Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court Second Division: Petitioners
Supreme Court Second Division: Petitioners
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
AMENDED VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
(SGD.
ARSENIA CORONEL)
x x x
On Forum Shopping:
What happened in this case was totally different since the ex-
parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed
by the petitioners against private respondent. On the other
hand, the complaint with preliminary injunction was filed by
the private respondent against herein petitioners. It is not a
case, therefore, of the private respondent instituting two (2)
remedies in two (2) different fora. Her case entailed only one (1)
forum, to be precise, with the RTC, Branch 57. chanroblespublishingcompany
But, in the instant case, the petition for the Ex-Parte Issuance of a
Writ of Possession which petitioners filed involved a different cause
of action from the complaint for injunction filed by private
respondent. Petitioners sought possession of the subject property,
whereas private respondent sought to enjoin them from consolidating
title over the same. Petitioners’ action is founded on Act No. 3135, §7,
which gives the purchaser at a public auction the right to have
possession of the property sold to him during the redemption period
even if eventually they do not succeed in consolidating their title to it.
On the other hand, private respondents’ action is based on R.A. No.
337, §78, which gives a mortgagor the right to redeem the property
sold at foreclosure sale within one year thereof. Thus, private
respondent could very well oppose petitioners’ action to obtain
possession of the property while trying to prevent them from
consolidating title in a separate case. The decision in one is not
conclusive of the other. chanroblespublishingcompany
Instead, the case shall be dismissed on motion but, just like the
practice under Revised Circular No. 28-91 in the appellate courts,
such dismissal shall be without prejudice. This more liberal rule is
distinguishable from the effects of dismissal of the case for non-
compliance with the Rules under the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 17
which presupposes the pendency of the case, whereas what is
contemplated in this section is the initiation of the case. The case may
consequently be refiled within the balance of the reglementary period
but subject to the provisions on prescription of actions. chanroblespublishingcompany
SO ORDERED.
chanroblespublishingcompany
[1] Per Justice Bernardo LL. Salas and concurred in by Justices Pedro A. Ramirez
and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez. chanroblespublishingcompany
[5] Executive Secretary vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 134171, November 18, 1998.
[6] Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 157 (1997).
[7] Valencia vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 478 (1996). chanroblespublishingcompany
[8] Loyola vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 477 (1995). chanroblespublishingcompany
[9] See Kavinta vs. Castillo, Jr., 249 SCRA 605 (1995); Loyola vs. Court of
Appeals, 245 SCRA 477 (1995); and MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc., vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 128632, August 5, 1999.
chanroblespublishingcompany