumers) willresult in the relitigation of an issue fairly and fully adjudicated in BOE Case No. 82-198.

Clearly, the test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action. Thedifference of actions in the aforesaid cases is of no moment. The doctrine of res

judicata still applies considering that the parties were litigating for the same thing andmore importantly, the same contentions.[20]As can be gleaned from the records, privaterespondents arguments in Civil Case No. Q-89-3659 bear extreme resemblance with

those raised in BOE Case No. 82-198.

Respondent RTC's Decision granting PCFI and Isip's petition for declaratory relief isin direct derogation of the principle ofres judicata. Twice, it has been settled thatMeralco is duly authorized to retain the savings it realized under P.D. No. 551 as longas its rate of return falls below the 12% allowable rate. The pronouncement of the BOEin BOE Case No. 82-198 finding such fact to be "beyond question" is clear and notsusceptible of equivocation. This pronouncement was sustained by this Court in G.R.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn18


8/19

No. 63018. In finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the BOE, this Courtsaw the wisdom of its assailed Decision. Thus, this Court held: "[I]n dismissing thepetition for specific performance, the BOE authorized Meralco, in lieu of increasing itsrates to get a more reasonable return on investments while at the same time refundingto consumers the benefit of P.D. No. 551, to instead defer the passing on of benefits but

without the planned increases. Instead of giving back money to consumers and thentaking back the same in terms of increased rates, Meralco was allowed by the BOE tofollow the more simplified and rational procedure."[21]

Private respondents now argue that G.R. No. 63018 merely decreed thepostponement of the passing of Meralco's savings to the consumers until it couldincrease its rate charges. On this point, this Court categorically ruled:

"X x x. And finally, as stated by the Solicitor General, if only to put the issue to

final rest, BOEs decision authorizing Meralco to retain the savings resulting

from the reduction of franchise tax as long as its rate of return falls below the

12% allowable rate is supported by P.D. No. 551, the rules and administrativeorders of the Ministry of Finance which had been duly authorized by the decree

itself and by directives of the President to carry out the provisions of the decree,

and most of all by equitable economic considerations without which

the decree would lose its purpose and viability."[22]

Corollarily, let it not be overlooked that the purpose of an action for declaratory reliefis to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties undera statute, deed, contract etc. for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, orcompliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof. Itmay be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract

etc., to which it refers.[23]The petition gives a practical remedy in ending controversieswhich have not reached the stage where other relief is immediately available. Itsupplies the need for a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they leadto repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights, and the commission of wrongs. [24]Here,private respondents brought the petition for declaratory relief long after the allegedviolation of P.D. No. 551.

Lastly, we are dismayed by respondent RTC's adherence to the Dissenting Opinion,instead of the Majority Opinion, of the members of this Court in G.R. No. 63018, as wellas its temerity to declare a Resolution of this Court "null and void" and "cannot beconsidered as valid judgment that will be a bar to the present action."

A lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court,especially of this Court, for to do so will negate the principle of hierarchy of courts andnullify the essence of review. A final judgment, albeit erroneous, is binding on the wholeworld. Thus, it is the duty of the lower courts to obey the Decisions of this Court andrender obeisance to its status as the apex of the hierarchy of courts. "A becomingmodesty of inferior courts demands conscious realization of the position that theyoccupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn21


9/19

nation."[25]"There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courtsshould take their bearings," as eloquently declared by Justice J. B. L. Reyes.[26]

Respondent RTC, and for this matter, all lower courts, ought to be reminded that afinal and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matterhow erroneous it may be. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial

error should be corrected through appeals, not through repeated suits on the sameclaim.[27]In setting aside the Resolution and Entry of Judgment of this Court in G.R. No.63018, respondent court grossly violated basic rules of civil procedure.

In fine, we stress that the rights of Meralco under P.D. No. 551, as determined bythe BOE and sustained by this Court, have acquired the character ofres judicata andcan no longer be challenged.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed RTC Decision datedJanuary 16, 1991 and Order dated September 10, 1991 in Civil Case No. Q-89-3659are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,

Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Carpio, JJ., concur.

lawphil

Today is Thursday, December 06, 2012

Search
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn27http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://www.lawphil.net/legalink/legalink.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/international/interlaw.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/executive/executive.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/courts/judiciar.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/statutes/statutes.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/consti/constitu.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/index.htmlhttp://none%28%29/http://none%28%29/http://none%28%29/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/101783.htm#_edn25


10/19

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

R. No. 137794 August 11, 2010

LINDA REYES and ROSEMARIE MATIENZO, Petitioners,

N. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ, Presiding, Branch 49, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City; SPOUSES BERNARORENCIA PERL, represented by Attorney-in-Fact BENJAMIN MUCIO; HON. JUDGE VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDsiding, Branch 124, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City and SEGUNDO BAUTISTA, Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

R. No. 149664

S. ALBERTO EMBORES and LOURDES EMBORES, SPS. ROBERTO AND EVELYN PALAD, DENNIS HENOSA anRAZON LAURENTE, Petitioners,

N. RAYMUNDO G. VALLEGA, Presiding Judge, Branch 52, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City; HON. ELEANKWONG, Presiding Judge, Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City; HON. JUDGE BELEN B. ORTIZ,siding Judge, Branch 49, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City; VICTORIA C. SALIRE-ALBIS, represented by

orney-in-fact MR. MENELIO C. SALIRE; MA. FE R. ROCO, ALFREDO TAN, MANUELITO ESTRELLA; and HON. JUTONIO FINEZA, Presiding Judge, Branch 131, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

ONARDO-DE CASTRO,J .:

e instant cases are consolidated Petitions1for Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, and Prohibition. The petitioners in G.R. No.794 seek to declare null and void the proceedings in Civil Case No. 23477, an ejectment case, before the Metropolitan

urt (MeTC), Caloocan City, Branch 49, and Civil Case No. C-17725, a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownerd with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 124;2while the petitioners in G.R. No. 149664 pray for the he following ejectment proceedings before the different branches of the Caloocan City MeTC: (1) Civil Case No. 99-250nch 52; (2) Civil Case No. 22559 and Civil Case No. 18575, Branch 49 and its appeal to the RTC, Branch 131; (3) Civil 00-25892, Branch 51; and (4) Civil Case No. 00-25889, Branch 51.3G.R. No. 149664 was considered closed and termhe Courts Resolution dated August 30, 2006.4

e parcels of land which are the subject matter of these cases are part of the Tala Estate, situated between the boundarieoocan City and Quezon City and encompassing an area of 7,007.9515 hectares more or less .5

G.R. No. 137794, respondents Segundo Bautista and spouses Bernard and Florencia Perl sought the ouster from thetested lots of Erlinda Reyes, spouses Rene and Rosemarie Matienzo and Sergio Abejero, who are occupants of separa

me lots in Camarin, Caloocan City.

e first case was commenced on December 11, 1996, by respondent Segundo Bautista, a registered owner of the parcel d occupied by spouses Rene and Rosemarie Matienzo. The case was a complaint for Recovery of Possession and/or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt1


11/19

nership of Real Property (Recovery case) against the latter spouses with the RTC Caloocan City, Branch 124.6This waketed as Civil Case No. C-17725.7

ortly thereafter, a separate but related action, was initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Directods on December 27, 1996, before the Quezon City RTC, Branch 85 (re-raffled to Branch 93) .8This was a complaint for

nulment of Title/Reversion (Annulment/Reversion case) against Biyaya Corporation and the Register of Deeds of the Cit

sig, Caloocan, and Quezon, the City of Manila, and the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority involving the Taate. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-96-29810, sought to declare null and void the transfer certificates of title ishe name of Biyaya Corporation, and all derivative titles emanating therefrom, and to declare the land in suit to be revertepart of the patrimonial property of the State, and the same be awarded to the actual occupants. One of the intervenors thamahan ng Maliliit na Magkakapitbahay (SAMAKABA) of which petitioners Erlinda Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo arembers.9

May 28, 1997, the Quezon City RTC in the Annulment/Reversion case issued a Preliminary Injunction (Injunction) freezctment cases involving the Tala Estate pending in the MeTCs of Quezon City and Caloocan City.10

eving that the Injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC can be beneficial to them in the Recovery case pending beforeoocan City RTC, on June 27, 1997, spouses Rene and Rosemarie Matienzo filed a motion to suspend the proceedings

covery case.

11

On December 8, 1997, the Caloocan City RTC, Branch 124 denied said motion.

12

Spouses Matienzo movreconsideration of the motion, but the same was denied on May 14, 1998.13The spouses received the order denying thtion for reconsideration on June 9, 1998.14Trial on the merits started on December 2, 1998.15

e second case, an ejectment complaint, was commenced by spouses Bernard and Florencia Perl on June 25, 1997, aganda Reyes before the Caloocan City MeTC, Branch 49.16It was docketed as Civil Case No. 23477. Shortly thereafter, o997, spouses Perl filed the third case, an ejectment action against Sergio Abejero. The case, which was raffled off to B

of the Caloocan City MeTC, was docketed as Civil Case No. 23519.17Subsequently, these two ejectment cases weresolidated (Ejectment cases).18In her Answer and during the preliminary conference, Erlinda Reyes moved for the suspehe proceedings and/or for the dismissal of these cases citing the Injunction issued in Civil Case No. Q-96-29810 .19In itser20dated January 22, 1999, the MeTC did not entertain Reyess motion, instead, it required her to submit a position panda Reyes received the order on March 11, 1999.21On April 16, 1999, the trial court issued a Decision ordering Erlinda ate the contested property.22

e Recovery case and the Ejectment cases converged when petitioners Rosemarie Matienzo and Erlinda Reyes, joined orch 25, 1999 in filing directly with this Court the instant petition denominated as "Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, and Prohinly assailing the denial of their respective motions for suspension.23Petitioners Matienzo and Reyes asked that theceedings in the Ejectment cases and the Recovery case be declared null and void for violating the Injunction order of thezon City RTC. This case is docketed as G.R. No. 137794.

ing the pendency of G.R. No. 137794, certain events supervened when the Ejectment cases ran their course and petitioyes appealed the MeTC decision to the RTC. In the RTC, the Ejectment cases were docketed as Civil Cases Nos. C-18924Apparently, respondent-spouses Perl moved for the execution of the MeTC decision pending appeal, which the RTCnted as the Writ of Execution was thereafter issued on October 20, 2000.25Petitioner Erlinda Reyes and company, thush this Court a motion to suspend the proceedings in the RTC. 26On October 25, 2000, this Court issued a Temporary

straining Order restraining the implementation of the said writ of execution.27

R. No. 149664, on the other hand, emanated from four distinct ejectment complaints filed against petitioners Corazonrente, spouses Alberto and Lourdes Embores, spouses Roberto and Evelyn Palad, and Dennis Henosa.28The parcels

m which petitioners were sought to be evicted were located in Camarin, Caloocan City and within the Tala Estate.29Petite members of Alyansa Ng Mga Naninirahan Sa Tala Friar Lands (ALNATFRAL), an intervenor in the Reversion case .30

ctment cases were all filed after the Injunction order was issued on May 28, 1997 by the Quezon City RTC in thenulment/Reversion case. Thus, petitioners separately invoked the said injunction in seeking the dismissal or suspensionr ejectment cases. Petitioners motions for suspension were dismissed and the trial court proceeded to render judgment
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt6


12/19

se cases. Petitioners resorted directly to this Court in seeking the declaration of nullity of the proceedings of these ejectmes for violating the prevailing injunction issued by the Quezon City RTC.

anwhile, on March 4, 2003, the petitioners in G.R. No. 149664 filed a motion for consolidation asking that the said case solidated with G.R. No. 137794.

April 28, 2003, this Court resolved to consolidate the two cases.

July 28, 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 149664 filed a Motion to Withdraw and/or Dismiss Instant Petition31stating that sinision in the Annulment/Reversion case (Civil Case No. Q-96-29810) was already issued (although they did not attach a reof), the petition is therefore rendered moot and academic as the injunction order was effective only pending determinamerits.

August 30, 2006, the Court granted the motion to withdraw petition in G.R. No. 149664 and considered the same closedminated.32On October 11, 2006, G.R. No. 149664 became final and executory.

at remains to be resolved, therefore, are the issues raised in G.R. No. 137794.

heir bid to declare null and void the proceedings in the Recovery case and the Ejectment cases, petitioners argued that oocan City MeTC, where the Ejectment cases were filed, and the Caloocan City RTC where the Recovery case was pene divested of jurisdiction since the Quezon City RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter.33Petitioners specificaged that the MeTCs refusal to suspend the Ejectment cases despite the Injunction order is tantamount or amounting to

or excess of jurisdiction. As to the Caloocan City RTC, its desistance to heed the Injunction is unjustified and contrary to led jurisprudence.34Petitioners were of the view that the interference by the Quezon City RTC was justified since no thity claim is involved.35

e Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) adopts the position of petitioners in praying that the orders denying the motion topend proceedings and the proceedings that transpired in the Ejectment cases be set aside for having been issued with se of discretion.36Citing Honda Giken Kogyo-Kabushiki Kaisha v. San Diego,37where it was held that a writ of injunctiossued to a court by another court superior in rank, the OSG maintains that the Injunction issued by the Quezon City RT

l Case No. Q-96-29810 covers all metropolitan trial courts including the Ejectment cases in Caloocan City MeTC, Branc38The OSG also maintains that the Injunction was in accordance with the settled jurisprudence where the reversion caseng filed by the State.

spondent Segundo Bautista contends that petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy. He argues that the action for declaratef can only prosper if the statute, deed, or contract has not been violated.39Hence, where the law or contract has alreadn breached prior to the filing of the declaratory relief, courts can no longer assume jurisdiction since this action is not geards the settling of issues arising from breach or violation of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, dee contract, but rather it is intended to secure an authoritative statement for guidance in their enforcement or compliance

me.40Since the Injunction order of the Quezon City RTC had already been violated as early as December 8, 1997 by theoocan City RTC in the Recovery case, or before the filing of this instant petition, resort to Rule 63 of the Rules of Court lie. Respondent Bautista insists that the instant recourse of petitioner Matienzo was resorted to as a ploy to substitute tg ofcertiorariunder Rule 65, which she already lost since the 60-day period had already expired.41Respondent points o

ct resort to this Court violates the rule on the hierarchy of courts. Since it was the Caloocan City RTC which denied petitienzos motion to suspend proceedings, the petition for declaratory relief should have been filed with the Court of Appeaect filing with this Court is not justified as, other than making motherhood statements, petitioner Matienzo failed to state cexceptional and compelling circumstances to justify the exercise of this Courts primary jurisdiction.42He likewise conte

t the Caloocan City RTC did not err in not suspending the proceedings in the Recovery case, notwithstanding the Injuncued by the Quezon City RTC, since the said injunction applied only to the MeTCs of Quezon City and Caloocan City so tC was excluded from the injunction order. He avers that it is the Caloocan City RTC which is vested with the jurisdiction r and decide the case until its final conclusion since it had acquired the same ahead of the Quezon City RTC. He states

ng co-equal, the Quezon City RTC had no authority to stop by injunction the Caloocan City RTC and even though there
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt31


13/19

ances where another court may exercise coordinate jurisdiction in cases where there are justifiable grounds, here, petittienzo has not alleged any of those circumstances.

itioners insist that this is mainly a petition for declaratory relief. Section 1, Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides:

CTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or who

ts are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, beforeach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of constructiondity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidatenership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.

e foregoing section can be dissected into two parts. The first paragraph concerns declaratory relief, which has been definpecial civil action by any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument or whose rights are affa statute, ordinance, executive order or regulation to determine any question of construction or validity arising under therument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The secondagraph pertains to (1) an action for the reformation of an instrument; (2) an action to quiet title; and (3) an action to

solidate ownership in a sale with a right to repurchase.43

e first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63 enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon in a declaratory relief namelyd, will, contract or other written instrument, a statute, executive order or regulation, or any government regulation. This Cerum v. Cruz,44declared that the subject matters to be tested in a petition for declaratory relief are exclusive, viz:

der this rule, only a person who is interested "under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, and whose rights acted by a statute or ordinance, may bring an action to determine any question of construction or validity arising under thrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder." This means that the subject matter must referd, will, contract or other written instrument, or to a statute or ordinance, to warrant declaratory relief. Any other matter nntioned therein is deemed excluded. This is under the principle ofexpressio unius est exclussio alterius. (Emphasis sup

e foregoing holding was reiterated in Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

45

wherein this Court stressed that court ordisions cannot be made the subject matter of a declaratory relief, thus:

ge Querubin's query is not an action for declaratory relief. Section 1 of Rule 64 [now Rule 63] of the Rules of Court provrequisites of an action for declaratory relief. In interpreting these requisites, the Court has ruled that:

x x

e letter of Judge Querubin pertained to final orders and decisions of the courts that are clearly not the proper subjects oftion for declaratory relief. Thus, the requisites prescribed by the Rules of Court in an action for declaratory relief are notlicable to the letter of Judge Querubin.46(Emphasis supplied.)

en again in a recent ruling of this Court, it was emphasized:

etition for declaratory relief cannot properly have a court decision as its subject matter. In Tanda v. Aldaya [98 Phil. 24456)], we ruled that:

court decision cannot be interpreted as included within the purview of the words "other written instrument," as contendeellant, for the simple reason that the Rules of Court already provide for the ways by which an ambiguous or doubtful dey be corrected or clarified without need of resorting to the expedient prescribed by Rule 66 [now Rule 64].47(Emphasisplied.)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt43


14/19

he instant case, petitioners Erlinda Reyes and Rosemarie Matienzo assailed via Declaratory Relief under Rule 63 of theCourt, the orders of the trial courts denying their motions to suspend proceedings. This recourse by petitioners, unfortunanot be countenanced since a court order is not one of those subjects to be examined under Rule 63.

e proper remedy that petitioner Erlinda Reyes could have utilized from the denial of her motion to suspend proceedings oocan City MeTC was to file a motion for reconsideration and, if it is denied, to file a petition for certiorari before the RTC

suant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner Matienzo should have filed a special civil action oniorari also under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals from the denial of her motion by the Caloocan City RTC. The necessg the petition to the RTC in the case of Erlinda Reyes and to the Court of Appeals in the case of Matienzo is dictated by ciple of the hierarchy of courts.48Both petitions must be filed within 60 days from the receipt or notice of the denial of thtion to suspend proceedings or from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Section 4 of Rule 65 partly provides:

c. 4. When and where to file the petition. - The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judger or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, ttion shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of said motion.

e petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court x x x, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Courtrcising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appea

h the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the courts appellate jurisdiction.

spite this procedural remedy available to them, petitioners, under the pretext that they were in a quandary as to their righer the Injunction order of the Quezon City RTC, directly filed the instant case here. Petitioners did not bother to proffer a

mpelling reason for their direct resort to this Court. This procedural faux pas proves fatal. The Courts exhortation again sng a procedural shortcut cannot be overemphasized. In Ortega v. The Quezon City Government,49the Court accentuat

all events, even if this petition delves on questions of law, there is no statutory or jurisprudential basis for according to thurt original and exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory relief which advances only questions of law.

ally, while a petition for declaratory relief may be treated as one for prohibition if it has far reaching implications and raisstions that need to be resolved, there is no allegation of facts by petitioner tending to show that she is entitled to such a

e judicial policy must thus remain that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it, except when the redress sought cannained in the proper courts or when exceptional and compelling circumstances warrant availment of a remedy within anding for the exercise of this Court's primary jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied.)

make matters worse, petitioner Matienzo obviously availed of the instant declaratory relief to substitute for a petitioncertiorari, a remedy which she sadly lost by inaction. It must be recalled that on December 8, 1997, the Caloocan City Rnch 124 denied Matienzos motion to suspend proceedings.50She moved for reconsideration, but the same was deniedy 14, 1998.51She received the Order denying her motion for reconsideration on June 9, 1998.52She had 60 days therefrstion the same before the Quezon City RTC. It was only on March 25, 1999 that petitioner Matienzo assailed the orderying her motion for reconsideration, albeit wrongly before this Court.53From this, it can be inferred that petitioner Matien

ourse is a belated attempt designed to salvage her lost opportunity to assail the order denying her motion to suspendceedings.

o unavailing are the contentions of petitioners that the Caloocan City RTC and MeTC committed grave abuse of discreten they denied petitioners motions to suspend proceedings. The pertinent portion of the Injunction order of the Quezon C reads:

EREFORE, premises considered, this Court has to grant, as it hereby grants the application for the issuance of the writiminary injunction. Let a writ of preliminary Injunction be issued ordering defendant representing Biyaya Corporation, itsnts, assigns, and transferees, as well as all other persons representing themselves as owners of certain portions of the uestion, otherwise known as the Tala Estate, to immediately cease and desist from doing or causing to do, further acts

position of the lots subject of the present complaint, such as the filing of ejectment cases in the Municipal Trial Courts of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt48


15/19

ezon City and Caloocan City and, the demolition and ejectment therefrom of the members of the herein Intervenors.cordingly, the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Quezon City and Caloocan City are specifically ordered to cease and desist frher conducting trials and proceedings in the ejectment cases filed and to be filed involving the lots of the present complal further orders from this Court.54(Emphasis supplied.)

e foregoing order is not addressed to the Caloocan City RTC. Neither can it be inferred from the language thereof that th

ezon City RTC intended to enjoin the Caloocan City RTC from further proceeding with the Recovery case. The order mentions the Caloocan City MeTCs. Nothing more. But more importantly, the Quezon City RTC could not have validly enjoCaloocan City RTC without violating the doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgmenrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.55Spouses Ching v. Court of Appeals56justifies this rule in this m

ginning with the case ofOrais v. Escao, down to the subsequent cases ofNuez v. Low, Cabigao v. del Rosario, Hubaular Drug Co., Inc., National Power Corp. v. De Veyra, Luciano v. Provincial Governor, De Leon v. Hon. Judge Salvadoruangco v. Villegas, Darwin v. Tokonaga, we laid down the long standing doctrine that no court has the power to interferenction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a prov

city, having the same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their respective casesch less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the

ministration of justice. (Emphasis supplied.)

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Court of Appeals,57two civil cases with identical causes of action were fileerent RTCs, one ahead of the other. The second RTC which acquired jurisdiction over the case issued a preliminary injuoining the proceedings in the RTC which first acquired jurisdiction of the case. Ruling against the injunction issued by thC, this Court stressed:

nce, nothing can be clearer than that Judge Rapatalo had indeed issued the questioned writ of preliminary injunction witve abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction for the blatant disregard of the basic precept that no cothe power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of a co-equal and coordinate court of concurrent jurisd

ing the power to grant the relief sought by injunction.

s Court explained in Parco vs. Court of Appeals that:

x Jurisdiction is vested in the court not in any particular branch or judge, and as a corollary rule, the various branches ourt of First Instance of a judicial district are a coordinate and co-equal courts one branch stands on the same level as theer. Undue interference by one on the proceedings and processes of another is prohibited by law. In the language of thisurt, the various branches of the Court of First Instance of a province or city, having as they have the same or equal auth exercising as they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with

pective cases, much less with their orders or judgments x x x.

edless to say, adherence to a different rule would sow confusion and wreak havoc on the orderly administration of justiche ensuing melee, hapless litigants will be at a loss as to where to appear and plead their cause. 1avvphi158(Emphasis supplied

ile there are recognized exceptions to the foregoing rule, other than citing said cases, 59petitioners did not explain theplicability of said exceptional cases to their petition.

eft of merit too is petitioners argument that the Caloocan City MeTC cannot disregard the injunction order of the QuezoC hearing the Annulment/Reversion case. The established rule is that a pending civil action for ownership such as annutle shall not ipso facto suspend an ejectment proceeding.60The Court explained that the rationale for this is that in an

ctment case, the issue is possession, while in an annulment case the issue is ownership.61In fact, an ejectment case cad apart from an annulment case.62Although there is an exception to this rule, petitioners failed to justify that this case fahin said exception. The words of the Court on this matter are instructive:

he absence of a concrete showing of compelling equitable reasons at least comparable and under circumstances analo
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt54


16/19

Amagan, we cannot override the established rule that a pending civil action for ownership shall not ipso facto suspend actment proceeding. Additionally, to allow a suspension on the basis of the reasons the petitioners presented in this caseate the dangerous precedent of allowing an ejectment suit to be suspended by an action filed in another court by partiesnot involved or affected by the ejectment suit.63(Emphases supplied.)

nce, petitioners posture that the Ejectment cases should be suspended due to the pendency of the Annulment/Reversio

e is not meritorious.

EREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Temporary Restraining Order datedober 25, 2000 issued by this Court is LIFTED.

ORDERED.

RESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROsociate Justice

CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONAChief JusticeChairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN*Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

suant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reachesultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

NATO C. CORONAef Justice

otnotes

* Per Special Order No. 876 dated August 2, 2010.

1Petitioners in G.R. No. 137794 insist that their petition is mainly a Declaratory Relief. (See rollo, p. 366.)

2Rollo (G.R. No. 137794), pp. 3-15.

3Rollo (G.R. No. 149664), pp. 3-19.

4Id. at 398.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#fnt63


17/19

5Id. at 45.

6Rollo (G.R. No. 137794), p. 543.

7Id. at 6.

8Id. at 556.

9Id. at 299.

10The motion for reconsideration of the injunction order was denied on October 21, 1997. Apparently no furactions were taken against the said order. (Rollo [G.R. No. 137794], pp. 35-41.)

11Rollo (G.R. No. 137794), p. 546.

12Id. at 548.

13Id. at 551.

14Id. at 15.

15Id. at 552.

16Id. at 299.

17Id. at 299-300.

18Id. at 300.

19

Id. at 112.

20Id. at 76.

21Id. at 15.

22Id. at 112.

23Id. at 3.

24Id. at 224.

25Id. at 284.

26Id. at 267-270.

27Id. at 283-284.

28Rollo (G.R. No. 149664), p. 8.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt5


18/19

29Id. at 6.

30Id. at 40.

31Id. at 392.

32Id. at 398.

33Id. at 12.

34Id.

35Id. at 13.

36Rollo (G.R. No. 137794), p. 307.

37G.R. No. L-22756, March 18, 1966, 16 SCRA 406; rollo (G.R. No. 137794), p. 303.

38Rollo (G.R. No. 137794), p. 303.

39Id. at 558.

40Id.

41Id. at 354-355.

42Id. at 560-561.

43Malana v. Tappa, G.R. No. 181303, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 189, 199-200;Atlas Consolidated M

& Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 54305, February 14, 1990, 182 SCRA 166, 177.

4487 Phil 652, 657 (1950); Declaratory Relief was then under Rule 66 of the 1948 Rules of Court.

45440 Phil. 1, 19 (2002).

46Declaratory Relief was then under Rule 64 of the 1994 Rules of Court.

47CJH Development Corporation v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172457, December 24, 2008, 57SCRA 467, 473.

48Tano v. Socrates, 343 Phil. 670, 700 (1997).

49506 Phil. 373, 380-381 (2005).

50Rollo (G.R. No. 137794), p. 548.

51Id. at 551.

52Id. at 15.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_137794_2010.html#rnt33http:

cases et al

Documents