Republic vs. Mangotara (2010) G.R. No. 170375 | 2010-07-07
Subject: Filing of consolidated petitions under both Rules 45 and 65; Hierarchy of courts; The proper parties in the expropriation proceedings; Forum shopping; Expropriation vis!vis reversion; "etitions for revie# under Rule 45; $urisdiction vis!vis exercise of %urisdiction; &rdinary civil action for reconveyance vis!vis special proceeding for 'uieting of title; (Title) in 'uieting of title; "rescription; The re'uirements of posting a supersedeas bond and depositing rent to stay execution; "reliminary in%unction to stay execution of RT* %udgment against defendant in an e%ectment case; *ause of action for reversion; Res %udicata+
THE PRECEDING CASES ,ll the petitions have for their common genesis the t#o cases discussed belo#The 1914 Cacho Case (Cacho v. Government of the United States) Facts: The late .o/a .emetria *acho applied for the registration of t#o parcels of land0 both located in 1ligan *ity *ity++ 2ot 30 the smaller parcel0 #as purchased from abriel alos0 #ho in turn bought it from .atto .arondon and his #ife ,langa0 evidenced by a deed of sale in favor of alos signed solely by ,langa0 on behalf of .atto .arondon+ .o/a .emetria purportedly purchased 2ot 70 the larger parcel0 from .atto 8unglay+ .atto 8unglay claimed to have inherited i nherited 2ot 7 from his uncle0 .atto ,nandog0 #ho died #ithout issue+ &nly the overnment opposed the registration on the ground that the properties formed part of a military reservation+
Held: 3+ ,s to 2ot 3- The deed held by .o/a .emetria is executed only by ,langa0 a 9oro and #ife of .atto .arondon0 #hich is not permitted either by the 9oro la#s or the *ivil *ode of the "hilippines "hi lippines at the time+ ,t the time of application for registration0 .atto .arondon is still alive0 and thus he must present a deed renouncing all his rights in the small parcel of land in favor of the applicant0 .o/a .emetria0 before registration can be admitted+ 7+ ,s to 2ot 7- The *ourt found that .atto 8unglay did not have title to the parcel of land as nephe# of .atto ,nandog0 according to the *ivil *ode and the :2u#aran *ode: of the 9oros0 #hich states that the brothers and sisters of a deceased 9oro inherit his property to the exclusion of the more distant relatives+ Ho#ever0 since .atto ,nandogs sister0 ,langa0 appeared as a #itness for the applicant .o/a .emetria #ithout having made any claim to the land0 she #as deemed to have ratified the sale made by her nephe#+ 3 !"l# $ot % &as '(a"ted to Do)a De*et(+a ,o( (e'+st(at+o"- a"d the Cou(t also o(de(ed a "e& su(.e# o, the /(o/e(t# e0clud+"' all the la"d "ot cult+.ated b# Datto A"a"do' the 2southe(" /a(t2 The 199 Cacho Case Facts: Teofilo *acho0 claiming to be the late .o/a .emetria =&*Ts> over 2ots 3 and 7+ The petition #as opposed by b y the Republic0 ?ational teel *orporation =?*>0 and the *ity of 1ligan+ The RT* granted the petition0 but the *, reversed0 because the reissuance of the decree for 2ot 7 could not be made in the absence of the ne# survey ordered by this *ourt in the 3@34 *acho case; the heir of a registered o#ner may lose his right to recover possession of the property and title thereto by laches; and Teofilo failed to establish his identity and existence and that he #as a real partyininterest+ Held:
Held: 3+ ,s to 2ot 3- The deed held by .o/a .emetria is executed only by ,langa0 a 9oro and #ife of .atto .arondon0 #hich is not permitted either by the 9oro la#s or the *ivil *ode of the "hilippines "hi lippines at the time+ ,t the time of application for registration0 .atto .arondon is still alive0 and thus he must present a deed renouncing all his rights in the small parcel of land in favor of the applicant0 .o/a .emetria0 before registration can be admitted+ 7+ ,s to 2ot 7- The *ourt found that .atto 8unglay did not have title to the parcel of land as nephe# of .atto ,nandog0 according to the *ivil *ode and the :2u#aran *ode: of the 9oros0 #hich states that the brothers and sisters of a deceased 9oro inherit his property to the exclusion of the more distant relatives+ Ho#ever0 since .atto ,nandogs sister0 ,langa0 appeared as a #itness for the applicant .o/a .emetria #ithout having made any claim to the land0 she #as deemed to have ratified the sale made by her nephe#+ 3 !"l# $ot % &as '(a"ted to Do)a De*et(+a ,o( (e'+st(at+o"- a"d the Cou(t also o(de(ed a "e& su(.e# o, the /(o/e(t# e0clud+"' all the la"d "ot cult+.ated b# Datto A"a"do' the 2southe(" /a(t2 The 199 Cacho Case Facts: Teofilo *acho0 claiming to be the late .o/a .emetria =&*Ts> over 2ots 3 and 7+ The petition #as opposed by b y the Republic0 ?ational teel *orporation =?*>0 and the *ity of 1ligan+ The RT* granted the petition0 but the *, reversed0 because the reissuance of the decree for 2ot 7 could not be made in the absence of the ne# survey ordered by this *ourt in the 3@34 *acho case; the heir of a registered o#ner may lose his right to recover possession of the property and title thereto by laches; and Teofilo failed to establish his identity and existence and that he #as a real partyininterest+ Held:
3+ The *ourt found that the decrees of 3@34 had in i n fact been issued and attained finality+ Re'uiring the submission of a ne# plan as a condition for the reissuance of the decree #ould render the finality attained by the Cacho vs. U.S+ case nugatory0 thus0 thus0 violating the fundamental rule regarding res %udicata+ 7+ The *ourt also ruled that laches cannot bar the issuance of a decree+ , final decision in land registration cases can neither be rendered inefficacious by the statute of limitations nor by laches+ A+ Finally0 the *ourt #as satisfied that Teofilos identity #as sufficiently established0 relying on an ,ffidavit of ,d%udication as .o/a .emetria #ho represented him in this case+ The *ourt stressed that =,tty the execution of public documents is entitled to the presumption of regularity and proof is re'uired to assail and controvert the same+ 4+ Thus0 the decrees of registration #ere reissued bearing ne# numbers and &*Ts #ere #ere issued for the t#o parcels of land in .o/a .emetria
The case involves seven consolidated "etitions for Revie# on *ertiorari and a "etition for *ertiorari under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of *ourt0 respectively00 arising from actions for 'uieting of title0 expropriation0 respectively e%ectment0 and reversion0 #hich all involve the same parcels par cels of land+ E0/(o/(+at+o" Case GR No 1637 Republic vs. Hon. Mangotara, MCC, and !"# Facts: The *omplaint for Expropriation #as originally filed by the 1ron and teel ,uthority =1,>0 no# the ?*0 against 9aria *ristina Fertilier *orporation =9*F*>0 and the latter0 follo#ing so the RT* ordered the substitution+ The Republic then filed a 9otion for 2eave to file a upplemental *omplaint seeDing to implead Teofilo *acho and .emetria Cidal and their respective successorsininterest0 2andtrade Realty *orporation =2,?.TR,.E> and ,imuth 1nternational .evelopment *orporation =,19BTH>0 alleging that 2ots 3 and 7 involved in the 3@@G *acho case encroached and overlapped the parcel of land sub%ect of expropriation+ The 9otion #as denied due to the Republics failure to file a 9otion for Execution in the substitution case+ The RT* called its &rder for substitution an :honest mistaDe:+ 9*F* then filed a 9otion to .ismiss the expropriation case for- =3> failure of the Republic to implead indispensable parties because 9*F* insisted it #as not the o#ner of the parcels of land sought to be expropriated; and =7> forum shopping considering the institution by the Republic of an action for the reversion of the same parcels sub%ect of the instant case for expropriation+ $udge 9angotara dismissed the case0 stating that Cacho vs. U.S. #as conclusive on the 'uestion of o#nership of the properties+ 9*F* as the only defendant #as thus not the proper party defendant+ The Republic #as also held guilty of forumshopping for not disclosing the action for reversion+ The Republic filed #ith this *ourt the consolidated "etition for Revie# on *ertiorari and "etition for *ertiorari under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of *ourt0 respectively0 docDeted as +R+ ?o+ 3GAG5+ Held: F+l+"' o, co"sol+dated /et+t+o"s u"de( both Rules 47 a"d 87 3+ The Republic filed a pleading #ith the caption *onsolidated "etitions for Revie# on *ertiorari =Bnder Rule 45> and *ertiorari =Bnder Rule 65> of the Rules of *ourt+ =ee 9 vs+ *ourt of ,ppeals> 7+ The distinction of the t#o modes of appeal is clear+ =ee ?une vs+ 1
Family 8anD> The *ost a//a(e"t +s that e((o(s o, ju(+sd+ct+o" a(e best (e.+e&ed +" a s/ec+al c+.+l act+o" ,o( ce(t+o(a(+ u"de( Rule 87 &h+le e((o(s o, jud'*e"t ca" o"l# be co((ected b# a//eal +" a /et+t+o" ,o( (e.+e& u"de( Rule 47 A+ The Republic availed itself of the #rong mode of appeal by filing *onsolidated "etitions for Revie# under Rule 45 and for *ertiorari under Rule 650 #hen these are t#o separate remedies that are mutually exclusive and neither alternative nor successive+ ?evertheless0 the *ourt treated the *onsolidated "etitions as a "etition for Revie# on *ertiorari under Rule 45 and the allegations therein as errors of %udgment+ H+e(a(ch# o, cou(ts 4+ The direct filing of the instant "etition #ith this *ourt did not violate the doctrine of hierarchy of courts+ Acco(d+"' to Rule 41- Sect+o" %c o, the Rules o, Cou(t- a dec+s+o" o( o(de( o, the RTC *a# be a//ealed to the Su/(e*e Cou(t b# /et+t+o" ,o( (e.+e& o" ce(t+o(a(+ u"de( Rule 47- /(o.+ded that such /et+t+o" (a+ses o"l# uest+o"s o, la& 5+ , 'uestion of la# exists #hen the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of la# or %urisprudence to a certain set of facts; or #hen the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented0 the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted+ , 'uestion of fact exists #hen the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or #hen the 'uery invites calibration of the #hole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the #itnesses0 the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances0 as #ell as their relation to each other and to the #hole0 and the probability of the situation+ 6+ The "etition of the Republic raises pure 'uestions of la#0 i+e+0 #hether the expropriation case should have been dismissed for failure to implead indispensable parties and for forum shopping+ Thus0 the direct resort by the Republic to this *ourt is proper+ The /(o/e( /a(t+es +" the e0/(o/(+at+o" /(oceed+"'s G+ The right of the Republic to be substituted for 1, as plaintiff is affirmed+ The ,a+lu(e o, the Re/ubl+c to actuall# ,+le a *ot+o" ,o( e0ecut+o" does "ot (e"de( the subst+tut+o" .o+d , #rit of execution re'uires the sheriff or other proper officer to #hom it is directed to enforce the terms of the #rit+ The &rder of the RT* should be deemed as voluntary
compliance #ith a final and executory %udgment of this *ourt0 already rendering a motion for and issuance of a #rit of execution superfluous+ I+ ?o substantive right #as violated by the voluntary compliance by the RT* #ith the directive in the 1, case even #ithout a motion for execution having been filed+ To the contrary0 the RT* merely enforced the %udicially determined right of the Republic to the substitution+ @+ De,e"da"ts +" a" e0/(o/(+at+o" case a(e "ot l+*+ted to the o&"e(s o, the /(o/e(t# to be e0/(o/(+ated- a"d just co*/e"sat+o" +s "ot due to the /(o/e(t# o&"e( alo"e=ee .e Jnecht vs+ *ourt of ,ppeals> ,t the time of the *omplaint for Expropriation0 possessoryKoccupancy rights of 9*F* over the properties sought to be expropriated #ere undisputed+ ,s such0 it 9*F* can be named the defendant in the expropriation case+ 3+ The RT* also erred #hen it dismissed the case for having been filed only against 9*F*0 and not against the o#ners+ D+s*+ssal +s "ot the (e*ed# ,o( *+sjo+"de( o( "o"jo+"de( o, /a(t+es- e.e" ,o( +"d+s/e"sable /a(t+es !"l# &he" the(e +s (e,usal to +*/lead such +"d+s/e"sable /a(t# des/+te the o(de( o, the cou(t should the case be d+s*+ssed =ee Cda+ .e 9anguerra vs+ Risos> 33+ ,n indispensable party is a partyininterest #ithout #hom no final determination can be had of an action+ The o&"e( o, the /(o/e(t# +s "ot "ecessa(+l# a" +"d+s/e"sable /a(t# +" a" e0/(o/(+at+o" case hen the property already appears to belong to the Republic0 there is no sense in the Republic instituting expropriation proceedings against itself+ 1t can still0 ho#ever0 file a complaint for expropriation against the private persons occupying the property+ 1n such an expropriation case0 the o#ner of the property is not an indispensable party+ 37+ "residential "roclamation ?o+ 77A@ explicitly states that the parcels of land reserved to ?* are part of the public domain0 hence0 o#ned by the Republic+ 2etter of 1nstructions ?o+ 37GG recognied only the occupancy rights of 9*F* and directed ?* to institute expropriation proceedings to determine the %ust compensation for said occupancy rights+ Therefore0 the o#ner of the property is not an indispensable party in the original *omplaint for Expropriation+ Fo(u* sho//+"' 3A+ The Republic did not commit forum shopping+ Forumshopping taDes
place #hen a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties0 either simultaneously or successively0 to secure a favorable %udgment+ 1t exists #here the elements of litis pendentia are present=a> 1dentity of parties0 or at least parties #ho represent the same interests; =b> 1dentity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; =c> 1dentity #ith respect to the t#o preceding particulars in the t#o cases is such that any %udgment that may be rendered in the pending case0 regardless of #hich party is successful0 #ould amount to res %udicata in the other case+ 34+ The elements of litis pendentia are #anting+ There is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for+ E0/(o/(+at+o" .+s;.+s (e.e(s+o" 35+ The Republic is not engaging in contradictions #hen it instituted both expropriation and reversion proceedings for the same parcels of land+ The expropriation and reversion proceedings are distinct remedies that are not necessarily exclusionary of each other+ 36+ The ,+l+"' o, a co*/la+"t ,o( (e.e(s+o" does "ot /(eclude the +"st+tut+o" o, a" act+o" ,o( e0/(o/(+at+o" E.e" +, the la"d +s (e.e(ted bac< to the State- the sa*e *a# st+ll be subject to e0/(o/(+at+o" as a'a+"st the occu/a"ts the(eo, 3G+ Hence0 the filing by the Republic of the upplemental *omplaint for Expropriation impleading Teofilo0 Cidal0 2,?.TR,.E0 and ,19BTH0 is not necessarily an admission that the parcels of land sought to be expropriated are privately o#ned+ ,t most0 the Republic merely acDno#ledged in its upplemental *omplaint that there are private persons also claiming o#nership of the parcels of land+ The Republic can still consistently assert0 in both actions for expropriation and reversion0 that the sub%ect parcels of land are part of the public domain+ The =u+et+"' o, T+tle Case GR Nos 1>9 a"d 1>>94 $%"&'R%& vs. idal and %*+MU'H Cacho and-or %tt. Cabildo vs. idal and %*+MU'H
Facts: .emetria Cidal and ,19BTH filed a "etition for Luieting of Title against Teofilo0 ,tty+ *abildo0 and the Register of .eeds of 1ligan *ity+ 2,?.TR,.E #as allo#ed to intervene as o#ner of a portion of the sub%ect parcels of land+ Cidal claimed that she and not Teofilo #as the late .o/a .emetria+ 2,?.TR,.E filed #ith this *ourt a "etition for Revie# on *ertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of *ourt0 #hich #as docDeted as +R+ ?o+ 3GIGG@+ Teofilo and ,tty+ *abildo filed their o#n "etition for Revie# on *ertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of *ourt0 #hich #as docDeted as +R+ ?o+ 3GII@4+ Held: Pet+t+o"s ,o( (e.+e& u"de( Rule 47
3+ The "etitions contain factual and legal issues+ I" a /et+t+o" ,o( (e.+e& o" ce(t+o(a(+ u"de( Rule 47 o, the Rules o, Cou(t- o"l# uest+o"s o, la& *a# be (a+sed as the Su/(e*e Cou(t +s "ot a t(+e( o, ,acts 1t is settled that as a rule0 the ,+"d+"'s o, ,act o, the Cou(t o, A//eals es/ec+all# those a,,+(*+"' the t(+al cou(t a(e ,+"al a"d co"clus+.e a"d ca""ot be (e.+e&ed o" a//eal to the Su/(e*e Cou(t The exceptions to this rule are- =a> #hen the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations0 surmises or con%ectures; =b> #hen the inference made is manifestly mistaDen0 absurd or impossible; =c> #hen there is grave abuse of discretion; =d> #hen the %udgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; =e> #hen the findings of fact are conflicting; =f> #hen the *ourt of ,ppeals0 in maDing its findings0 #ent beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; =g> #here the *ourt of ,ppeals manifestly overlooDed certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and #hich0 if properly considered0 #ould %ustify a different conclusion; and =h> #here the findings of fact of the *ourt of ,ppeals are contrary to those of the trial court0 or are mere conclusions #ithout citation of specific evidence0 or #here the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent0 or #here the findings of fact of the *ourt of ,ppeals are premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record+ ?one of these exceptions are present in the case at bar+ ?u(+sd+ct+o" .+s;.+s e0e(c+se o, ju(+sd+ct+o" 7+ $urisdiction is not the same as the exercise of %urisdiction+ As d+st+"'u+shed ,(o* the e0e(c+se o, ju(+sd+ct+o"- ju(+sd+ct+o" +s the autho(+t# to dec+de a cause- a"d "ot the dec+s+o" (e"de(ed the(e+" @he(e the(e +s ju(+sd+ct+o" o.e( the /e(so" a"d the subject *atte(the dec+s+o" o" all othe( uest+o"s a(+s+"' +" the case +s but a" e0e(c+se o, the ju(+sd+ct+o" ,nd the errors #hich the court may commit in the exercise of %urisdiction are merely errors of %udgment #hich are the proper sub%ect of an appeal+ A+ ?u(+sd+ct+o" o.e( the subject *atte( o( "atu(e o, the act+o" +s co",e((ed o"l# b# the Co"st+tut+o" o( b# la& &nce vested by la# on a particular court or body0 the %urisdiction over the sub%ect matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature through the enactment of a la#+ The po#er to change the %urisdiction of the courts is a matter of legislative enactment0 #hich none but the legislature may do+ *ongress has the sole po#er to define0 prescribe and apportion the %urisdiction of the courts+
4+ The RT* had %urisdiction over the sub%ect matter and the parties+ 1t also has %urisdiction over an action for 'uieting of title under the circumstances described in ection 3@=7> of 8atas "ambansa 8lg+ 37@0 as the value of the properties fall #ithin "70 and "50+ 5+ *onsidering that the RT* %urisdiction over the sub%ect matter and parties0 then it can rule on all issues in the case0 including those on Cidal
action for reconveyance0 but must only be made in a special proceeding0 for it involves the establishment of a status or right+ The appropriate special proceeding #ould have been the settlement of the estate of the decedent+ ?onetheless0 an action for 'uieting of title is also a special proceeding0 specifically governed by Rule 6A of the Rules of *ourt on declaratory relief and similar remedies+ 3+ The case herein is an action for 'uieting of title0 a special proceeding #herein the court is precisely tasDed to determine the rights of the parties as to a particular parcel of land0 so that the complainant and those claiming under himKher may be forever free from any danger of hostile claim+ 33+ There are also instances #hen the declaration of heirship need not be made in a special proceeding+ @he(e s/ec+al /(oceed+"'s had bee" +"st+tuted but had bee" ,+"all# closed a"d te(*+"ated- o( +, a /utat+.e he+( has lost the (+'ht to ha.e h+*sel, decla(ed +" the s/ec+al /(oceed+"'s as cohe+( a"d he ca" "o lo"'e( as< ,o( +ts (e o/e"+"'- the" a" o(d+"a(# c+.+l act+o" ca" be ,+led ,o( h+s decla(at+o" as he+( +" o(de( to b(+"' about the a""ul*e"t o, the /a(t+t+o" o( d+st(+but+o" o( adjud+cat+o" o, a /(o/e(t# o( /(o/e(t+es belo"'+"' to the estate o, the deceased (See !ortugal vs. !ortugal0#eltran) T+tle +" u+et+"' o, t+tle 37+ 1n an action for 'uieting of title0 the sub%ect matter is the title sought to have 'uieted+T+tle +s "ot l+*+ted to the ce(t+,+cate o, (e'+st(at+o" u"de( the To((e"s S#ste* +e- !CT o( TCT Pu(sua"t to A(t+cle 4 o, the C+.+l Code- the /la+"t+,, *ust ha.e le'al o( eu+table t+tle too( +"te(est +"- the (eal /(o/e(t# subject o, the act+o" ,o( u+et+"' o, t+tle The /la+"t+,, "eed "ot e.e" be +" /ossess+o" o, the /(o/e(t# 1f she is indeed .o/a .emetria
sufficiently established Teofilo 1t may be appreciated together #ith other documents+ 35+ 1n contrast0 2,?.TR,.E0 Teofilo0 andKor ,tty+ *abildo failed to present any evidence at all in support of their claims+ P(esc(+/t+o" 36+ 1t is too late for 2,?.TR,.E to raise the issue of prescription for the first time+ I" th+s ju(+sd+ct+o"- the de,e"se o, /(esc(+/t+o" ca""ot be (a+sed ,o( the ,+(st t+*e o" a//eal Such de,e"se *a# be &a+.eda"d +, +t &as "ot (a+sed as a de,e"se +" the t(+al cou(t- +t ca""ot be co"s+de(ed o" a//eal- the 'e"e(al (ule be+"' that the CA +s "ot autho(+ed to co"s+de( a"d (esol.e a"# uest+o" "ot /(o/e(l# (a+sed +" the lo&e( cou(t 3G+ 8ut even considering this defense0 it still fails+ ,n action for 'uieting of title0 as in this case0 is a real action+ ,rticle 3343 of the *ivil *ode plainly provides that real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years+ .o/a .emetria died in 3@G40 transferring by succession0 her title to the t#o parcels of land to her only heir0 Cidal+ Teofilo0 through ,tty+ *abildo0 filed a petition for reconstitution of the certificates of title covering said properties in 3@GI+ This is the first palpable display of Teofilo
prescription+ Thus0 the *ourt must also looD into the ac'uisitive prescription periods of o#nership and other real rights+ &rdinary ac'uisitive prescription re'uires possession of things in good faith and #ith %ust title for the time fixed by la#0 #hich is ten years+ 3@+ 2,?.TR,.E cannot insist on the application of the 3year ordinary ac'uisitive prescription period since it cannot be considered a possessor in good faith+ The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from #hom he received the thing #as the o#ner thereof0 and could transmit his o#nership+ 2,?.TR,.E came to possession of the t#o parcels of land after purchasing the same from Teofilo+ Ho#ever0 Teofilo is not the registered o#ner of the sub%ect properties+ The said properties are still registered in .o/a .emetria tooD possession of t#o parcels of land in 1ligan *ity #here it built a substation and a #arehouse+ For more than A years0 ?,"&*&R occupied and possessed said parcels of land pursuant to its charter+ The ?ational Transmission *orporation =TR,?*&> subse'uently tooD over the substation+
*laiming o#nership of the parcels of land #here the &verton ubstation and ,gus G arehouse are located0 2,?.TR,.E filed #ith the 9T** a *omplaint for Bnla#ful .etainer against ?,"&*&R and TR,?*&+ 2,?.TR,.E alleged that it ac'uired from Teofilo0 through ,tty+ *abildo0 t#o parcels of land in 1ligan *ity0 portions of #hich #ere being occupied by the substation and #arehouse only through the tolerance of 2,?.TR,.E+ The 9T** ruled in favor of 2,?.TR,.E+ &n appeal to the RT*0 ?,"&*&R and TR,?*& filed a $oint 9otion to uspend "roceedings citing %magan vs. Maraag #hich ruled that if circumstances should re'uire0 the proceedings in an e%ectment case may be suspended in #hatever stage it may be found+ They alleged that the e%ectment case should be held in abeyance pending the resolution of other cases in #hich title over the same properties are in issue0 i+e+ annulment of deed of sale by Teofilo against 2,?.TR,.E and the Luieting of Title case by Cidal and ,19BTH against Teofilo and ,tty+ *abildo+ The RT* denied the $oint 9otion0 holding that the pendency of other actions involving the same parcels of land could not stay execution pending appeal of the 9T** %udgment because ?,"&*&R and TR,?*& failed to post the re'uired bond and pay the monthly rentals+ 1t then granted 2,?.TR,.Es 9otion for Execution of the 9T** %udgment pending appeal+ The *,0 on the instance of ?,"&*&R and TR,?*&0 issued a TR& en%oining the enforcement and implementation of the execution+ 1t then held that the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in allo#ing andKor effecting the execution of the 9T** %udgment pending appeal0 since ?,"&*&R and TR,?*& #ere legally excused from complying #ith the re'uirements for a stay of execution specified in Rule G0 ection 3@ of the Rules of *ourt0 particularly0 the posting of a supersedeas bond and periodic deposits of rental payments+ 2,?.TR,.E appealed to the * via a "etition for Revie# on *ertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of *ourt0 #hich #as docDeted as +R+ ?o+ 3G55+ ith the impending lapse of the effectivity of the TR&0 ?,"&*&R filed #ith the *, a 9anifestation and 9otion praying for the resolution of its application for preliminary in%unction+ ,fter#ards0 2,?.TR,.E filed an &mnibus 9otion seeDing the issuance of a #rit of execution pending appeal+ The *, granted the issuance of a #rit of execution in favor of 2,?.TR,.E and denied the application for #rit of preliminary in%unction of ?,"&*&R
and TR,?*& because Rule G0 ection 73 of the Rules of *ourt explicitly provides that the RT* %udgment in an e%ectment case0 #hich is adverse to the defendant and pending appeal before the *ourt of ,ppeals0 shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite further appeal+ Therefore0 the execution of the RT* %udgment pending appeal is the ministerial duty of the *ourt of ,ppeals0 specifically en%oined by la# to be done+ Held: The (eu+(e*e"ts o, /ost+"' a su/e(sedeas bo"d a"d de/os+t+"' (e"t to sta# e0ecut+o" 3+ Rule G0 ection 3@ of the Rules of *ourt lays do#n the re'uirements for staying the immediate execution of the 9T** %udgment against the defendant in an e%ectment suit=a> ,ppeal has been perfected; =b> .efendant files a sufficient supersedeas bond; =c> .eposits #ith the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract0 if any0 during the pendency of the appeal+ 7+ Rule 6- Sect+o" 19 o, the Rules o, Cou(t a//l+es o"l# &he" the jud'*e"t o, a u"+c+/al T(+al Cou(t a"d a"# sa*e le.el cou(t such as the TCC +" a" eject*e"t case +s /e"d+"' a//eal be,o(e the RTC @he" the RTC had al(ead# (esol.ed the a//eal a"d +ts jud'*e"t- +" tu("- +s /e"d+"' a//eal be,o(e the Cou(t o, A//ealsthe" Rule 6- Sect+o" %1 o, the Rules o, Cou(t 'o.e("s =ee By vs+ antiago>- (MtNhe %udgment of the Regional Trial *ourt against the defendant shall be immediately executory0 #ithout pre%udice to a further appeal that may be taDen therefrom+) 1t no longer provides for the stay of execution at such stage+ A+ Thus0 subse'uent events have rendered the "etition of 2,?.TR,.E in +R+ ?o+ 3G55 moot and academic+ 1t #ill serve no more purpose for the *ourt to re'uire ?,"&*&R and TR,?*& to still comply #ith the re'uirements of filing a supersedeas bond and depositing rent to stay execution pending appeal of the 9T** %udgment0 as re'uired by Rule G0 ection 3@ of the Rules of *ourt0 #hen the appeal had since been resolved by the RT*+ P(el+*+"a(# +"ju"ct+o" to sta# e0ecut+o" o, RTC jud'*e"t a'a+"st
de,e"da"t +" a" eject*e"t case 4+ ?,"&*&R and TR,?*& argue that neither the rules nor %urisprudence explicitly declare that Rule G0 ection 73 of the Rules of *ourt bars the application of Rule 5I on preliminary in%unction+ Regardless of the immediately executory character of the RT* %udgment in an e%ectment case0 the *,0 before #hich said %udgment is appealed0 is not deprived of po#er and %urisdiction to issue a #rit of preliminary in%unction #hen circumstances so #arrant+ 5+ Even if RT* %udgments in unla#ful detainer cases are immediately executory0 preliminary in%unction may still be granted+ There need only be clear sho#ing that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against #hich the #rit is to be directed violate said right. (See #enedicto vs. Court of %ppeals) 6+ ubstantial considerations exist herein that compels the *ourt to issue a #rit of preliminary in%unction en%oining the execution of the 9T** .ecision+ First0 the t#o parcels of land claimed by 2,?.TR,.E are the sub%ect of several other cases+ econd0 ?,"&*&R and TR,?*& have built a sub station and #arehouse over #hich the execution of the 9T** .ecision #ill have serious conse'uences0 primordial of #hich is the #idespread disruption of the electrical po#er supply+ 2astly0 allo#ing execution pending appeal #ould result in the payment of an astronomical amount in rentals+ The Ca"cellat+o" o, T+tles a"d Re.e(s+o" Case GR No 13461 Republic vs. Cacho, represented b alleged heirs idal and-or Cacho, %*+MU'H, and $%"&'R%& Facts: The Republic filed a *omplaint for the *ancellation of &*T ?os+ 37 =a+f+> and 373 =a+f+> and Reversion against the late .o/a .emetria0 represented by her alleged heirs0 Cidal andKor Teofilo0 together #ith ,19BTH and 2,?.TR,.E+ The titles #ere issued under the authority of the 3@34 *acho case+ The Republic alleged that the titles covered a much larger area than that granted by the 3@34 decision0 #hich only granted the :larger portion: =2ot 7>+ Ho#ever0 the technical description in &*T ?o+ 373 maDes reference to 2ot 3+ &*T ?o+ 37 mean#hile did not comply #ith
the ne# survey of the :southern part: of the property as re'uired by the *ourt+ Cidal and ,19BTH filed a 9otion to .ismiss on the grounds that =3> the Republic has no cause of action; =7> assuming that the Republic has a cause of action0 its *omplaint failed to state a cause of action; =A> assuming that the Republic has a cause of action0 the same is barred by prior %udgment; =4> assuming further that the Republic has a cause of action0 the same #as extinguished by prescription; and =4> the Republic is guilty of forum shopping+ The RT* ruled in their favor+ 1t stated that there #as no sho#ing that the late .o/a .emetria committed any #rongful act or omission in violation of any right of the Republic+ The Regalian doctrine does not apply in this case because the titles #ere already issued to .o/a .emetria and segregated from the mass of the public domain+ 2iDe#ise0 the arguments of the Republic0 i+e+0 the absence of a ne# survey plan and deed0 the titles covered properties #ith much larger area than that granted by the 2R* O had been ans#ered s'uarely in the 3@@G *acho case+ ,lso0 the *omplaint failed to allege that fraud had been committed in having the titles registered and that the .irector of 2ands re'uested the reversion of the sub%ect parcels of land+ The *omplaint #as barred by res %udicata because the 3@34 *acho case already decreed the registration of the parcels of land in the late .o/a .emetria a right in favor of the plaintiff; =7> an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and =A> such defendant
Co"s+de(+"' that the la"d subject o, the act+o" o(+'+"ated ,(o* a '(a"t b# the 'o.e("*e"t- +ts ca"cellat+o" +s a *atte( bet&ee" the '(a"to( a"d the '(a"tee The (e*ed# o, (e.e(s+o" ca" o"l# be a.a+led o, +" cases o, ,(audule"t o( u"la&,ul +"clus+o" o, the la"d +" /ate"ts o( ce(t+,+cates o, t+tle =ee Republic vs+ uerrero> A+ The right of the Republic to institute an action for reversion is rooted in the Regalian doctrine+ "de( the Re'al+a" doct(+"e- all la"ds o, the /ubl+c do*a+" belo"' to the State- a"d that the State +s the sou(ce o, a"# asse(ted (+'ht to o&"e(sh+/ +" la"d a"d cha('ed &+th the co"se(.at+o" o, such /at(+*o"# Th+s sa*e doct(+"e also states that all la"ds "ot othe(&+se a//ea(+"' to be clea(l# &+th+" /(+.ate o&"e(sh+/ a(e /(esu*ed to belo"' to the State 4+ hile the Republic does not dispute that that t#o parcels of land #ere a#arded to .o/a .emetria in the 3@34 *acho case0 it alleges that these #ere not the same as those covered by &*T ?os+ 37 =a+f+> and 373 =a+f+> issued in .o/a .emetria
of the properties to the Republic+ G+ The authority to institute an action for reversion0 on behalf of the Republic0 is primarily conferred upon the &+ hile the &0 for most of the time0 #ill file an action for reversion upon the re'uest or recommendation of the .irector of 2ands0 there is no basis for saying that the former is absolutely bound or dependent on the latter+ Res jud+cata I+ The doctrine of res %udicata comprehends t#o distinct concepts- =3> bar by former %udgment0 and =7> conclusiveness of %udgment+ For res %udicata to serve as an absolute bar to a subse'uent action0 the follo#ing re'uisites must concur- =3> the former %udgment or order must be final; =7> the %udgment or order must be on the merits; =A> it must have been rendered by a court having %urisdiction over the sub%ect matter and parties; and =4> there must be bet#een the first and second actions0 identity of parties0 of sub%ect matter0 and of causes of action+ @he" the(e +s "o +de"t+t# o, causes o, act+o"- but o"l# a" +de"t+t# o, +ssues- the(e e0+sts (es jud+cata +" the co"ce/t o, co"clus+.e"ess o, jud'*e"t Althou'h +t does "ot ha.e the sa*e e,,ect as (es jud+cata +" the ,o(* o, ba( b# ,o(*e( jud'*e"t &h+ch /(oh+b+ts the /(osecut+o" o, a seco"d act+o" u/o" the sa*e cla+*- de*a"d- o( cause o, act+o"- the (ule o" co"clus+.e"ess o, jud'*e"t ba(s the (el+t+'at+o" o, /a(t+cula( ,acts o( +ssues +" a"othe( l+t+'at+o" bet&ee" the sa*e /a(t+es o" a d+,,e(e"t cla+* o( cause o, act+o" @+ The 3@34 *acho case does not bar the *omplaint for reversion by res %udicata in either of its t#o concepts+ There is no bar by prior %udgment because the 3@34 *acho case and said *omplaint do not have the same causes of action and0 even possibly0 they do not involve identical sub%ect matters+ 3+ 2and registration cases0 such as that from #hich the 3@34 *acho case arose0 are special proceedings #here the concept of a cause of action in ordinary civil actions does not apply+ 1n special proceedings0 the purpose is to establish a status0 condition or fact; in land registration proceedings0 the o#nership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established+ ,n action for reversion is that #here the cause of action is the unla#ful inclusion of parcels of public land that #ere not among those granted to .o/a .emetria in the 3@34 *acho case+ The Republic no longer 'uestions that .o/a .emetria #as ad%udged the o#ner of t#o parcels of land in the
3@34 *acho case+ The Republic is only insisting on the strict adherence to the %udgment of the *ourt in the 3@34 *acho case+ 33+ 8ar by prior %udgment does not apply for lacD of identity of causes of action bet#een the 3@@G *acho case and the case herein+ The 3@@G *acho case involves a petition for reissuance of decrees of registration+ 1n the absence of principles and rules specific for such a petition0 the *ourt refers to those on reconstitution of certificates of title0 being almost of the same nature and granting closely similar reliefs+ 37+ Reco"st+tut+o" de"otes a (esto(at+o" o, the +"st(u*e"t &h+ch +s su//osed to ha.e bee" lost o( dest(o#ed +" +ts o(+'+"al ,o(* o( co"d+t+o" The /u(/ose o, the (eco"st+tut+o" o, t+tle o( a"# docu*e"t +s to ha.e the sa*e (e/(oduced- a,te( obse(.+"' the /(ocedu(e /(esc(+bed b# la&- +" the sa*e ,o(* the# &e(e &he" the loss o( dest(uct+o" occu((ed Reco"st+tut+o" +s a"othe( s/ec+al /(oceed+"' &he(e the co"ce/t o, cause o, act+o" +" a" o(d+"a(# c+.+l act+o" ,+"ds "o a//l+cat+o" 3A+ The 3@@G *acho case only settled the issuance0 existence0 and subse'uent loss of .ecree ?os+ 3A64 and 3I@6@+ *onse'uently0 said decrees could be reissued in their original form or condition+ The *ourt0 ho#ever0 could not have passed upon in the 3@@G *acho case the issues on #hether .o/a .emetria truly o#ned the parcels of land covered by the decrees and #hether the decrees and the &*Ts subse'uently issued pursuant thereto are void for unla#fully including land of the public domain #hich #ere not a#arded to .o/a .emetria+=See Heirs of Susana de Gu2man 'ua2on vs. Court of %ppeals) 34+ hatever findings the *ourt made on the issue of o#nership in the 3@@G *acho case are mere obiter dictum+ (See %moroso vs. %legre, 3r.) 35+ The 3@@G *acho case0 by reason of conclusiveness of %udgment0 prevents the Republic from again raising as issues the issuance and existence of the decrees0 but not the validity of said decrees0 as #ell as the certificates of title issued pursuant thereto+ Fo(u* sho//+"' 36+ iven the preceding dis'uisition of the *ourt that the 3@34 and 3@@G *acho cases do not constitute res %udicata0 then the *ourt also cannot sustain the dismissal by the RT* of the *omplaint of the Republic for forum
shopping+ P(esc(+/t+o" 3G+ P(esc(+/t+o" does "ot (u" a'a+"st the State a"d +ts subd+.+s+o"s @he" the 'o.e("*e"t +s the (eal /a(t# +" +"te(est- a"d +t +s /(oceed+"' *a+"l# to asse(t +ts o&" (+'ht to (eco.e( +ts o&" /(o/e(t#- the(e ca" as a (ule be "o de,e"se '(ou"ded o" laches o( /(esc(+/t+o" Publ+c la"d ,(audule"tl# +"cluded +" /ate"ts o( ce(t+,+cates o, t+tle *a# be (eco.e(ed o( (e.e(ted to the State +" acco(da"ce &+th Sect+o" 161 o, the Publ+c $a"d Act The (+'ht o, (e.e(s+o" o( (eco".e#a"ce to the State +s "ot ba((ed b# /(esc(+/t+o" (See Republic vs. Court of %ppeals, G.R. "o. 45647) 3I+ Thus0 despite the lapse of one year from the entry of a decree of registrationKcertificate of title0 the tate0 through the olicitor eneral0 may still institute an action for reversion #hen said decreeKcertificate #as ac'uired by fraud or misrepresentation+ 1ndefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation+ ellsettled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent under the Torrens system does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the registrant 1f the Republic is able to establish after trial and hearing that the decrees and &*Ts in .o/a .emetria
1,,7 &u he "e'aule" in loans o&aine" in 1,, hich a)oune" o )ore han a )illion pesos. $venuall!% PCRB 'ile" a co)plain 'or 'oreclosure a/ains he spouses Biaco. u))ons ere issue" &! he rial u"/e. The herri'' serve" he su))ons o $rneso a he laer4s o''ice. No su))ons as serve" o Teresa. $rneso "i" no 'ile a responsive plea"in/ *so "i" Teresa &ecause she as no aare sans he su))ons &ein/ serve" her+. The case as hear" e-pare an" he spouses ere or"ere" o sais'! he "e& an" 'ailure o "o so ill auhori6e he heri'' o aucion he )or/a/e" he proper!. $venuall!% he )or/a/e" proper! as aucione" 'or P150# hich is no su''icien o cover he P1 M "e&. 8pon )oion &! PCRB% a noice o' lev! as issue" a/ains he personal properies o' Teresa o sais'! he "e'icienc!. 9 as onl! a his poin ha Teresa learne" o' he previous e pare procee"in/s. he hen sou/h o have he u"/)en annulle" as she no clai)s ha she as "eprive" o' "ue process hen she "i" no receive su))ons: ha i as onl! her hus&an" ho receive" he su))ons: ha here as erinsic 'rau" &ecause her hus&an" "eli&erael! hi" he 'ac o' he 'oreclosure procee"in/. PRCB ar/ue" ha he 'oreclosure procee"in/ is an acion (uasi in re)% hence Teresa4s paricipaion is no re(uire" so lon/ as he cour ac(uires uris"icion over he res hich is ha happene" in he case a &ar: ha Teresa canno invo#e erinsic 'rau" &ecause such siuaion canno occur in her case &ecause she is a co-"e'en"an o' $rneso. ISSUE: ;heher or no he u"/)en o' he rial cour shoul" &e annulle". HEL: $R% her consiuional ri/h o "ue process is superior over he proce"ural )aers )enione". er ri/h o "ue process as violae" hen she "i" no receive su))ons. Teresa% as a resi"en "e'en"an% ho "oes no volunar! appear in cour )us &e personall! serve" ih su))ons as provi"e" un"er ecion % Rule 1? o' he Rules o' Cour. $ven i' he acion is quasi in rem, personal service o' su))ons is essenial in or"er o a''or" her "ue process. The su&siue" service )a"e &! he sheri'' a her hus&an"4s o''ice canno &e "ee)e" proper service a&sen an! eplanaion ha e''ors ha" &een )a"e o personall! serve su))ons upon her &u ha such e''ors 'aile". @urher% he or"er o' he rial cour co)pellin/ Teresa o pa! o'' he "e& usin/ her personal proper! is a
u"/)en in persona) hich he cour canno "o &ecause i onl! ac(uire" uris"icion over he res an" no over he person o' Teresa. =n he issue o' erinsic 'rau"% he Cour o' Appeals% a/reein/ ih PCRB% is correc ha here is none in he case a &ar. $rinsic 'rau" eiss hen here is a 'rau"ulen ac co))ie" &! he prevailing party ousi"e o' he rial o' he case% here&! he defeated party as prevene" 'ro) presenin/ 'ull! his si"e o' he case &! 'rau" or "ecepion pracice" on hi) &! he prevailing party. $rinsic 'rau" is presen here he unsuccessful party ha" &een prevene" 'ro) ehi&iin/ 'ull! his case% &! 'rau" or "ecepion pracice" on hi) &! his opponent, as &! #eepin/ hi) aa! 'ro) cour% a 'alse pro)ise o' a co)pro)ise: or here he defendant never ha" #nole"/e o' he sui% &ein/ #ep in i/norance &! he acs o' he plaintiff; or here an aorne! 'rau"ulenl! or ihou auhori! assu)es o represen a par! an" connives a his "e'ea: or here he aorne! re/ularl! e)plo!e" corrupl! sells ou his clien4s ineres o he oher si"e. The a&ove is no applica&le in he case o' Teresa. 9 as no PCRB hich )a"e an! 'rau". 9 shoul" &e noe" ha spouses Biaco ere co-"e'en"ans in he case an" share" he sa)e ineres. >$A<=-@=NG >. P=8$ >$A<=@acs -pouses Ra!)on" an" Maria e"! >ela!o 'ile" a co)plain 'or collecion o' su) o' )one! a/ains >ela!o-@on/. -9n he co)plain% pouses >ela!o alle/e" ha >ela!o-@on/ as a resi"en o' onolulu% aaii% 8A. -ince >ela!o-@on/ as a non-resi"en an" no 'oun" in he Philippines% pouses >ela!o-@on/ pra!e" 'or a ri o aach >ela!o-@on/Ds properies 'oun" inhe Philippines. -oever% &e'ore he applicaion 'or he ri can &e ace" upon &! he RTC% pouses >ela!o'ile" an 8r/en Moion pra!in/ ha he su))ons &e serve" o>ela!o-@on/ a her To Con"o)iniu) uies. =ne a Roas Boulevar"% Pasa! Ci! an" anoher% a Bur/os ree% T. Toers Con"o)iniu)% Ma#ai.u&se(uenl!% he RTC /rane" he sai" )oion. -Then% he Process erver in"icae" on his =''icerEs Reurn ha Fa'er several 'aile" ae)ps o serve he cop! o' su))ons an" co)plains issue" a he/iven a""resses o' >ela!o-@on/% 'inall!% he Process erver as a&le o serve personall! he su))ons o/eher ih he cop! o' he co)plain upon >ela!o-@on/% no a her o a""resses &u a he lo&&! o' a hoel% ri/h in he presence o' a lo&&! couner personnel &u >ela!o-@on/ re'use" o si/n in receip hereo'. -aer% he RTC in is =r"er "eclare" >ela!o-@on/ in "e'aul 'or 'ailure o 'ile an anser.
->ela!o-@on/% upon #noin/ he or"er o' he RTC% 'ile" a Moion o e Asi"e =r"er o' e'aul clai)in/ ha she as prevene" 'ro) 'ilin/ a responsive plea"in/ an" "e'en"in/ hersel' a/ains respon"ensD co)plain &ecause o' 'rau"% acci"en or )isa#e: ha conrar! o he =''icerDs Reurn% no su))ons asserve" upon her: ha she has vali" an" )eriorious "e'enses o re'ue respon"ensD )aerial alle/aions. -The RTC "enie" he Moion an" CA a''ir)e" RTCs or"er. -No% >ela!o-@on/ (uesione" he proprie! an" vali"i! o' he service o' su))ons )a"e upon her as she "i" no re)e)&er havin/ &een serve" ihsu))ons &u re)e)&ers ha a )an hurle" so)e papers a her hile she as enerin/ he elevaor an"% no #noin/ ha he papers ere all a&ou% shehre &ac# he papers o he )an &e'ore he elevaor close": ha she has a vali" an" )eriorious "e'ense o re'ue he )aerial alle/aions o' respon"ensD co)plain. -he also ar/ue" ha he su))ons shoul" have &een serve" hrou/h eraerriorial service since she is a non-resi"en. 9 8$ 1. o )a! service o' su))ons &e e''ece" on a non-resi"enH2. ;=N here as a vali" service o' su))ons on >ela!o-@on/. <$.Rulin/ 1.8n"er ec. 17% Rule 1?% hen he "e'en"an is a nonresi"en an" he is no 'oun" in he counr!% su))ons )a! &e serve" eraerrioriall!. This #in" o' service o' su))ons applies onl! here he acion is in re) &ecause in in re)an" (uasi in re) acions% uris"icion over he person o' he "e'en"an is no a prere(uisie o con'er uris"icion on he cour provi"e" ha he cour ac(uires uris"icion over he res.a. ;here he acion is in persona) an" hen he "e'en"an is a non-resi"en% personal service o' su))ons ihin he sae is essenial o heac(uisiion o' uris"icion over he person. This canno &e "one% hoever% i' he "e'en"an is no ph!sicall! presen in he counr!% an" hus% hecour canno ac(uire uris"icion over his person an" here'ore canno vali"l! r! an" "eci"e he case a/ains hi).&. 9n he presen case% pouses >ela!oDs cause o' acion an" heir pra!er ha acual an" )oral "a)a/es% plus aorne!Ds 'ees% &e aar"e" in heir 'avor a''ec he paries alone% no he hole orl". An! u"/)en herein is &in"in/ onl! upon he paries properl! i)plea"e". Thus% i is an acionin persona). As such% personal service o' su))ons upon he "e'en"ans is essenial in or"er 'or he cour o ac(uire uris"icion over heir persons.c.
Alhou/h in he co)plain% >ela!o-@on/ as alle/e" o &e a non-resi"en ho is no 'oun" in he Philippines 'or hich reason he pouses 'irs pra!e" ha a ri o' preli)inar! aach)en &e issue" a/ains her properies ihin he Philippines o con'er uris"icion upon he RTC. oever%he spouses "i" no pursue is applicaion 'or sai"
ri hen >ela!o-@on/ as su&se(uenl! 'oun" ph!sicall! presen in he Philippines an" personal service o' su))ons as e''ece" on her. 2 A process serverDs ceri'icae o' service is pri)a 'acie evi"ence o' he 'acs as se ou in he ceri'icae. Beeen he clai)s o' non-receip o' su))ons &! a par! a/ains he asserion o' an o''icial hose "u! is o sen" noices% he laer asserion is secure" &! he presu)pion ha o''icial "u! has &een re/ularl! per'or)e". To overco)e he presu)pion o' re/ulari! o' per'or)ance o' o''icial 'uncions in 'avor o' such =''icerDs Reurn% he evi"ence a/ains i )us &eclear an" convincin/. I n his case% >ela!o-@on/ 'aile" o co)e 'orar" ih he re(uisie (uanu) o' proo' o he conrar!% he presu)pion o' re/ulari! o' per'or)anceon he par o' he process server san"s.N=T$s -he par! see#in/ o have he or"er o' "e'aul li'e" )us 'irs sho ha her 'ailure o 'ile an anser or an! oher responsive plea"in/ as "ue o 'rau"%acci"en% )isa#e% or ecusa&le ne/lec an" hen she )us sho ha she has a vali" an" )eriorious "e'ense. -9n his case% peiioner 'aile" o sho ha her 'ailure o 'ile an anser as "ue o 'rau"% acci"en% )isa#e or ecusa&le ne/lec. $cep 'or her &areunsuppore" alle/aion ha he su))ons ere onl! hron o her a he elevaor% peiioner "i" no presen an! co)peen evi"ence o usi'! he sein/asi"e o' he or"er o' "e'aul. -she )us also sho ha she has a )eriorious "e'ense or ha so)ehin/ oul" &e /aine" &! havin/ he or"er o' "e'aul se asi"e. -9n he presen case% peiioner conene" hersel' ih sain/ in her a''i"avi o' )eri ha he cases a/ains respon"en Ra!)on" ere 'ile" a he insance o' her 'aher. ?1 uch alle/aion is a conclusion raher han a sae)en o' 'acs shoin/ a )eriorious "e'ense. The a''i"avi 'aile" o conrover he 'acs alle/e" &! he respon"ens. Peiioner has no shon ha she has a )eriorious "e'ense. ->ela!o-@on/ 'aile" o sho ha her 'ailure 'ile an anser as no "ue o 'rau"% acci"en% )isa#e% or ecusa&le ne/lec: an" ha she ha" a vali" an" )eriorious "e'ense% here is no )eri o her pra!er 'or a li&eral inerpreaion o' proce"ural rules.
LE"#S$I %&'ERS 00 I*+. LILI# M#R,UI*E- $#L#*+# R&S#**# . IM#I "L&RI#&MI*"& an R#/ I*+E*% Peiioners%vs. #MELI# $. MUER S#MUEL M. %#*+H&+& R&ME& %#*I#*" RUEL $#*"#*I#*&L&RES #"#/#*I #RLE*E#L #. /#SUM# "&&3RE& M. +#"UI&# an E"#R& M.S#L#*#*#* Respon"ens. 3#+%S: Pursuan o he &!-las o' e/aspi Toers 300% 9nc.% peiioners ilia Mar(uine6 Palanca% Rosanna .9)ai% Gloria o)in/o an" Ra! >incen% he incu)&en Boar" o' irecors% se he annual )eein/ o' he)e)&ers o' he con"o)iniu) corporaion an" he elecion o' he ne Boar" o' irecors a he lo&&! o' e/aspi Toers 300% 9nc. The Co))iee on $lecions o' e/aspi Toers 300% 9nc.% hoever% 'oun")os o' he pro!
voes% a is 'ace value% irre/ular% hus% (uesiona&le: an" 'or lac# o' i)e oauhenicae he sa)e% peiioners a"ourne" he )eein/ 'or lac# o' (uoru).oever% he /roup o' respon"ens challen/e" he a"ourn)en o' he )eein/. espie peiionersDinsisence ha no (uoru) as o&aine" "urin/ he annual )eein/ hel" on April 2% 200?% respon"enspushe" hrou/h ih he sche"ule" elecion an" ere elece" as he ne Boar" o' irecors an"o''icers o' e/aspi Toers 300% 9nc. an" su&se(uenl! su&)ie" a General 9n'or)aion hee o heecuriies an" $chan/e Co))ission *$C+. =n plaini''s 4otion to a4it a4ene co4plaint *o inclu"e e/aspi Toers 300% 9nc. as plaini''+%he RTC rule" "en!in/ he )oion 'or &ein/ i)proper. Then% peiioners 'ile" ih he Cour o' Appealsan" hel" ha Iu"/e Anonio 9. e Casro o' he Re/ional Trial Cour *RTC+ o' Manila% "i" no co))i/rave a&use o' "iscreion in issuin/ he =r"ers "en!in/ peiioners4 Moion o A")i econ" A)en"e" Co)plain an" ha peiioners he usi'ie" he inclusion o' e/aspi Toers 300% 9nc. as plaini'' &!invo#in/ heoctrine o5 erivative suit. Peiioners4 )oion 'or reconsi"eraion as "enie" &! he Cour o' Appeals herea'er. ence hispeiion. ISSUE:;heher or no erivative Suit is proper in his case. RULI*": The upre)e Cour $N9$ he peiion an" A@@9RM$ he ecision o' he Cour o' Appeals.erivaive ui is no applica&le.ince i is he corporaion ha is he real par!-in-interest in a erivative suit t6en t6e relie5s pra!e5or 4ust be 5or t6e bene5it or interest o5 t6e corporation . ;hen he relie's pra!e" 'or "o no peraino he corporaion% hen i is an i)proper "erivaive sui.The re7uisites 5or a erivative suit are as 'ollosa+ he par! &rin/in/ sui shoul" &e a sharehol"er as o' he i)e o' he ac or ransacionco)plaine" o'% he nu)&er o' his shares no &ein/ )aerial:&+ he has rie" o ehaus inra-corporae re)e"ies% i.e.% has )a"e a "e)an" on he &oar" o' "irecors 'or he appropriae relie' &u he laer has 'aile" or re'use" o hee" his plea: an"c+ he cause o' acion acuall! "evolves on he corporaion% he ron/"oin/ or har) havin/ &een% or &ein/ cause" o he corporaion an" no o he paricular soc#hol"er &rin/in/ he sui. As sae" &! he Cour o' Appeals% peiioners4 co)plain see# o nulli'! he sai" elecion% an" o proec an" en'orce heir in"ivi"ual ri/h o voe. The cause o' acion "evolves on peiioners% no hecon"o)iniu) corporaion% hich "i" no have he ri/h o voe. ence% he co)plain 'or nulli'icaion o' he elecion is a "irec acion &! peiioners% ho ere he )e)&ers o' he Boar" o' irecors o' hecorporaion &e'ore he elecion% a/ains respon"ens% ho are he nel!-elece" Boar" o' irecors.8n"er he circu)sances t6e erivative suit 5ile b! petitioners in be6al5 o5 t6e cono4iniu4corporation in t6e Secon #4ene +o4plaint is i4proper.
8U#*# +&M$LE9 I H&ME&'*ERS #SS&+I#%I&* I*+. et al. versus 3IL ES%#%E L#* I*+. et al.Marc6 ; 2012 3acts: Iuana Co)ple 9 o)eoners Associaion% 9nc. *ICA+ % o/eher ih in"ivi"ual resi"ens o' Iuana Co)ple 9 an" oher nei/h&orin/ su&"ivisions *collecivel! re'erre" as ICA% e. al.+% insiue" a co)plain 'or "a)a/es% in is on &ehal' an" as a classsui represenin/ he re/ular co))uers an" )ooriss o' Iuana Co)ple 9 an" nei/h&orin/ su&"ivisions ho ere "eprive" o' heuse o' a Pa6 Roa"% a/ains @il-$sae an"% 9nc. Accor"in/l!% ICA% e al. also pra!e" 'or he i))e"iae issuance o' a Te)porar! Resrainin/ =r"er *TR=+ or a ri o' preli)inar! inuncion *;P9+ o enoin @il-$sae% e al. 'ro) soppin/ an" ini)i"ain/ he) in heir use o' a Pa6 Roa".@il-$sae% e al. 'ile" a )oion o "is)iss ar/uin/ ha he co)plain 'aile" o sae a cause o' acion an" ha i as i)properl! 'ile"as a class sui. . The! clai) ha he ecavaion o' a Pa6 Roa" oul" no necessaril! /ive rise o a co))on ri/h or cause o' acion 'or ICA% eal. a/ains he) since each o' he) has a separae an" "isinc purpose an" each )a! &e a''ece" "i''erenl! han he ohers. ;ih re/ar" o he issuance o' he ;P9% he "e'en"ans averre" ha ICA% e al. 'aile" o sho ha he! ha" a clear an" un)isa#a&le ri/h o he use o' a Pa6 Roa": an" 'urher clai)e" ha a Pa6 Roa" as a orrens re/isere" privae roa" an" here as neiher a volunar! nor le/al ease)en consiue" over i. Issues:
A+;heher or no he co)plain saes a cause o' acion:B+;heher or no he co)plain as properl! 'ile" as a class sui C+;heher or no a ;P9 is arrane" Hel: A+ The (uesion o' heher he co)plain saes a cause o' acion is "eer)ine" &! is aver)ens re/ar"in/ he acsco))ie" &! he "e'en"an. Thus% i )us conain a concise sae)en o' he uli)ae or essenial 'acs consiuin/ he plaini''4s cause o' acion.The es o' su''icienc! o' 'acs alle/e" in he co)plain as consiuin/ a cause o' acion is heher or no a")iin/ he'acs alle/e"% he cour coul" ren"er a vali" ver"ic in accor"ance ih he pra!er o' sai" co)plain.9n he presen case% he Cour 'in"s he alle/aions in he co)plain su''icien o esa&lish a cause o' acion. @irs% ICA% e al.4s aver)ens in he co)plain sho a "e)an"a&le ri/h over a Pa6 Roa". These are *1+heir ri/h o use he roa" on he &asis o' heir alle/aion ha he! ha" &een usin/ he roa" 'or )ore han 10 !ears: an"*2+ an ease)en o' a ri/h o' a! has &een consiue" over he sai" roa"s B+ The necessar! ele)ens 'or he )ainenance o' a class sui are 1+ he su&ec )aer o' conrovers! is one o' co))on or /eneral ineres o )an! persons:2+ he paries a''ece" are so nu)erous ha i is i)pracica&le o &rin/ he) all o cour: an"3+ he paries &rin/in/ he class sui are su''icienl! nu)erous or represenaive o' he class an" can 'ull! proeche ineress o' all concerne".9n his case% he sui is clearl! one ha &ene'is all co))uers an" )ooriss ho use a Pa6 Roa". JThe in"ivi"uals sou/h o &e represene" &! privae respon"ens in he sui are so nu)erous ha i is i)pracica&le o oin he) all as paries an" &e na)e" in"ivi"uall! as plaini''s in he co)plain.K C+ A ri o' preli)inar! inuncion is availa&le o preven a hreaene" or coninuous irre)e"ia&le inur! o paries &e'ore heir clai)s can &ehorou/hl! su"ie" an" a"u"icae". The re(uisies 'or is issuance are *1+ he eisence o' a clear an" un)isa#a&le ri/h ha )us &e proece":an" *2+ an ur/en an" para)oun necessi! 'or he ri o preven serious "a)a/e.@or he ri o issue% he ri/h sou/h o &e proece" )us &e a presen ri/h% a le/al ri/h hich )us &e shon o &e clear an" posiive.This )eans ha he persons appl!in/ 'or he ri )us sho ha he! have an osensi&le ri/h o he 'inal relie' pra!e" 'or in heir co)plain.9n he case a &ench% ICA% e al. 'aile" o esa&lish a
pri)a 'acie proo' o' violaion o' heir ri/h o usi'! he issuance o' a ;P9. Their ri/h o he useo' a Pa6 Roa" is "ispua&le since he! have no clear le/al ri/h herein.
.
Banda v. Ermita G.R. No. 166620 April 20, 2010
FACTS: President GMA issued Executive Order No. 37 on 200! "#endin$ %ection 6 o& Executive Order No. 2'(), inter "li", re#ovin$ t*e exclusive +urisdiction o& t*e NPO N"tion"l Printin$ O-ce over t*e printin$services re/uire#ents o& $overn#ent "$encies "nd instru#ent"lities.Pursu"nt to Executive Order No. 37, $overn#ent "$encies "nd instru#ent"lities "re "lloed to source t*eir printin$ services &ro# t*e priv"te sector t*rou$* co#petitive (iddin$, su(+ect to t*e condition t*"t t*eservices oered () t*e priv"te supplier (e o& superior /u"lit) "nd loer in cost co#p"red to *"t "soered () t*e NPO. Executive Order No. 37 "lso li#ited NPOs "ppropri"tion in t*e Gener"lAppropri"tions Act to its inco#e. Perceivin$ Executive Order No. 37 "s " t*re"t to t*eir securit) o& tenure "s e#plo)ees o& t*e NPO,petitioners no c*"llen$e its constitution"lit), contendin$ t*"t 1 it is (e)ond t*e executive poers o& President Arro)o to "#end or repe"l Executive Order No. 2' issued () &or#er President A/uino *en t*el"tter still exercised le$isl"tive poers4 "nd 2 Executive Order No. 37 viol"tes petitioners securit) o& tenure, (ec"use it p"ves t*e ") &or t*e $r"du"l "(olition o& t*e NPO. 5ssue *et*er or not t*e co#pl"int "s properl) led "s " cl"ss suit 8eld 9e&ore proceedin$ to resolve t*e su(st"ntive issues, t*e :ourt #ust rst delve into " procedur"l #"tter. %ince petitioners instituted t*is c"se "s " cl"ss suit, t*e :ourt, t*us, #ust rst deter#ine i& t*e petition indeed /u"lies "s one. 5n Board of Optometry v. Colet ,;2< e *eld t*"t =;cor *ile no di-cult) #") "rise i& t*e decision secured is &"vor"(le to t*e pl"intis, " /u"nd"r) ould result i& t*e decision ere ot*erise "s t*ose *o ere dee#ed i#ple"ded () t*eir sel&?"ppointed represent"tives ould cert"inl) cl"i# deni"l o& due process.@
%ection 12, Rule 3 o& t*e Rules o& :ourt denes " cl"ss suit, "s &ollos %ec. 12. Class suit . *en t*e su(+ect #"tter o& t*e controvers) is one o& co##on or $ener"l interest to #"n) persons so nu#erous t*"t it is i#pr"ctic"(le to +oin "ll "s p"rties, " nu#(er o& t*e# *ic* t*e court nds to (e su-cientl) nu#erous "nd represent"tive "s to &ull) protect t*e interests o& "ll concerned #") sue or de&end &or t*e (enet o& "ll. An) p"rt) in interest s*"ll *"ve t*e ri$*t to intervene to protect *is individu"l interest. >ro# t*e &ore$oin$ denition, t*e re/uisites o& " cl"ss suit "re 1 t*e su(+ect #"tter o& controvers) is one o& co##on or $ener"l interest to #"n) persons4 2 t*e p"rties "ected "re so nu#erous t*"t it is i#pr"ctic"(le to (rin$ t*e# "ll to court4 "nd 3 t*e p"rties (rin$in$ t*e cl"ss suit "re su-cientl) nu#erous or represent"tive o& t*e cl"ss "nd c"n &ull) protect t*e interests o& "ll concerned. 5n Mathay v. The Consolidated Bank and Trust Company ,;3< t*e :ourt *eld t*"t An "ction does not (eco#e " cl"ss suit #erel) (ec"use it is desi$n"ted "s suc* in t*e ple"din$s. *et*er t*e suit is or is not " cl"ss suit depends upon t*e "ttendin$ &"cts, "nd the complaint, or other pleading initiating the class action should allege t*e existence o& t*e necess"r) &"cts, to it, t*e existence o& " su(+ect #"tter o& co##on interest, "nd t*e existence o& " cl"ss "nd the number of persons in the alleged class, in order that the court might be enabled to determine whether the members of the class are so numerous as to mae it impracticable to bring them all before the court, to contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine whether claimants on record ade!uatel" represent the class and the sub#ect matter of general or common interest . E#p*"ses ours. 8ere, t*e petition &"iled to st"te t*e nu#(er o& NPO e#plo)ees *o ould (e "ected () t*e "ss"iled Executive Order "nd *o ere "lle$edl) represented () petitioners. 5t "s t*e %olicitor Gener"l, "s counsel &or respondents, *o pointed out t*"t t*ere ere "(out '!B e#plo)ees in t*e NPO.;!< C*e 67 petitioners undeni"(l) co#prised " s#"ll &r"ction o& t*e NPO e#plo)ees *o# t*e) cl"i#ed to represent. %u(se/uentl), 32 o& t*e ori$in"l petitioners executed "n A-d"vit o& Desist"nce, *ile one si$ned " letter den)in$ ever si$nin$ t*e petition,;'< ostensi(l) reducin$ t*e nu#(er o& petitioners to 3!. e note t*"t counsel &or t*e petitioners c*"llen$ed t*e v"lidit) o& t*e desist"nce or it*dr""l o& so#e o& t*e petitioners "nd insinu"ted t*"t suc* desist"nce "s due to pressure &ro# people =close to t*e se"t o& poer.@;6< %till, even i& e ere to disre$"rd t*e "-d"vit o& desist"nce led () so#e o& t*e petitioners, it is *i$*l) dou(t&ul t*"t " su-cient, represent"tive nu#(er o& NPO e#plo)ees *"ve instituted t*is
purported cl"ss suit. A perus"l o& t*e petition itsel& ould s*o t*"t o& t*e 67 petitioners *o si$ned t*e eric"tionF:ertic"tion o& Non?>oru# %*oppin$, onl) 20 petitioners ere in &"ct #entioned in t*e jurat "s *"vin$ dul) su(scri(ed t*e petition (e&ore t*e not"r) pu(lic. 5n ot*er ords, onl) 20 petitioners eectivel) instituted t*e present c"se. 5ndeed, in MVRS Publiations! "n. v. "slami #a$%ah Counil of the Philippines! "n. ,;7< e o(served t*"t "n ele#ent o& " cl"ss suit or represent"tive suit is t*e ade!uac" of representation . 5n deter#inin$ t*e /uestion o& &"ir "nd "de/u"te represent"tion o& #e#(ers o& " cl"ss, t*e court #ust consider " *et*er t*e interest o& t*e n"#ed p"rt) is coextensive it* t*e interest o& t*e ot*er #e#(ers o& t*e cl"ss4 ( t*e proportion o& t*ose #"de " p"rt), "s it so (e"rs, to t*e tot"l #e#(ers*ip o& t*e cl"ss4 "nd c "n) ot*er &"ctor (e"rin$ on t*e "(ilit) o& t*e n"#ed p"rt) to spe" &or t*e rest o& t*e cl"ss. Previousl), e *eld in "ba&es v. Roman Catholi Churh ;< t*"t *ere t*e interests o& t*e pl"intis "nd t*e ot*er #e#(ers o& t*e cl"ss t*e) see to represent "re di"#etric"ll) opposed, t*e cl"ss suit ill not prosper.
5t is ort* #entionin$ t*"t " M"ni&est"tion o& Desist"nce,;B< to *ic* t*e previousl) #entioned A-d"vit o& Desist"nce;10< "s "tt"c*ed, "s led () t*e President o& t*e N"tion"l Printin$ O-ce orers Associ"tion NAPOA. C*e s"id #"ni&est"tion expressed NAPOAs opposition to t*e lin$ o& t*e inst"nt petition in "n) court. Even i& e t"e into "ccount t*e contention o& petitioners counsel t*"t t*e NAPOA President *"d no le$"l st"ndin$ to le suc* #"ni&est"tion, t*e s"id ple"din$ is " cle"r indic"tion t*"t t*ere is " diver$ence o& opinions "nd vies "#on$ t*e #e#(ers o& t*e cl"ss sou$*t to (e represented, "nd not "ll "re in &"vor o& lin$ t*e present suit. C*ere is *ere "n "pp"rent conHict (eteen petitioners interests "nd t*ose o& t*e persons *o# t*e) cl"i# to represent. %ince it c"nnot (e s"id t*"t petitioners su-cientl) represent t*e interests o& t*e entire cl"ss, t*e inst"nt c"se c"nnot (e properl) tre"ted "s " cl"ss suit. Pu(lic interest center v Rox"s >"cts On >e(ru"r) B, 1B76, respondent N"tion"l Poer :orpor"tion NP: entered into " contr"ct t*e :ontr"ct it* respondent estin$*ouse Electric %.A. E%A, "n "-li"te or su(sidi"r) o& respondent estin$*ouse Electric :orpor"tion E%C5NG8OI%E, *ere() E%A undertoo to construct in &"vor o& t*e NP: " 620?#e$""tt nucle"r poer pl"nt "t Moron$, 9"t""n "nd to suppl) e/uip#ent, #"c*ineries "nd services t*ere&or.;1<
E%A su(se/uentl) executed " deed o& "ssi$n#ent tr"ns&errin$ "ll its ri$*ts "nd responsi(ilities in t*e :ontr"ct to its construction "r#?"$ent, respondent estin$*ouse 5ntern"tion"l Pro+ects :o#p"n) 5P:O.;2< 5n 1B6, President :or"Jon A/uino issued Executive Order E.O. No. '', *ic* "s l"ter "#ended () E.O. No. B, tr"ns&errin$ oners*ip o& t*e "lre"d) constructed poer pl"nt, *ic* *"d (eco#e non "s t*e 9"t""n Nucle"r Poer Pl"nt 9NPP, its e/uip#ent, #"teri"ls "nd &"cilities, records "nd ur"niu# &uel, to t*e N"tion"l Govern#ent or its dul) constituted "$enc).;3< Pursu"nt to E.O. No. '', "s "#ended, t*e N"tion"l Govern#ent "ssu#ed "ll re#"inin$ &orei$n "nd loc"l o(li$"tions incurred () t*e NP: in n"ncin$ t*e construction o& t*e 9NPP.;!< 5n 1B, t*e A/uino "d#inistr"tion instituted " co#pl"int "$"inst E%C5NG8OI%E in Ne Kerse), I.%.A. E%C5NG8OI%E l"ter led "n "r(itr"tion c"se in Genev",%itJerl"nd.;'< On %epte#(er 27, 1BB', President >idel R"#os "ut*oriJed t*e &olloin$ $overn#ent o-ci"ls "s #e#(ers o& " Govern#ent P"nel to conduct explor"tor) discussions it* E%C5NG8OI%E &or t*e possi(le settle#ent o& pendin$ le$"l proceedin$s :*ie& Presidenti"l Le$"l :ounsel Antonio C. :"rpio,;6< %olicitor Gener"l R"ul C. Goco, Assist"nt %ecret"r) :)ril Del :"ll"r, Gener"l :ounsel Al(erto L. P"n$co$, "nd :ounsel M"r Au$en(lic. ;7< %u(se/uentl) or on Octo(er !, 1BB', President R"#os issued E.O. No. 26', *ic* "#ended E.O. No. 31' d"ted K"nu"r) 1, 1B, cre"tin$ t*e Presidenti"l :o##ittee on t*e 9"t""n Nucle"r Poer Pl"nt P:?9NPP :o##ittee. E.O. No. 26' provided t*"t t*e P:?9NPP :o##ittee;< s*"ll (e t*e coordin"tin$ "nd polic)?#"in$ (od) on t*e 9NPP, includin$ policies "risin$ &ro# ne$oti"tions &or " &"ir co##erci"l settle#ent o& "ll pendin$ le$"l cl"i#s t*"t ill provide " su(st"nti"l net (enet to t*e countr), *ic* s*"ll su(#it its reco##end"tions on 9NPP?rel"ted policies to t*e President &or "pprov"l.;B< On Octo(er 11, 1BB', t*e P:?9NPP :o##ittee issued " RE%OLIC5ON ADOPC5NG C8E E%%ENC5AL CERM% AND :OND5C5ON% ARR5ED AC 9 C8E GOERNMENC PANEL AND E%C5NG8OI%E REPRE%ENCAC5E% DIR5NG C8E EPLORACOR D5%:I%%5ON% >ROM %EPCEM9ER 2B, 1BB' CO O:CO9ER B, 1BB' >OR A :OMPROM5%E %ECCLEMENC O> C8E 9NPP :ONCROER% AND >AORA9L RE:OMMEND5NG APPROAL C8EREO> CO 85% E:ELLEN:, C8E PRE%5DENC. On Octo(er 13, 1BB', t*e %ettle#ent A$ree#ent reHected in t*e "(ove? /uestioned Resolution o& t*e P:?9NPP "s &or$ed () t*e Repu(lic "nd NP: on one *"nd, "nd respondentE%C5NG8OI%E corpor"tions on t*e ot*er.;11<
On Nove#(er 1!, 1BB', petitioners, "s t"xp")ers, led it* t*e Re$ion"l Cri"l :ourt RC: o& ueJon :it) " :o#pl"int "$"inst *erein priv"te respondents, &or decl"r"tion o& nullit) o& t*e 9NPP contr"ct it* "pplic"tion &or t*e issu"nce o& " te#por"r) restr"inin$ order "nd preli#in"r) in+unction. ;12<
8erein pu(lic respondent, 9r"nc* 227 o& t*e ueJon :it) RC:, set t*e *e"rin$ o& petitioners "pplic"tion &or t*e issu"nce o& " te#por"r) restr"inin$ order on Nove#(er 2, 1BB' on *ic* d"te onl) petitioners "nd respondents Repu(lic "nd NP: "ppe"red. No represent"tive o& t*e E%C5NG8OI%E corpor"tions *"vin$ s*oed up, pu(lic respondent directed petitioners to secure " certic"tion &ro# t*e %ecurities "nd Exc*"n$e :o##ission %E: on *o t*e resident "$ent, i& "n), o& s"id corpor"tions;13< "s.
On t*e s"#e sc*eduled d"te o& *e"rin$, t*e %olicitor Gener"l, on (e*"l& o& respondents Repu(lic "nd NP:, #oved &or t*e dis#iss"l o& t*e :o#pl"int on t*e $round t*"t petitioners ere en$"$ed in &oru#?s*oppin$, t*eir counsel Att). :rispin C. Re)es *"vin$ previousl) led c"ses ;1!< it* c"uses o& "ction identic"l t*ereto. *ile Att). Re)es did not den) *"vin$ previousl) led, in M"nil", " co#pl"int, *e "r$ued t*"t *e "s not "#on$ t*e pl"intis in t*e co#pl"int led in ueJon :it).Nevert*eless, *e it*dre "s counsel &or t*e pl"intis *erein petitioners.;1'<
On Dece#(er !, 1BB', petitioners led "n A#ended :o#pl"int 5n essence, t*e A#ended :o#pl"int "ss"iled t*e v"lidit) o& "nd sou$*t to nulli&) t*e &olloin$ contr"cts
" C*e 9NPP :ontr"ct4 ( C*e lo"n contr"cts entered into () t*e Repu(lic "nd NP: to n"nce t*e construction o& t*e 9NPP4 "nd
c C*e %ettle#ent A$ree#ent entered into () t*e Repu(lic "nd NP: it* E%C5NG8OI%E on Octo(er 13, 1BB' in settle#ent o& t*e cl"i#s "risin$ &ro# t*e :ontr"ct.
C*e Repu(lic led " Motion to Dis#iss it* Opposition to t*e Applic"tion &or Preli#in"r) M"nd"tor) 5n+unction;17< to petitioners A#ended :o#pl"int on t*e &olloin$ $rounds " lis pendens "ndFor &oru#?s*oppin$4 ( l"c o& le$"l c"p"cit) o& petitioners to sue4 "nd c l"c o& c"use o& "ction. ;1<
>or its p"rt, t*e NP: led its :o##entFMotion Co Dis#iss Pl"intis A#ended :o#pl"int,;1B< "lle$in$ t*"t t*e A#ended :o#pl"int &"iled to st"te " c"use o& "ction "$"inst it.
9) Order o& K"nu"r) 2', 1BB6, pu(lic respondent directed, "#on$ ot*er t*in$s, petitioners "nd t*e Repu(lic "nd NP: to le t*eir respective #e#or"nd".;20<
On >e(ru"r) 26, 1BB6, petitioners, in co#pli"nce it* pu(lic respondents order, led " #"ni&est"tion t*"t per certic"tion o& t*e %E:, t*e ne resident "$ent o& 5P:O "s A::RA A$ents, 5nc. %u##ons "s t*ereupon served upon A::RA A$ents, 5nc. 5P:O soon led " Motion to Dis#iss ;21< petitioners A#ended :o#pl"int on t*e &olloin$ $rounds " petitioners *"ve no le$"l c"p"cit) to sue4 ( t*e A#ended :o#pl"int st"tes no c"use o& "ction4 "nd c "ssu#in$ t*e existence o& " c"use o& "ction, t*e s"#e is nonet*eless ("rred () t*e st"tute o& li#it"tions.
9) t*e "ss"iled Resolution o& April 17, 1BB6, pu(lic respondent D5%M5%%ED petitioners co#pl"int Petitioners Motion &or Reconsider"tion o& pu(lic respondents Resolution dis#issin$ t*eir co#pl"int *"vin$ (een denied () t*e ot*er "ss"iled Order o& Kune 1, 1BB6, t*e) led t*e present Petition &or :ertior"ri "nd M"nd"#us it* Applic"tion &or A rit O& Preli#in"r) 5n+unction And Pr")er >or A Ce#por"r) Restr"inin$ Order directl) it* t*is :ourt in vie o& t*e tr"nscendent"l i#port"nce o& t*e issues involved.
Petitioners contend t*"t in dis#issin$ t*eir A#ended :o#pl"int, pu(lic respondent "(dic"ted its constitution"l dut) to exercise +udici"l revie over t*e v"lidit) o& t*e 9NPP :ontr"ct, t*e lo"n contr"cts, "nd t*e 1BB' %ettle#ent A$ree#ent.
Petitioners &urt*er contend t*"t, contr"r) to t*e ndin$ o& pu(lic respondent, petitioners did not co##it &oru#?s*oppin$ since t*ere is no identit) o& p"rties "nd c"uses o& "ction in t*e inst"nt c"se "nd in t*e co#pl"int led (e&ore t*e M"nil" RC:.
>in"ll), petitioners contend t*"t t*e) *"ve su-cientl) est"(lis*ed t*"t t*e in+ur) c"used to t*e# () t*e contr"cts "re "ctu"l, direct "nd i##edi"te to t*us clot*e t*e# it* st"ndin$.
C*e %olicitor Gener"l "nd 5P:O, opposin$ t*e petition, "r$ue t*"t no $r"ve "(use o& discretion "ttended t*e issu"nce () pu(lic respondent o& t*e "ss"iled resolutions considerin$ t*"t, "#on$ ot*er t*in$s, petitioners "re $uilt) o& &oru#?s*oppin$4 petitioners *"ve no le$"l st"ndin$4 "nd t*e propriet) o& enterin$ into " settle#ent "$ree#ent involves " politic"l /uestion "nd is not su(+ect to +udici"l revie. 5ssue *et*er or not t*e co#pl"int is " cl"ss suit. 8eld Petitioners "ssert t*"t " t"xp")ers suit is not " cl"ss suit, *ence, +ud$#ent in one c"se does not "#ount to res judiata in t*e ot*er. At "ll events, petitioners contend t*"t t*ere is no "(solute identit) o& c"uses o& "ction since t*eir A#ended :o#pl"int includes t*e nullic"tion o& t*e %ettle#ent A$ree#ent, *ic* "s not r"ised in t*e rst set o& c"ses. Petitioners position does not i#press. A t"xp")ers "ction *"s (een dened "s &ollos
A ta$pa"er%s bill is essentiall" a class bill and can be &led onl" in the common interest of all the ta$pa"ers of the municipalit", to prevent t*e ron$&ul expenditure o& t*e #one) o& t*e #unicip"lit) or t*e "stin$ o& its "ssets. %c*l"n$er v. est 9eric 9orou$*, 261 P". 60', 60, 10! A. 76!. A class bill, as its name implies, is a bill b" several members of a class, on behalf of themselves and all others in the class, "nd no relie& c"n (e $r"nted upon it, except upon " $round *ic* is co##on to "ll t*e #e#(ers o& t*e cl"ss. ;:itin$ c"ses<. As*co# v. est#ont 9orou$*, 2B P". 203, 20, 1! A. 112, 11! .;3'< E#p*"sis supplied
As to pl"intis, both suits are brought b" the plainti' as a citi(en and ta$pa"er, besides as an individual, and therefore the" are ta$pa"er class actions. x x x, 5n 'olman v. Brid(es , 16' G". 2B62, 1!0 %.E. 6, t*is court *eld *ere " t"xp")er or propert) oner (rin$s "n "ction "$"inst " count) or its o-cers upon " #"tter o& pu(lic or $ener"l interest to "ll ot*er t"xp")ers o& suc* politic"l su(division, "nd t*e "ction eit*er expressl) or () necess"r) i#plic"tion is on t*eir (e*"l&, t*e) "re e/u"ll) (ound () t*e "d+udic"tion , "nda #udgment is a bar to an" subse!uent proceeding b" them or an" of them seeing similar relief upon the same facts. x x x;36< E#p*"sis supplied
C*e $ener"l principle o& cl"ss "ctions t*"t " +ud$#ent in &"vor o& or "$"inst t*e p"rties representin$ t*e $ener"l cl"ss is, under t*e doctrine o& res judiata, in &"vor o& or "$"inst "ll *o "re t*us represented "pplies to liti$"tions instituted () t"xp")ers.
Accordin$l), in " suit (rou$*t () citiJens "nd t"xp")ers to deter#ine " pu(lic ri$*t or " #"tter o& pu(lic interest, "ll citiJens "nd t"xp")ers "re re$"rded "s p"rties to t*e proceedin$s () represent"tion "nd "re (ound () t*e +ud$#ent rendered t*erein.;37<
C*e pl"inti t*ere "s "not*er t"xp")er o& t*e cit), suin$ in t*e st"tus o& citiJen "nd t"xp")er, "nd t*e cit) itsel& "s " co?de&end"nt. C*e "ction "s instituted %epte#(er 3, 1B'. C*e rst count o& t*e co#pl"int, 5nter "li", c*"r$ed t*e "-li"tion "$ree#ent *ere in /uestion to (e void, ille$"l "nd o& no eect (ec"use t*e :it) i$nored t*e re/uire#ents o& t*e loc"l (ud$et l",N.K.%. !02?1 et se/., p"rticul"rl) !02?2B "nd t*e l" pert"inin$ to #unicip"l contr"cts, p"rticul"rl) !0'0?6, "s to t*e necessit) &or eit*er (ud$etin$ t*e contr"ct or p"ssin$ "n "ppropri"tion ordin"nce .Q %u(se/uentl) t*e pl"inti in t*"t "ction #"de " #otion &or su##"r) +ud$#ent on t*e rst count "lone, "nd de&end"nts #oved &or su##"r) +ud$#ent on "ll counts. e *"ve ex"#ined t*e (rie&s "nd "-d"vits su(#itted to t*e tri"l court on t*ose #otions, "nd it "ppe"rs t*ere&ro# t*"t t*e #"tter o& t*e "lle$ed inv"lidit) o& t*e "-li"tion "$ree#ent &or "lle$ed nonco#pli"nce it* N.K.%.A. !02?2B "nd !0'0?6 "s "r$ued to t*e
