Ty vs.

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

Facts
1979, the Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank wanted to
purchase real properties as new branch sites for its expansion program
The General Banking Act limits a banks real estate holdings to no more than
50% of its capital assets
Banco Filipino Savings Board of Directors decided to warehouse s o m e
of i ts exi sti ng p rop e rti e s an d b ran ch si te s to al l ow more
fl e x i b i l i t y i n t h e opening of branches, and to enable it to acquire new
branch sites.
Nancy Ty (petitioner) a major stockholder and director of the bank, persuaded
two other major stockholders, Pedro Aguirre and his brother Tomas Aguirre, to
organize and incorporate Tala Realty Services Corporation (Tala Realty) to
hold and purchase real properties in trust for the respondent.
Remedios A. Dupasquier prodded her brother Tomas to endorse to her his
shares in Tala realty and she registered them in the name of her controlled
corporation, Add International Services, Inc.
Remedios, and Pedro controlled Tala realty through their respective
nominees.

To execute their trust agreement, Banco Filipino sold to Tala realty some of its
properties.
Tala realty simultaneously leased to the respondent the properties for 20
years, renewable for another 20 years at the respondents option with a right
of first refusal in the event Tala realty decides to sell them.
August 1992, Tala realty repudiated (renounced) the trust, claimed the titles
for itself, and demanded payment of rentals, deposits, and goodwill,
with a threat to eject the bank

From 1995 to 1998, Banco Filipino filed 17 complaints against Tala realty,
Nancy Ty (petitioner), Pedro, Remedios, and their respective nominees for
reconveyance of different properties with 17 regional Trial Courts (RTCs)
nationwide, including Civil Case No. 2506-MN before Branch 170 of the
RTC of Malabon (Malabon case) subject of the present case.

Nancy Ty (petitioner), and her co-defendants moved to dismiss the Malabon

case for forum shopping and lis pendentia, citing the 16 other civil
cases 8led in various courts involving the same facts, issues, parties, and
reliefs pleaded in the respondents complaint.
Malabon RTC denied the motion to dismiss as well as the motions for
reconsideration and suspension of proceedings, finding no
commonality in the 16 other civil cases since they involved different causes
of action.
After they filed their answers, Nancy and her co-defendants moved to
suspend proceedings, citing the pendency of G.R. No. 127611, which was a
petition for certiori questioning the denial of their motion to dismiss in the
RTC of Batangas City, and praying for a writ of prohibition to stop the RTC
judges hearing the other cases and the CA.
 Malabon RTC granted the suspension of the proceedings which the bank
appealed to the CA. The certiorari was eventually granted by the CA after the
Supreme Court dismissed Gr. No. 127611 for late filing.

The bank then moved for pre-trial, which Tala Realty again opposed due to
pendency of G.R. No. 132703 which assailed the CAs affirmance of the denial of the
motion to dismiss, this time in Iloilo City (Civil Case No. 22493). Nancy also filed her
own opposition, citing two cases, G.R. No. 132703, and G.R. No. 130184, this time
the CAs reversal of the dismissal of the Quezon City case.

The RTC suspended the proceedings. After six years, the RTC issued an order
directing the counsels to inform it of the status of the pending cases.

Nancy filed her manifestation, informing the RTC of the Supreme Courts rulings in
the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 130184 and 139166, and in G.R. No. 132703,
and reported on the other cases involving the same parties decided by this Court,
such as G.R. Nos. 129887, 137980, 132051, 137533, 143263, and 142672, as well
as the other related cases decided by the Supreme Court, i.e., G.R. Nos. 144700,
147997, 167255, and 144705.

The bank also filed its own manifestation with motion to revive proceedings, citing
the rulings in consolidated decision in G.R. Nos. 130184 and 139166, and the
decisions in G.R. Nos. 144700, 167255, and 144705, commonly holding that there
existed no forum shopping, litis pendentia and res judicata among the respondents
reconveyance cases pending in the other courts of justice.

In her comment/opposition to the motion to revive, Nancy held that the case should
not be revived, as it involves the same issue of implied trust which the Court in G. R
No. 137533 ruled that was void for being in contravention of the limitation imposed
by the General Banking Act on the bank (the 50% rule)

The RTC ordered the revival of the proceedings, citing that there is no res judicata in
this case because there are other independent causes for each of the parties to
sought be recovered.

The Court of Appeals denied her petition for certiorari, holding that res judicata does
not apply in this case since the Supreme Court ruled in G.R. No. 144705 that G.R.
No. 137533 does not put to rest all pending litigations involving the issues of
ownership between the parties since it involved only an issue of de facto
possession. In this case, the trust agreement was only raised in an ejectment case,
not an issue involving ownership.

Nancy elevated her case to the Supreme Court. According to her, G.R. No. 137533 is
controlling in this case and therefore, this case should not be revived in accordance
with the doctrine of res judicata.

G.R. No. 137533, as reiterated in G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201 and
166608, is binding and applicable to the present case following the salutary
doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means to adhere to
precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established. Under the doctrine,
when this Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where
facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are
the same. The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule
involved and not upon the judgment, which results therefrom. In this particular
sense, stare decisis differs from res judicata, which is based upon the judgment.

The doctrine of stare decisis is one of policy grounded on the necessity for securing
certainty and stability of judicial decisions, thus:

Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial
practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which
the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by
the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the
sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that
follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be
different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the
same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties
similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court,
the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same [issue]. (italics
supplied)