Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MIAGAO

Sixth Judicial Region
Miagao, Iloilo

JOSEPHINE ARANCILLO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 377
- VERSUS -

NONY MAGNO, For: Unlawful Detainer

Defendant.
xx----------------------------------------xx

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF by the undersigned attorney and to the

Honorable Court most respectfully asseverates that:

1.In accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 40 in relation to Sec. 9, Rule 41 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on perfection of appeals from MTC to RTC, “In

appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case

upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration

of the time of appeal of the other parties”.

2.Upon receipt by plaintiff on 26 September 2012 of the adverse decision

of the Honorable Court dated 31 July 2012, she filed a Notice of Appeal and paid

the appropriate docketing fees on 27 September 2012. Given however that “the

time of appeal of the other party [defendant] has not yet expired”, the instant

Motion for Clarification may still be acted upon;

Page 1 of 6
 3.While plaintiff concedes that the Honorable Court enjoys a wide leeway

in arriving at its findings of facts and conclusions of law, however, in the Decision

which is sought to be appealed, it carried what, to plaintiff’s mind, a bothersome

ruling that plaintiff “is guilty of forum-shopping”.

4.This comes to the fore in light of a previous Order issued by the same

Court dated July 7, 2011. In retrospect, in a previous MANIFESTATION AND

MOTION filed by the defendant dated July 4, 2011, said defendant theorized

that:

“MANIFESTATION AND MOTION

COMES NOW defendant, through counsel, and before this Honorable

Court, most respectfully avers, that –

Please find attached as Annex “1”, a copy of a letter, dated June 16, 2011
from herein plaintiff’s counsel to Mr. Maximino Soriano, Regional Technical
Director for Land, DENR, CENRO, Iloilo City, which actually is a letter calling for
the presentation of evidence to prove the ownership of herein plaintiff to the
area covered by Plan F-06303-3-D.

The said letter proves two (2) things: First, that the plaintiff has not
exhausted administrative remedies before the filing of the instant complaint;
and, Second, that the plaintiff is engaged in Forum Shopping. These two
circumstances calls for the dismissal of the instant complaint.

Moreover, Forum Shopping is punishable under Sec. 5 of Rule 7 of the

Revised Rules of Court”.

Countering such accusation of “forum-shopping”, plaintiff cited case law 1 in her

“Comment/ Opposition To Manifestation and Motion” dated 06 July 2011. She

argued that-

“x x x Such that, the pendency of an administrative case involving

the issue of ownership is not litis pendentia, taken hand in hand with an
ejectment case. This, case law is also very clear about. Thus:

1
See Cayabyab v. Gomez de Aquino, 532 SCRA 353 (2007)

Page 2 of 6
 “The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer
shall be effective with respect to the possession only and shall in no case
bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building – such
judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting
title to the land or building nor shall it be held conclusive of the facts
therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause
of action involving possession; it is not even material if the other action
was filed earlier than or prior to the ejectment case.

X x x

If another case pending before another court of justice does not bar an
independent summary case for ejectment like forcible entry or unlawful
detainer, the Court likewise takes the view that neither should an
ejectment case be barred by another case pending before an
administrative body, such as the Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems (COSLAP), where the question of ownership over the subject
property is raised”. (emphasis ours)

Resolving this issue on “forum-shopping”, this Honorable Court in its July

7, 2011 Order, ratiocinated-

“x x x
3. An action for ejectment under Rule 70 focuses merely on possession
over the controverted property. As such, an ejectment case can go hand in hand
simultaneously with an action involving ownership over the same property in
another forum, be it in Court or in an administrative body. Further, neither case
may be used to set up as a ground for litis pendentia as a defense by either
party, nor can anyone of the parties involved be liable for forum shopping. The
issues involved in ejectment and in an accion reinvindicatoria are two distinct
issues; neither one precludes the other from proceeding.

Conclsuding from the two preceding grounds afore-explained, plaintiff’s

opposition is well-aligned”.

Needless to emphasize, the Court was very emphatic in its July 07, 2011

Order that the pendency of the proceedings before the DENR on issuance of free

patent, cannot be set up as a ground for litis pendentia, nor anyone of the

parties involved be liable for forum-shopping. This is crystal clear.

Page 3 of 6
 However, in a surprising somersault, in its Decision dated July 30, 2012,

the Court, as earlier stated, found plaintiff guilty of forum-shopping wherein the

basis for which is the same proceeding before the DENR on the issuance of free

patent.

Plaintiff is befuddled and seeks clarification and enlightenment in order

that she may be guided in pursuing her appeal to the appellate court/s and even

to the Supreme Court. The clarification becomes all the more necessary given

that the Pre-Trial Order dated January 16, 2012 merely states that: “The issues

to be resolved are the material possession of the property and who has between

the parties has a better right of possession of the property”. “Forum-shopping”

is not an issue. Hence, plaintiff feels blind-sided by the ruling on forum-shopping

when it is not one of the issues in the Pre-Trial Order. It bears stressing that

Sec. 10, Rule 70 of the Rules on Civil Procedure sets the parameters on what

matters should be taken up in the position paper which should be confined to

“parties shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other

evidence on the factual issues defined in the order x x x”, meaning

“factual issues defined in the Pre-Trial Order”. Most regrettably however, the

issue on forum-shopping was never defined in the pre-trial order. Worse, such

issue on forum-shopping had already been ruled upon by the court in its

previous Order dated July 7, 2011 hence such had been laid to rest as far as

such issue is concerned in this case.

This Motion for Clarification seeks an answer to the following question:

CAN THE COURT RULE ON FORUM-SHOPPING EVEN IF IT HAD ALREADY RULED

IN A PREVIOUS ORDER THAT THERE IS NONE AND EVEN IF IT IS NOT ONE OF

THE ISSUES DEFINED IN THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER?

Page 4 of 6
 Lastly, this motion is not a prohibited pleading given that a Decision was

already rendered and thus the evil sought to be prevented by prohibited

pleadings, which is to avert delay in rendering a decision, does not exist

anymore.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed of the Court that this

Motion for Clarification be granted by an Order which answers the question

posed for purposes of clarity.

Iloilo City for Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines, 27 September 2012.

REYES and REYES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
G/F Carmelita Bldg.,
Quezon St., Iloilo City
Tel Nos. (033) 300-0081; (033) 338-2869

By:

EDUARDO T. REYES, III

P.T.R. NO. 3624434/ Iloilo City/ 04 January 2012
IBP No. 855096/ Iloilo City/ 04 January 2012
Attorney’s Roll No. 44832
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. IV-0001640
22 February 2011

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Hon. Clerk of Court

Sir/ Madam:

Please set the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court on Friday, 05 October 2012 at 8:30AM.

Page 5 of 6
 EDUARDO T. REYES, III

Atty. Rodolfo Legaspi II

Sir:

Kindly take notice that undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing
motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Friday, 05
October 2012 at 8:30AM .

EDUARDO T. REYES, III

Received copy by personal service:

Atty. Rodolfo N. Legaspi

Counsel for the defendant
DELICANA LEGASPI NACIONGAYO ABELLAR and FERRER LAW OFFICES
Rm. 2-L, B & S Square Bldg.,
Cor. Iznart-Solis Sts., Iloilo City

By: ____________
Date: ___________

EXPLANATION
(Per Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The filing of this Motion for Reconsideration as well as the service of

copies were done by registered mail given the distance of the location from the
Office of the undersigned counsel to the situs of the Court which renders
personal filing and service rather impracticable.

EDUARDO T. REYES, III

Page 6 of 6