CASE DIGEST: Spouses Plaza vs. Lustiva

G.R. No. 172909, March 05, 2014

SPOUSES SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA,Petitioners,v.GUILLERMO LUSTIVA, ELEODORA VDA. DE MARTINEZ AND VICKY SAYSON GOLOSENO,Respondents.

BRION,J.:


FACTS:

Among her other siblings, Barbara was declared by the CA as the owner of the subject property in question. Consequently, her successors in interest, herein respondents, have continued to occupy the property. The son of one of Barbaras siblings filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents and the city government of Butuan. They prayed that respondents be enjoined from unlawfully taking the subject property. According to petitioners, they acquired the property from Virginia Tuazon who was the sole bidder in a tax delinquency sale conducted by the City of Butuan on December 1997.

In their answer, respondents contended that they were never delinquent in paying the land taxes and that Tuazon is a government employee who is disqualified to bid in the public auction as provided under the Local Government Code and such sale, if ever there was, is void.

The RTC denied the petition, holding that there was indeed an irregularity in the auction sale since the highest bidder was a government employee disqualified under the LGC. Petitioners challenged the RTC decision through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65. While such petition is pending, petitioners filed an action for specific performance against the City of Butuan. The CA affirmed RTC decision and found petitioners guilty of forum shopping.

ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in dismissing the petition

HELD: No. Petition Denied. CA decision affirmed


Political Law- the Local Government Code of 1991 to validate their alleged title. The law authorizes the local government unit to purchase the auctioned property only in instances where there is no bidder or the highest bid is xxx insufficient

The petitioners may not invoke Section 18118of the Local Government Code of 1991 to validate their alleged title. The law authorizes the local government unit to purchase the auctioned property only in instances wherethere is no bidder or the highest bid is xxx insufficient. A disqualified bidder is not among the authorized grounds. The local government also never undertook steps to purchase the property under Section 181 of the Local Government Code of 1991, presumably because it knew the invoked provision does not apply.

Remedial Law- A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action.

As the lower courts correctly found, Tuazon had no ownership to confer to the petitioners despite the latters reimbursement of Tuazons purchase expenses. Because they were never owners of the property, the petitioners failed to establish entitlement to the writ of preliminary injunction.When the complainants right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, the issuance of injunctive relief is not proper. Likewise, upon the dismissal of the main case by the RTC on August 8, 2013, the question of issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction has become moot and academic.

Remedial Law- Forum Shopping
The cause of action in the present case is the petitioners claim of ownership of the land when they bought it, either from the City Government of Butuan or from Tuazon. This ownership is the petitioners basis in enjoining the respondents from dispossessing them of the property. On the other hand, the specific performance case prayed that the City Government of Butuan be ordered to issue the petitioners the certificate of sale grounded on the petitioners ownership of the land when they had bought it, either from the City Government of Butuan or from Tuazon.

Noticeable among these three types of forum shopping isthe identity of the cause of actionin the different cases filed. While it may appear that the main relief prayed for in the present injunction case is different from what was prayed for in the specific performance case, the cause of action which serves as the basis for the reliefs remains the same the petitioners alleged ownership of the property after its purchase in a public auction.

Thus, the petitioners subsequent filing of the specific performance action is forum shopping of the third kind-splitting causes of action or filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers.