Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82327:56239&catid=1574&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:06:56+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 158866, September 09, 2013 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS A. DUPASQUIER, PILAR D. ONGKING, ELIZABETH H. PALMA, DOLLY W. LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO, ADD INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, AND NANCY L. TY, Respondents.; G.R. No. 181933, September 09, 2013 - NANCY L. TY, Petitioner, v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 187551, September 09, 2013 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION, NANCY L. TY, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS A. DUPASQUIER, PILAR D. ONGKING, ELIZABETH H. PALMA, DOLLY W. LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO, AND ADD INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Respondents.
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, v. TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS A. DUPASQUIER, PILAR D. ONGKING, ELIZABETH H. PALMA, DOLLY W. LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO, ADD INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, AND NANCY L. TY, Respondents.
NANCY L. TY, Petitioner, v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION, NANCY L. TY, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS A. DUPASQUIER, PILAR D. ONGKING, ELIZABETH H. PALMA, DOLLY W. LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO, AND ADD INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Respondents.
Assailed in these consolidated petitions for review on certiorari1 are the separate issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in relation to several complaints for reconveyance filed by Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino).
In particular, the petition in G.R. No. 158866 filed by Banco Filipino assails the CA’s Decision2 dated June 23, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 43550 which affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 66 (RTC-La Union) dated November 25, 19963 and January 22, 1997,4 dismissing Banco Filipino’s complaint for reconveyance in Civil Case No. 4992.
Meanwhile, the petition in G.R. No. 181933 filed by Nancy L. Ty (Nancy) assails the CA’s Decision5 dated June 19, 2007 and Resolution6 dated February 20, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 78241 which affirmed the Orders of the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 274 (RTC-Parañaque City) dated January 13, 20037 and May 16, 2003,8 denying Nancy’s motion to dismiss Banco Filipino’s complaint for reconveyance in Civil Case No. 95-0230.
Lastly, the petition in G.R. No. 187551 filed by Banco Filipino assails the CA’s Decision9 dated December 12, 2008 and Resolution10 dated April 3, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 85159 which affirmed the Orders of the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 255 (RTC-Las Piñas City) dated August 31, 200411 and May 27, 2005,12 dismissing Banco Filipino’s complaint for reconveyance in Civil Case No. 96-0036.
Tala Realty, Add International, and the individual defendants, with the exception of Nancy, moved29 for the dismissal of these complaints on the common grounds of forum shopping, lack of cause of action, in pari delicto and the unenforceability of the trust agreement. On the other hand, Nancy separately filed motions to dismiss30 the three complaints, raising the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lis pendens, lack of cause of action as against her and prescription.
In an Order31 dated November 25, 1996, the RTC-La Union granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping. Taking into consideration the various complaints for reconveyance filed by Banco Filipino which were all hinged upon the same trust agreement executed with Tala Realty, the RTC-La Union ratiocinated that the cause of action as well as the evidence to be presented in the case before it are the same as the cause of action and evidence in the other reconveyance cases, thereby falling under the prohibition against forum shopping.
Banco Filipino’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the same court in an Order dated January 22, 1997,32 hence, the recourse to the CA via a petition for certiorari and mandamus,33 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43550.
Dissatisfied, Banco Filipino filed the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 158866, maintaining its stance that it did not engage in forum shopping.
Nancy’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in a Resolution dated February 20, 2008,45 hence, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 181933, imputing error upon the CA for not finding that the allegations in Banco Filipino’s complaint were insufficient to establish a cause of action as against her. She also maintained that Banco Filipino’s action had already prescribed and that the trust insisted upon by the latter was void due to the principle of in pari delicto, thus, no recovery can be made thereunder.
Banco Filipino’s motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied in the RTC-Las Piñas City’s May 27, 2005 Order,48 hence, Banco Filipino appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85159.
In a Decision49 dated December 12, 2008, the CA dismissed Banco Filipino’s appeal not on the ground of forum shopping but for lack of cause of action. In ruling that Banco Filipino committed no forum shopping when it filed 17 reconveyance cases based on the same trust agreement, the CA considered the rulings of the Court in G.R. No. 130184,50 G.R. No. 13916651 and in G.R. No. 14470552 finding that the elements of litis pendentia are not present.
Nonetheless, the CA dismissed Banco Filipino’s complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, taking into account the Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 13753353 wherein it was pronounced that the implied trust between Banco Filipino and Tala Realty was “inexistent and void for being contrary to law.”54 Consequently, Banco Filipino cannot demand the reconveyance of its properties based on the said implied trust, effectively depriving it of any cause of action in these cases.
Aggrieved, Banco Filipino filed before the Court its petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 187551, raising the same issues that it had priorly advanced before the appellate court.
At the core of the consolidated petitions is the essential and imperative question of whether the reconveyance complaints filed by Banco Filipino before the courts a quo can be allowed to prosper.
An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as this Court has held that “where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud.” x x x.
Clearly, the Bank was well aware of the limitations on its real estate holdings under the General Banking Act and that its “warehousing agreement” with Tala was a scheme to circumvent the limitation. Thus, the Bank opted not to put the agreement in writing and call a spade a spade, but instead phrased its right to reconveyance of the subject property at any time as a “first preference to buy” at the “same transfer price.” This arrangement which the Bank claims to be an implied trust is contrary to law. Thus, while we find the sale and lease of the subject property genuine and binding upon the parties, we cannot enforce the implied trust even assuming the parties intended to create it. x x x “[T]he courts will not assist the payor in achieving his improper purpose by enforcing a resultant trust for him in accordance with the ‘clean hands’ doctrine.” The Bank cannot thus demand reconveyance of the property based on its alleged implied trust relationship with Tala. x x x.
Dictated by the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere,60 which enjoins adherence to judicial precedents, the Court therefore enforces its ruling in G.R. No. 137533, as duly applied in the succeeding cases, i.e., G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201, and 166608; and G.R. No. 188302, as the controlling and binding doctrine in the resolution of these consolidated petitions. In view of the nullity of the trust agreement, Banco Filipino has no cause of action against Tala Realty, thereby validating the dismissal of the former’s reconveyance complaints filed before the courts a quo. For these reasons, the Court denies the petitions in G.R. Nos. 158866 and 187551 given that they both seek the reversal of the CA’s Decision granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. On the contrary, the Court grants the petition in G.R. No. 181933 since it properly seeks to reverse the CA’s denial of Nancy’s motions to dismiss the reconveyance cases.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.