judgement cases.docx

7/25/2019 judgement cases.docx

1/74

R. No. 184122 January 20, 2010

ANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, IN., Petitioner,

S. NOR!AN AND ANGELINA "# an$ T#ANSON B#ILDERS ORPORATION r%&r%'%

PRES. NOR!AN "#,Respondents.

E C I S I O N

BAD,J.:

s case is about the propriety of a summary ud!ment in reso"vin! a documented c"a

e!ed e#cessive pena"ty char!es, interest, attorney$s fees, and forec"osure e#penses impos

e#traudicia" forec"osure of mort!a!e.

e %acts and the Case

spondents Norman and &n!e"ina 'u (the 'us), doin! business as Tuanson Tradin!, and Tua

i"ders Corporation (Tuanson *ui"ders) borro+ed various sums tota"in! P- mi""ion from %ar

n and Trust Company. %or co""atera", they e#ecuted rea" estate mort!a!es over severa" of

operties,/inc"udin! certain "ands in 0e!a1pi City o+ned by Tuanson Tradin!.2In /333, unab

y their "oans, the 'us and Tuanson *ui"ders re4uested a "oan restructurin!,5+hich the ban

er!ed +ith *an of the Phi"ippine Is"ands (*PI), !ranted.6*y this time, the 'us$ "oan ba

ood at P55,677,777.77. The restructured "oan used the same co""atera"s, +ith the e#cepti

nsfer Certi8cate of Tit"e 6726 that secured a "oan of P/,977,777.-

spite the restructurin!, ho+ever, the 'us sti"" had di:cu"ties payin! their "oan. They ased *

ease some of the mort!a!ed "ands since their tota" appraised va"ue far e#ceeded the amou

e remainin! debt. ;hen *PI i!nored their re4uest, the 'us +ithhe"d payments on

morti1ations. Thus, *PI e#traudicia""y forec"osed9the mort!a!ed properties in 0e!a1pi City a

, Camarines Sur. *ut the 'us sou!ht by court action a!ainst *PI and the +innin! bi

!nacraft Deve"opment Corporation (


2/74

the course of the proceedin!s, ho+ever, the 'us and


3/74

eri turned over this amount to *PI./9&ccordin! to *PI, it in turn remitted to the C"er of C

e P673,655.-3 dierence bet+een its bid price and that of


4/74

C can dispose of the case throu!h a summary ud!ment.23

tia""y, the RTC !ranted on"y a partia" summary ud!ment. It reduced the pena"ty char!e of

r annum57

to /2 per annum unti" the debt +ou"d have been fu""y paid but maintainedorney$s fees as reasonab"e considerin! that *PI a"ready +aived the P/,9/,-//.59 that fo

rt of the attorney$s fees and reduced the rate of attorney$s fees it co""ected from 2- to /7

e amount due. The RTC ru"ed that facts necessary to reso"ve the issues on pena"ties and fee

en admitted by the parties thus dispensin! +ith the need to receive evidence.5/

"", the RTC he"d that it needed to receive evidence for the reso"ution of the issues of (/) +he

not the forec"osure and pub"ication e#penses +ere usti8ed? (2) +hether or not the forec"osu

e "ot in Pi"i, Camarines Sur, +as va"id !iven that the proceeds of the forec"osure of the prope

0e!a1pi City su:cient"y covered the debt? and (5) +hether or not *PI +as entit"ed t

unterc"aim for attorney$s fees, mora" dama!es, and e#emp"ary dama!es.52

e 'us moved for partia" reconsideration.55They ar!ued that, since *PI did not mar in evid

y document in support of the forec"osure e#penses it c"aimed, it may be assumed that the

d no evidence to prove such e#penses. &s re!ards their ri!ht to the proAratin! of their

mon! the mort!a!ed properties, the 'us pointed out that *PI did not dispute the fact tha

oceeds of the sa"e of the properties in 0e!a1pi City fu""y satis8ed the debt. Thus, the court c

eady reso"ve +ithout tria" the issue of +hether or not the forec"osure of the Pi"i property

id.

rther, the 'us sou!ht reconsideration of the reduction of pena"ty char!es and the a""o+an

e attorney$s fees. They c"aimed that the pena"ty char!es shou"d be de"eted for vio"ati

pub"ic &ct (R.&.) 59- or the Truth in 0endin! &ct. *PI$s disc"osure did not state the ra

na"ties on "ate amorti1ations. &"so, the 'us ased the court to reduce the attorney$s fees

to / of the amount due. On Ganuary 5, 2779 the RTC reconsidered its ear"ier decision

ndered a summary ud!ment>56

/. De"etin! the pena"ty char!es imposed by *PI for nonAcomp"iance +ith the Tru
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt34


5/74

0endin! &ct?

2. Reducin! the attorney$s fees to / of the principa" and interest?

5. Hpho"din! the reasonab"eness of the forec"osure e#penses and cost of pub"ica

both +ith interests?

6. Reiteratin! the turnover by the C"er of Court to the 'us of the e#cess in th

price?

-. De"etin! the 'us$ c"aim for mora" dama!es they havin! +aived it?

9. Denyin! the 'us$ c"aim for attorney$s fees for "ac of basis? and

. Dismissin! *PI$s counterc"aim for mora" and e#emp"ary dama!es and for attor

fees for "ac of merit considerin! that summary ud!ment has been rendered in

of the 'us.

I appea"ed the decision to the Court of &ppea"s (C&) in C&A.R. CJ =9-. *ut the C& rend

d!ment on Ganuary 25, 277=, a:rmin! the RTC decision in a"" respects. &nd +hen *PI ase

consideration,5-the C& denied it on Gu"y /6, 277=,59hence, the ban$s recourse to this Court

e Issues Presented

I presents the fo""o+in! issues>

/. ;hether or not the case presented no !enuine issues of fact such as to +arr

summary ud!ment by the RTC? and

2. ;here summary ud!ment is proper, +hether or not the RTC and the C& a) corr

de"eted the pena"ty char!es because of *PI$s a""e!ed fai"ure to comp"y +ith the Tru

0endin! &ct? b) correct"y reduced the attorney$s fees to / of the ud!ment debt

c) proper"y dismissed *PI$s counterc"aims for mora" and e#emp"ary dam
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt36http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt36


6/74

attorney$s fees, and "iti!ation e#penses.

e Court$s Ru"in!s

e. & summary ud!ment is apt +hen the essentia" facts of the case are uncontested o

rties do not raise any !enuine issue of fact.5Fere, to reso"ve the issue of the e#cessive cha

e!ed"y incorporated into the auction bid price, the RTC simp"y had to "oo at a) the p"eadin

e parties? b) the "oan a!reements, the promissory note, and the rea" estate mort!a!es bet+

em? c) the forec"osure and biddin! documents? and d) the admissions and other disc"os

t+een the parties durin! preAtria". Since the parties admitted not on"y the e#ist

thenticity, and !enuine e#ecution of these documents but a"so +hat they stated, the tria"

d not need to ho"d a tria" for the reception of the evidence of the parties.

I contends that a summary ud!ment +as not proper !iven the fo""o+in! issues that the pa

sed> /) +hether or not the "oan a!reements bet+een them +ere va"id and enforceab"

ether or not the 'us have a cause of action a!ainst *PI? 5) +hether or not the 'us are p

rties in interest? 6) +hether or not the 'us are estopped from 4uestionin! the forec"o

oceedin! after enterin! into a compromise a!reement +ith

C. 6. &ny creditor sha"" furnish to each person to +hom credit is e#tended, prior to

nsummation of the transaction, a c"ear statement in +ritin! settin! forth, to the e
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt37http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt37http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt39


7/74

p"icab"e and in accordance +ith ru"es and re!u"ations prescribed by the *oard, the fo""o

ormation>

(/) the cash price or de"ivered price of the property or service to be ac4uired?

(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as do+n payment andKor tradeAin?

(5) the dierence bet+een the amounts set forth under c"auses (/) and (2)?

(6) the char!es, individua""y itemi1ed, +hich are paid or to be paid by such pers

connection +ith the transaction but +hich are not incident to the e#tension of cred

(-) the tota" amount to be 8nanced?

(9) the 8nance char!e e#pressed in terms of pesos and centavos? and

() the percenta!e that the 8nance bears to the tota" amount to be 8nanced e#pre

as a simp"e annua" rate on the outstandin! unpaid ba"ance of the ob"i!ation.

na"ty char!e, +hich is "i4uidated dama!es resu"tin! from a breach, 6/ fa""s under item (

ance char!e. & 8nance char!e @represents the amount to be paid by the debtor incident t

tension of credit.@62The "ender may provide for a pena"ty c"ause so "on! as the amount or ra

e char!e and the conditions under +hich it is to be paid are disc"osed to the borro+er befor

ters into the credit a!reement.

this case, a"thou!h *PI fai"ed to state the pena"ty char!es in the disc"osure statement

omissory note that the 'us si!ned, on the same date as the disc"osure statement, contain

na"ty c"ause that said> @IK;e oint"y and severa""y, promise to further pay a "ate payment ch

any overdue amount herein at the rate of 5 per month.@ The promissory note

no+"ed!ment of a debt and commitment to repay it on the date and under the conditions

e parties a!reed on.65 It is a va"id contract absent proof of acts +hich mi!ht have vit

nsent.66
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt44


8/74

e 4uestion is +hether or not the reference to the pena"ty char!es in the promissory

nstitutes substantia" comp"iance +ith the disc"osure re4uirement of the Truth in 0endin! &

e RTC and C& re"ied on the ru"in! in Ne+ Sampa!uita as authority that the nonAdisc"osure o

na"ty char!e renders its imposition i""e!a". *ut New Sampaguitais not attended by the s

cumstances. ;hat Ne+ Sampa!uita disa""o+ed, because it +as not mentioned either i

c"osure statement or in the promissory note, +as the uni"atera" increase in the rates of pe

ar!es that the creditor imposed on the borro+er. Fere, ho+ever, it is not sho+n tha

reased the rate of pena"ty char!e that it co""ected from the 'us. 69

e ru"in! that is more in point is that "aid do+n in The Conso"idated *an and Trust Corporat

urt of &ppea"s,6a case cited in Ne+ Sampa!uita. The Consolidated Bankru"in! dec"ared

e pena"ty char!es that +ere stipu"ated in the promissory notes. 6=;hat the Court disa""o+

at case +as the co""ection of a hand"in! char!e that the promissory notes did not contain.

e Court has a:rmed that 8nancia" char!es are amp"y disc"osed if stated in the promissory

the case of Deve"opment *an of the Phi"ippines v. &rci""a, Gr.63The Court there said, @H

cu"ar /-= of the Centra" *an, the "ender is re4uired to inc"ude the information re4uired by

9- in the contract coverin! the credit transaction or any other document to be acno+"e

d si!ned by the borro+er. In addition, the contract or document sha"" specify additiona" cha

any, +hich +i"" be co""ected in case certain stipu"ations in the contract are not met by

btor.@ In this case, the promissory notes si!ned by the 'us contained data, inc"udin! pe

ar!es, re4uired by the Truth in 0endin! &ct. They cannot avoid "iabi"ity based on a

erpretation of the Truth in 0endin! &ct that contravenes its !oa".

nethe"ess, the courts have authority to reduce pena"ty char!es +hen these are unreason

d ini4uitous.-7Considerin! that *PI had a"ready received over P2. mi""ion in interest and t

es to impose the pena"ty char!e of 5 per month or 59 per annum on the tota" amount d

ncipa" p"us interest, +ith interest not paid +hen due added to and becomin! part of the prin

d a"so bearin! interest at the same rateLthe Court 8nds the ru"in! of the RTC in its ori

cision-/reasonab"e and fair. Thus, the pena"ty char!e of /2 per annum or / per mont
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt46http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt49http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt50http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt51http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt46http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt49http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt50http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jan2010/gr_184122_2010.html#fnt51


9/74

posed.

ree. &s for the a+ard of attorney$s fee, it bein! part of a party$s "i4uidated dama!es, the s

ay "ie+ise be e4uitab"y reduced.-5

The C& correct"y a:rmed the RTC Order-6

to reduce it to / based on the fo""o+in! reasons> (/) attorney$s fee is not essentia" to the co

rro+in!, but a mere incident of co""ection?--(2) / is ust and ade4uate because *PI had a"r

ar!ed forec"osure e#penses? (5) attorney$s fee of /7 of the tota" amount due is on

nsiderin! the rote eort that !oes into e#traudicia" forec"osures.

FERE%ORE, the Court DENIES the petition and &%%IR


10/74

*efore us for reso"ution is a petition for revie+ on certiorari under Ru"e 6- of

the /33 Ru"es of Civi" Procedure, as amended, assai"in! the Ganuary 5/,

277/ Decision/and &u!ust /, 277/ Reso"ution of the Court of &ppea"s in

C&A.R. CJ No. 9263-, entit"ed @Estate of Lim Ching, represented by

Attorney ose Lim, versus !loren"ia L# Ba"ala, $olores L# %endo&a, uanita L#

Alvare& and Apolinario C# Laurena#@

The facts are>

On December /7, /356, Ireneo 0aurena e#ecuted a pa"to de retro sa"e in

favor of 0im Chin! of t+o parce"s of "and "ocated at *aran!ay Caba!a+an,

Saint *ernard, Southern 0eyte. Fo+ever, on %ebruary 25, /35-, Ireneo

e#ecuted a deed of renun"iationcoverin! the same parce"s of "and +herein

he +aived his ri!ht to repurchase the same, thus vestin! o+nership and

possession of the "and to 0im Chin!.

Sometime in /359, Ireneo 8"ed +ith the then Court of %irst Instance (C%I),

no+ Re!iona" Tria" Court (RTC),


11/74

&fter - years, or in %ebruary /339, Ireneo$s heirs, herein respondents

%"orencia *aca"a, Do"ores 0.


12/74

Decision of the Tribuna" de &pe"acion (no+ Court of &ppea"s) in TA& .R. No.

296 dec"arin! 0im Chin! the o+ner of the property. &s mentioned ear"ier,

0im Chin! is the predecessor of &tty. Gose 0im representin! herein petitioner.

On %ebruary 27, /33=, respondents 8"ed their comments and opposition //to

petitioner$s motion for summary ud!ment.

On

# # #

&s borne out by the evidence adduced by both parties durin! the tria", it +as

admitted that there +as a prior case that invo"ved the predecessors in

interests of both parties and that the "and or subect property is "ocated at

*aran!ay Caba!a+an, St. *ernard, Sourthern 0eyte. P"ainti averred and

anchored their c"aim of o+nership over the subect property or a decision

rendered by the Court of &ppea"s dated &u!ust /3, /353. P"ainti$s c"aim of

o+nership and possession of the property in dispute +as a"" evidenced by

E#hibits @&@, @*@, @C@, @D@, @%@ and @F@. Defendants, on the other hand,

vehement"y denied p"ainti$s c"aim of o+nership and possession of the

property in dispute and stressed that +hat they are c"aimin! is separate and

distinct "and from those that are subect of the aforesaid Court of &ppea"s

decision. Defendants +ere ab"e to present ta# dec"arations and ta# receipts

evidencin! payment of rea"ty ta#es over the subect property they are

c"aimin! o+nership.

&fter e#aminin! and eva"uatin! the conMictin! c"aim of the p"ainti and

defendants, the p"ainti$s c"aim deserves more credence.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt15


13/74


14/74

The issue raised in this petition is +hether a summary ud!ment may be

rendered by the tria" court.

Summary ud!ment is sanctioned in this urisdiction by Section /, Ru"e 5- of

the /33 Ru"es of Civi" Procedure, as amended, reproduced hereunder>

SECTION /. Summary (udgment for "laimant. & party seein! to recover

upon a c"aim, counterc"aim, or crossAc"aim or to obtain a dec"aratory re"ief

may, at any time, after the p"eadin! in ans+er thereto has been served,

move +ith supportin! a:davits, depositions or admissions for a summary

ud!ment in his favor upon a"" or any part thereof.

The theory of summary ud!ment is that, a"thou!h an ans+er may on its face

appear to tender issues re4uirin! tria", if it is demonstrated by a:davits,

depositions or admissions that those issues are not !enuine but sham or

8ctitious, the court is usti8ed in dispensin! +ith the tria" and renderin!

summary ud!ment./It +as devised to aid parties in avoidin! the e#pense

and "oss of time invo"ved in a tria"./=

In this case, the parties a!reed that a committee be formed to conduct an

ocu"ar inspection to determine +hether they are c"aimin! the same property.

The tria" court approved the 8ndin! of the committee, stated in the

Commissioner$s Report, that respondents are c"aimin! a property +hich is

a"so bein! c"aimed by petitioner. Considerin! that the parties a!reed to the

formation of a committee, they are bound by its 8ndin!. It is sett"ed that

+hen a referee (the commissioners in this case) is appointed, he becomes for

the time bein! an accredited a!ent and an o:cer of the court, and the

reference is c"ear"y a udicia" proceedin!. ;hat the referee does +hi"e actin!

+ithin the scope of his o:cia" duty is, therefore, in the contemp"ation of "a+,

done by the court itse"f. H%n-%, ' -on-5u'on' 6u'( )% a''u6%$ (o )%

-orr%-( un(5 %rror ' &ro&%r5y 'o7n,/37- ' no( 'o n (% &r%'%n(

-a'%.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt19


15/74

It must be reca""ed that respondents$ main defense is that they are

occupyin! a property dierent from that bein! c"aimed by petitioner.

Conse4uent"y, based on the Commissioner$s Report, respondents fai"ed to

prove that they are the ri!htfu" o+ners of the disputed "and considerin! that

+hat they o+n is a dierent area.

&t any rate, petitioner has sho+n that as ear"y as &u!ust /3, /353, the

Tribuna" de &pe"acion (no+ Court of &ppea"s) rendered a Decision dec"arin!

0im Chin!, the predecessor of &tty. Gose 0im, herein representative of

petitioner, the o+ner of the property.

C"ear"y, a summary ud!ment +as correct"y rendered by the tria" court since

there +as no more !enuine factua" issue to be reso"ved.

It is sett"ed that a court may !rant a summary ud!ment to sett"e

e#peditious"y a case if, on motion of either party, there appears from the

p"eadin!s, depositions, admissions, and a:davits that no important issues of

fact are invo"ved, e#cept the amount of dama!es. In such event, the movin!

party is entit"ed to a ud!ment as a matter of "a+.27

3HEREFORE, +e GRANT the petition. The cha""en!ed Decision and

Reso"ution of the Court of &ppea"s in C&A.R. CJ No. 9263- are REERSED.

The Decision of the RTC in Civi" Case No. RA66= is AFFIR!ED.

SO ORDERED.

THE HEIRS OF NIOLAS S. ABIGAS,

NA!EL" LOLITA ABATE ABIGAS,

ANEITA . AN9#E, DIOSORO

ABIGAS, FIDEL ABIGAS, an$

R#FINO ABIGAS,

G.R. No. 1/:2*1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_149603_2007.html#fnt20


16/74

Petitioners,

A versus A

!ELBA L. LI!BAO, LINDA L.

LOGARTA, RA!ON . LOGARTA,

HENR" D. SEE, FREDDIE S. GO,

BENEDIT ". 9#E, A3G

DEELOP!ENT ORPORATION,

PETROSA DEELOP!ENT

ORPORATION, an$ #NIERSIT" OF

EB# BANILAD, IN.,

Respondents.

Present>

C&RPIO,#,

Chairperson,

0EON&RDOADE C&STRO,

*RION,

PER&0T&, and

PERE,#

Promu"!ated>

and


17/74


18/74

5/, 27792and October 6, 2779,5dismissin! their ordinary appea" for bein!

the +ron! recourse.

THE FATS

On %ebruary 6, 2775, the petitioners 8"ed a comp"aint for the

annu"ment of tit"es of various parce"s of "and re!istered in the names of


19/74

Not+ithstandin! the sa"e bet+een Ouano and Cobarde, and because

the t+o "ots remained re!istered in her name, Ouano 7a' a)5% (o '%55

(%'% 'a6% 5o(' (o (% Na(ona5 Ar&or(' or&ora(onon No;%6)%r

2:, 1*:2for its airport e#pansion proect. The Nationa" &irports Corporation

prompt"y had the tit"es of these properties re!istered in its name.

;hen the airport e#pansion proect fe"" throu!h, respondents


20/74

THE RT RESOL#TION

On &u!ust 25, 277-, the RTC issued a reso"ution,//!rantin! the motion

for summary ud!ment 8"ed by &;, Petrosa and HC*, and dismissin! the

petitioners comp"aint.&ccordin! to the RTC, +hi"e the petitioners a""e!ed bad

faith and ma"ice on the part of Ouano +hen she so"d the same properties to

the Nationa" &irports Corporation, they never a""e!ed bad faith on the part of

the buyer, the Nationa" &irports Corporation. Since !ood faith is a"+ays

presumed, the RTC conc"uded that the National Airports Corporation

was a buyer in good faith and its registration of the properties in its

name eectively transferred ownership over the two lots, free from

all the unrecorded prior transactions involving these properties,

including the prior sale of the lots to Cobarde.

&s the RTC e#p"ained, the unre!istered sa"e of the "ots by Ouano to

Cobarde +as mere"y an in personam transaction, +hich bound on"y the

parties. On the other hand, the re!istered sa"e bet+een Ouano and the

Nationa" &irports Corporation, a buyer in !ood faith, +as an in rem

transaction that bound the +ho"e +or"d. Since Cobardes rights to the

properties had already been cut o with their registration in the

name of the National Airports Corporation, he could not sell any

legal interest in these properties to the Cabigas spouses# Fence,

under the Torrens system, the petitioners are stran!ers to the "ots and they

//


21/74

had no "e!a""y reco!ni1ed interest bindin! it in remthat the courts cou"d

protect and enforce a!ainst the +or"d./2

The petitioners 8"ed a notice of appea" to 4uestion the RTC reso"ution.

In response, respondents &;, Petrosa, and HC* 8"ed a motion to dismiss

the appea", c"aimin! that the petitioners raised on"y 4uestions of "a+ in their

appea"? thus, they shou"d have 8"ed an appea" by "ertiorari+ith the Supreme

Court, and not an ordinary appea" +ith the appe""ate court.

/2


22/74

THE O#RT OF APPEALS RESOL#TIONS

In its


23/74

the respondents, since they had no re!istered "e!a" interest in the properties.

There +as thus no need to remand the case to the RTC.

Fence, the petitioners see recourse +ith this Court via the present

petition, raisin! the fo""o+in! !rounds>

(/) The Court of &ppea"s committed !rave and serious error in dismissin!

the appea" and in ho"din! that a summary ud!ment is appea"ab"e on"y

throu!h a petition for revie+ on "ertiorari under Ru"e 6- to theSupreme Court.

(2) The paramount and overridin! considerations of substantia" ustice

and e4uity ustify the reversa" and settin! aside of the 4uestioned

reso"utions.

THE R#LING

;e AFFIR!the assai"ed C& reso"utions.

etitioners availed of the wrong mode of appeal


24/74

Section 2, Ru"e 6/ of the Ru"es of Court provides the three modes of

appea", +hich are as fo""o+s>

Section 2. %odes of appeal#

(a) /rdinary appeal#The appea" to the Court of &ppea"s in

cases decided by the Re!iona" Tria" Court in the e#ercise of its

ori!ina" urisdiction sha"" be taen by 8"in! a notice of appea" +ith

the court +hich rendered the ud!ment or 8na" order appea"ed

from and servin! a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No

record on appea" sha"" be re4uired e#cept in specia" proceedin!s

and other cases of mu"tip"e or separate appea"s +here the "a+ or

these Ru"es so re4uire. In such cases, the record on appea" sha""

be 8"ed and served in "ie manner.

(b) +etition for review#The appea" to the Court of &ppea"s in

cases decided by the Re!iona" Tria" Court in the e#ercise of its

appe""ate urisdiction sha"" be by petition for revie+ in

accordance +ith Ru"e 62.

(c) Appeal by "ertiorari# In a"" cases +here on"y 4uestions of

"a+ are raised or invo"ved, the appea" sha"" be to the Supreme

Court by petition for revie+ on "ertiorariin accordance +ith Ru"e

6-.


25/74

The 8rst mode of appea", the ordinary appea" under Ru"e 6/ of the

Ru"es of Court, is brou!ht to the C& from the RTC, in the e#ercise of its

ori!ina" urisdiction, and reso"ves 4uestions of fact or mi#ed 4uestions of fact

and "a+. The second mode of appea", the petition for revie+ under Ru"e 62 of

the Ru"es of Court, is brou!ht to the C& from the RTC, actin! in the e#ercise

of its appe""ate urisdiction, and reso"ves 4uestions of fact or mi#ed 4uestions

of fact and "a+. The third mode of appea", the appea" by "ertiorariunder Ru"e

6- of the Ru"es of Court, is brou!ht to the Supreme Court and reso"ves on"y

4uestions of "a+.

;here a "iti!ant 8"es an appea" that raises on"y 4uestions of "a+ +ith

the C&, Section 2, Ru"e -7 of the Ru"es of Court e#press"y mandates that the

C& shou"d dismiss the appea" outri!ht as the appea" is not revie+ab"e by that

court.

There is a 4uestion of "a+ +hen the issue does not ca"" for an

e#amination of the probative va"ue of the evidence presented, the truth or

fa"sehood of facts bein! admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct

app"ication of "a+ and urisprudence on the matter./5On the other hand,

there is a 4uestion of fact +hen the doubt or controversy arises as to the

truth or fa"sity of the a""e!ed facts.

/5


26/74

;hi"e the petitioners never 8"ed their appe""ants brief, +e discern from

the petitioners submissions to the C&,/6as +e"" as from their petition +ith

this Court, their perceived issues +ith respect to the RTCs summary

ud!ment, and they are as fo""o+s>

a) ;hether or not the Nationa" &irports Corporation acted +ith !ood

faith +hen it purchased the properties from Ouano?

b) ;hether the heirs of Ouano acted +ith !ood faith in recoverin! the

properties from the Nationa" &irports Corporation? and

c) ;hether the subse4uent buyers of the properties acted +ith !ood

faith in purchasin! the properties from the heirs of Ouano.

iven that the 4uestion of +hether a person acted +ith !ood faith or

bad faith in purchasin! and re!isterin! rea" property is a 4uestion of fact, /-it

appears, at 8rst !"ance, that the petitioners raised factua" issues in their

appea" and, thus, correct"y 8"ed an ordinary appea" +ith the C&. &fter

revie+in! the RTC reso"ution bein! assai"ed, ho+ever, +e 8nd that the

petitioners actua""y raised on"y 4uestions of "a+ in their appea".

;e 4uote the pertinent portions of the RTC decision>

The main issue to be reso"ved is +ho bet+een the

p"aintis and the defendants have a better ri!ht to the subect

"ots.

/6

/-


27/74

In se""in! the "and in favor of the Nationa" &irports

Corporation, p"aintis a""e!ed bad faith and ma"ice on the part

of the se""er Ines Ouano but have not p"eaded bad faith on the

part of the buyer. Since !ood faith is a"+ays presumed under

&rtic"e 62 of the Civi" Code, the Nationa" &irports Corporation

+as therefore a buyer in !ood faith. *ein! a purchaser in !ood

faith and for va"ue, it is a#iomatic that the ri!ht of the Nationa"

&irports Corporation must be uphe"d and its tit"es protected over

the c"aim of the p"aintis. In the case of !lordeli&a Cabuhat vs#

.he 0onorable Court of Appeals, .R. No. /2262-, September 2=,

277/, the Supreme Court uphe"d the va"idity of the tit"e of an

innocent purchaser in !ood faith and for va"ue and at the same

time invoed the princip"e of stabi"ity of our Torrens system and

indefeasibi"ity of tit"e !uaranteein! the inte!rity of "and tit"es

once the c"aim of o+nership is estab"ished and reco!ni1ed.

Fo+ever, it is +e""Asett"ed that even if the

procurement of a certi8cate of tit"e +as tainted +ith

fraud and misrepresentation, such defective tit"e may

be the source of a comp"ete"y "e!a" and va"id tit"e in

the hands of an innocent purchaser for va"ue. Thus>

+here innocent third persons, re"yin! on the

correctness of the certi8cate of tit"e thus issued,

ac4uire ri!hts over the property the court cannot

disre!ard such ri!hts and order the tota" cance""ation

of the certi8cate. The eect of such an outri!ht

cance""ation +ou"d be to impair pub"ic con8dence in

the certi8cate of tit"e, for everyone dea"in! +ith

property re!istered under the Torrens system +ou"d

have to in4uire in every instance +hether the tit"e


28/74

has been re!u"ar"y or irre!u"ar"y issued. This is

contrary to the evident purpose of the "a+. Every

person dea"in! +ith the re!istered "and may safe"y

re"y on the correctness of the certi8cate of tit"e

issued therefore and the "a+ +i"" in no +ay ob"i!e him

to !o behind the certi8cate to determine the

condition of the property.

The subect "ots bein! re!istered "and under the Torrens

system the recordation of the sa"e by the Nationa" &irports

Corporation, a buyer in !ood faith !ave Nationa" &irports

Corporation a tit"e free of a"" unrecorded prior transactions,

deeds, "iens and encumbrances, and converse"y forever erased

or cut o the unrecorded interest of Sa"vador Cobarde. Section

-7 of &rtic"e 639 of the 0and Re!istration &ct (no+ sec. -/ of PD

/-23) reads> No deed, mort!a!e, "ease or other vo"untary

instrument, e#cept a +i"", purportin! to convey or aect

re!istered "and sha"" tae eect as a conveyance or bind the "and

###. The act of re!istration sha"" be the operative act to convey

and aect the "and. In the case of Nationa" rains &uthority v.

I&C, /- SCR& 5=7, the Supreme Court ru"ed, thus, the

possession by p"aintis and their predecessorsAinAinterest is

irre"evant to this case because possession of re!istered "and can

never ripen into o+nership. No tit"e to re!istered "and in

dero!ation of the tit"e of the re!istered o+ner sha"" be ac4uired

by prescription or adverse possession. (Sec. 69 of &ct 639, no+

Sec. 6 of PD /-23).

In the eyes of the Torrens system, the unre!istered sa"e of

the property by Ines Ouano to Sa"vador Cobarde did not bind

the "and or the +ho"e +or"d in rem? it bound, in personam, on"y


29/74

the parties. On the other hand, the re!istered sa"e by Ines

Ouano to Nationa" &irports Corporation, a buyer in !ood faith,

bound the "and in rem, meanin! that the +ho"e +or"d +as put on

constructive notice that thenceforth the "and be"on!ed to

Nationa" &irports Corporation free of a"" prior transactions, deeds

and encumbrances, such as the c"aim of Sa"vador Cobarde,

+hich +ere at the very moment Nationa" &irports Corporation

re!istered its tit"e free of prior c"aims forever erased or cut o by

operation of "a+.

# # # #

Sa"vador Cobarde, +hose ri!hts to the property had been

erased or cut o by operation of "a+, had nothin! or had no

"e!a""y reco!ni1ed interest in the property that he cou"d se""

+hen he so"d the property to Nico"as and 0o"ita Cabi!as. Nico"as

and 0o"ita Cabi!as havin! bou!ht nothin! cou"d transmit nothin!

to their successorsAinAinterest, the p"aintis herein. Hnder the

Torrens system, herein p"aintis are stran!ers to the property?

they possess no "e!a""y reco!ni1ed interest bindin! the property

in remthat courts cou"d protect and enforce a!ainst the +or"d./9

&s astute"y observed by the C&, the RTC reso"ution mere"y co""ated

from the p"eadin!s the facts that +ere undisputed, admitted, and stipu"ated

upon by the parties, and thereafter ru"ed on the "e!a" issues raised by

app"yin! the pertinent "a+s and urisprudence on the matter. In other +ords,

the RTC did not reso"ve any factua" issues, on"y "e!a" ones.

/9


30/74

;hen there is no dispute as to the facts, the 4uestion of +hether or not

the conc"usion dra+n from these facts is correct is a 4uestion of "a+. /;hen

the petitioners assai"ed the summary ud!ment, they +ere in fact

4uestionin! the conc"usions dra+n by the RTC from the undisputed facts, and

raisin! a 4uestion of "a+.

In "i!ht of the fore!oin!, urisdiction over the petitioners appea"

proper"y "ay +ith this Court via an appea" by "ertiorari, and the C& +as

correct in dismissin! the appea" for "ac of urisdiction.

!endition of summary "udgment was proper

Even if +e over"oo the procedura" "apse and reso"ve the case on the

merits, +e sti"" a:rm the assai"ed C& reso"utions.

Hnder the Ru"es of Court, a summary ud!ment may be rendered +here, on

motion of a party and after hearin!, the p"eadin!s, supportin! a:davits,

depositions and admissions on 8"e sho+ that, e#cept as to the amount of

dama!es, there is no !enuine issue as to any materia" fact and that the

movin! party is entit"ed to a ud!ment as a matter of "a+./= The Court

e#p"ained the concept of summary ud!ment in Asian Constru"tion and

$evelopment Corporation v# +hilippine Commer"ial nternational Bank>/3

/

/=


31/74

Summary or acce"erated ud!ment is a procedura" techni4ue

aimed at +eedin! out sham c"aims or defenses at an ear"y sta!e

of "iti!ation thereby avoidin! the e#pense and "oss of time

invo"ved in a tria".

Hnder the Ru"es, summary ud!ment is appropriate +hen

there are no !enuine issues of fact +hich ca"" for the presentation

of evidence in a fu""Ab"o+n tria". E;%n < on (%r


32/74

&t the outset, +e note from the respondents p"eadin!s that severa"

respondents27 denied that the sa"e bet+een Ouano and Cobarde ever

occurred. It +ou"d, therefore, appear that a factua" issue e#isted that

re4uired reso"ution throu!h a forma" tria", and the RTC erred in renderin!

summary ud!ment.

& c"oser e#amination of the parties submissions, ho+ever, maes it

apparent that this is not a !enuine issue of fact because, as +i"" be discussed

be"o+, the petitioners do not have any "e!a""y enforceab"e ri!ht to the

properties in 4uestion, as their predecessorsAinAinterest are not buyers in

!ood faith.

i. Cabigas spouses are not buyers in good faith

& purchaser in !ood faith is one +ho buys the property of another +ithout

notice that some other person has a ri!ht to or interest in such property, and

pays a fu"" and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before

he has notice of the c"aim of another person.2/ I( ' a 7%55'%((5%$ ru5%

(a( a &ur-a'%r -anno( -5o'% ' %y%' (o


33/74

after+ards deve"ops that the tit"e +as in fact defective, and it appears that

he had such notice of the defect as +ou"d have "ed to its discovery had he

acted +ith that measure of precaution +hich may reasonab"y be re4uired of

a prudent man in a "ie situation.22

;e are dea"in! +ith re!istered "and, a fact no+n to the Cabi!as

spouses since they received the dup"icate o+ners certi8cate of tit"e from

Cobarde +hen they purchased the "and. A( (% (6% o< (% 'a5% (o (%

a)=a' '&ou'%', ho+ever, (% 5an$ 7a' r%='(%r%$ no( n o)ar$%'

na6%, )u( n Ouano' na6%. *y itse"f, this fact shou"d have put the

Cabi!as spouses on !uard and prompted them to chec +ith the Re!istry of

Deeds as to the most recent certi8cates of tit"e to discover if there +ere any

"iens, encumbrances, or other attachments coverin! the "ots in 4uestion. &s

the Court pronounced inAbad v# Sps# *uimba>25

The "a+ protects to a !reater de!ree a purchaser +ho

buys from the re!istered o+ner himse"f. Coro""ari"y, it re4uires a

hi!her de!ree of prudence from one +ho buys from a person +ho

is not the re!istered o+ner, a"thou!h the "and obect of the

transaction is re!istered. ;hi"e one +ho buys from the re!istered

o+ner does not need to "oo behind the certi8cate of tit"e, on%

7o )uy'


34/74

(ran'


35/74

&irports Corporation acted +ith !ood faith +hen it re!istered the properties,

in accordance +ith &rtic"e /-66 of the Civi" Code, +hich provides>

&rtic"e /-66. If the same thin! shou"d have been so"d to dierent

vendees, the o+nership sha"" be transferred to the person +ho

may have 8rst taen possession thereof in !ood faith, if it shou"d

be movab"e property.

Shou"d it be immovab"e property, the o+nership sha"" be"on! to

the person ac4uirin! it +ho in !ood faith 8rst recorded it in the

Re!istry of Property.

Shou"d there be no inscription, the o+nership sha"" pertain to the

person +ho in !ood faith +as 8rst in the possession? and, in the

absence thereof, to the person +ho presents the o"dest tit"e,

provided there is !ood faith.

*ased on this provision, the overridin! consideration to determineo+nership of an immovab"e property is the !ood or bad faith not of the

se""er, but of the buyer? speci8ca""y, +e are tased to determine +ho 8rst

re!istered the sa"e +ith the Re!istry of Property (Re!istry of Deeds) in !ood

faith.

&s accurate"y observed by the RTC, the petitioners, in theirsubmissions to the "o+er court, never imputed bad faith on the part of the

Nationa" &irports Corporation in re!isterin! the "ots in its name. This

oversi!ht proves fata" to their cause, as +e e#p"ained in SpousesChu, Sr# v#

Benelda Estate $evelopment Corporation>


36/74

In a case for annu"ment of tit"e, therefore, the comp"aint

must a""e!e that the purchaser +as a+are of the defect in the

tit"e so that the cause of action a!ainst him +i"" be su:cient.

%ai"ure to do so, as in the case at bar, is fata" for the reason that

the court cannot render a va"id ud!ment a!ainst the purchaser

+ho is presumed to be in !ood faith in ac4uirin! the said

property. Fa5ur% (o &ro;%, 6u- 5%'' 6&u(%, )a$


37/74

ri!hts to the properties that cou"d be enforced by "a+. The petitioners c"ear"y

have no cause of action a!ainst the respondents, and the RTC correct"y

dismissed their comp"aint for annu"ment of tit"e.

3HEREFORE, premises considered, +e DEN" the petition for "ac of

merit, and AFFIR! the Reso"utions, dated

-espondents# &u!ust 26, 27//

# A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A #


38/74

D E I S I O N

DEL ASTILLO,J.

Petitioners see to prevent the reviva" of a ud!ment rendered in favor of the

respondents more than t+o decades bac.

This Petition for Revie+ on Certiorari assai"s the %ebruary /, 2776

Decision2-of the Court of &ppea"s (C&) in C&A.R. CJ No. 25=- +hich denied the

appea" 8"ed before it and a:rmed in totothe


39/74

The oppositors 8"ed their appea" to the C& doceted as C&A.R. No. 99-6/.

In a Decision23 dated Gu"y 26, /3=-, the appe""ate court a:rmed in toto the

Decision of the C%I. This C& Decision became 8na" and e#ecutory on &u!ust 2/,

/3=-57and, accordin!"y, a ;rit of Possession +as issued on November 2/, /3=-,

+hich +as never imp"emented.

The fo""o+in! year or on September /, /3=9, Ori!ina" Certi8cate of Tit"e

(OCT) No. 26395/+as issued to the spouses Sayson pursuant to the


40/74

(Eu!enio), Simfronio &ras (Simfronio), %e"iciano &ras (%e"iciano), Rosita &ras

(Rosita) and Eu!enio Gr. to vacate the subect property, vi&>

Respondents are directed to vacate the portion of 0ot No. /, PsuA7=A

77725- covered by OCT No. 2639 and subect of the 8na" decree of

re!istration +hich, up to the present, said respondents are sti""

possessin! pursuant to the 8na" and e#ecutory ud!ment of the Court

of &ppea"s and as particu"ar"y de8ned in the Commissioners report

submitted on &u!ust 5, /3=3 # # #.

Respondents are reminded that under Ru"e / of the Ne+ Ru"es of

Court, fai"ure on their part to so obey this order may mae them "iab"e

for contempt of this Court.

SO ORDERED.59

ervacio, Ismae", Eu!enio, Simfronio, %e"iciano, Rosita and Eu!enio Gr.,

a"thou!h not oppositors in C&A.R. No. 99-6/, +ere "ie+ise ordered to vacate the

property in vie+ of the fo""o+in! pronouncement in the RTCs September /5, /3=3

Order>

It appearin! from the records that respondents Eu!enio

*asbas, Teo8"o &ras, G%r;a-o Ba')a', Ru8no &ras, I'6a%5 Ara',

Eu=%no Ara', S6


41/74

(% a&&5-an(' a' 'o7n n (% r%-or$', &a=%' 4, : an$ +,

o5. 1# # #5(Emphasis supp"ied.)

This September /5, /3=3 Order +as, ho+ever, not imp"emented +ithin the 8veA

year period from the time it became 8na".5=Fence, respondent *eata and her son

Roberto Sayson, Gr. (Roberto Gr.), as successorAinAinterest of the "ate Roberto Sr.,

8"ed on &u!ust /=, /33- a Comp"aint for Reviva" of Gud!ment53before the RTC of

Ormoc City, *ranch /2,67 doceted as Civi" Case No. 55/2A7. Imp"eaded as

defendants +ere Eu!enio Sr., Teo8"o, Ru8no, ervacio, Ismae", Eu!enio, Simfronio,

%e"iciano, Rosita, and Eu!enio Gr. PetitionerAspouses Pab"ito *asarte and


42/74

In their &ns+er +ith counterc"aim, said petitioners admitted the a""e!ations in

para!raphs 6, -, 9, , =, 3, /7, // and /2 of respondents Comp"aint +hich state

that>

# # # #

6. On


43/74

;FERE%ORE, PRE


44/74

on even date appointin! eodetic En!ineer Gose &. Tahi" as Court

Commissioner speci8ca""y to re"ocate 0ot No. /, P"an PsuA7=A77725-,

0RC No. 7A/, 0and Re!. Record No. N-/=57 # # # This Order +as

dictated in open court in the presence of

Respondents (defendants herein) are directed to

vacate the portion of 0ot No. /, PsuA7=A77725- covered

by OCT No. 2639 and subect of 8na" decree of

re!istration +hich, unti" the present, said respondents

are sti"" possessin!, pursuant to the 8na" and e#ecutory

ud!ment of the Court of &ppea"s and as particu"ar"y

de8ned in the Commissioners Report submitted on

&u!ust 5, /3=3 # # #


45/74

Respondents are reminded that under Ru"e / of

the Ne+ Ru"es of Court, fai"ure on their part to so obey

this Order may mae them "iab"e for contempt of this

Court.6-

Fo+ever, petitioners admitted but denied in part>

/) para!raphs 2 and 5, insofar as they a""e!ed that they +ere a"" oppositors

to the "and re!istration case +hen on"y Eu!enio Sr., Teo8"o and Ru8no +ere the

oppositors therein? and

2) para!raph /6, +ith respect to the a""e!ation on the retirement of the

Deputy Sheri and the heart condition of the C"er of Court, for "ac of su:cient

no+"ed!e and information su:cient to form a be"ief thereon.

On the other hand, they speci8ca""y denied>

/) para!raph /5, on the !round that they have the ri!ht of o+nership andKor

possession over the subect property? and

2) para!raph /-, on the !round that the property they are cu"tivatin! is

o+ned by them, hence, respondents cannot suer "osses and dama!es.

Para!raphs 2, 5, /5, /6 and /- a""uded to in the fore!oin! are as fo""o+s>

2. &"" the defendants named above are # # # of "e!a" a!e and

are residents of *a"a!tas,


46/74

*asarte and


47/74

/6. That this September /5, /3=3 Order ho+ever +as not

imp"emented thru a ;rit of E#ecution +ithin the 8veAyear period from

the time the Order became 8na" because of the retirement of Deputy

Sheri P"acido Cayco and by reason a"so of the fact that the then

C"er of Court, &tty. Constantino &. Trias, Gr. +ho +as a"so the e#Ao:cio

Provincia" Sheri +as not physica""y 8t to hie thru the mountains and

hi""s of *r!y. *a"a!tas +here the property and the defendants therein

reside due to his heart condition?

/-. That despite their no+"ed!e of the Courts September

/5, /3=3 Order, the same havin! been dictated in open court, the

respondents had continued to occupy the "and of the p"aintis and for

more than 8ve (-) years since this Order for them to vacate the "and

in 4uestion +as issued, they had harvested the coconuts !ro+in!

thereon and such other produce of the "and herein invo"ved. &nd unti"

the decision of the Court of &ppea"s is e#ecuted, p"ainti +i"" continue

to suer "osses and dama!es by reason of defendants un"a+fu"

occupation and possession and their continued harvestin! of the

produce of this "and of the herein p"aintis.6

*y +ay of specia" and a:rmative defenses, said petitioners contended that

the Order sou!ht to be revived is not the ud!ment contemp"ated under Section 9,

Ru"e 53 of the Ru"es of Court, hence the action for reviva" of ud!ment is improper.

&"so, e#cept for Ru8no, petitioners averred that they cannot be made parties to

the comp"aint for reviva" of ud!ment as they +ere not parties to the "and

re!istration case. They thus be"ieved that the September /5, /3=3 Order sou!ht

to be revived is not bindin! upon them and hence, the comp"aint states no cause

of action +ith respect to them. &s to the counterc"aim, petitioners prayed that

6


48/74

respondents pay them mora" and e#emp"ary dama!es, attorneys fees and

"iti!ation e#penses.

PreAtria" conference +as thereafter set6=but since not a"" petitioners +ere served

+ith summons, this +as reset and a"ias summons +as issued and served upon

Simfronio and the spouses *asarte.63 Hpon receipt of summons, Simfronio

adopted the &ns+er +ith Counterc"aim of ervacio, Ru8no, Ismae", Eu!enio,

%e"iciano, Rosita and Eu!enio Gr.-7+hi"e the spouses *asarte 8"ed a


49/74

6&or(an(. ;hen the Court tried to di! and discuss +ith the

parties on their rea" positions, it turned out that the &5an(' ar%

'%%n= r%;;a5 o< (% &r%;ou' na5 ?u$=6%n(, (% or=na5

&ar(%' o< 7- 7%r% Eu=%no Ba')a', T%o5o Ara' an$

Runo Ara'. Eu=%no an$ T%o5o ar% a55 $%a$, 5%a;n= Runo

Ara' a5;%. I( ' u(% -o6&5-a(%$ -on'$%rn= (a( n ('

a-(on, (% &5an(' r%5%$ on (% Or$%r o< (' our( &%nn%$

)y (% &r%;ou' ?u$=% $a(%$ S%&(%6)%r 1, 1*8* 7- 7a'

6a$% a


50/74

copy thereof to the defendant +ho upon receipt sha"" a"so be !iven a

period of ten (/7) days +ithin +hich this Court +i"" mae the

necessary reso"ution before a""o+in! any amendment.

Fo"d the preAtria" conference in abeyance.

SO ORDERED.--(Emphasis supp"ied.)

In their


51/74

names of their respective heirs to be inc"uded and stated

immediate"y after each name as heirs in substitution, name"y> for

Eu!enio *asbas /) ervacio *asbas, 2)

/ That defendants are not enoyin! the produce of the "and

because there are periods +herein the fruits +ere subect of

theft and the same is no+ pendin! at the


52/74

2 That even before the start of the ori!ina" case, the ori!ina"

defendants referrin! to the "ate Eu!enio *asbas, Sr. and Teo8"o

&ras, and Ru8no &ras +ere occupyin! the property and they

+ere succeeded by the respective heirs of the deceased Eu!enio

*asbas, Sr. and Teo8"o &ras sic?

5 That p"ainti Teo8"o &ras, Sr. has a dau!hter named %ede"i1a &ras?

Issues

/ ;hether # # # the p"aintis are entit"ed to reviva" of ud!ment in

the ear"ier "and re!istration case?

2 ;hether # # # the defendants e#cept for defendant Ru8no &ras

are the proper parties in the present action?

5 ;hether # # # the comp"aint states a cause of action?

6 ;hether # # # defendants are entit"ed to their counterc"aim, and?

- ;hether ud!ment on the p"eadin!s is a""o+ed or is tenab"e.95

Respondents subse4uent"y 8"ed an Omnibus


53/74

Petitioners 8"ed an Opposition Re> Omnibus


54/74

and upon 8na"ity of this Order, orderin! the issuance of ;rit of

Possession for the "ot made subect of the decision. ;ithout

pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.9

Petitioners thus 8"ed a Notice of &ppea"9=+hich +as approved in an Order dated

Gune 79, 277/.93

!uling of the Court of Appeals

%indin! no merit in the appea", the C& denied the same in a Decision7 dated

%ebruary /, 2776. It noted that petitioners &ns+er admitted a"most a"" of the

a""e!ations in respondents comp"aint. Fence, the RTC committed no reversib"e

error +hen it !ranted respondents


55/74

*eata in favor of Roberto Gr. as va"id, hence, she +as du"y represented durin! the

preAtria" conference. The dispositive portion of said C& Decision reads>

;FERE%ORE, premises considered, the present appea" is DENIED.

The


56/74

Ormoc City dated


57/74

same +as not prayed for in the Comp"aint for Reviva" of Gud!ment. 0ast"y,

petitioners assai" the SP& +hich authori1ed Roberto Gr. to represent his mother,

*eata, durin! the preAtria" conference, it not havin! been authenticated by a

Phi"ippine consu"ate o:cer in Canada +here it +as e#ecuted. Citin! Lope& v# Court

of Appeals,-they contend that said document cannot be admitted in evidence

and hence, *eata +as not du"y represented durin! said preAtria" conference. The

case, therefore, shou"d have been dismissed insofar as she is concerned.

%or their part, respondents point out that the RTCs basis in !rantin! the


58/74

Our Ru5n=

There is no merit in the petition.

I. T% n'(an( -a'% ' &ro&%r


59/74

;hen the &ns+er fai"s to tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny the materia"

a""e!ations in the comp"aint or admits said materia" a""e!ations of the adverse

partys p"eadin!s by admittin! the truthfu"ness thereof andKor omittin! to dea" +ith

them at a"", a ud!ment on the p"eadin!s is appropriate.=On the other hand,

+hen the &ns+er speci8ca""y denies the materia" averments of the comp"aint or

asserts a:rmative defenses, or in other +ords raises an issue, a summary

ud!ment is proper provided that the issue raised is not !enuine. & !enuine issue

means an issue of fact +hich ca""s for the presentation of evidence, as

distin!uished from an issue +hich is 8ctitious or contrived or +hich does not

constitute a !enuine issue for tria".3

a4udgment on the pleadings is not proper

be"ause petitioners Answer tendered

issues#

In this case, +e note that +hi"e petitioners &ns+er to respondents

Comp"aint practica""y admitted a"" the materia" a""e!ations therein, it neverthe"ess

asserts the a:rmative defenses that the action for reviva" of ud!ment is not the

proper action and that petitioners are not the proper parties. &s issues obvious"y

arise from these a:rmative defenses, a ud!ment on the p"eadin!s is c"ear"y

improper in this case.

Fo+ever, before +e consider this case appropriate for the rendition of

summary ud!ment, an e#amination of the issues raised, that is, +hether they are

!enuine issues or not, shou"d 8rst be made.

=

3


60/74

b4 .he issues raised are not genuine issues,

hen"e rendition of summary (udgment is

proper#

To reso"ve the issues of +hether a reviva" of ud!ment is the proper action

and +hether respondents are the proper parties thereto, the RTC mere"y needed

to e#amine the fo""o+in!> /) the RTC Order dated September /5, /3=3, to

determine +hether same is a ud!ment or 8na" order contemp"ated under Section

9, Ru"e 53 of the Ru"es of Court? and, 2) the p"eadin!s of the parties and pertinent

portions of the records=7sho+in!, amon! others, +ho amon! the respondents

+ere oppositors to the "and re!istration case, the heirs of such oppositors and the

present occupants of the property. P"ain"y, these issues cou"d be readi"y reso"ved

based on the facts estab"ished by the p"eadin!s. & fu""Ab"o+n tria" on these issues

+i"" on"y entai" +aste of time and resources as they are c"ear"y not !enuine issues

re4uirin! presentation of evidence.

Petitioners aver that the RTC shou"d not have !ranted respondents


61/74

II.T% o6&5an( '(a(%' a -au'% o< a-(on.

Petitioners contend that the comp"aint states no cause of action since the

September /5, /3=3 Order sou!ht to be revived is not the ud!ment contemp"ated

under Section 9, Ru"e 53 of the Ru"es of Court. They a"so aver that the RTC erred

+hen it ordered the reviva" not on"y of the September /5, /3=3 Order but a"so of

the Gu"y 26, /3=- C& Decision, +hen +hat +as prayed for in the comp"aint +as

on"y the reviva" of the former.

This Court, ho+ever, a!rees +ith respondents that these matters have

a"ready been su:cient"y addressed by the RTC in its Order of ud!ment may be enforced by action.

So in this Comp"aint, +hat is sou!ht is the enforcement of a

ud!ment and the Order of this Court dated September /5, /3=3 is

=/


62/74

part of the process to enforce that ud!ment. To the mind of the

Court, therefore, the Comp"aint su:cient"y states a cause of action.=2

III.Any &%r-%;%$ $%


63/74

action is therefore one +hich Roberto Gr., as coAo+ner, can brin! and prosecute

a"one, on his o+n beha"f and on beha"f of his coAo+ner, *eata. Fence, a dismissa"

of the case +ith respect to *eata pursuant to Sec. -, =6Ru"e /= of the Ru"es of

Court +i"" be futi"e as the case cou"d neverthe"ess be continued by Roberto Gr. in

beha"f of the t+o of them.

3HEREFORE, the Petition for Revie+ on Certiorari is DENIEDand the assai"ed

Decision of the Court of &ppea"s dated %ebruary /, 2776 and Reso"ution dated

&pri" /3, 2779 in C&A.R. CJ No. 25=- are AFFIR!ED.

SO ORDERED.

pub"ic of the Phi"ip

#PRE!E O

ni"a

RST DIJISION

R. No. 1+0/0 D%-%6)%r 10, 2004

STER !A. ANGELINA !. FERNANDO, R..!., petitioner,

ON. ESAR D. SANTA!ARIA, Pr%'$n= Ju$=% o< (% R%=ona5 Tra5 our(, Na(

&(a5 R%=on, Bran- 14:, !aa( (y, H#A PING HIAN, 3ILLIBALDO #", LA#REAN

ORRES an$ (% REGISTER o< DEEDS FOR !AKATI IT",respondents.

E C I S I O N

=6


64/74

NARESSANTIAGO,J.

s is a petition for revie+ of the &u!ust /=, 2775 Decision/of the Court of &ppea"s in C&A.

. 2=, and its November 9, 2775 Reso"ution2

denyin! petitioner$s motion for reconsiderat

e antecedent facts are as fo""o+s>

October /5, 2777, petitioner 8"ed a comp"aint5a!ainst respondents ;i""iba"do Hy (Hy),

n! Fian (Chua) and the "atter$s a!ent, 0aureana P. *orres (*orres). She a""e!ed that on

parate occasions, she obtained "oans from Chua in the tota" amount of P-.- mi""ion. &s sec

said "oans, she e#ecuted a rea" estate mort!a!e over a "ot6covered by Transfer Certi8ca

"e (TCT) No. /2653/, re!istered in her name and "ocated at No. /99/, Evan!e"ista St., *anati City. *efore the third "oan cou"d be re"eased, she si!ned a deed of abso"ute sa"e conve

e "ot in favor of Chua in consideration of the amount of P5


65/74

use of action, if any, has been +aived or abandoned.

Gu"y 26, 277/ the tria" court dismissed the comp"aint a!ainst a"" the respondents on the !ro

prescription, rati8cation and abandonment of cause of action. It he"d that petitioner raua$s act of se""in! the "ot to Hy by acno+"ed!in! that the "atter is no+ the o+ner of the

r "etter dated December /3, /33- oerin! to repurchase the same and to pay the incide

penses of the sa"e. The "etter reads


66/74

mp"aint insofar as the action for recovery of sum of money a!ainst *orres is concerned. Thu

B

Conse4uent"y, the Order dated 26 Gu"y 277/ is therefore


67/74

es to ho"d a"" respondents so"idari"y "iab"e for the fraudu"ent conveyance of her property

imed that the tria" court cannot render severa" ud!ment and separate the "iabi"ity of *orres

at of her coArespondents. &s such, appea" from the decision of the tria" court can be perfecte

e 8"in! of a notice of appea" +ithin /- days from receipt of the 4uestioned order +ithout ne

bmittin! a record on appea".

&u!ust /=, 2775, the Court of &ppea"s dismissed the petition ho"din! that the tria" court va

ndered severa" ud!ment because the "iabi"ity of *orres in petitioner$s third cause of acti

tinct from the "iabi"ity of the other respondents. To perfect an appea", the Court of &ppea"s

at petitioner must 8"e a record on appea" in addition to the notice of appea" +ithin 57 days

tice of the assai"ed order pursuant to Section 2(a) and 5, Ru"e 6/ of the Revised Ru"es of

ocedure. The dispositive portion of the decision, states

IN JIE; O% &00 TFE %OREOIN, +e 8nd that the respondent ud!e did not co

!rave abuse of discretion in issuin! the Order dated /3 &u!ust 2772. &ccordin!"y

"ac or merit, the instant petition is hereby DIS


68/74

at of his coAparties, such that the c"aims a!ainst each of them cou"d have been the sube

parate suits, and ud!ment for or a!ainst one of them +i"" not necessari"y aect the other./6

the instant case, the tria" court correct"y app"ied the fore!oin! provision because the comps 8"ed a!ainst severa" defendants +ith respect to +hom, rendition of severa" ud!ment is pr

rtinent portion of petitioner$s comp"aint reads

A' Tr$ au'% o< A-(on

B

/. Defendant *ORRES did not comp"y +ith her undertain! to pay the rea" prop

ta#es on the aforementioned property for the year /33- the same havin!

actua""y paid by


69/74

Re!ister of Deeds to cance" Transfer Certi8cate of Tit"e No. 275529 (&nne# @C@) +

+as issued in the name of defendant CFH& pursuant thereto?

on the '%-on$ -au'% o< a-(on, directin! defendant RD simi"ar"y to cance" TraCerti8cate of Tit"e No. 275/ (&nne# @E@) issued in the name of defendant Hy?

on (% (r$ -au'% o< a-(on, or$%rn= $%


70/74

fraud, i#e., +hether *orres received the amount of P/27,777.77 and +hether she ha

i!ation to pay the rea" estate ta#es of the mort!a!ed "ot. &s to the amount of P277,777.77

estion is the va"idity of the deduction of said amount from the third "oan obtained by petiti

e cause of action for co""ection of sum of money a!ainst *orres can thus proceed independ

the dismissa" of the action to ho"d her so"idari"y "iab"e +ith Chua and Hy for the a""e

udu"ent conveyance of the "ot (8rst, second and fourth causes of action of the comp"aint

mitted by petitioner in her motion for reconsideration of the Gu"y 26, 277/ Order, the

ainst *orres is one for misappropriation of the amounts sou!ht to be recovered.

-oman Catholi" Ar"hbishop of %anila v# Court of Appeals,/9+hich +as cited by petitioner, pr

spondentA"essees +ithho"d renta" payments to petitionerA"essor in order to force the "att

ae adustments or correction on the area of the "eased "ot a""e!ed to be encroached upon b

nce erected on the adacent "ot. The issues presented before the tria" court +ere> (/

stence of a ri!ht to compe" correction or adustment the a""e!ed encroached portion? (2

idity of petitionerA"essor$s c"aim for nonApayment of renta"s? and (5) the propriety of comp

titionerA"essor to se"" to the subect "ot to respondentA"essees. Separate"y reso"vin! the issu

motion to dismiss and ud!ment on the p"eadin!s, the tria" court ru"ed that private respond

sees cannot compe" petitionerA"essor to se"" the "ot and that the former shou"d pay r

eara!es to the "atter. The same issues +ere raised before the Court of &ppea"s, e#cept fo

stence of private respondentsA"essees$ ri!ht to compe" adustment of the a""e!ed encroach

ich +as not yet reso"ved by the tria" court. The Court of &ppea"s he"d that the case is not

ere mu"tip"e appea"s can be taen, hence a notice of appea" is su:cient and a record on ap

not re4uired to perfect an appea", thus

The disputes in the case be"o+ for speci8c performance have arisen from the dem

to mae adustments on the property +here the adacent o+ner is a""e!ed to usurped a part thereof, the e#ercise of the ri!ht of preAemption and the payme

renta" arreara!es. & ru"in! on the issue of encroachment +i"" perforce be determin

of the issue of unpaid renta"s. These t+o points do not arise from t+o or more ca

of action, but from the same cause of action. Fence, this suit does not re4uire mu

appea"s. There is no !round for the sp"ittin! of appea"s in this case, even if it invo
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_160730_2004.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_160730_2004.html#fnt16


71/74

an Order !rantin! (and denyin!) a motion to dismiss and a Partia" Gud!ment !rant

motion for ud!ment on the p"eadin!s. The subect matter covered in the Order a

the Partia" Gud!ment pertain to the same "essorA"essee re"ationship, "ease contrac

parce" of "and. Sp"ittin! appea"s in the instant case +ou"d, in eect, be vio"ative o

ru"e a!ainst mu"tip"icity of appea"s.

The conc"usion is irresistib"e that since a case has not been made out for mu

appea"s, a record on appea" is unnecessary to perfect the appea"./

the said cited case, the issue of encroachment and the area thereof, if there is any

termine the propriety of a+ardin! bac renta"s as +e"" as the basis of the computation of r

reara!es on a per s4uare meter basis. The tria" court cannot va"id"y render decision on

mount of arreara!es +ithout reso"vin! 8rst the 4uestion on encroachment. Fence, no se

d!ments can be rendered and no mu"tip"e appea"s can be made in the said case becaus

ues arose from a sin!"e cause of action, i#e., to compe" correction or adustment o

croached area. &ccordin!"y, the Court a:rmed the decision of the Court of &ppea"s, ho

mon! others, that the tria" court erred in renderin! partia" ud!ment on the renta" arrear

cause the averments and avai"ab"e evidence tendered a va"id issue +hich cou"d not be reso

ere"y on the p"eadin!s.

e doctrine "aid do+n in -oman Catholi" Ar"hbishop of %anila v# Court of Appeals, i

p"icab"e to the instant case. Petitioner$s cause of action a!ainst *orres for co""ection of su

oney is c"ear"y severab"e from her action a!ainst the other respondents. Thus, renditi

vera" ud!ment is proper.

ctions 2(a), 5 and /5 of Ru"e 6/ of the Revised Ru"es of Civi" Procedure provides

C. 2.


72/74

from and servin! a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appea" sha

re4uired %@-%&( n '&%-a5 &ro-%%$n=' an$ o(%r -a'%' o< 6u5(&5% or '%&a

a&&%a5' 7%r% (% 5a7 or (%'% Ru5%' 'o r%ur%.In such cases, the reco

appea" sha"" be 8"ed and served in "ie manner. (Emphasis, supp"ied)

SEC. 5. Period of ordinary appea", appea" in habeas corpus LThe appea" sha"" be t

+ithin 8fteen (/-) days from notice of the ud!ment or 8na" order appea"ed f

;here a record on appea" is re4uired, the appe""ant sha"" 8"e a notice of appea" a

record on appea" +ithin thirty (57) days from notice of the ud!ment or 8na" o

(Emphasis, supp"ied)

SEC. /5. D'6''a5 o< a&&%a5.LPrior to the transmitta" of the ori!ina" record o

record on appea" to the appe""ate court, the tria" court may motu propioor on m

to dismiss the appea" for havin! been taen out of time, or for nonApayment o

docet and other "a+fu" fees +ithin the re!"ementary period. (&s amended by &.

judgement cases.docx

Documents