7/17/2019 Ty v Banco Filipino Judicial Decisions

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ty-v-banco-filipino-judicial-decisions 1/1

Ty vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (G.R 188302

Topic! "#dicial $ecision

F%&TS!

1. Respondents filed 17 complaints against petitioner including Civil Case No. 2506-MN before ranc! 170

of t!e R"C of Malabon.2. #etitioner moved for t!e dismissal of t!e case in R"C of Malabon $!ic! $as denied denied% finding no

commonalit& in t!e 16 ot!er civil cases since t!e& involved different causes of action.

'. #etitioner filed a motion to !old proceedings in abe&ance.

(. "!e Malabon R"C granted to !old proceedings in abe&ance.

5. Respondent)s filed for motion for reconsideration but it $as denied b& t!e R"C.6. Respondent)s elevated its case to t!e C*. "!e C* initiall& dismissed t!e petition% but on motion for 

reconsideration% it modified its ruling% setting aside t!e R"C)s order to !old proceedings in abe&ance for 

mootness + An issue presenting no real controversy)% due to Court)s dismissal of ,.R. No. 127611 for late

filing.

7. "!e respondent moved for pre-trial.

. #etitioner opposed t!e motion and filed again a motion to suspend proceedings.. "!e Malabon R"C granted t!e motion% and again ordered to !old proceedings in abe&ance.

10. "!e respondent filed its compliance $it! motion to revive proceedings.

11. "!e petitioner argued t!at t!e proceedings s!ould not be revived since all t!e reconve&ance cases are

grounded on t!e same t!eor& of implied trust $!ic! t!is Court in ,.R. No. 1'75'' found void for beingillegal as it $as a sc!eme to circumvent t!e 50/ limitation on real estate !oldings under t!e ,eneral

aning *ct.

12. R"C granted t!e respondent)s motion to revive proceedings.

1'. #etitioner filed for motion for reconsideration but it $as denied b& t!e R"C. !e elevated !er case to t!e

C* via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari% assailing t!e R"C orders.

1(. "!e C* affirmed t!e R"C)s orders.15. !en t!e C* denied !er motion for reconsideration% t!e petitioner filed t!e present petition.

'SS)!

!et!er or not t!e $!et!er t!e Court)s ruling in ,.R. No. 1'75'' applies as stare decisis to t!e present case.

R*'+G!

34.

"!e 17 cases filed b& t!e respondents !ave eactl& t!e same point and t!e  facts are substantiall& t!e same and

according to t!e #rinciple of tare ecisis once a case !as been decided one $a&% an& ot!er case involving eactl&

t!e same point at issue% as in t!e present case% s!ould be decided in t!e same manner.

,-)R)FR)% t!e petition is GR%+T)$. "!e assailed decision and resolution of t!e Court of *ppeals in C*-

,.R. # No. 10710( are !ereb& R)/)RS)$ and S)T %S'$). Civil Case No. 2506-MN before ranc! 170 of t!eRegional "rial Court of Malabon% Metro Manila is !ereb& $'SM'SS)$.