66. Diu vs. Ibajan The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED      Felix V. Eamiguel for petitioners.

Diu vs. Ibajan      Adriano R. Villamor for respondents.
G.R. No. 132657. January 19, 2000.* VITUG, J.:
SPOUSES WILLIAM and JANE JEAN DIU, petitioners, vs. DOMINADOR Assailed in a petition for review on certiorari in this instance is an order,
IBAJAN, DEMETRIA IBAJAN, NELSON C. SY, VICENTE REALINO II and
dated 17 December 1997, issued by Acting Executive Judge Briccio T.
ROMEO R. ALVERO, respondents.
Remedial Law; Ejectment; Jurisdiction;  The pendency of an action Aguilos, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16,
questioning the ownership of property will not divest the city or municipal trial in Civil Case No. B-0984, dismissing a forcible entry case on appeal to it from
court of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case and neither will it bar the the Municipal Trial Court upon the thesis that the latter court is bereft of
execution of a judgment thereon.—It has repeatedly been held that in jurisdiction since an issue of ownership has been raised in the ejectment suit.
ejectment cases, the sole question for resolution is the physical or material
possession (possession de facto) of the property in question and neither a On 12 July 1996, the spouses Carmelito Ibajan and Finna Josep-Ibajan,
claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of joined by Dominador and Demetria Ibajan, filed against William Diu and the
ownership by the defendant can outrightly deprive the court from taking due Register of Deeds of Naval, Biliran, an action for the annulment of certain
cognizance of the case. Ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim deeds of sale with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The case,
of ownership, and the plaintiff merely needs to prove prior possession de docketed Civil Case No. B-0952, was raffled to Branch 16 of the RTC of
facto and an undue deprivation thereof. The pendency of an action Naval, Biliran. Carmelito Ibajan and Finna Josep-Ibajan claimed to be the
questioning the ownership of property will not divest the city or municipal trial owners of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 21540 while Dominador and
court of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case and neither will it bar the Demetria Ibajan, upon the other hand, asserted to be the owners of the
execution of a judgment thereon. building, partly commercial and partly residential, erected thereon. The
Same;  Forum-Shopping;  In the case at bar, the two cases, one for the plaintiffs averred that defendant Diu had caused Carmelito Ibajan to sign a
annulment of deeds of sale and the other for ejectment although concerning document, supposed to be a deed of real estate mortgage covering the
the same property, are distinct litigations, neither involving exactly the same aforesaid lot but which turned out to be a deed of absolute sale. Diu, it was
parties nor identical issues.—The Court likewise agrees with petitioners that also alleged, had caused the execution of a deed of absolute sale over the
the RTC erred in its appreciation of forum shopping. The Court has said that residential and commercial building by forging the signature of Dominador
there is forum-shopping “when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one Ibajan.
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari)in 454
another” or when he repetitively avails himself of “several judicial remedies in 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on Diu vs. Ibajan
the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and Shortly following the filing of Civil Case No. B-0952, William and Jane Jean
all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already Diu commenced, in a complaint dated 22 July 1996, an action for forcible
resolved adversely by, some other court.” In the case at bar, the two cases, entry with damages before the Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Biliran,
one for the annulment of deeds of sale and the other for ejectment although docketed Civil Case No. 460, against Dominador Ibajan, Demetria Ibajan,
concerning the Nelson C. Sy, Vicente Realino II and Romeo Alvero. The plaintiffs in the
________________ ejectment suit alleged that the spouses Ibajan, aided by the other defendants
* who falsely represented themselves to be agents of the National Bureau of
 THIRD DIVISION.
Investigation, unlawfully entered his property (the parcel of land involved in
453
Civil Case No. B-0952), took possession thereof and ejected their employees
VOL. 322, JANUARY 19, 2000 453
Diu vs. Ibajan therefrom. In a decision, dated 08 January 1997, Judge Aniceto A. Lirios, to
same property, are distinct litigations, neither involving exactly the same whom Civil Case No. 460 was assigned, held:
parties nor identical issues. “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds a preponderance of
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. evidence in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants and hereby orders
said defendants:
Page 1 of 5
 1. “a)To vacate the premises in question and surrender the Both parties in Civil Case No. B-0984 moved for the reconsideration of the
possession thereof to plaintiffs; “Order and Resolution.” On 17 December 1997, Judge Aguilos issued
2. “b)To pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally the following another order dismissing Civil Case No. B-0984, thus:
amounts:
1. “1.P5,000.00—actual expenses for the repair and “The Court finds merit in both motions for reconsideration. This Court acting
renovation of the damaged portion of the building; as an appellate Court in the Forcible Entry Case No. B-0984 is precluded by
2. “2.P5,000.00—reasonable rental value of the premises in law to try anew the appealed case. Section 22 of BP Blg. 129 provides.
question per month from the filing of the complaint until the
subject property is returned to plaintiffs; ________________
3. “3.P10,000.00—for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. 2
1. “c)To pay the costs of the suit.  Rollo, p. 133.
“SO ORDERED.”1 456
In an order, dated 06 February 1997, Judge Lirios then caused the elevation 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of the records of the case to the RTC of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16. Diu vs. Ibajan
“ ‘Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
________________ decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts and the Municipal Trial Courts and
1
the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
 Rollo, pp. 116-117. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the
455
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as
VOL. 322, JANUARY 19, 2000 455
may submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts.’
Diu vs. Ibajan
In his “Order and Resolution,” dated 31 October 1997, Judge Aguilos “This is the same provision under Section 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
directed the consolidation of Civil Case No. B-0952 and Civil Case No. B- Procedure which took effect on July 1, 1997. The ruling in del Rosario vs.
0984 (the new docket number of Civil Case No. 460 on appeal). He ruled: Court of Appeals (241 SCRA 519) is to the same effect:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby ‘modifies’ the “ ‘The law did not intend that respondent appellate Court should conduct
decision and judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Biliran, Civil another trial of the ejectment case appealed to it.’
Case No. 984 (MTC CC No. 460) for ‘Forcible Entry with Damages,’ and
presently on ‘Appeal’ with this Court, and hereby adjudges, declares and “Of necessity this Court therefore had to meticulously peruse the entire
deems aforesaid Civil Case No. 984, for ‘Forcible Entry with Damages,’ record of this case. It noted that both plaintiffs and defendants in their
appealed to this Court by Defendants Dominador Ibajan, Demetria Ibajan, verification and certification on forum shopping did allege that there is no
pending similar action pending in any other court or agency of the
Nelson C. Sy, Vicente Realino II, and Romeo R. Alvero versus Plaintiff-
government. This of course is not true in the case of the Spouses Diu for said
Spouses William Diu and Jane Jean Diu, thereby, and thereafter, lawfully
spouses are the defendants in Civil Case No. B-0952 for Annulment of
joined, consolidated, intercalated, and declared, and adjudicated as one (1) Deeds of Sale presided by the undersigned, and therefore, not only taken
sole, single civil action for purposes of its eventual decision, resolution, and judicial notice of the matter. In fact it is clearly stated in its questioned order
disposal, after a full blown hearing with Plaintiff-Appellees and Defendants- that this annulment case was filed much earlier, on June 11, 1996, while the
Appellants presenting and offering their respective evidences for the Court’s Forcible Entry Case was filed much later, on February 10, 1997 in the
final consideration, decision and/or resolution. Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Biliran. Both cases raise the issue of
possession and ownership. It is of course fundamental that the issue of the
“Similarly, this Court, hereby orders the approval of Plaintiff’s Second possession in Forcible Entry is only de facto, unlike that in ownership cases
Amended Complaint, as formally filed and received by this Court on October which is de jure. Nonetheless the law allows the MTC to resolve the issue of
15, 1997, and thereby herein made, and included as part of the ownership.
Records/Expediente in both cases, more particularly Civil Case No. B-0952, “RA 7691 Section (2)
for ‘Annulment of Deeds of Sale with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary “ ‘Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of Forcible Entry and unlawful
Injunction,’ for this Court’s eventual decision, resolution and disposal.” 2 detainer; Provided, that when in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
Page 2 of 5
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.’ Diu vs. Ibajan
William Diu by virtue of a power of attorney from Carmelito Ibajan. All these
457 transactions are now the subject of the annulment case pending before this
VOL. 322, JANUARY 19, 2000 457 Court which can decide the issue of possession only after the trial involving
Diu vs. Ibajan
the issue of ownership. Until then this court is thus hard put to say who was
“In the present case, this is quite improbable, as the issues of ownership and
or who is entitled to possession for which reason this Court correspondingly
possession are intertwined and inseperably linked. In that case of ‘De
orders the DISMISSAL of this appealed Forcible Entry Case, leaving only the
Luzuriaga Jr. vs. Adila, the Supreme Court sustained the order of the Court
Annulment of Deeds of Sale Case, still pending for the final determination of
of First Instance enjoining the Municipal Trial Court from continuing a
the primary issues of possession and ownership.”
Forcible Entry Case where there was another case for ‘Quieting of Title.’
Chief Justice Teehankee concurred and adhered to the view that the Court of “SO ORDERED.”3
First Instance had equal if not superior jurisdiction to resolve identical issues The Order, aforestated, led to the filing with this Court of a petition for review
as to who was entitled to possession and to issue a preliminary mandatory on certiorari by the spouses Diu, contending that—
injunction if a strong right is established.
“I
“ ‘Moreover the Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive jurisdiction to
resolve with finality intertwined and overriding issues of ownership and the “THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. B-0984 FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY ON
case should be dismissed unless there is no serious issue of ownership. APPEAL BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH
Thus with the action to quiet title, there is no more reason for continued BUT A DRASTIC DEVIATION FROM THE LAW AND WELL-KNOWN
existence of the summary. RULES AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS
HONORABLE COURT.
“Similarly in the present case, Civil Case No. B-0952 filed eight (8)
months earlier that the Forcible Entry Case B-0984, is still pending. The “II
parties should have brought this fact to the attention of the Municipal Trial
“THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE
Judge to obviate or preclude the possibility of making two (2) courts decide
RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.”4
on the same issues. That is exactly the very situation that is obtaining now.
There is merit in the petition.
This Court is saddled with two (2) cases involving ownership and possession.
The same documents are relied upon by both parties in the two (2) cases; It has repeatedly been held that in ejectment cases, the sole question for
the same source of their alleged rights and interests. resolution is the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the
“The subject property in this case is Lot No. 84 of the Naval Cadastre property in question and neither a claim of juridical possession
covered by Tax Decl. 00581 and the house standing thereon covered by Tax (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership 5 by the defendant can
Decl. 00583, Annexes ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively, in the name of plaintiff William outrightly deprive the court from taking due cognizance of the case.
Diu. Defendant spouses Dominador Ibajan and Demetria Ibajan claimed to Ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership, and
have bought the same Lot 84 of the Naval Cadastre which they caused to be _______________
registered in the name of their son Carmelito Ibajan and wife Finna G. Josep
under TCT T-21540, Annex ‘A.’ Thereafter they constructed a 2-storey 3
 Rollo, pp. 139-141.
building in the name of Dominador Ibajan under a property Field Appraisal, 4
 Rollo, p. 18.
Annex ‘B,’ and Tax Decl. No. 5365-annex ‘C,’ both in the name of Dominador 5
 Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Association, Inc. vs. Court of
Ibajan and which they occupied and possessed since 1985. Appeals, 254 SCRA 220.
“A series of events and transactions transpired over the land and the 459
building thereon involving millions. The undersigned as Presiding Judge of VOL. 322, JANUARY 19, 2000 459
Regional Trial Court Branch 16, recalls the petition for the issuance of a Diu vs. Ibajan
second owner’s copy of the transfer certificate of title to the land in question the plaintiff merely needs to prove prior possession de facto and an undue
pursued by the plaintiff-appellee deprivation thereof.6 The pendency of an action questioning the ownership of
458 property will not divest the city or municipal trial court of its jurisdiction over
Page 3 of 5
the ejectment case7 and neither will it bar the execution of a judgment “Detainer, being a mere quieting process, questions raised on real
thereon.8 In Dizon vs. Court of Appeals 9 where the RTC acting as an property are incidentally discussed. (Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303.) In
appellate court in an ejectment case made a definite ruling on the issue of fact, any evidence of ownership is expressly banned by Sec. 4 of Rule 70
ownership, this Court elaborated:X (Sec. 4, Rule 70 provides: ‘Evidence of title, when admissible.—Evidence of
title to the land or building may be received solely for the purpose of
“x x x. Well-settled is the rule that in an ejectment suit, the only issue is determining the character and extent of possession and damages for
possession de facto or physical or material possession (Del Rosario v. detention.’) except to resolve the question of possession. (Tiu v. CA, 37
CA, 311 Phil. 589; Mediran v. Villanueva, 37 Phil. 752; Somodio v. CA, 235 SCRA 99; Calupitan v. Aglahi, 65 Phil. 575; Pitargue v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5.)
Thus, all that the court may do, is to make an initial determination of who is
SCRA 307; De Luna v. CA, 212 SCRA 276.) and not possession de
the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its
jure. (Oblea v. CA, 313 Phil. 804; Joven v. CA, 212 SCRA 700; Javier v.
possession absent other evidence to resolve the latter. But such
Veridiano II, 237 SCRA 565.) So that, even if the question of ownership is determination of ownership is not clothed with finality. Neither will it affect
raised in the pleadings, as in this case, the court may pass upon such issue ownership of the property nor constitute a binding and conclusive
but only to determine the question of possession (Sec. 33[2], B.P. 129 as adjudication on the merits with respect to the issue of ownership. (See Sec.
amended by RA 7691 provides that ‘Metropolitan Trial Courts shall exercise: 7, Rule 70 which states that ‘The Judgment rendered in an action for forcible
Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful entry or detainer shall be effective with respect to the possession only and
detainer: Provided, That when in such cases, the defendant raises the in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the ownership the land or building, nor shall it be held conclusive of the facts therein found
shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.’ Paragraph 10 of in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action not
the Interim Rules likewise provides that ‘Metropolitan Trial Courts, x x x involving possession.’ (Sps. Medina and Bernal v. Valdellon, 63 SCRA
without distinction, may try cases of forcible entry and detainer even if the 278; Manlapaz v. CA, 191 SCRA 795; Javier v. Veridiano II, supra.) It cannot
bar a later action to settle ownership. (Asset Privatization Trust v. CA, 229
question of ownership is raised in the pleadings and the question of
SCRA 627; Javier v. Veridiano, supra;  Peñalosa v. Tuason, supra; Dela Cruz
possession could not be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership,
v. CA, 133 SCRA 520; Drilon v. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 342; Section 7, rule
but the question of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of 70.) Consequently, although it was proper for the RTC, on appeal in this
possession.) especially if the former is inseparably linked with the latter. ejectment suit, to delve on the issue of ownership and received evidence on
(Guzman v. CA, 177 SCRA 604; Munar v. CA, 238 SCRA 372; De Luna v. possession de jure, (Pitargue v. Sorilla, supra;  Consing v. Jamandre, 64
CA, supra.) It cannot dispose with finality the issue of ownership—such issue SCRA 1; Dela Santa v. CA, 140 SCRA 44.) it cannot adjudicate with
being inutile in an ejectment suit except to throw light on the question of semblance of.”10
possession. (Manuel v. CA, 199 SCRA 603.) This is why the issue of Verily, the RTC erred in dismissing the forcible entry case on appeal on the
ownership or title is generally immaterial ground that it can only decide the issue of pos-

________________ ________________
6 10
 Gachon vs. Devera, Jr., 274 SCRA 540.  At pp. 394-396.
7
 Oblea vs. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 101. 461
8
 San Pedro vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 145. VOL. 322, JANUARY 19, 2000 461
9
 264 SCRA 391. Diu vs. Ibajan
460 session after the issue of ownership would have been resolved elsewhere.
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Diu vs. Ibajan The Court likewise agrees with petitioners that the RTC erred in its
and foreign to an ejectment suit. (Fige v. CA, 233 SCRA 586;  Manuel v. CA, appreciation of forum shopping. The Court has said that there is forum-
supra; See also German Management and Services, Inc. v. CA, 177 SCRA shopping “when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party
495.) seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another”11 or
when he repetitively avails himself of “several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
Page 4 of 5
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved
adversely by, some other court.”12 In the case at bar, the two cases, one for
the annulment of deeds of sale and the other for ejectment although
concerning the same property, are distinct litigations, neither involving exactly
the same parties nor identical issues.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Order, dated 17
December 1997, dismissing Civil Case No. B-0984 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The RTC of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16, is directed to proceed with the
determination of the appeal on its merits. No special pronouncement on
costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Melo  (Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, order reversed and set aside. RTC of Biliran, Br. 16
directed to proceed appeal on its merits.
Note.—For forum-shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same
transactions, essential facts and circumstances; and the actions must raise
identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. (Gachon vs. Devera,
Jr., 274 SCRA 540 [1997])
——o0o——

________________
11
 Villanueva vs. Adre, 172 SCRA 876.
12
 Gatmaytan vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 487, p. 500.
462
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 5 of 5