St.

Catherine Realty Corporation and Land King
Realty Development Corporation
v a. Is there litis pendentia between the
Ferdinand Pineda and Dolores Lacuata
Facts:
Lizares sold to Pineda a land registered under
TCT 3533 and to Lacuata also a parcel of land
registered under TCT 3531. The following lands
were placed under land reform. On 1993
emancipation patents were issued to the
Agricultural tenants.
The event prompted Lizares to file before the
PARAD (DARAB Case) a complaint for the
cancellation of emancipation patents. The
PARAD dismissed the complaint on Feb 1994
On July 25, 1994, Civil Case 1 was filed by Pineda
and Lacuata against Lizares for specific
performance.
ISSUE: whether or not the motion to dismiss
should be granted?
DARAB case and Civil Case 2?
b. Is there litis pendentia between Civil
case 1 and civil case 2?
RULING: yes
Requisites of forum shopping (litis pendentia)
a. Identity of the parties, or at least such
parties who represent the same interest
in both actions
b. Identity of the rights asserted and the
relief prayed for
c. Relief is founded on the same facts
d. Identity of the two preceding particulars
such that any judgment rendered in the
pending case, regardless of which party is
successful would amount to res judicata
in the other

On April 1995, 3 more complaints were filed by Applying it in the case at bar:
Lizares before the PARAD, still the complaint
was dismissed. Civil Case 2 Requisites Civil Case 1
and DARAB of Forum and Civil
Now as to Civil Case 1: Case Shopping Case 2
May 5, 1997 - the RTC dismissed the complaint.
March 8, 2000 – the CA dismissed the appeal. Different Identity of Civil Case 1:
A petition for review was filed before the SC parties are the parties, Pineda and
August 21, 2000 - 1st denial of the SC of petition involved. or at least Lacuata are
for review. Lavares filed such parties the
Pineda and Lacuata filed for a MFR the action who complainants
June 25, 2001 – the SC dismissed the MFR against the represent the Civil Case 2:
tenants same interest Pineda and
Now as to the DARAB Case, Lizares filed an in both Lacuata are
appeal to the CA actions the
Nov 29, 2000 – the appeal was dismissed complainants
Lizares filed for a MFR
Civil Case 2: Identity of In the Civil
June 26, 2001 – The CA denied the MFR
annulment of the rights Case 1, they
title and asserted and are asserting
Civil case 2 was filed by Pineda and Lacuata
damages the relief such right
against St. Catherine and Landk King for the
DARAB Case: prayed for against
annulment of title and damages
cancelaltion Lavares in
for the Civil Case 2
St. Catherine and Land King filed a motion to
patents against St.
dismiss on the ground that Pineda and Lacuata
Catherine
submitted a false certificate of non-forum
and Land
shopping
King.
RTC: Granted the motion to dismiss
When Pineda
CA: set aside the decision of the RTC
 and Lacuata
filed the
complaints,
they wanted
the issuance
of the TCTs
in their
names.
Different Relief is Same facts
facts founded on are involved
the same because the
facts complaint
was
anchored on
the fact that
Pineda and
Lacuata are
entitled to
the property
because of
the sale
The subject
matter in the
2 complaints
involved the
same land
even though
with
different
titles
Res Judicata Identity of If a favorable
will not bar the two judgment is
the decision preceding rendered on
of the other particulars Civil Case 1,
such that any titles to the
judgment property will
rendered in now be
the pending issued in the
case, names of
regardless of Pineda and
which party Lacuata, this
is successful will
would constitute as
amount to res judicata
res judicata to Civil Case
in the other 2