Ty vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (G.R 188302 !etitioner" Nancy L. Ty Respondent" Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank F#$TS" Sometime Sometime in 1979, the Banco Banco Filipino ilipino Savings Savings and Mortgage Mortgage Bank respo respondent ndent!! "anted to p#rchase real properties as ne" $ranch sites %or its e&pansion program. Since the 'eneral Banking (ct ) limits a $ank*s real estate holdings to no more than +- o% its capital assets, the respondent*s Board Board o% irectors irectors decided to "areho#se some o% its e&isting properties and $ranch sites to allo" more /e&i$ility in the opening o% $ranches, and to ena$le it to ac0#ire ne" $ranch sites. The petitioner, a maor stockholder stockholder and a director director o% the respondent, respondent, pers#aded t"o other maor stockholders, 2edro (g#irre and his $rother Tomas (g#irre, to organi3e and incorporate Tala 4ealty Services 5orporation Tala 4ealty! to hold and p#rchase real properties in tr#st %or the respondent. S#$se0#ently, S#$se0#ently, 4emedios 4emedios (. #pas0#ier #pas0#ier prodded her $rother Tomas Tomas to endorse to her his shares in Tala 4ealty and she registered them in the name o% her controlled corporat corporation, ion, (dd 6nternati 6nternational onal Services Services,, 6nc. The petitioner petitioner,, 4emedios, emedios, and 2edro 2edro controlled Tala 4ealty thro#gh their respective nominees. 6n implementing their tr#st agreement, the respondent sold to Tala 4ealty some o% its properties. Tala 4ealty sim#ltaneo#sly leased to the respondent the properties %or years, rene"a$le %or another years at the respondent*s option "ith a right o% 8rst re%#sal in the event Tala 4ealty decides to sell them. o"ever, in #%g%st 1&&2, Tala Tala 4ealty rep#diatedreno#n rep#diatedreno#nced! ced! the tr#st, claimed the titles %or itsel%, and demanded payment o% rentals, deposits, and good"ill, "ith a threat to eect the respondent. The respondent respondent 8led 17 complaints against Tala 4ealty, 4ealty, the petitioner, 2edro, 2edro, 4emedios, and their respective nominees %or reconveyance o% di:erent properties "ith 17 4egional Trial 5o#rts 4T5s! nation"ide, incl#ding $ivil $ase 'o. 20)*M' $e%ore $e%ore Branch 17 o% the 4T5 4T5 o% Mala$on Mala$on Mala$on case!, s#$ect s#$ect o% the present present case. The petitioner and her co;de%endants moved to dismiss the Mala$on case %or %or#m shopping and litis pendentia, citing the 1< other civil cases 8led in vario#s co#rts involving the same %acts, iss#es, parties, and relie%s pleaded in the respondent*s complaint. The Mala$on 4T5 denied the motion to dismiss, 8nding no commonality in the 1< other civil cases since they involved di:erent ca#ses o% action.
The petitioner 8led a motion to hold proceedings in a$eyance, citing the pendency "ith this 5o#rt o% '.4. No. 17<11 that assailed the denial o% their motion to dismiss 5ivil 5ase No. )+1 $e%ore the Batangas 5ity 4T5 Branch =)!, and also prayed %or a "rit o% prohi$ition to order the 17 4T5 $ranches and the three 5( divisions, "here the same cases "ere pending, to desist %rom %#rther proceeding "ith the trial o% the cases. The Mala$on 4T5 granted to +old proceedings in a,eyance. >hen the Mala$on 4T5 denied the respondent*s motion %or reconsideration, the respondent elevated its case to the 5( via a 4#le <+ petition %or certiorari. The 5( initially dismissed the petition, $#t on motion %or reconsideration, it modi8ed its r#ling, setting aside the 4T5*s order to hold proceedings in a$eyance %or mootness, d#e to this 5o#rt*s dismissal o% '.4. No. 17<11 %or late 8ling. The respondent moved %or pre;trial. Tala 4ealty opposed the motion and 8led again a motion to s#spend proceedings. The petitioner 8led her separate opposition to the respondent*s motion %or pre;trial and a motion to hold proceedings in a$eyance, stating that a%ter the dismissal o% '.4. No. 17<11, t"o other similar petitions have $een elevated to this 5o#rt? 1! '.4. No. 1@1=),@involving the 5(*s reversal o% the dismissal o% 5ivil 5ase No. A;9+; )=@ in the A#e3on 5ity 4T5 Branch 91!, and ! '.4. No. 1@7@. @1 The Mala$on 4T5 granted the motion, and again ordered to hold proceedings in a$eyance. Si& years later, the Mala$on 4T5 directed the parties* co#nsels to in%orm it o% the stat#s o% the pending cases. 6n her compliance, the petitioner s#mmari3ed this 5o#rt*s r#lings in the consolidated cases o% '.4. Nos. 1@1=) and 1@91<<, and in '.4. No. 1@7@, and reported on the other cases involving the same parties decided $y this 5o#rt, s#ch as '.4. Nos. 19==7, 1@79=, 1@+1, 1@7+@@, 1)@<@, and 1)<7, as "ell as the other related cases decided $y this 5o#rt, i.e., '.4. Nos. 1))7, 1)7997, 1<7++, and 1))7+. n the other hand, the respondent 8led its compliance "ith motion to revive proceedings, citing the 5o#rt*s consolidated decision in '.4. Nos. 1@1=) and 1@91<<, and the decisions in '.4. Nos. 1))7, 1<7++, and 1))7+, commonly holding that there e&isted no %or#m shopping, litis pendentia and res #dicata among the respondent*s reconveyance cases pending in the other co#rts o% #stice. 6n her comment to the respondent*s motion to revive proceedings, the petitioner arg#ed that the proceedings sho#ld not $e revived since all the reconveyance cases are gro#nded on the same theory o% implied tr#st "hich this 5o#rt in '.4. No. 1@7+@@ %o#nd void %or $eing illegal as it "as a scheme to circ#mvent the +limitation on real estate holdings #nder the 'eneral Banking (ct.
Tala 4ealty, on the other hand, pointed o#t that it "as the co#rt*s prerogative to s#spend or not its proceedings pending the resol#tion o% iss#es $y another co#rt, in order to avoid m#ltiplicity o% s#its and prevent ve&atio#s litigations. 6n its May <, = order, the 4T5 granted the respondent*s motion to revive proceedings, noting that res #dicata is not applica$le since there are independent ca#ses o% action %or each o% the properties so#ght to $e recovered. >hen the 4T5 denied the petitioner*s motion %or reconsideration, she elevated her case to the 5( via a 4#le <+ petition %or certiorari, assailing the 4T5 orders. 6n its March @1, 9 decision, t+e $# a-red t+e RT$/s orders . 6t noted that res %dicata does not apply since the iss#e o% validity or en%orcea$ility o% the tr#st agreement "as raised in an eectment case, not an action involving title or o"nership, citing the 5o#rt*s prono#ncement in '.4. No. 1))7+ that '.4. No. 1@7+@@ does not p#t to rest all pending litigations involving the iss#es o% o"nership $et"een the parties since it involved only an iss#e o% de acto possession. >hen the 5( denied her motion %or reconsideration, the petitioner 8led the present petition. The petitioner arg#es that the 5( erred in re%#sing to apply '.4. No. 1@7+@@ #nder t+e principle o res %dicata $y concl#siveness o% #dgment and stare decisis, and ignoring the Novem$er <, 7 min#te resol#tion in '.4. No. 177=<+ and the (pril 7, 9 consolidated decision in '.4. Nos. 1@==, 1@1)<9, 1++171, 1++1, and 1<<<=<+ that reiterated the 5o#rt*s prono#ncement in '.4. No. 1@7+@@. The petition is GR#'T. The assailed decision and resol#tion o% the 5o#rt o% (ppeals in 5(;'.4. S2 No. 171) are here$y R4RS and ST #S5. 5ivil 5ase No. +<;MN $e%ore Branch 17 o% the 4egional Trial 5o#rt o% Mala$on, Metro Manila is here$y 5SM5SS.
S6MM#R7" 1. 4espondents 8led 17 complaints against petitioner incl#ding $ivil $ase 'o. 20)*M' $e%ore Branch 17 o% the 4T5 o% Mala$on. 2. 2etitioner moved %or the dismissal o% the case in 4T5 o% Mala$on "hich "as denied denied, 8nding no commonality in the 1< other civil cases since they involved di:erent ca#ses o% action. 3. 2etitioner 8led a motion to hold proceedings in a$eyance. . The Mala$on 4T5 granted to +old proceedings in a,eyance. . 4espondent*s 8led %or motion %or reconsideration $#t it "as denied ,y t+e RT$. ). 4espondent*s elevated its case to the 5(. The $# initially disissed t+e petition, $#t on motion %or reconsideration, it odi9ed its r%ling , setting aside the 4T5*s order to hold proceedings in a$eyance %or mootness An issue presenting no real controversy), d#e to 5o#rt*s dismissal o% '.4. No. 17<11 %or late 8ling.
:. The respondent moved %or pre;trial. 8. 2etitioner opposed the motion and 8led again a motion to s#spend proceedings. &. The Mala,on RT$ granted t+e otion, and again ordered to hold proceedings in a$eyance. 10. The respondent 8led its compliance "ith motion to revive proceedings. 11. The petitioner arg#ed that the proceedings sho#ld not $e revived since all the reconveyance cases are gro#nded on the same theory o% implied tr#st "hich this 5o#rt in '.4. No. 1@7+@@ %o#nd void %or $eing illegal as it "as a scheme to circ#mvent the +- limitation on real estate holdings #nder the 'eneral Banking (ct. 12. 4T5 granted the respondent*s motion to revive proceedings. 13. 2etitioner 8led %or motion %or reconsideration $#t it "as denied $y the 4T5. She elevated her case to the 5( via a 4#le <+ petition %or certiorari, assailing the 4T5 orders. 1. The 5( aCrmed the 4T5*s orders. 1. >hen the 5( denied her motion %or reconsideration, the petitioner 8led the present petition. 1). The petition is GR#'T. The assailed decision and resol#tion o% the 5o#rt o% (ppeals in 5(;'.4. S2 No. 171) are here$y R4RS and ST #S5. 5ivil 5ase No. +<;MN $e%ore Branch 17 o% the 4egional Trial 5o#rt o% Mala$on, Metro Manila is here$y 5SM5SS.
5SS6" >hether or not the "hether the 5o#rt*s r#ling in '.4. No. 1@7+@@ applies as stare decisis to the present case.
;G#; B#S5S" 5T46ND F ST(4D D56S6S, +ic+ are esta,lis+ed .E nder the doctrine, "hen this 5o#rt has once laid do"n a principle o% la" as applica$le to a certain state o% %acts, it "ill adhere to that principle, and apply it to all %#t#re cases, "here %acts are s#$stantially the sameG regardless o% "hether the parties and property are the same. The doctrine o% stare decisis is $ased #pon the legal principle or r#le involved and not #pon the #dgment, "hich res#lts there%rom. 6n this partic#lar sense, stare decisis di:ers %rom res %dicata= >+ic+ is ,ased %pon t+e %dgent .
R6;5'G" ?@RFAR, the petition is GR#'T. The assailed decision and resol#tion o% the 5o#rt o% (ppeals in 5(;'.4. S2 No. 171) are here$y R4RS and ST #S5. 5ivil 5ase No. +<;MN $e%ore Branch 17 o% the 4egional Trial 5o#rt o% Mala$on, Metro Manila is here$y 5SM5SS. The 17 cases 8led $y the respondents have e&actly the same point and the %acts are s#$stantially the same and according to the 2rinciple o% Stare ecisis once a case
has $een decided one "ay, any other case involving e&actly the same point at iss#e, as in the present case, sho#ld $e decided in the same manner.
