Forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits in different tribunals involving the same parties for the same cause of action either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. This is not allowed under our Rules of Court. But in these multiple cases filed by the Malinao family, the court found that rule against forum shopping has not been violated. Let us find out why.
This case involved around 40 hectares of lands in a suburban town covered by Cadastral Survey 452-D (Cad 452-D).
On November 21, 1997, a realty firm (BEPI) filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) seven applications for registration of title over nine adjoining lots with a total area of 93,838 square meters covered by Cad 452-D. On the same date, another realty company, (BBPI) also filed three applications for registration of title involving portions of the same property with a total area of 73,436 square meters.
When the Malinao family learned about said applications of BEPI and BBPI, they filed an opposition to the same claiming that they own 442,892 square meters of the land covered by Cad 452-D which include the areas applied for by the two realty firms. They also asked the MTC that their opposition be treated as their application for registration of title over the same area.
Subsequently, the Malinao Family also filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) their own application for registration of titles over the land covered by Cad 452-D with a corrected area of 404,139 square meters. But BEPI moved to dismiss said application on the ground of forum shopping and pendency of the case before the MTC. BEPI claimed that in effect the Malinao Family had two pending applications for registration of title covering the same property since they also asked the MTC to treat their opposition therein filed as their application for registration of title.
Meantime however, the MTC dismissed the applications for registration of title filed by BEPI and BBPI for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was the RTC that has jurisdiction over the case. Upon finality of said dismissal by the MTC, the RTC in turn denied BEPI’s motion to dismiss the application for registration of the Malinao family. The RTC ruled that the Malinao family did not commit forum shopping. Was the RTC correct?
Yes, because: First, while the Malinao famliy’s application for land registration was pending before the RTC, BEPI’s registration application in the MTC was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. From then on, there appears to be no other registration application involving the parties in this case and the subject parcels of land covered by Cad 452-D except the Malinao family application before the RTC. Thus the evil sought to be prevented by the rule against forum shopping — the possibility of two different tribunals rendering conflicting decisions — no longer exists.
Second, the Malinao family’s submission of an opposition in the MTC does not amount to a filing of an application for registration for all the lots comprising Cad 452-D which will bar the initiation of land registration proceedings for the whole property.
Third, the Malinao family’s registration application involved a much bigger tract of land that includes the lots applied for by BEPI. The great disparity in the size of the lots subject of the two land registration applications warrants the non-dismissal of the Malinao family’s application in the RTC. Even if the proceedings continued in the MTC, it would have only resolved the rights of BEPI over 93,868 square meters of Cad 452-D. There would be no res judicata (bar by prior judgment) as to the remaining larger portion of roughly 300,000 square meters.
Fourth, dismissing the RTC land registration case will leave the Malinao family as well as BEPI without a remedy in view of the earlier dismissal of the MTC case. Therefore it is ultimately for the benefit of both parties that the RTC case continues. The rule against forum shopping was formulated to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. It should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to defeat its primary objective of facilitating the speedy disposition of the case (Calinisan vs. Court of Appeals et.al. G.R. 158031 November 20, 2007).
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net