Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

1

Republic of the Philippines


DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
Cebu City

ADORACION A. PARADERO
Plaintiff,

-versus-

DARAB CASE No. VII-10671 TO 10672-C-17

FOR: ANNULMENT OF DEED OF ABSOLUTE


SALE AND CANCELLATION OF TAX
DECLARATION NO. 17973.

MARIBEL FERRER CRUZ


Defendant,

CEBU PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR


Public Respondent,
x---------------------------------------------------------/
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PLAINTIFF, through undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Department of Agrarian Reform, most respectfully and humbly avers:

1) Petitioner received a copy of the Decision of this case on June 29, 2019,
in which the dispositive portion read as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case for nullification of the deed


of sale and tax declaration is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of litis
pendentia.”

SO ORDERED.

Cebu City, Philippines. May 20, 2019

2) The Plaintiff moves for the Reconsideration of the above-mentioned


Resolution on the following ground:
2

LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

a) There was an Error of Law and/or Fact in the Judgment when


this case was dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.

There was an Error of Law and/or Fact


in the Judgment when this case was
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia

It must be recalled that the Honorable Provincial Adjudicator inadvertently


applied the principle of litis pendentia in dismissing this case. The decision is
anchored on the fact that there was a prior case filed by the plaintiff for the
cancellation of Certificate of Title (CLOA) on the subject matter of this case
against the original beneficiaries (ARBs) and that whatever decision on that prior
case would amount to res judicata in this case.

Likewise, the Honorable Provincial Adjudicator ruled that if the cancellation


case is granted, the CLOA issued to ARBs will be cancelled to the effect that the
Deed of Sale executed by the ARBs to respondent Cruz is deemed void or invalid.
In another way around, if the cancellation case is denied, the ownership of ARBs is
therefore sustained. The Honorable Provincial Adjudicator further stated that the
decision or ruling in the cancellation will have a binding effect on the parties in the
nullification case.

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).

The requisites in order that an action may be dismissed on the ground of


litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the
same interest in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two cases
such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount
to res judicata in the other. (Republic vs. Carmel Development, Inc. G.R. No.
142572. February 20, 2002)
3

In the case of the plaintiff, the following facts should be considered in not applying
the principle of litis pendentia:

a) The identity of parties in the ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF


LAND-OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND
CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-
7630 filed by the plaintiff and in this instant case are entirely different;

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;

c) The judgment in the ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND-


OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND
CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-
7630 will not amount to res judicata in this instant case.

The identity of parties in the ANNULMENT


OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND-OWNERSHIP
AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND
CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE NO.CO-7630 filed by the plaintiff and
in this instant case are entirely different

The case filed by the plaintiff in the ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF


LAND-OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND CANCELLATION
OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630 is against SPS. FELIX
LARAÑO and ANASTACIA LARAÑO, SPS. ANTONIO LARAÑO and
EMILIANA LARAÑO, SPS. MELQUIADES LARAÑO and MELODIA
LARAÑO and URBANA VILLANEZO while the case filed by the plaintiff in this
case is against Maribelle Ferrer Cruz.

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;

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

The relief prayed for by the plaintiff in the ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF


LAND-OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND CANCELLATION
OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630 is different from the
relief sought by the plaintiff in this instant case. The relief prayed for in the former
4

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.

The judgment in the ANNULMENT OF


CERTIFICATE OF LAND-OWNERSHIP
AWARD (CLOA) NO. 00240022 AND
CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.CO-7630
will not amount to res judicata 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.

Under the established jurisprudence on litis pendentia, the following


considerations predominate in the ascending order of importance in determining
5

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 IS IN ACTUAL, OPEN, CONTINOUS AND EXCLUSIVE


POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

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

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the plaintiff hereby respectfully


prayed before this Honorable Adjudication Board to reinstate this case and to have
this case be consolidated with the case filed by the plaintiff in the case for
ANNULMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND-OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA)
NO. 00240022 AND CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE NO.CO-7630 against SPS. FELIX LARAÑO and ANASTACIA LARAÑO,
SPS. ANTONIO LARAÑO and EMILIANA LARAÑO, SPS. MELQUIADES
LARAÑO and MELODIA LARAÑO and URBANA VILLANEZO.

Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

July 1, 2019, Cebu City.

DAVIDE & SUSUSCO LAW OFFICE


COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
RM. 306, Diaz Bldg., J. Avila St., Osmena Blvd.
Capitol Site, Cebu City, Philippines
Tel. No. (032) 4199720

ATTY. GIOVANNI D. SUSUSCO


6

IBP NO. AR55344831/12/13/2018/ 0Cebu City


PTR No. 3297652/ 01-03-2019/ Talisay City
Roll of Attorneys No. 53097
Admitted to the Bar on April 26, 2007
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0008256

Copy furnished:

Atty. Adrian C. Fernandez


2nd Flr. GMT2 Bldg.
Cor. P. Del Rosario –Jungquera St., Cebu City

VERIFICATION

I, ADORACION G. PARADERO, Filipino, of legal age, SINGLE and a


resident of Naga-arco, Tabionan, San Fernando, Cebu, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with the law, hereby depose and state:

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;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this Verification this


___ day of _____________ 2019, in __________________.

________________________________
ADORACION G. PARADERO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of


__________________ 2019 at ____________________, Philippines. Affiant
exhibiting to me her __________________ as proof of her competent identity.

Doc. No. _____


Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2019