REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERIN COUNCIL !

s" LAS O# CREDIT AND COLLECTION SER$ICES, INC" %nd CITYSTATE SA$IN S BAN&, INC" "R" N'" ()*+,( -%n.%ry (,, +**, FACTS/ Republic filed a complaint in the RTC Manila for civil forfeiture of assets against the bank deposits in account number CA-005-10-000121-5 maintained b !lasgo" in C#$%& The case "as filed pursuant to RA '1(0 )the Anti-Mone *aundering Act of 2001 #ummons to !lasgo" "as returned +unserved+ as it could no longer be found at its last kno"n address& Republic filed a verified omnibus motion for )a, issuance of alias summons and )b, leave of court to serve summons b publication& %n an order dated -ctober 15. 200/. the trial court directed the issuance of alias summons& 0o"ever. it did not resolve the Republic1s motion for leave of court to serve summons b publication declaring. unless a return is made on the alias summons. an action on motion for leave of court to serve summons b publication "ould be untenable if not premature& The alias summons "as returned +unserved+ as !lasgo" "as no longer holding office at the given address since 2ul 2002 and left no for"arding address& The Republic filed a manifestation and ex parte motion to resolve its motion for leave of court to serve summons b publication& !lasgo" filled a +Motion to 3ismiss )$ 4a of #pecial Appearance,+ dated August 11. 2005& %t alleged that )1, the court had no 5urisdiction over its person as summons had not et been served on it6 )2, the complaint "as premature and stated no cause of action as there "as still no conviction for estafa or other criminal violations implicating !lasgo" and )/, there "as failure to prosecute on the part of the Republic& The Republic opposed !lasgo"1s motion to dismiss& %t contended that its suit "as an action quasi in rem "here 5urisdiction over the person of the defendant "as not a prere7uisite to confer 5urisdiction on the court& %t asserted that prior conviction for unla"ful activit "as not a precondition to the filing of a civil forfeiture case and that its complaint alleged ultimate facts sufficient to establish a cause of action& %t denied that it failed to prosecute the case& The trial court dismissed the case for improper venue insufficienc in form and substance and failure to prosecute& Raising 7uestions of la". the Republic filed this petition& ISSUE 4hether or not service of summons ma be made b publication in action for forfeiture proceeding& RULIN / %n Republic v. Sandiganbayan. this Court declared that the rule is settled that forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem& 4hile that case involved forfeiture proceedings under RA 1/8'. the same principle applies in cases for civil forfeiture under RA '1(0. as amended. since both cases do not terminate in the imposition of a penalt but merel in the forfeiture of the properties either ac7uired illegall or related to unla"ful activities in favor of the #tate& As an action in rem. it is a proceeding against the thing itself instead of against the person& %n actions in rem or quasi in rem. 5urisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prere7uisite to conferring 5urisdiction on the court. provided that the court ac7uires 5urisdiction over the res& 9onetheless. summons must be served upon the defendant in order to satisf the re7uirements of due process& :or this purpose. service ma be made b publication as such mode of service is allo"ed in actions in rem and quasi in rem&

DEPARTMENT OF A RARIAN REFORM, rep" by RE IONAL DIRECTOR NASER M" MUSALI $S" HON" HA&IM S" ABDUL#AHID, Pres0d0n1 -.d1e, Re10'n%2 Tr0%2 C'.rt, Br" 3II '4 5%6b'%n1% C0ty, %nd YUPAN CO COTTON MILLS, INC" "R" N'" (78+,9 Febr.%ry +), +**, FACTS/ -n 3ecember 2;. 2000. <upangco Cotton Mills. %nc& )<upangco, filed a complaint for :Re;'!ery '4 O<nersh0p %nd P'ssess0'n, $0'2%t0'ns '4 R"A" N's" 779) %nd 8,==>,? %s %6ended, C%n;e22%t0'n '4 T0t2e, Re;'n!ey%n;e %nd >D?%6%1es <0th Pr%yer 4'r the Iss.%n;e '4 Pre2060n%ry M%nd%t'ry In@.n;t0'n %ndA'r Te6p'r%ry Restr%0n0n1 OrderB against $uenavista <upangco Agrarian Reform $eneficiaries Association. %nc& )$<AR$A%,. the 3AR and the *and $ank of the =hilippines& The case "as docketed as Civil Case 9o& 511/ and raffled to the Regional Trial Court )RTC,. $ranch 12 of >amboanga Cit & -n 2anuar 2(. 2001. the 3AR filed a Motion to 3ismiss on the follo"ing grounds? )a, <upangco1s causes of action "ere not "ithin the 5urisdiction of the RTC. )b, forum shopping. and )c, litis pendentia. -n 9ovember (. 2001. the RTC denied the Motion to 3ismiss. ruling that <upangco1s action "as "ithin the 5urisdiction of the RTC pursuant to #ection 1'. Chapter %% of BP (+C" 3AR and $<AR$A% filed a motion for reconsideration. "hich "as denied for lack of merit& -n appeal at the CA. the appellate court sustained the RTC. finding that the action falls "ithin the 5urisdiction of the regular courts and not the 3ARA$ because <upangco primaril sought the recover and possession of the sub5ect parcel of land& 0ence the petition at bar. in its lone assignment of error. petitioner submits that the CA erred @"hen it upheld the 5urisdiction of the ARTCB purel on the ground that A<upangcoB primaril seeks the recover of o"nership and possession of sub5ect parcel of land. 5urisdiction over "hich is lodged "ith regional trial courts. not the 3ARA$&C ISSUE/ 4hether or not the RTC has the 5urisdiction over the case& RULIN / %t is the rule that the 5urisdiction of a tribunal. including a 7uasi-5udicial office or government agenc . over the nature and sub5ect matter of a petition or complaint is determined b the material allegations therein and the character of the relief pra ed for. irrespective of "hether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to an or all of such reliefs& %t is also settled that 5urisdiction should be determined b considering not onl the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or 7uestions that is the sub5ect of the controvers & Thus. if the issues bet"een the parties are intert"ined "ith the resolution of an issue "ithin the eDclusive 5urisdiction of the 3ARA$. such dispute must be addressed and resolved b the 3ARA$& %n the case at bar. the complaint filed b <upangco seems at first blush to be "ithin the 5urisdiction of the RTC. as it has been denominated as :Re;'!ery '4 O<nersh0p %nd P'ssess0'n, $0'2%t0'ns '4 R"A" N's" 779) %nd 8,==>,? %s %6ended, C%n;e22%t0'n '4 T0t2e, Re;'n!ey%n;e %nd >D?%6%1es <0th Pr%yer 4'r the Iss.%n;e '4 Pre2060n%ry M%nd%t'ry In@.n;t0'n %ndA'r Te6p'r%ry Restr%0n0n1 Order"B $ut as correctl pointed out b the 3AR. the allegations of the complaint actuall impugn the CAR= coverage of the landholding involved and its redistribution to farmer beneficiaries. and seek to effect a reversion thereof to the original o"ner. <upangco&

RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC" !s" STOC&TON #" ROU5IE, -R" "R" N'" (7+,C= Febr.%ry +7, +**, FACTS/ $rand Marine #ervices. %nc& )$M#%, and #tockton 4& RouEie. 2r&. an American citiEen. entered into a contract "hereb $M#% hired #tockton as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government pro5ects in the =hilippines for an agreed remuneration of 10F of the gross receipts& -n 11 March 1''2. #tockton secured a service contract "ith the Republic of the =hilippines on behalf of $M#% for the dredging of rivers affected b the Mt& =inatubo eruption and mudflo"s& -n 1( 2ul 1''G. #tockton filed before the Arbitration $ranch of the 9*RC a suit against $M#% and Rust %nternational. %nc& )RH#T,. Rodne C& !ilbert and 4alter !& $ro"ning for alleged nonpa ment of commissions. illegal termination and breach of emplo ment contract& -n 2; #eptember 1''5. *abor Arbiter =ablo C& Ispiritu. 2r& rendered 5udgment ordering $M#% and RH#T to pa #tockton1s mone claims& Hpon appeal b $M#%. the 9*RC reversed the decision of the *abor Arbiter and dismissed #tockton1s complaint on the ground of lack of 5urisdiction& #tockton elevated the case to this Court but "as dismissed in a Resolution dated 2( 9ovember 1''8& The Resolution became final and eDecutor on 0' 9ovember 1'';& -n ; 2anuar 1'''. #tockton. then a resident of *a Hnion. instituted an action for damages before the RTC of $auang. *a Hnion& The Complaint named as defendants Ra theon %nternational. %nc& as "ell as $M#% and RH#T. the t"o corporations impleaded in the earlier labor case& The complaint essentiall reiterated the allegations in the labor case that $M#% verball emplo ed respondent to negotiate the sale of services in government pro5ects and that respondent "as not paid the commissions due him from the =inatubo dredging pro5ect "hich he secured on behalf of $M#%& The complaint also averred that $M#% and RH#T as "ell as petitioner itself had combined and functioned as one compan & %n its Ans"er. Ra theon alleged that it "as a foreign corporation dul licensed to do business in the =hilippines and denied entering into an arrangement "ith #tockton or pa ing the latter an sum of mone & Ra theon also denied combining "ith $M#% and RH#T for the purpose of assuming the alleged obligation of the said companies& Ra theon also referred to the 9*RC decision "hich disclosed that per the "ritten agreement bet"een #tockton and $M#% and RH#T. the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed b the la"s of the #tate of Connecticut& Ra theon sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum non conveniens and pra ed for damages b "a of compulsor counterclaim& ISSUE/ 4hether or not the CA erred in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens& RULIN / %n Hasegawa v. Kitamura. the Court outlined three consecutive phases involved in 5udicial resolution of conflicts-of-la"s problems. namel ? 5urisdiction. choice of la". and recognition and enforcement of 5udgments& Thus. in the instances "here the Court held that the local 5udicial machiner "as ade7uate to resolve controversies "ith a foreign element. the follo"ing re7uisites had to be proved? )1, that the =hilippine Court is one to "hich the parties ma convenientl resort6 )2, that the =hilippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the la" and the facts6 and )/, that the =hilippine Court has or is likel to have the po"er to enforce its decision& -n the matter of 5urisdiction over a conflicts-of-la"s problem "here the case is filed in a =hilippine court and "here the court has 5urisdiction over the sub5ect matter. the parties and the

res. it ma or can proceed to tr the case even if the rules of conflict-of-la"s or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum& This is an eDercise of sovereign prerogative of the countr "here the case is filed& As regards 5urisdiction over the parties. the trial court ac7uired 5urisdiction over herein respondent )as part plaintiff, upon the filing of the complaint& -n the other hand. 5urisdiction over the person of petitioner )as part defendant, "as ac7uired b its voluntar appearance in court& That the sub5ect contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed b the la"s of the #tate of Connecticut does not suggest that the =hilippine courts. or an other foreign tribunal for that matter. are precluded from hearing the civil action& 2urisdiction and choice of la" are t"o distinct concepts& 2urisdiction considers "hether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state6 choice of la" asks the further 7uestion "hether the application of a substantive la" "hich "ill determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties& The choice of la" stipulation "ill become relevant onl "hen the substantive issues of the instant case develop. that is. after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court& Hnder the doctrine of forum non conveniens. a court. in conflicts-of-la"s cases. ma refuse impositions on its 5urisdiction "here it is not the most +convenient+ or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies else"here& =etitioner1s averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its 5urisdiction over Civil Case 9o& 9o& 11'2-$! and the parties involved& Moreover. the propriet of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens re7uires a factual determination6 hence. it is more properl considered as a matter of defense& 4hile it is "ithin the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming 5urisdiction on this ground. it should do so onl after vital facts are established. to determine "hether special circumstances re7uire the court1s desistance& :inding no grave abuse of discretion on the trial court. the Court of Appeals respected its conclusion that it can assume 5urisdiction over the dispute not"ithstanding its foreign elements& %n the same manner. the Court defers to the sound discretion of the lo"er courts because their findings are binding on this Court& RUDOLF LIET5 HOLDIN S, INC" !s" THE RE ISTRY OF DEEDS OF PARADAEUE CITY, "R" N'" (88+=* N'!e6ber (9, +*** FACTS/ =etitioner corporation "as formerl kno"n as Rudolf *ietE. %ncorporated and "as later changed its name to Rudolf *ietE 0oldings. %nc& As a conse7uence of its change of name. petitioner sought the amendment of the transfer certificates of title over real properties o"ned b the said corporation. all of "hich "ere under the old name. Rudolf *ietE. %ncorporated& :or this purpose. petitioner instituted. on 9ovember 20. 1''8. a petition for amendment of titles "ith the Regional Trial Court of =araJa7ue Cit & The petition impleaded as respondent the Registr of 3eeds of =asa Cit . apparentl because the titles sought to be amended "ere all issued b the Registr of 3eeds of =asa Cit & #ubse7uentl . petitioner learned that the sub5ect titles are in the custod of the Register of 3eeds of =araJa7ue Cit & 0ence. on :ebruar 1(. 1'';. petitioner filed an ID-=arte Motion to Admit Amended =etition& %n the attached Amended =etition. petitioner impleaded instead as respondent the Registr of 3eeds of =araJa7ue Cit . and alleged that its lands are located in =araJa7ue Cit & %n the meantime. ho"ever. on 2anuar /0. 1'';. the court a quo had dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue. it appearing therein that the respondent is the Registr of 3eeds of =asa Cit and the properties are located in =asa Cit & ISSUE/

4hether or not the court can motu proprio dismiss the case on improper venue& RULIN / %n Dacoycoy v. IA . this Court ruled? The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner1s complaint b respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain error. obviousl attributable to its inabilit to distinguish bet"een 5urisdiction and venue& Kuestions or issues relating to venue of actions are basicall governed b Rule G of the Revised Rules of Court& %t is said that the la ing of venue is procedural rather than substantive& %t relates to the 5urisdiction of the court over the person rather than the sub5ect matter& =rovisions relating to venue establish a relation bet"een the plaintiff and the defendant and not bet"een the court and the sub5ect matter& Lenue relates to trial not to 5urisdiction. touches more of the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case& 3ismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainl not the appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceedings. particularl as venue. in inferior courts as "ell as in the courts of first instance )no" RTC,. ma be "aived eDpressl or impliedl & 4here the defendant fails to challenge timel the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided b #ection G of Rule G of the Rules of Court. and allo"s the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered. he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to belatedl challenge the "rong venue. "hich is deemed "aived& Thus. unless and until the defendant ob5ects to the venue in a motion to dismiss. the venue cannot be trul said to have been improperl laid. as for all practical intents and purposes. the venue. though technicall "rong. ma be acceptable to the parties for "hose convenience the rules on venue had been devised& The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant1s prerogative to ob5ect to the improper la ing of the venue b motu proprio dismissing the case& MARCELO ENRIEUE5 !s" HI INIO B" MACADAE , -.d1e '4 the C'.rt '4 F0rst Inst%n;e '4 Ceb., MELITON YBURAN, %nd THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN& "R" N'" L-+=++ Septe6ber 8*, (C=C FACTS/ The civil action in 7uestion is for the recover of a piece of real propert situated in 9egros -riental& The propert had been bought b Inri7ueE at an eDecution sale but that. not"ithstanding the sale. <buran. as supposed o"ner of said propert . subse7uentl mortgaged the same to the =9$ and refused to surrender possession thereof to Inri7ueE. "hereupon. <buran brought suit )Meliton <buran vs& Marcelo Inri7ueE and The =hilippine 9ational $ank. civil case 9o& R-552 of the C:% of Cebu, to have himself declared o"ner of said propert and placed in possession thereof& $efore filing their ans"er. the defendants in that case moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground. among others. that. as the action concerned title to and possession of real estate situated in 9egros -riental. venue "as improperl laid in the C:% of Cebu& The motion having been denied. the defendants filed the present petition for mandamus to compel the respondent 5udge to dismiss the action& ISSUE/ 4hether or not the case should be dismissed& RULIN / #ection / of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court re7uires that actions recover of possession of real propert be commenced and tried in the propert lies. "hile paragraph 1 )b, of Rule ;. provides that defendant ma pleading. file a motion to dismiss the action "hen +venue is improperl affecting title to or province "here the . "ithin the time for laid&+ As the action

sought to be dismissed affects title to and the recover of possession of real propert situated in -riental 9egros. it is obvious that the action "as improperl brought in the Court of :irst %nstance of Cebu& The motion to dismiss "as therefore proper and should have been granted& $ut. "hile the respondent 5udge committed a manifest error in den ing the motion. mandamus is not the proper remed for correcting that error. for this is not a case "here a tribunal +unla"full neglects the performance of an act "hich the la" specificall en5oins as a dut resulting from an office+ or +unla"full eDcludes another from the use and en5o ment of a right&+ )#ection /. Rule (8. Rules of Court&, %t is rather a case "here a 5udge is proceeding in defiance of the Rules of Court b refusing to dismiss an action "hich "ould not be maintained in his court& The remed in such case is prohibition )section 2. Rule (8,. and that remed is available in the present case because the order complained of. being merel of an interlocutor nature. is not appealable PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES FPICOPG !s" -OSE SAMSON, BEN-AMIN BARRERA %nd the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SURI AO DEL SUR "R" N'" L-8*()9 N'!e6ber +,, (C)9 FACTS/ -n 2ul 1(. 1'(5. =%C-= filed "ith the C:% of #urigao del #ur a verified complaint for in5unction and damages against 2ose #amson and $en5amin $arrera "ho "ere discovered and verified to have unla"full entered. trespassed and encroached deep into portions of plaintiffMs pulp"ood and timber concession in t"o areas at =amintigan. Mabta . MaliD "ithin the province of #urigao del #ur& 3efendants-respondents have unla"full logged over a total area of ;58 hectares and felled and took a"a logs "ith a total volume of '5;&(0 cubic meters from plaintiffMs concession& As a result of the unla"ful logging operations of defendants inside plaintiffMs pulp"ood and timber concession. plaintiff as of Ma /1. 1'(5. suffered damages amounting to =10.(00&00. more or less& 3efendants filed a 5oint ans"er to the complaint and opposition to =%C-=Ms application for "rit of preliminar in5unction& %n their ans"er the disputed the material allegations of the complaint and. as their onl defense. alleged that the are not the real part in interest as the logging operation in the 7uestioned area is o"ned and operated b the concessionaire and licensee *ope A& CoJate of $utuan Cit . and that the )defendants, are mere emplo ees of CoJate& #amson and $arrera filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that venue is improperl laid. defendantsM contention being that the action "as personal and. therefore. should have been filed either in the province of Agusan or RiEal. the places of residence of the parties therein& -n August 1/. 1'(5. 2anuar 1. 1'((. and :ebruar 5. 1'((. "ithout first re7uiring a ruling on their motion to dismiss. the parties in the lo"er court proceeded to trial "here each part adduced evidence on the issue of in5unction& -n Ma (. 1'((. the Court of :irst %nstance. then presided b 2udge Ricardo 3& !arcia )subse7uentl he retired,. issued an -rder granting =%C-=Ms application for a "rit of preliminar in5unction& -n #eptember 1;. 1'(;. the trial court. "ith a ne" presiding 5udge )0on& Re naldo 0onrado,. issued an -rder granting defendantsM Motion to 3ismiss& The motion for reconsideration of the dismissal having been denied. this petition for certiorari "as filed. petitioners claiming grave abuse of discretion in ordering the dismissal of the case& ISSUE/ 4hether or not the action should be dismissed& RULIN /

The 7uestion "hether or not venue has been properl laid depends to a great eDtent on the kind of action )real or personal, presented b the Complaint& %t is defendantsM contention. affirmed b the trial court. that the action at bar is personal& The contention has no merit& A personal action is one that is founded on privit of contract )Moran. Comments on the Rules of Court. Lol& 1. 1'80 ed&. p& 110,& The facts of the case as borne out b the record reveal that no contract is here involved& :rom a reading of the Complaint petitioner =%C-= is interested primaril in recovering its rights to the concession over the land. to have defendants #amson and $arrera vacate the same. to desist from further encroaching on their concession rights and to stop their illegal logging operations in the concession areas& Clearl . therefore. the action is real and in accordance "ith the Rules of Court. #ection 2. Rule G. the same must be brought in the localit "here the land is situated& As petitioner did right in filing their Complaint in the Court of :irst %nstance of #urigao del #ur. 4e see no further need for discussing at length the other issue of "aiver of venue& #uffice it to sa that respondents herein "ent to trial. cross-eDamined =%C-=Ms "itnesses and adduced evidence "ithout first re7uiring a ruling on their motion to dismiss& This is "aiver of venue. pure and simple& FELI5ARDO S" OBANDO %nd the ESTATES '4 -OSE FI UERAS %nd DODA ALE RIA STREBEL $DA" DE FI UERAS !s" EDUARDO F" FI UERAS %nd AMI O REALTY CORPORATION %s represented by ANTONIO A" &A# "R" N'" (8=,9= -%n.%ry (,, +*** FACTS/ %n 1'(G. Alegria. #trebel :igueras. together "ith her stepsons. Iduardo and :rancisco. filed a =etition for settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased husband 2ose :igueras& 4hile settlement of the estate "as pending. she died and Iduardo assumed administration of the 5oint estates of 3on 2ose and 3oJa Alegria& 0ardl had the proceedings in both intestacies begun "hen Iduardo "as served a =etition for =robate of "hat purported to be 3oJa AlegriaMs *ast 4ill and Testament. filed b :eliEardo #& -bando. a nephe" of 3oJa Alegria& The alleged 4ill be7ueathed to -bando and several other members of the -bando clan properties left b the :igueras couple. including t"o parcels of land in !ilmore Avenue. 9e" Manila. KueEon Cit & 4hen the probate case "as consolidated "ith the intestate proceedings. =etitioner -bando "as appointed as IduardoMs co-administrator of the 5oint estates& As Iduardo insisted that the alleged 4ill "as a forger . the document "as submitted to the 9$% for eDamination and comparison of 3oJa AlegriaMs alleged signature therein "ith samples "hich both parties accepted as authentic& The 9$% found that the 7uestioned and the standard signatures "ere not made b the same person& This led to the indictment and the conviction of =etitioner -bando for estafa through falsification of a public document& -n :ebruar 20. 1''0. the probate court denied IduardoMs Motion for authorit to sell the aforementioned t"o parcels of land in 9e" Manila& 3espite such denial. Iduardo sold the lots to Amigo Realt Corporation on the strength of an -rder issued b the probate court on Ma 15. 1''1& 9e" titles "ere issued for these lots in the name of Amigo Realt & -n 2une G. 1''2. -bando. in his capacit as co-administrator and universal heir of 3oJa Alegria. filed a Complaint against Iduardo and Amigo Realt for the nullification of the sale& 0o"ever. the probate court. in its -rder dated 3ecember 18. 1''8. removed -bando from his office as co-administrator of the 5oint estate of the :igueras spouses& Conse7uentl . in the civil case. respondents filed a 2oint Motion to 3ismiss dated 2anuar 28. 1'';. after -bando had rested his case& The respondents built their evidence around the loss of his legal standing to pursue the case& %n its -rder dated :ebruar 11. 1''/. the trial court granted the Motion and dismissed the civil case "ithout pre5udice&

=etitioner -bando filed a Motion for Reconsideration to no avail& As earlier stated. the Court of Appeals like"ise dismissed his =etition for ertiorari and !andamus and affirmed the dismissal -rder of the RTC& ISSUE/ 4hether or not the defendant should be allo"ed to file a motion to dismiss& RULIN / The period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the circumstances of the case& #ection 1 of Rule 1( of the Rules of Court re7uires that. in general. a motion to dismiss should be filed "ithin the reglementar period for filing a responsive pleading& Thus. a motion to dismiss alleging improper venue cannot be entertained unless made "ithin that period& 0o"ever. even after an ans"er has been filed. the Court has allo"ed a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the follo"ing grounds? )1, lack of 5urisdiction. )2, litis pendentia. )/, lack of cause of action. and )G, discover during trial of evidence that "ould constitute a ground for dismissal& IDcept for lack of cause of action or lack of 5urisdiction. the grounds under #ection 1 of Rule 1( ma be "aived& %f a particular ground for dismissal is not raised or if no motion to dismiss is filed at all "ithin the reglementar period. it is generall considered "aived under #ection 1. Rule ' of the Rules& Appl ing this principle to the case at bar. the respondents did not "aive their right to move for the dismissal of the civil case based =etitioner -bandoMs lack of legal capacit & %t must be pointed out that it "as onl after he had been convicted of estafa through falsification that the probate court divested him of his representation of the :igueras estates& %t "as onl then that this ground became available to the respondents& 0ence. it could not be said that the "aived it b raising it in a Motion to 3ismiss filed after their Ans"er "as submitted& Leril . if the plaintiff loses his capacit to sue during the pendenc of the case. as in the present controvers . the defendant should be allo"ed to file a motion to dismiss. even after the lapse of the reglementar period for filing a responsive pleading& AETNA CASUALTY H SURETY COMPANY !s" PACIFIC STAR LINE, THE BRADMAN CO" INC", MANILA PORT SER$ICE %ndA'r MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, INC" "R" N'" L-+7,*C De;e6ber +C, (C)) FACTS/ -n :ebruar 11. 1'(/. #mith $ell N Co& )=hilippines,. %nc& and Aetna #uret Casualt N #uret Co& %nc&. as subrogee. instituted civil action in the C:% of Manila against =acific #tar *ine. The $radman Co& %nc&. Manila =ort #ervice andOor Manila Railroad Compan . %nc& to recover the amount of H# P2./00&00 representing the value of the stolen and damaged cargo plus litigation eDpenses and eDemplar damages in the amounts of =1.000&00 and =2.000&00. respectivel . "ith legal interest thereon from the filing of the suit and costs& -n 3ecember 2. 1'(1. the ## Ampal took on board at 9e" <ork. 9&<&. H&#&A&. a consignment or cargo including // packages of *inen N Cotton =iece !oods for shipment to Manila for "hich =acific #tar *ine issued $ill of *ading 9o& 1; in the name of %& #halom N Co&. %nc&. as shipper. consigned to the order of 2ud =hilippines. %nc&. Manila6 that the ## Ampal arrived in Manila on :ebruar 10. 1'(2 and in due course. discharged her cargo into the custod of Manila =ort #ervice& 3ue to the negligence of the defendants. the shipment sustained damages valued at H# P2./00&00 representing pilferage and sea"ater damage& Manila =ort #ervice and Manila Railroad Compan . %nc& amended their ans"er to allege that the plaintiff. Aetna casualt N #uret Compan . is a foreign corporation not dul licensed to do business in the =hilippines and. therefore. "ithout capacit to sue and be sued&

ISSUE/ 4hether or not Aetna casualt N #uret Compan has no capacit to sue and be sued& RULIN / %t is settled that if a foreign corporation is not engaged in business in the =hilippines. it ma not be denied the right to file an action in =hilippine courts for isolated transactions& %t cannot be said that the Aetna Casualt N #uret Compan is transacting business of insurance in the = M =hilippines for "hich it must have a license& The contract of insurance "as entered into in 9e" <ork. H&#&A&. and pa ment "as made to the consignee in its 9e" <ork branch& %t appears from the list of cases issued b the Clerk of Court of the Court of :irst %nstance of Manila that all the actions. eDcept t"o )2, cases filed b #mith. $ell N Co&. %nc& against the Aetna Casualt N #uret Compan . are claims against the shipper and the arrastre operators 5ust like the case at bar& Conse7uentl . since the appellant Aetna Casualt N #uret Compan is not engaged in the business of insurance in the =hilippines but is merel collecting a claim assigned to it b the consignee. it is not barred from filing the instant case although it has not secured a license to transact insurance business in the =hilippines& SHER#ILL DE$ELOPMENT CORPORATION vs" SITIO STO" NIDO RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC" %ndA'r NILDA DE$ILLERES, %nd the LANDS MANA EMENT BUREAU "R" N'" (9,=99" -.ne +,, +**9 FACTS/ #her"ill 3evelopment Corporation is the registered o"ner of t"o parcels of land )*ot ;; and *ot ;(, in Muntinlupa. RiEal& -n -ctober 1(. 2002. the #her"ill filed a Complaint for 7uieting of title against #itio #to& 9iJo Residents Association. %nc& )##9RA%,. 9ilda 3evilleres. and the *ands Management $ureau )*M$,& The petitioner made the follo"ing allegations in its complaint? As part of its pra er for relief. the #her"ill pra ed that a "rit of preliminar in5unction be issued. ordering the *M$ to cease and desist from proceeding "ith the hearings in *M$ Case 9o& 8-';. a case pending before it "here petitioner1s titles to the sub5ect lots "ere being 7uestioned b the respondents ##9RA% and 9ilda 3evilleres& -n 9ovember (. 2002. the ##9RA%. through counsel. filed a Motion to 3ismiss the petition on the grounds for luck of certificate of non-forum shopping. forum shopping and litis pendentia& %n its -rder dated :ebruar 2G. 200/. the trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds of litis pendencia and forum shopping& The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. "hich the trial court denied in an -rderdated Ma 2'. 200/& ISSUE/ 4hether or not the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping insofar as #= Civil Action 9o& 02-2/8 is concerned are applicable& RULIN / The trial court correctl ruled that the petitioner1s action "as barred b the pendenc of the proceedings before the *M$& :or litis pendencia to lie. the follo"ing re7uisites must be satisfied?

1& %dentit of parties or representation in both cases6 2& %dentit of rights asserted and relief pra ed for6 /& The relief must be founded on the same facts and the same basis6 and G& %dentit of the t"o preceding particulars should be such that an 5udgment. "hich ma be rendered in the other action. "ill. regardless of "hich part is successful. amount to res "udicata on the action under consideration& To the Court1s mind. these re7uisites are present in the instant case& :or one. the parties in the *M$ case and in #= Civil Action 9o& 02-2/8 are the same& There is. like"ise. identit of rights asserted and reliefs pra ed for& The petition filed b the private respondents ##9RA% and its =resident 3evilleres before the *M$ alleged that the lots in 7uestion had been the sub5ect of @double titlingC6 on the other hand. the petition "ith pra er for preliminar in5unction filed before the RTC sought the declaration from the court that TCT 9os& 1/1'1; and 1/1'1'. in the name of the petitioner. are indefeasible and conclusive as against the "hole "orld& The resolution of the foregoing issue "ould like"ise re7uire the presentation of evidence from the parties& Leril . the conclusion in one proceeding "ould amount to the ad5udication of the merits on the other Q that is. a favorable ruling from the *M$ "ould have virtuall removed an and all eDisting @cloudsC from the petitioner1s titles to the sub5ect propert 6 in the same vein. a declaration of the indefeasibilit of TCT 9os& 1/1'1; and 1/1'1' "ould preempt an ruling of the *M$ on the matter& %ndeed. the underl ing principle of litis pendentia is the theor that a part is not allo"ed to veD another more than once regarding the same sub5ect matter and for the same cause of action& This theor is founded on the public polic that the same sub5ect matter should not be the sub5ect of controvers in court more than once in order that possible conflicting 5udgments ma be avoided. for the sake of the stabilit of the rights and status of persons& The RTC of Muntinlupa Cit . $ranch 205. recogniEed this doctrine "hen it dismissed #= Civil Action 9o& 022/8 to avoid the possibilit of t"o contradictor decisions on the 7uestion of the validit of the sub5ect titles& %n an case. should the petitioner disagree "ith the ruling of the *M$. it is not precluded from taking the matter up to "ith the courts of la"& To determine "hether a part violated the rule against forum shopping. the test applied is "hether the elements of litis pendentia are present or "hether a final 5udgment in one case "ill amount to res "udicata in another& Considering our pronouncement that the re7uisites of litis pendentia barred the filing of #= Civil Action 9o& 02-2/8. the RTC correctl dismissed the same on the additional ground of forum shopping& INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION !s" Y$ETTE CONTACTO AND CONTACTO III "R" N'" (9+9)7 M%y 9, +**8 RE ORIO LUIS C"

FACTS/ -n 21 2anuar 1''/. %ntramuros and <vette Contacto entered into a contract for the lease of petitioner1s premises kno"n as + antinas de Aduana+ )Cantinas, to the latter to establish a fastfood and restaurant business& The lease "as for a period of five ears. from 1 :ebruar 1''/ to /1 2anuar 1'';. at a monthl rental of =/(.000& <vette "as to assume the pa ment of "ater and other utilit eDpenses. and secure appropriate licenses and permits& #hortl after the lease contract "ent into effect. <vette began complaining of the %ntramuros1 failure to evict the side"alk vendors outside the leased premises& #he also alleged to have suffered losses in income due to the presence of the side"alk vendors& %n the neDt t"o ears of the contract. <vette additionall complained of inade7uate facilities of the Cantinas. "hich allegedl resulted in the suspension of her license and denial of her permit applications b the Manila 0ealth 3epartment& #he further claimed that in August 1''5. she "as constrained

to rehabilitate the Cantinas on her o"n. resulting in the significant increase in her food sales& 3uring this time. ho"ever. <vette did not pa the stipulated rent& Thus. bet"een 1''G and 1''5. the petitioner and <vette entered into three agreements allo"ing the latter to restructure her outstanding obligations&#till. <vette failed to pa the accrued rentals& -n 1( 2anuar 1''(. <vette received a letter from the petitioner re7uiring her to pa her unsettled accounts and to vacate the premises under threat of closure. "ithin five da s from receipt of the letter& 4ith the advise of then #ecretar of the 3epartment of Tourism Iduardo =ilapil. she attempted to hold a conference "ith the petitioner in order to prevent the closure. but this attempt failed& -n 22 2anuar 1''(. the scheduled date of the closure. <vette hurriedl filed "ith the Regional Trial Court )RTC, of Manila a complaint for preliminar in5unction. "ith a pra er for specific performance and damages& -n 15 :ebruar 1''(. it issued a "rit of preliminar mandator in5unction ordering the petitioner to reopen the leased premises. reconnect the "ater and electrical services in the leased premises. and allo" <vette to operate the Cantinas& -n 18 #eptember 1'';. pending the resolution of civil action but after the eDpiration of the lease contract. the petitioner filed "ith the RTC of Manila a complaint against respondent spouses <vette and !regorio Contacto& %t alleged that the respondents occupied the leased premises for the entire five ears stipulated in the contract6 ho"ever. the defaulted in the pa ment not onl of their monthl rentals from Ma 1''5 until /1 2anuar 1''; "hen the vacated the leased premises but also the "ater bills and electric bills& -n 12 March 1'''. the <vette filed a Motion to 3ismiss on the ground of litis pendentia& %n its order of 2 3ecember 1'''. $ranch ' of the RTC denied the motion to dismiss& %t also denied the motion for reconsideration in its order of ; #eptember 2000& After due proceedings. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated 2; :ebruar 2002 granting the petition6 declaring as null and void the 2 3ecember 1''' and ; #eptember 2000 orders of $ranch ' of the RTC of Manila6 and dismissing Civil Case 9o& ';-'0;/5 on the ground of litis pendentia& ISSUE 4hether there is litis pendentia& RULIN / Rrespondents1 motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia cannot prosper& %n order to grant a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia. the follo"ing re7uisites must concur? )a, there must be an identit of parties. or at least such parties as representing the same interests in both actions6 )b, there must be an identit of rights asserted and reliefs pra ed for. the reliefs being founded on the same facts6 and )c, the identit of the t"o preceding particulars is such that an 5udgment rendered in the other action "ill. regardless of "hich part is successful. amount to res "udicata in the other& The identit of the parties being apparent and uncontroverted. "e proceed to the second and third re7uisites& There are several tests of ascertaining "hether t"o suits relate to a single or common cause of action. such as )1, "hether the same evidence "ould support and sustain both the first and second causes of action6 or )2, "hether the defenses in one case ma be used to substantiate the complaint in the other& The determination of "hether there is an identit of causes of action for purposes of litis pendentia is ineDtricabl linked "ith that of res "udicata. each constituting an element of the other& %n either case. both relate to the desire to include. in a single litigation. the settlement of all issues relating to a cause of action that is before a court&This is the reason for their invocation in cases "here one part splits a cause of action b . for eDample. filing separate cases to recover separate reliefs for a single cause of action. or in cases "here a defendant files another case arising from "hat should have been pleaded in a compulsor counterclaim& %n

sum. it is a matter of polic . for efficient 5ustice. +to prevent repeated litigation bet"een the same parties in regard to the same sub5ect of controvers 6 to protect defendant from unnecessar veDation6 and to avoid the costs and eDpenses incident to numerous suits&+ %n the first case. Civil Case 9o& '(-8(8-GG. respondent <vette Contacto. as a lessee. asserts her right under the lease contract to occup the leased premises and to use the same for the purpose for "hich it "as intended& -n the other hand. in the second case. Civil Case 9o& ';-'0;/5. the petitioner asserts its right as a former lessor to demand pa ment from the respondents. as former lessees. of the stipulated rentals. penalt . and surcharges. as "ell as "ater and electric bills& As regards the reliefs sought. <vette pra s in the first case for )1, the issuance of an in5unction ordering the petitioner to desist from closing the leased premises6 )2, the set-off of her accountabilities against the eDpenses she incurred or might incur in assuming petitioner1s obligations under the contract6 )/, the reduction of the monthl rental from =/(.000 to =1;.0006 and )G, the pa ment of actual and eDemplar damages. attorne 1s fees. and cost of the suit& %n the second case. the petitioner pra s for the pa ment b the respondents of back rentals from Ma 1''5 until /1 2anuar 1'';. "ater and electric bills. penalt and interests. eDemplar damages. and attorne 1s fees& The reliefs pra ed for in the first case are anchored on the then impending closure of the leased premises. as "ell as the alleged failure or refusal of the petitioner to evict the side"alk vendors in the area and improve the facilities in the leased premises& The second case is based on the refusal of the respondents to pa the monthl rentals from Ma 1''5 up to /1 2anuar 1''; "hen the vacated the leased premises. as "ell as the "ater and electric bills& :rom the foregoing. it is clear that there is as bet"een the t"o actions no identit of rights asserted and reliefs pra ed for. as "ell as of the facts from "hich the reliefs are founded& %t is not therefore likel that petitioner1s defense in the first case. "hich "as filed b the respondents. "ould be in pursuit of its theor as plaintiff in the second case&