Scribd
Upload
125 views1 page

Ayala Lands V Valisno

Ayala Land owns several parcels of land in Las Piñas covered by various land titles. Valisno claims ownership over 1,082,959 square meters that overlaps with Ayala Land's titles. Both parties accused the other of forum shopping. The Supreme Court ruled that Ayala Land filing 5 separate cases to quiet title on its different parcels was not forum shopping. Each case involved a different piece of land with its own land title, so the causes of action were different and a judgment in one case would not determine the others. Therefore, Ayala Land did not engage in forum shopping.

Uploaded by

Jasfher Callejo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views1 page

Ayala Lands V Valisno

Ayala Land owns several parcels of land in Las Piñas covered by various land titles. Valisno claims ownership over 1,082,959 square meters that overlaps with Ayala Land's titles. Both parties accused the other of forum shopping. The Supreme Court ruled that Ayala Land filing 5 separate cases to quiet title on its different parcels was not forum shopping. Each case involved a different piece of land with its own land title, so the causes of action were different and a judgment in one case would not determine the others. Therefore, Ayala Land did not engage in forum shopping.

Uploaded by

Jasfher Callejo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

AYALA LANDS v.

VALISNO
FACTS: Ayala Land owns several contiguous parcels of lands in Las Piñas. One of the adverse claims
of ownersjip on the contested lands is Valisno, who claims to own a 1M sq. m. of land covered with
TCT. Ayala Land then proceeded to quiet titles. Since petitioner’s entire property in Las Piñas is
allegedly covered by twenty-one separate torrens titles, petitioner contends that it could have
brought twenty-one distinct actions to quiet title. Upon advice of counsel, however, petitioner
resolved to file only eight cases on a "per lot/per TCT (or sets thereof)" basis, all filed in Makati RTC.
Respondent, on the other hand, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City an action against
petitioner and several others, wherein she claimed ownership of the 1,082,959 square meter tract of
land and prayed that petitioner’s titles over the lands be declared null and void. Both parties accused
each other of forum-shopping. This, according to petitioner, constituted forum-shopping inasmuch
as respondent’s claims therein were in reality compulsory counterclaims which she could have and
should have pleaded in the cases initiated by petitioner against her. Respondent, for her part, filed
motions to hold petitioner guilty of forum-shopping for filing five distinct cases all on the ground that
her lands overlapped those of petitioner.

ISSUE: W/N Ayala Land is guilty of forum shopping for filing 5 cases on its parcels of land.

HELD: NO. The Court said that five actions filed by petitioner were for quieting of title based on
separate certificates of title. Hence, the subject matters involved are different in each case. As such,
the cases alleged different causes of action. Corollarily, a judgment in any one case will not affect the
issue in the other cases inasmuch as those pertain to different lands covered by different certificates
of title. Consequently, petitioner could not have been guilty of forum-shopping.

You might also like