Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ADORACION A. PARADERO
Plaintiff,
-versus-
1) Petitioner received a copy of the Decision of this case on June 29, 2019,
in which the dispositive portion read as follows:
SO ORDERED.
ARGUMENTS
While it is true that Litis pendentia is a ground for the dismissal of a civil
action, it must refer to a situation where two actions are pending between the
same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes
unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits
and authorizes a court to dismiss a case motu proprio. (Subic
Telecommunications Company, Inc. vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority,
G.R. No. 185159, October 12, 2009).
In the case of the plaintiff, the following facts should be considered in not applying
the principle of litis pendentia:
b) The identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for by the plaintiff in the
other case are different rights and relief prayed for in this instant case;
It is very clear that the defendants in both cases are entirely different and cannot
also be construed that defendant Maribelle Ferrer Cruz represents the same interest
because the cause of action in this case is that the Deed of Sale executed by ARBs
is a prohibitive transaction as it was executed within the five year period from the
issuance of the ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630;
is to have CLOA No. 00240022 be declared as null and void and cancelling the
Original Certificate of Title No. CO-7630 of SPS. FELIX LARAÑO and
ANASTACIA LARAÑO, SPS. ANTONIO LARAÑO and EMILIANA LARAÑO,
SPS. MELQUIADES LARAÑO and MELODIA LARAÑO and URBANA
VILLANEZO while the relief prayed for in this instant case is for the cancellation
of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
It is worthy to note that granting and assuming that the case for ANNULMENT OF
CERTIFICATE OF LAND-OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND
CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630 be
dismissed, it will not have a binding effect in this case because the issue of this
instant case will stand alone as the issue of this case is anchored on the fact that the
Deed of Sale is void because it was executed within the prohibitive period.
On the other way around, granting and assuming that the plaintiff will get a
favorable decision in the case for ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND-
OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND CANCELLATION OF
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630, it is not automatic that the
Deed of Sale and the tax declaration of respondent will be declared as void because
the Adjudicator in the other case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent in this instant case.
It is undeniable that the subject matter of the first case for the ANNULMENT OF
CERTIFICATE OF LAND-OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND
CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630 is the
award itself and the certificate of title. On the other hand, the subject matter of this
instant case is the validity of the Deed of Sale and the issuance of the tax
declaration. Whatever outcome of the decision in the first case will not affect the
outcome or will not amount to res judicata in this instant case.
There are no similarities of the facts in both cases because the fact in the first case
is concentrated on the award of the CLOA and issuance of the certificate of title
while the facts in this instant case is predominantly pertains to the invalidity of the
execution of the Deed of Sale and the issuance of the Tax Declaration.
Moreover, the Adjudicator in the first case has no jurisdiction over the person in
this instant case as well as the subject matter which is the Deed of Sale and the tax
declaration.
which action should prevail: (1) the date of filing, with preference generally given
to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed
was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the
basis for its dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for
litigating the issues between the parties. (Film Development Council of the
Philippines vs. SM Prime Holdings, Inc. [2013]).
The elements of litis pendentia are not present in the two cases. They may have
the same subject lot but are different in the subject matter because the subject
matter of the first case pertains to the award of CLOA and issuance of certificate of
title and the subject matter of the second case pertains to the Deed of Sale and the
issuance of tax declarations.
Plaintiff acquired the subject properties through purchase and had been in
actual, open, continuous and exclusive possession of the same up to the present.
The plaintiff being the possessor of the subject property had entered into the
land and had made some use of it openly, exclusively, and continuously.
PRAYER
Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Copy furnished:
VERIFICATION
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above entitled case and I have caused the
preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration;
2. That I have read and understood all the contents thereof and the same
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief based on authentic
records;
________________________________
ADORACION G. PARADERO
Affiant