The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. The elements of forum shopping are the same as in litis pendentia where the final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. By forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions in separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause, trusting that one or the other tribunal would favorably dispose of the matter. Whether or not the CA erred in granting respondent Fidela's application for receivership. Whether or not respondent Fidela is guilty of forum shopping considering that she had earlier filed identical applications for receivership over the subject properties in the criminal cases she filed with the RTC of Olongapo City against petitioners Evelina and Aida and in the administrative case that she filed against them before the DARAB andĢ. Petitioners present the following issues:ġ. In all these cases, Fidela asked for the immediate appointment of a receiver for the property. Parenthetically, Fidela also filed three estafa cases with the RTC of Olongapo City and a complaint for dispossession with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) against Evelina and Aida. On Apthe CA granted the motion and ordained receivership of the land, noting that there appeared to be a need to preserve the property and its fruits in light of Fidela's allegation that Evelina and Aida failed to account for her share of such fruits. She also filed with that court a motion for the appointment of a receiver. The court also regarded as relevant Fidela's pending application for a five-hectare retention and Evelina's pending protest relative to her three-hectare beneficiary share. Cultivation, said the court, included the tending and caring of the trees. The court threw out Fidela's claim that, since Evelina and her family received the land already planted with fruit-bearing trees, they could not be regarded as tenants. As tenants, the defendants also shared in the gross sales of the harvest. In their answer, Evelina and Aida claimed that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case since it actually involved an agrarian dispute.Īfter hearing, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on Fidela's admission that Evelina and Aida were tenants who helped plant coconut seedlings on the land and supervised the harvest of coconut and palay.
Aida chavez trial#
Deles, who was assisting her mother, for recovery of possession, rent, and damages with prayer for the immediate appointment of a receiver before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulan, Sorsogon. Consequently, Fidela filed a complaint against Evelina and her daughter, Aida C. Since Fidela was busy with her law practice, Evelina undertook to hold in trust for Fidela her half of the profits.īut Fidela claimed that Evelina had failed to remit her share of the profits and, despite demand to turn over the administration of the property to Fidela, had refused to do so.
Fidela and Evelina agreed to divide the gross sales of all products from the land between themselves. Chavez had been staying in a remote portion of the land with her family, planting coconut seedlings on the land and supervising the harvest of coconut and palay. Vargas owned a five-hectare mixed coconut land and rice fields in Sorsogon.
This case is about the propriety of the Court of Appeals (CA), which hears the case on appeal, placing the property in dispute under receivership upon a claim that the defendant has been remiss in making an accounting to the plaintiff of the fruits of such property.