Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 5, 2006

G.R. No. 144705 (Nancy L. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank)

RESOLUTION

On November 15, 2005, the Court rendered its Decision in this case. The dispositive portion thereof states:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 11, 2000 and Resolution dated August 28, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53836 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[1]

The Court was asked to resolve this issue: whether Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (respondent) is guilty of forum shopping and litis pendentia in instituting seventeen complaints for reconveyance against Nancy L. Ty (petitioner), Tala Realty Services Corporation and the other individual defendants, including the complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Manila for reconveyance of two lots in Manila, to enforce a supposed trust agreement.

In resolving this issue, the Court held:

The present case squarely falls within the state of facts on which the rule enunciated in G.R. No. 144700, G.R. No. 130184 and G.R. No. 139166 was premised.

In G.R. No. 144700, the issue of the propriety of the CA's decision in G.R. No. 53836 was raised by Tala Realty. The Court however found no reason to deviate from the CA's decision. It is axiomatic that when a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for lack of merit, the challenged decision or order, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, is deemed sustained.

Moreover, in the extended resolution dated November 19, 2001 in G.R. No. 130184 and G.R. No. 139166, the Court deemed it necessary to write an extended resolution to emphasize its stance on the issue of forum shopping and litis pendentia and hopefully write finis to similar controversies. The said cases separately involved cases for reconveyance filed by respondent with the RTC, Branch 91, Quezon City, and RTC, Branch 85, Malolos, Bulacan involving lots located in Cubao, Quezon City, and Malolos, Bulacan.

In the November 19, 2001 extended resolution of the Third Division of the Court in G.R. No. 130184 and G.R. No. 139166, it said:

x x x x

Here, while there is identity of parties and reliefs prayed for, however, the elements of litis pendentia are not present. The two (2) complaints for reconveyance involve parcels of land in two different places-- Quezon City and Malolos, Bulacan. Records show that the subject lots were conveyed by Banco Filipino to Tala Realty in separate deeds of sale. Thus, the breach of these contracts gave rise to different causes of action. In Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Valisno, we held that a party who filed several actions for quieting of separate certificates of title cannot be held guilty of forum shopping since the actions involved different subject matters and constituted different causes of action. Clearly, petitioners' allegation of forum shopping against Banco Filipino must fail.

x x x x

The resolution in G.R. No. 144700, G.R. No. 130184 and G.R. No. 139166 had long been final and executory. It is beyond cavil, therefore, that since this Court had already ruled on the issue of forum shopping and litis pendentia with regard to reconveyance cases filed by respondent, said issue must be laid to rest and must no longer be disturbed in this decision. Notably, herein petitioner was already heard on this issue as she was the petitioner in G.R. No. 139166. Petitioner cannot claim once again that respondent is guilty of forum shopping. Otherwise, a situation will arise where there are conflicting decisions in these cases. To do so will render inutile the Court's finding in the earlier cases, and undermine the integrity and capacity of the Court to dispense justice equally and fairly. Having settled that respondent is not guilty of forum shopping in same cases, the Court sees no need to revisit this issue.[2]

On December 29, 2005, petitioner filed the present Motion for Reconsideration.[3] She contends that the Court should have considered the November 22, 2002 en banc ruling in G.R. No. 137533 entitled "Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, "[4] which addressed the issue of whether respondent has a cause of action against Tala Realty Services Corporation and the rest of the other individual defendants, and determined the rights of the parties therein.

On April 2, 2006, respondent filed its Comment to the motion for reconsideration.[5] It counters that apart from the final rulings in G.R. Nos. 144700, 130184 and 139166, the Court also promulgated on June 8, 2005 its Minute Resolution[6] in G.R. No. 167255 entitled "Tala Realty Services Corporation, Inc. et al. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank" denying the petition for review on certiorari of the July 14, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 78499[7] for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court. In said case, Tala Realty Services Corporation posed the query: whether G.R. No. 137533 should put to rest all pending litigations involving the issue of ownership between the parties. The CA ruled in the negative, in essence holding that G.R. No. 137533 involved property in Bulacan while CA-G.R. SP No. 78499 involved property in Parañaque. The CA affirmed the sufficiency of respondent's complaint for recovery of the Parañaque property and the complaint is not tainted with forum shopping and litis pendentia.

The motion for reconsideration is bereft of merit.

The en banc ruling in G.R. No. 137533 cannot prevail over those in G.R. Nos. 144700, 130184 and 139166. The Decision in G.R. No. 137533 involved an ejectment suit raising only the issue of de facto possession, while the final decisions in G.R. Nos. 144700, 130184, 139166, 167255, and the present case, all involve plenary actions for recovery of ownership of property. G.R. No. 137533 involved a simple complaint for unlawful detainer falling under the Rules of Summary Procedure, concerning a different property located in Malolos, Bulacan. It does not involve a full blown suit for recovery of ownership involving properties in Manila, much less a judgment on the merits. In G.R. No. 137533, the Court did not adjudicate on ownership but resolved only the issue of possession, whether Tala Realty Services Corporation had a right to eject respondent from the Bulacan property on the ground of expiration of the lease contract. The Court's June 8, 2005 Resolution in G.R. No. 167255 finding no reversible error in the CA's July 14, 2004 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 78499 cements the view that G.R. No. 137533 does not put to rest all pending litigations involving the issue of ownership between the parties, since it resolves only an issue of de facto possession involving property located in Bulacan. In a Resolution dated August 8, 2005, the Court denied with finality Tala Realty Services Corporation's motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 167255.

WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY there being NO SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT to warrant reconsideration.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court