This case involves the Diliman Campus of UP containing an area of approximately 4,930,981.30 square meters acquired from the government on March 1, 1949 through a Deed of Sale, and subsequently subdivided into five Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT).
A portion of said campus particularly that located along Commonwealth Avenue between Iglesia ni Cristo and the Phiippine Science Building was however being claimed by Trining as the registered owner thereof under three TCTs. In fact two of the three TCTs had aready been transferred to Nardy and a realty company (FRDC).
When Trining, Nardy and FRDC failed to enter and fence off said portion after several attempts, they filed on August 22, 1994 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC), an action for damages and injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order against UP and some of its officials for alleged violation of their rights of ownership over said titled lands. In answer, UP filed a compulsory counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees.
Three weeks later, or on September 13, 1994, UP in turn also filed before another Branch of the RTC of Quezon City, an action for cancellation of the titles of Trining, Nardy and FRDC also praying for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.
On February 19, 1997, when the two cases were later consolidated in one branch, Trining et.al., the claimants to a portion of UP Diliman in the damages case, filed a motion to dismiss the cancellation of titles case filed by UP. Acting on said motion, the QC RTC dismissed the cancellation of titles case filed by UP on the ground of forum shopping in view of the filing and pendency of the damages case filed by Trining et.al.
Was the RTC correct?
No.
The dismissal is erroneous. The damages case cannot possibly deal with the issue of the cancellation of titles since such a remedy can only be pursued in a separate and direct action for the said purpose. Certificate of Titles under the Torrens system of registration cannot be collaterally attacked. Hence there was a need for UP to file the second case if it were to seek cancellation of Trining, et.al’s titles, and the issue therein is not, and cannot be raised in the first case.
UP’s counterclaim in the damages case of Trining, et.al., referred to a compulsory counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees, and did not seek the cancellation of the latter’s titles. Similarly, Trining et.al. in their damages case sought to recover damages from UP and its officials, and not the cancellation of UP’s titles. Clearly, there is no forum shopping. (UP vs. Susi, G.R. 130912, February 14, 2003. 397 SCRA 365).