Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Cainta vs. Pasig

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    The Municipality of Cainta filed a motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings in a tax collection case filed by the City of Pasig against Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. Cainta argued the case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia given a pending boundary dispute case between Cainta and Pasig. The court denied the motion. Cainta then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court ruled the tax collection case could proceed despite the pending boundary dispute case and petition for certiorari, as there was no litis pendentia or forum shopping. A judgment in the boundary dispute would not constitute res judicata in the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cainta vs. Pasig

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    52 views1 page
    The Municipality of Cainta filed a motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings in a tax collection case filed by the City of Pasig against Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. Cainta argued the case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia given a pending boundary dispute case between Cainta and Pasig. The court denied the motion. Cainta then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court ruled the tax collection case could proceed despite the pending boundary dispute case and petition for certiorari, as there was no litis pendentia or forum shopping. A judgment in the boundary dispute would not constitute res judicata in the

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Municipality of Cainta filed a motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings in a tax collection case filed by the City of Pasig against Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. Cainta argued the case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia given a pending boundary dispute case between Cainta and Pasig. The court denied the motion. Cainta then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court ruled the tax collection case could proceed despite the pending boundary dispute case and petition for certiorari, as there was no litis pendentia or forum shopping. A judgment in the boundary dispute would not constitute res judicata in the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Cainta vs. Pasig

    Uploaded by

    maggi
    The Municipality of Cainta filed a motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings in a tax collection case filed by the City of Pasig against Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. Cainta argued the case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia given a pending boundary dispute case between Cainta and Pasig. The court denied the motion. Cainta then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court ruled the tax collection case could proceed despite the pending boundary dispute case and petition for certiorari, as there was no litis pendentia or forum shopping. A judgment in the boundary dispute would not constitute res judicata in the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA., petitioner, vs.

    CITY OF PASIG AND UNIWIDE SALES


    WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC., respondent.

    [G.R. No. 176703. June 28, 2017.]

    FACTS: Petitioner Uniwide does business on parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
    (TCT) Nos. 72983, 74003, and PT-74468 (subject properties). The location of the parcels of land is
    indicated as being in Pasig. In 1989, Uniwide applied for and was issued a building permit by Pasig for its
    building. Uniwide also secured the requisite Mayor's Permit for its business from Pasig and consequently
    paid thereto its business and realty taxes, fees, and other charges from 1989 to 1996.

    However, beginning 1997, Uniwide did not file any application for renewal of its Mayor's Permit in Pasig
    nor paid the local taxes thereto. Instead, it paid local taxes to Cainta after the latter gave it notice,
    supported by documentary proof of its claims, that the subject properties were within Cainta's territorial
    jurisdiction.

    Pasig filed a case for collection of local business taxes, fees, and other legal charges due for fiscal year
    1997 against Uniwide with the RTC-Pasig. Uniwide, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Cainta
    for reimbursement of the taxes, fees, and other charges it had paid to the latter in the event that
    Uniwide was adjudged liable for payment of taxes to Pasig. On 6 May 1999, Uniwide sold the subject
    properties to Robinsons Land Corporation. Prior to the institution of said tax collection case, Cainta had
    filed a petition for the settlement of its boundary dispute with Pasig in RTC-Antipolo.

    Cainta filed a Motion to Dismiss or Suspend Proceedings on the ground of litis pendentia on 6 November
    2001, in view of the pending petition for settlement of the land boundary dispute with Pasig. RTC-Pasig
    denied the motion. Reconsideration denied.

    Thereafter, Cainta filed a petition for certiorari with the CA with prayer for TRO. No TRO was issued. CA
    dismissed Cainta's petition.

    RTC-Pasig ruled in favor of Pasig. Indefeasibility of the Torrens title indicating Pasig as location. Cannot
    collaterally attack Torrens title. Pasig has the right to collect, administer, and appraise business taxes,
    real estate taxes, and other fees and charges from 1997 up to the present. Ordered Uniwide to pay Pasig
    local taxes and fees and real estate taxes beginning 1997, as well as attorney's fees at 500K plus costs.
    As to Uniwide against Cainta, RTC-Pasig ruled for Uniwide. Directed Cainta to return these amounts to
    Uniwide pursuant to the principle against unjust enrichment, plus attorney's fees and costs.

    ISSUE: Whether the action for tax collection can proceed despite the pendency of the boundary dispute
    case and the petition for certiorari before the CA.

    HELD: Yes. The action for tax collection can proceed despite the pendency of the boundary dispute
    case before the RTC-Antipolo and the petition for certiorari before the CA. There was no litis pendentia
    or forum shopping as would justify the dismissal of the tax collection case. The test to determine the
    existence of forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final
    judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other.

    Uniwide is not a party to the boundary dispute case between Cainta and Pasig, and the first action is for
    settlement of boundary dispute while the second action is for collection of tax.

    Judgment in the boundary dispute case will not amount to res judicata in the tax collection case.
    Moreover, the boundary dispute case DOES NOT present a prejudicial question to suspend of the tax
    collection case.

    As to the petition in the CA, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or
    independent action. An independent action does not interrupt the course of the case unless there be a
    writ of injunction stopping it.

    You might also like