Civil Prod Midterms

7/25/2019 Civil Prod Midterms

1/40

1. When to file pleadings?

"In this case, however, the counsel for petitioners filed the Notice of Appealvia a private courier, a mode of filing not provided in the Rules. Though not

prohibited by the Rules, we cannot consider the filing of petitioners Notice ofAppeal via ! timely filed. It is established #urisprudence that $the date ofdelivery of pleadings to a private letter%forwarding agency is not to be consideredas the date of filing thereof in court&' instead, $the date of actual receipt by thecourt ( ( ( is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.')* Records show that the

Notice of Appeal was mailed on the +th day and was received by the court onthe +-th day or one day beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the A correctlyruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time."

ase G.R. No. 179638 ; July 8, !13"#$R% &' N()#R$*N& )$R*N+*, %R.,naely- $R$/* 0deeased2,&RN#/$&,N()#R$*N&, JR., #R/$N+*, /&/$*, R('$N*, +*N$/&, */#J*N+R&,'#/$)&N, #R#%$*, #/$4*5#"and *N*/$4*, all sunaed )$R*N+*, etitiones, esus *5/& R.)$R*N+*, Respondent.

These cases have been consolidated as they involve the same parties and

sub#ect matter /a *+%hectare land in 0awa%Talon and 1uintoan, 0alauig,

2ambales3 and related issues.

G.R. No. 1!931is a petition for review of the decision 4+5of the ourt of

Appeals, sustaining the dismissal by the Regional Trial ourt, !ranch -6 at Iba,

2ambales, of a complaint which petitioners had filed for the annulment of the sale

of the land in 7uestion to private respondents. 8n the other hand, G.R. No.

1!:is a petition for review of another decision4*5of the ourt of Appeals,

affirming the e#ectment of petitioners from the land which is the sub#ect of 1.R.

No. +96:+*.

The facts are as follows

0lacido ;iranda and his wife were owners of a parcel of land, consisting of

about *+ hectares, in 0awa%Talon and 1uintoan, 0alauig, 2ambales. ), ?ree 0aten

No. -99+6> /8T No. 0%==:3, covering the land in 7uestion, was issu

Agerico ;irandas daughter, harito. @ince they ac7uired it from ;a(imo ;i

Agerico ;iranda has been in possession and cultivation of the land in behalf

daughter, now a resident of New ersey, , +66+, the heirs of 0lacido ;iranda entered the lan

prevented private respondents from cultivating it, claiming that they wer

rightful owners and possessors because ;a(imo ;iranda was merel

administrator of 0lacido ;irandas estate, and that Agerico ;iranda, as 0rov

Treasurer, caused the preparation of a ta( declaration in which it was ma

appear that ;a(imo ;iranda was the sole owner of the land.

8n anuary *), +66* private respondents brought an action for forcible

in the ;unicipal ircuit Trial ourt of ;asinloc and 0alauig, ;asinloc, 2am

against petitioners. The complaint was dismissed by the court on the groun

it had no #urisdiction over the case, but on appeal the Regional Trial ourt a

2ambales reversed and remanded the case to the ;T.

8n the basis of the parties position papers, the documentary ev

submitted by them and their own pleadings, the

on August 5, +66: rendered #udgment for private respondents, or

petitioners to vacate the land. Its decision was affirmed in toto by the Re

Trial ourt. 0etitioners filed a 0etition for Review in this ourt /1.R. No. ++)

which referred the case to the ourt of Appeals. 8n ?ebruary *), +66

appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the case for lac

merit. 0etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. The

of Appeals decision is sub#ect of the present petition for review on cert

in G.R. No. 1!:.

8n the other hand, petitioners herein filed on une *, +66* a compla

Beclaration of Nullity, Annulment of Title and Beed of @ale and ancellat

Title and Reconveyance with Bamages and 0artition against prespondents. 0etitioners reiterated their contention that the sale of the la

Agerico was fraudulent and therefore void. In addition they contended th

certificate of title issued in the name of Agericos daughter, harito ;iranda

null and void because the latter was dis7ualified from owning lan

the 0hilippines, having become a foreign citiDen. They argued that in any
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn1


2/40

prescription did not set in because actions to declare the ine(istence of an

absolutely simulated contract do not prescribe4:5and that if there was an

applicable period of prescription, it would be four /)3years from November +66+,

when they allegedly discovered the fraud committed against them by private

respondents.

In answer, private respondents alleged that since +6=, they had been in

possession and cultivation of the land, planting it to mango and coconut trees.

After harito ;iranda had gone to the


3/40

Instead of appealing, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari against the trial

courts order of dismissal. The issue in this case is whether the ourt of Appeals

erred in dismissing petitioners action on the ground that certiorari was not the

proper remedy against the order of the trial court. Ee hold that the appellate

court did not err. The correct procedural recourse was appeal not only because,

as already e(plained, the trial court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion

in dismissing petitioners action without the presentation of oral testimonies but

also because the order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners could

have appealed in accordance with Rule )+, *. ertiorari generally lies only when

there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or ade7uate remedy available topetitioners. Fere appeal was available. It was ade7uate to deal with any 7uestion

whether of fact or of law, whether of error of #urisdiction or grave abuse of

discretion or error of #udgment which the trial court might have committed. !ut

petitioners instead filed a special civil action of certiorari.

A party cannot substitute the special civil action of certiorari under Rule - of

the Rules of ourt for the remedy of appeal. The e(istence and availability of the

right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action of

certiorari.4++5As this ourt held in Fajardo v. Bautista:4+*5

1enerally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and

hence a proper sub#ect of appeal, not certiorari. The remedies of appeal and

certiorari are mutually e(clusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly,

although the special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary

appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be

inade7uate, slow, insuffucient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the

in#urious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inade7uate and

ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed

remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioners own neglect

or error in the choice of remedies.

The ourt of Appeals therefore did not err in holding

The remedy of a petition for certiorari is unavailing. This court possesses no

authority to rule upon non%#urisdictional issues in a certiorari proceeding. A writ

of certiorari may issue only when the tribunal has acted without or in e(cess of its

#urisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any

plain, speedy and ade7uate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In G.R. No. 1!:petitioners argue that the use of summary proced

the ;T was improper because there was a 7uestion of ownership involve

a hearing should instead have been held according to regular procedu

support of their claim petitioners cite the following provision of the Rul

@ummary 0rocedure

+. Scope. This Rules shall govern the procedure in the ;etropolitan Trial ou

the ;unicipal Trial ourts, and the ;unicipal circuit Trial ourts in the follow

cases

A. ivil ases

/+3 ases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, e(cept where the 7uestion

ownership is involved, or where the damages or unpaid rentals sought to be

recovered by the plaintiff e(ceed twenty thousand pesos /0*9,999.993 at th

time of the filing of the complaint&

The proceedings below were held, however, pursuant to the Revised Ru

@ummary 0rocedure which tooC effect on November +, +66+, which

provide

+. Scope. % This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the ;etropolita

Trial ourts, the ;unicipal Trial ourts in ities, the ;unicipal Trial ourts, a

the ;unicipal ircuit Trial ourts in the following cases falling within their

#urisdiction

A. Civil Cases:

/+3 All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amou

damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Ehere attorneys fees ar

awarded, the same shall not e(ceed twenty thousand pesos /0*9,999.993.

All e#ectment cases are now covered by the summary procedure regaof whether they involve 7uestions of ownership. 4+:5


4/40

proceeding is re7uired to be summary so as to promote the speedy disposition of

e#ectment cases.4+5

Nor could the pendency of the action for annulment of sale and reconveyance

in the Regional Trial ourt be successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for

unlawful detainer or forcible entry. It is now settled that the court in e#ectment

cases may determine 7uestions of ownership whenever necessary to decide the

7uestions of possession. Nor may petitioners, by filing an action involving the

ownership of the land, frustrate the e#ectment suit, brought by private

respondent. Inferior courts are not divested of #urisdiction over e#ectment cases#ust because the defendants assert ownership over the litigated property.4+-5

Indeed, the only issue in such cases is physical or material possession or

possession de facto, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of

the party litigants. The purpose of the suit is the restoration to the aggrieved

party of the possession of the premises from which he has been forcibly e#ected

or which has been withheld from him, and anyone who can prove prior

possession de facto may recover such possession. This rule holds true regardless

of the character of a partys possession, provided that he has in his favor priority

of time which entitles him to stay on the property until he is lawfully e#ected.4+=5

W"#R#'&R#, the petitions for review in these cases are BI@;I@@GB and

the decisions of the ourt of Appeals are A??IR;GB.

*. 0roper @ervice of papers and #udgmentase- N5 s $ntestae "eis of de Gu,which affirmed the denial of petitioners motion to dismiss.Respondent 1ina de 1uDman obtained a 0:99,999.99 loan from petitioner,0hilippine National !anC, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel ofland registered in her name. 1ina ac7uired the property from her father,?rancisco de 1uDman, through a Beed of Absolute @ale dated August *>,

+6=>. 1inas sister, Rosalia de 1uDman, the beneficiary of the family standing on the said lot, gave her consent to the mortgage.ater, Rosalia filed a omplaint for Beclaration of Nullity of Bocuancellation of Title, Reconveyance, ancellation of ;ortgage,Bamages4)5against 1ina and petitioner, alleging that the purported sale property by ?rancisco to 1ina was fraudulent. The omplaintthen amended to replace respondent Intestate Gstate of ?rancisco de 1uas plaintiff.45

8n anuary *+, +666, the Regional Trial ourt /RT3 dismissed the cas

to plaintiffs failure to comply with its order to pay the legal fees so thasummons could be served, thusA review of the records discloses that the plaintiffs failed to comply,despite due notice, with the order of this court dated November +=,+66>, as indicated in the registry return cards addressed to plaintiffRosalia de 1uDman%0oyaoan and her counsel as attached at the dorsalside of said order.EFGRG?8RG, this court is constrained to dismiss this case on theground that plaintiffs failed to comply with the aforementioned orderto pay legal fees to the lerC of ourt within five /3 days from receiptof the order so that an alias summons can be served by the sheriff ofthis court to defendant 1ina de 1uDman at her new address in ;etro;anila, in consonance with @ection :, Rule += of the +66= Rules ofivil 0rocedure.@8 8RBGRGB.4-5

No appeal was taCen from this order& hence, the dismissal became finae(ecutory.Thereafter, on April ++, *999, respondent Intestate Gstate filed anomplaint,4=5also for Beclaration of Nullity of Bocuments, ancellation oReconveyance, ancellation of ;ortgage, and Bamages, against 1inpetitioner, with essentially the same allegations as the former omplaint8n une +, *999, petitioner filed a ;otion to Bismiss4>5on the ground

judicata, alleging that the omplaint is barred by prior #udgment. 8rder465dated 8ctober *, *999, the RT denied the motion. The courtthat, since there was no determination of the merits of the first casfiling of the second omplaint was not barred by res judicata. It also helcourts should not be unduly strict in cases involving procedural lapses thnot really impair the proper administration of #ustice.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn10


5/40

8n 8ctober *, *999, petitioner filed a @econd ;otion to Bismiss4+95on theground of forum shopping. 0etitioner argued that respondent Intestate Gstateviolated the rule against forum%shopping when it filed the omplaint despiteCnowing that a similar omplaint had been previously dismissed by the court.The RT, in an 8rder4++5dated ;arch +:, *99+, denied the motion for lacC ofmerit, and petitioner was directed to file its answer within five days. The courtsaid that there was forum%shopping if a final #udgment in one case wouldamount to res judicatain another case, and since it had already ruled in itsprevious order that the dismissal of the first complaint did not constitute resjudicata, respondents were not guilty of forum%shopping.

0etitioner filed another ;otion to Bismiss, raising the same ground, which wasdenied by the RT in an 8rder dated ;ay :+, *99+.4+*5

0etitioner then filed an 8mnibus ;otion for Reconsideration 4+:5of the threeRT 8rders, this time, raising the following grounds /a3 res judicata& /b3forum%shopping& /c3 lacC of #urisdiction over the person& and /d3 complaintstates no cause of action.8n anuary +, *99*, the RT denied the omnibus motion for lacC of meritand gave petitioner five days within which to file its answer. The court heldthat the motion contained a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the threeearlier ;otions to Bismiss which had already been passed upon by the courtin its three 8rders and which contributed to the undue delay in the dispositionof the case.4+)5

?inally, petitioner filed an Answer4+5to the omplaint on ?ebruary +6, *99*,again raising therein the issue of res judicata. Thereafter, the case was set forpre%trial.Three years later, specifically on ?ebruary +, *99, petitioner filed another;otion to Bismiss4+-5with leave of court, alleging res judicataand forum%shopping.8n 8ctober ), *99, the RT issued an 8rder4+=5denying the ;otion toBismiss, declaringEFGRG?8RG, in view of the foregoing, the ;otion to Bismiss is hereby

BGNIGB.No further ;otion to Bismiss shall be entertained by this ourt. 0artiesare directed to prosecute this case with dispatch.@et the cross%e(amination of plaintiff Rosalia de 1uDman 0oyaoan onNovember +>, *99 at >:9 oclocC in the morning.

@8 8RBGRGB.4+>5

8n November -, *99-, the RT denied petitioners motion for reconsidera0etitioner filed a petition for certiorariwith the A, assailing these 8rde8ctober **, *99=, the A denied the petition, ruling in this wiseEFGRG?8RG, the instant petition is hereby BGNIGB. A8RBIN1H,the assailed 8rders of !ranch =, Regional Trial ourt of @anarlos ity, 0angasinan dated ) 8ctober *99 and - November *99-,respectively, are A??IR;GB.

@8 8RBGRGB.4+65

8n April +), *99>, the A denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.0etitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari,raising the follissuesThe ourt of Appeals erred in holding that an element of res #udicata,i.e., that the disposition of the case must be a #udgment or order onthe merits is absent in the case.The ourt of Appeals erred when it ruled that res #udicata has not setin so as to bar the filing of the second case.The ourt of Appeals erred in holding that the respondent had notviolated the rule against forum%shopping.4*+5

The petition has no merit.The ourt finds insufferable petitioners repeated filing of ;otions to Braising the same ground. In the three previous ;otions to Bismiss and omnibus motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that the presenwas barred by prior #udgment and that there was forum%shoorrespondingly, the issues had been repetitively passed upon and resby the court a quo.

The motions were apparently filed for no other reason than to gain timgamble on a possible change of opinion of the court or the #udge sittithe case. The ;otions to Bismiss were filed in a span of five years, thone having been filed on une +, *999 and the last the sub#ect moti?ebruary +, *99, three years after petitioner filed its answer. In fact,the first ;otion to Bismiss, three #udges had already sat on the casresolved the motions. !y filing these motions, petitioner had disrupte
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn22


6/40

courts deliberation on the merits of the case. This strategy cannot betolerated as it will entail inevitable delay in the disposition of the case.Although the ground stated in the second ;otion to Bismiss was forum%shopping and the subse7uent motions included other grounds, nonetheless,all of these motions raised a similar argumentthat since the dismissal in thefirst case is already final and e(ecutory and there is no reservation made bythe court in its #udgment that the dismissal is without pre#udice, the filing ofthe second case is barred. Therefore, the subse7uent motions, beingreiterations of the first motion, technically partooC of the nature of a motion

for reconsideration of the interlocutory order denying the first ;otion toBismiss.This is not the first time that the ourt disallowed the repetitive filing ofidentical motions against an interlocutory order. In a parallel case, San Juan,Jr. v. Cruz,4**5the ourt acCnowledged that there is actually no ruleprohibiting the filing of apro formamotion against an interlocutory order asthe prohibition applies only to a final resolution or order of the court. Theourt held, nonetheless, that a second motion can be denied on the groundthat it is merely a rehash or a mere reiteration of the grounds and argumentsalready passed upon and resolved by the court.In San Juan, the ourt was also confronted with the 7uestion of when thereglementary period for fi ling a petition for certiorarishall be

recConed. 0etitioner therein filed second and third motions for reconsiderationfrom the interlocutory order and when he filed the petition for certiorari withthe A, he counted the -9%day reglementary period from the notice of denialof his third motion for reconsideration. Fe argued that, since there is no ruleprohibiting the filing of a second or third motion for reconsideration of aninterlocutory order, the -9%day period should be counted from the notice ofdenial of the last motion for reconsideration. Faving declared that the filing ofa second motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates the arguments inthe first motion is sub#ect to denial, the ourt held that the -9%day period forfiling a petition for certiorarishall be recConed from the trial courts denial ofthe first motion for reconsideration, otherwise, indefinite delays will ensue.Applying the ruling in San Juan, the petition for certiorariwas evidently filed

out of time, as its filing was recConed from the denial of the last motion. Thesub#ect ;otion to Bismiss was filed in an attempt to resurrect the remedy of apetition for certiorari, which had been lost long before its filing.In any case, we agree with the As conclusion that the trial court did notcommit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners ;otion to Bismiss.Fowever, we do not agree that the #udgment of dismissal in the first case was

not on the merits. A ruling on a motion to dismiss, issued without trial omerits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a #udgment omerits.4*:5@ection :4*)5of Rule += of the Rules of ourt is e(plicit tdismissal for failure to comply with an order of the court shall have the of an ad#udication upon the merits. In other words, unless the court that the dismissal is without pre#udice, the dismissal should be understoan ad#udication on the merits and is with pre#udice.4*5

Nonetheless, bearing in mind the circumstances obtaining in this cashold that res judicatashould not be applied as it would not serve the in

of substantial #ustice. 0roceedings on the case had already been delaypetitioner, and it is only fair that the case be allowed to proceed aresolved on the merits. Indeed, we have held that res judicata is disregarded if its rigid application would involve the sacrifice of #usttechnicality,4*-5particularly in this case where there was actualdetermination of the substantive issues in the first case and what is at is respondents home.W"#R#'&R#,premises considered, the petition is +#N$#+. The oAppeals Becision dated 8ctober **, *99= and Resolution dated April +),are*''$R)#+. osts against petitioner. The trial court is +$R#proceed with the trial of the case, and to resolve the same with dispatch

3. "o= to onstue a teaty; disissalase- Repu>li s. +ia 0etition for Review on ertiorari filed

petitioner under Rule ) of the Rules of ourt, which assails the + 8ctober *

8rder and * anuary *99> Resolution of the @andiganbayan /@econd Bivisi

The facts in this case are not disputed.

8n *: uly +6>=, the Republic of the 0hilippines /Republic3, represented by

0residential ommission on 1ood 1overnment /0113 and the 8ffice of the

@olicitor 1eneral /8@13, filed a omplaint against respondents. BocCeted as

ase No. 99+), this civil action sought the recovery of ill%gotten wealth from

respondents for the benefit of the Republic. Allegedly, these properties were

illegally obtained during the reign of former 0resident ?erdinand G. ;arcos a

hence, were the sub#ect of se7uestration orders.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/182507.htm#_ftn27


7/40

Thereafter, ivil ase No. 99+) went through a series of inclusions of individual

defendants and defendant corporations. As a result, respondents finished filing

their separate Answers eight years later, or in +66.

In ;ay +66-, some of the defendant corporations filed motions for dismissal. @i(

years thereafter, the @andiganbayan resolved the motions. It ruled in favor of

defendant corporations and lifted the se7uestration orders against them.*

Aggrieved, the Republic filed a 0etition for ertiorari:before this

ourt on *: August *99*. BocCeted as 1.R. No. +)-9,)the Rule - petition

7uestioned the lifting of the se7uestration orders against defendant corporations.

Eith these two cases at bay, the counsels for the Republic divided their

responsibilities as follows @pecial 011 ounsel ;aria ?lora A. ?alcon /?alcon3

attended to ivil ase No. 99+), while 8@1 @enior @tate @olicitor BereC R.

0uertollano /0uertollano3 handled 1.R. No. +)-9.

After receiving the Answers, the @andiganbayan scheduled pretrial dates for ivil

ase No. 99+). Fowever, the court failed to conduct pretrial hearings from *99*

to *99=. ?or five years, it reset the hearings in view of the pending incidents,

which included 1.R. No. +)-9, and because the case "was not yet ripe for a

pretrial conference."

8n *> une *99=, ivil ase No. 99+) was called for the initial presentation of

plaintiffs evidence, but the proceedings did not push through. ?inally, two

decades after the inception of the case, both parties moved to set the pretrial and

trial hearings on +, *, *6, and :9 8ctober *99=. The @andiganbayan granted

their motions in this wise-

Ehen this case was called for initial presentation of plaintiffs evidence, both

parties moved for postponement, and considering some issues still pending with

the @upreme ourt, but considering also on the other hand, that this case has

been pending for 7uite a long time, the ourt orders parties to submit oint

@tipulation of ?acts, as well as substitution of parties, and by the ne(t hearing,

the ourt shall proceed to hear this case.

Accordingly, the hearing set for tomorrow is cancelled, and reset to 8ctober

*6 J :9, *99=, all at +:9 oclocC in the afternoon.

@8 8RBGRGB.

?ollowing this Resolution, the defendants moved for the e(tension of the

submission of these re7uirements. Nevertheless, none of them fully complie

e(cept petitioner who submitted an "unofficial proposal for stipulation, for

defendants to comment on the same."=

In the interim, the contract of ?alcon with the 011 terminated on + uly

*99=.>Through a letter dated *+ @eptember *99=, she informed 0uertollano

she was no longer connected with the 011. @he also turned over to him th

records of ivil ase No. 99+).6Fowever, 0uertollano belatedly received the

on > 8ctober *99=. ?or all he Cnew, ?alcon had attended the hearings prior

that date, while he was pursuing 1.R. No. +)-9.

Thus, on + 8ctober *99=, no representative appeared on behalf of petitione

onse7uently, the @andiganbayan issued its + 8ctober *99= 8rder dismissin

case without pre#udice. The court ruled thus+9

8n motion of Atty. Nini 0riscilla B. @ison%edesma for the dismissal of this ca

since plaintiffs counsel failed to appear despite due notice and there was no

representative from the plaintiff, this case is ordered BI@;I@@GB without

pre#udice. The issue of whether the pending incident before the @upreme o

would affect this case is off tangent.

Accordingly, the hearings set tomorrow, 8ctober *, *99=, and also on 8ctob

and :9, *99= are cancelled.

@8 8RBGRGB.

8n 8ctober *99=, Atty. ;ary harlene FernandeD tooC over the case from

011s previous special counsel++and only after a while did she learn of the

dates. @he also Cnew nothing about the dismissal of the case. Fence, she

proceeded to file an


8/40

The 8@1 came to Cnow of the dismissal of ivil ase No. 99+) only when it

received the assailed 8rder on + November *99=. 8n *6 November *99=, it filed

a ;otion for Reconsideration+:with a notice for hearing on = Becember *99=.

This motion was served on the @andiganbayan and respondents on *6 November

*99= via registered mail.+) Resolution denying it on the ground of failure to observe the three%

day notice re7uirement.+-In effect, it considered the motion as a worthless pieceof paper. Eith this instant dismissal, the @andiganbayan no longer considered the

reasons adduced by petitioner to e(plain the latters absence in court.

@pecifically, petitioner brought to the @andiganbayans attention the fact that

?alcon, who was assigned to ivil ase No. 99+), had dil igently attended to the

civil action. !ut since she was no longer connected to the 011, and given that

the 8@1 only learned of this circumstance seven days after the hearing on +

8ctober *99=, counsels for petitioner failed to appear during the hearing.+=

Fence, petitioner comes before this ourt to seeC the reinstatement of the *-%

year%old case, which has already reached the start of the trial stage.

0etitioner argues that its single incidence of absence after ?alcon resigned on +

8ctober *99= does not amount to failure to prosecute under Rule +=, @ection : of

the Rules of ourt, which states

@ec. :. Bismissal due to fault of plaintiff.

If, for no #ustifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the

presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action

for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of

the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon

the courts own motion, without pre#udice to the right of the defendant to

prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal

shall have the effect of an ad#udication upon the merits, unless otherwise

declared by the court.

0etitioner further avers that the ;otion for Reconsideration 7uestioning the

dismissal of ivil ase No. 99+) should not have been denied for supposedly

violating the three%day notice re7uirement. Rule +, @ection ) of the Rules o

ourt, reads

@ec. ). Fearing of motion.

G(cept for motions which the court may act upon without pre#udicing the rig

the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the appli

Gvery written motion re7uired to be heard and the notice of the hearing the

shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party

least three /:3 days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good ca

sets the hearing on shorter notice.

Therefore, this ourt is tasCed to resolve the two issues raised by petitioner

follows

I. Ehether the @andiganbayan gravely erred in dismissing ivil ase

99+) for the failure of petitioner to appear during the + 8ctober *99=

hearing.

II. Ehether the @andiganbayan committed reversible error in denyin

;otion for Reconsideration on the ground that it failed to comply with

three%day notice rule.

R


9/40

0etitioner also advances the argument that this ourt disfavors #udgments based

on non%suits and prefers those based on the merits % especially in ivil ase No.

99+), which contains allegations of ill%gotten wealth. ;oreover, petitioner claims

that reasonable deferments may be tolerated if they would not cause substantial

pre#udice to any party.

astly, petitioner manifests good reasons to e(pect the cancellation of the +

8ctober *99= hearing, as in the past resetting. At that time, the same

circumstances for postponement were present /+3 1.R. No. +)-9 was still

pending before this ourt& /*3 several incidents+>were also still pending& and /:3no pretrial order has yet been issued by the @andiganbayan.

8n the other hand, in their omments,+6respondents stress the letter of the law.

Indeed, Rule +=, @ection : of the Rules of ourt, provides that complaints may be

dismissed if a petitioner fails to be present on the date of presentation of its

evidence in chief.

Additionally, respondents contend that no #ustifiable cause e(ists to warrant

petitioners absence. To support their contention, they cite the following /+3

?alcon agreed to set the hearing on + 8ctober *99=& and /*3 0uertollano should

have attended the pretrial even if ?alcon failed to appear considering that, as

counsels for petitioner, both of them had been notified of the orders and

resolutions of the @andiganbayan.

Respondents also highlight the fact that the 011 and the 8@1 failed to monitor

the proceedings when they filed a ;otion for Reconsideration only after +) days

from the 8@1s receipt of the assailed 8rder of dismissal. Eorse, the counsels of

the Republic did not even inform the court beforehand of the reason for their

absence. !ecause of these circumstances, respondents posit that the

@andiganbayan did not gravely err in dismissing ivil ase No. 99+).

This ourt rules in favor of the Republic.

As worded, Rule +=, @ection : of the Rules of ourt, provides that the court may

dismiss a complaint in case there are no #ustifiable reasons that e(plain the

plaintiffs absence during the presentation of the evidence in chief. 1enerally

speaCing, the use of "may" denotes its directory nature,*9especially if used in

remedial statutes that are Cnown to be construed liberally. Thus, the word "

in Rule +=, @ection : of the Rules of ourt, operates to confer on

the court the discretion*+to decide between the dismissal of the case on

technicality vis%K%vis the progressive prosecution thereof.

1iven the connotation of this procedural rule, it would have been e(pected t

the @andiganbayan would looC into the body of cases that interpret the prov

?rom #urisprudence, it is inevitable to see that the real test of the e(ercise o

discretion is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is charged with wof due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.**In fact,

have ruled that there is an abuse of that discretion when a #udge dismisses

case without any showing that the partys conduct "is so indifferent,

irresponsible, contumacious or slothful."*:

Fere, the @andiganbayan appears to have limited itself to a rigid application

technical rules without applying the real test e(plained above. The + 8ctobe

*99= 8rder was bereft of any e(planation alluding to the indifference and

irresponsibility of petitioner. The 8rder was also silent on any previous act o

petitioner that can be characteriDed as contumacious or slothful.

Lerily, the circumstances in ivil ase No. 99+) should have readily convince

@andiganbayan that it would be farfetched to conclude that petitioner lacCed

interest in prosecuting the latters claims.

?irstly, based on the records, petitioners counsels have actively participated

the case for two decades. The @andiganbayan has not made any remarC

regarding the attendance of petitioner, save for this single instance. @econd

after the latter received the assailed 8rder, it duly filed a ;otion for

Reconsideration. These circumstances should have easily persuaded the

@andiganbayan that the Republic intended to advance the ill%gotten wealth c

;ore importantly, respondents imputation of lacC of interest to prosecute on

part of petitioner becomes a hyperbole in the face of its e(planation, albeit

belated.

Respondents harp on the fact that since ?alcon agreed to set the hearing on

8ctober *99= and 0uertollano, being a counsel of record, may have also Cno
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt23


10/40

the schedule, petitioner has no e(cuse to be absent. !ut even if we concede to

respondents arguments, the most that they can say is that petitioner had an

instance of absence without an e(cuse. u(taposing this lapse against its long

history of actively prosecuting the case, it would be the height of rigidity to

re7uire from petitioner complete attendance, at all times.

@imilarly, in 0ereD v. 0ereD, we held thus*)

The records show that every time the case was set for hearing, the plaintiffs and

their counsel had always been present& however, the scheduled hearings wereeither cancelled by the court motu propio andMor postponed by agreement of the

parties, until the case was eventually set for trial on the merits on ?ebruary +,

+6-=. It was only at this hearing where the plaintiffs and their counsel failed to

appear, prompting the court to issue its controversial order of dismissal.

onsidering that it was the first time that the plaintiffs failed to appear and the

added fact that the trial on the merits had not as yet commenced, Ee believe

that it would have been more in consonance with the essence of #ustice and

fairness for the court to have postponed the hearing on ?ebruary +, +6-=.

Ee are not unmindful of the fact that the matter of ad#ournment and

postponement of trials is within the sound discretion of the court& but such

discretion should always be predicated on the consideration that more than themere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of #ustice

and fairness should be served thereby. 0ostponements and continuances are part

and parcel of our procedural system of dispensing #ustice, and when % as in the

present case % no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not

manifest, it is sound #udicial discretion to allow them.

This ourt further considers that based on the records, the contract of the

handling lawyer, ?alcon, with the 011 terminated without the Cnowledge of

0uertollano. After ?alcons resignation, it was only on 8ctober *99= that the

case was transferred to the new lawyer. These facts then e(plain the

nonattendance of petitioner on + 8ctober *99=, and why it failed to Ceep abreast

with the succeeding *, *6, and :9 8ctober *99= hearings.

;oreover, this ourt understands the absence of 0uertollano in ivil ase No.

99+). The 8@1 has e(plained that he attends to 1.R. +)-9, as the main case

has been delegated to the 011. Ee find this arrangement sensible, given that

case management is needed to tacCle this sensitive case involving a number

high%profile parties, sensitive issues and, of course, numerous offshoots and

incidents.

Respondents are correct in saying that courts have a right to dismiss a case

failure of the plaintiff to prosecute. @till, we remind #ustices, #udges and litig

aliCe that rules "should be interpreted and applied not in a vacuum or in iso

abstraction, but in light of surrounding circumstances and attendant facts in

to afford #ustice to all."*

Ee underscore that there are specific rules that are liberally construed, and

among them is the Rules of ourt. In fact, no less than Rule +, @ection - of

Rules of ourt echoes that the rationale behind this construction is to promo

the ob#ective of securing a #ust, speedy and ine(pensive disposition of every

action and proceeding. @urprisingly, the @andiganbayan obviated the speedy

disposition of the case when it chose to dismiss the case spanning two deca

over a technicality and, in the same breath, rationaliDed its cavalier attitude

saying that a complaint for ill%gotten wealth should be reinstituted all over a

Fere, we find it incongruous to tip the balance of the scale in favor of a

technicality that would result in a complete restart of the *-%year%old civil ca

bacC to s7uare one. @urely, this ourt cannot waste the progress of the civilfrom the institution of the complaint to the point of reaching the trial stage.

only would this stance dry up the resources of the government and the priva

parties, but it would also compromise the preservation of the evidence need

them to move forward with their respective cases. Thus, to prevent a miscar

of #ustice in its truest sense, and considering the e(ceptional and special his

of ivil ase No. 99+), this ourt applies a liberal construction of the Rules o

ourt.1p!i1

Gvery party%litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper

#ust determination of its cause.*-"Adventitious resort to technicality resulting

the dismissal of cases is disfavored because litigations must as much as pos

be decided on the merits and not on technicalities."*=Inconsiderate dismissa

even if without pre#udice to its refiling as in this case, merely postpone the

ultimate recConing between the parties. In the absence of a clear intention t

delay, #ustice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and

disposition of the case before the court.*>
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt28


11/40

Benial of 0etitioners ;otion for Reconsideration due to 0etitioners ?ailure to

8bserve the Three%day Notice Rule

In its assailed * anuary *99> Resolution, the @andiganbayan held that

petitioners failed to comply with the three%day notice rule. It faulted petitioner for

its belated receipt on + 9 Becember *99= of the ;otion for Reconsideration set

for hearing on = Becember *99=.

The @andiganbayan is incorrect. !y the very words of Rule +, @ection ) of the

Rules of ourt, the moving party is re7uired to serve motions in such a manneras to ensure the receipt thereof by the other party at least three days before the

date of hearing. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a surprise and to afford the

adverse party a chance to be heard before the motion is resolved by the trial

court.*60lainly, the rule does not re7uire that the court receive the notice three

days prior to the hearing date.

iCewise, petitioner mailed the motion to the @andiganbayan on *6 November

*99=. @ince Rule +:, @ection : of the Rules of ourt, states that the date of the

mailing of motions through registered mail shall be considered the date of their

filing in court, it follows that petitioner filed the motion to the court +9 days in

advance of the hearing date. In so doing, it observed the +9%day re7uirement

under Rule +, @ection of the Rules of ourt, which provides that the time anddate of the hearing must not be later than ten days after the filing of the motion.

onsidering that the ;otion for Reconsideration containing a timely notice of

hearing was duly served in compliance with Rule +, @ections ) and of the

Rules of ourt, the fact that the @andiganbayan received the notice on +9

Becember *99= becomes trivial. The court cannot also blame petitioner for this

belated receipt of the registered mail since it followed the rules.

Therefore, the @andiganbayan should have given due course to the ;otion for

Reconsideration filed by petitioner. If it had done so, ivil ase No. 99+) would

have progressed at the trial court level.

IN LIGE TFGRG8?, the ++ ;arch *99> 0etition for Review on ertiorari filed by

petitioner is 1RANTGB. The + 8ctober *99= 8rder and * anuary *99>

Resolution of the @andiganbayan /@econd Bivision3 are RGLGR@GB. onse7uently,

ivil ase No. 99+) is hereby RGIN@TATGB.

ase %&(%#% @$#N# A( *N+ +#)#R$* /##A(, "etitione"$/$$N# &))#R$*/ $N#RN*$&N*/ 5*NB, #espondent.!efore the ourt is a 0etition for Review on ertiorari of the Becision+dated

November +), *999 of the ourt of Appeals /A3 in A%1.R. @0 No. >6>* a

the A Resolution dated April *-, *99+, which denied petitioners ;otion for

Reconsideration.

The factual bacCground of the case is as follows

with the 8ffice of the lerC of o

and G(%8fficio @heriff of the Regional Trial ourt of Bagupan ity a 0etition f

G(tra%udicial ?oreclosure of Real Gstate ;ortgage on the Bagupan ity

properties.-

8n August :, +66>, the ity @heriff issued a Notice of G(tra%ud@ale scheduling the auction sale on @eptember +9, +66> at +999 oclocC in

morning or soon thereafter in front of the ustice Fall, !onuan, Tondaligan,

Bagupan ity.=

At the auction sale on @eptember +9, +66>, respondent emerged as the hig

bidder.>8n @eptember +), +66>, a ertificate of @ale was issued in favor of

respondent.68n 8ctober +, +66>, the sale was registered with the Registry

Beeds of Bagupan ity.

About two months before the e(piration of the redemption period, or on Aug

*9, +666, respondent filed an G(%0arte 0etition for Erit of 0ossession before

Regional Trial ourt of Bagupan ity, docCeted as @pecial 0roceeding No. 66996>>%B and raffled to !ranch ): /RT !ranch ):3.+9Fearing was conducte

@eptember +), +666 and respondent presented its evidence e(%parte.++The

testimony of Rodante ;anuel was admitted e(%parte and thereafter the petit

was deemed submitted for resolution.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_181458_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt11


12/40

8n @eptember :9, +666, petitioners filed a ;otion to Bismiss and to @triCe 8ut

Testimony of Rodante ;anuel stating that the ertificate of @ale dated @eptember

+), +66> is void because respondent violated Article *9>6 of the ivil ode on

the indivisibility of the mortgaged by conducting two separate foreclosure

proceedings on the mortgage properties in Bagupan ity and ueDon ity and

indicating in the two notices of e(tra%#udicial sale that petitioners obligation

is 0+9,):=,9+.*9+*as of ;arch :+, +66>, when petitioners are not indebted for

the total amount of 0*9,>=),9:+.-.+:

In the meantime, petitioners filed a complaint for Annulment of ertificate of @alebefore the Regional Trial ourt of Bagupan ity, docCeted as ivil ase No. 66%

9:+-6%B and raffled to !ranch )) /RT !ranch ))3.

8n ?ebruary +), *999, RT !ranch ): denied petitioners ;otion to Bismiss and

to @triCe 8ut Testimony of Rodante ;anuel, ruling that the filing of a motion to

dismiss is not allowed in petitions for issuance of writ of possession under @ection

= of Act No. :+:.+)

8n ?ebruary *), *999, petitioners filed a ;otion for Reconsideration, further

arguing that the pendency of ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B in RT !ranch )) is a

pre#udicial issue to @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B in RT !ranch ):, the resolution

of which is determinative on the propriety of the issuance of a writ ofpossession.+

8n ;ay >, *999, RT !ranch ): denied petitioners ;otion for Reconsideration,

holding that the principle of pre#udicial 7uestion is not applicable because the

case pending before RT !ranch )) is also a civil case and not a criminal case.+-

8n une +, *999, petitioners filed a 0etition for ertiorari with the A.+=8n

November +), *999, the A dismissed petitioners 0etition for ertiorari on the

grounds that petitioners violated @ection > of Act No. :+: and disregarded the

rule against multiplicity of suits in filing ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B in RT !ranch

)) despite full Cnowledge of the pendency of @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B in RT

!ranch ):& that since the one%year period of redemption has already lapsed, the

issuance of a writ of possession in favor of respondent becomes a ministerial duty

of the trial court& that the issues in ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B are not pre#udicial

7uestions to @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B because /a3 the special proceeding is

already fait accompli, /b3 ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B is deemed not filed for being

contrary to @ection > of Act No. :+:, /c3 the filing of ivil ase No. 66%9:+

is an afterthought and dilatory in nature, and /d3 legally speaCing what seem

e(ist is litis pendentia and not pre#udicial 7uestion.+>

0etitioners filed a ;otion for Reconsideration+6but it was denied by the A o

April *-, *99+.*9

Fence, the present 0etition for Review on ertiorari.

0etitioners pose two issues for resolution, to wit

A. Ehether or not a real estate mortgage over several properties loc

in different locality 4sic5 can be separately foreclosed in different plac

!. Ehether or not the pendency of a pre#udicial issue renders the iss

@pecial 0roceedings No. 66%996>>%B as 4sic5 moot and academic. *+

Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that since a real estate mortgage i

indivisible, the mortgaged properties in Bagupan ity and ueDon ity cann

separately foreclosed. 0etitioners further point out that two notices of e(tra%

#udicial sale indicated that petitioners obligation is 0+9,):=,9+.*9**each a

;arch :+, +66> or a total of0*9,>=),9:9.)9,*:yet their own computation yieonly 06,6=,9>.69 as of ?ebruary *=, +66>.

As to the second issue, petitioners posit that the pendency of ivil ase No.

9:+-6%B is a pre#udicial issue, the resolution of which will render the issues

@pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B moot and academic. 0etitioners further aver tha

they did not violate @ection > of Act No. :+: in filing a separate case to an

the certificate of sale since the use of the word "may" in said provision indic

that they have the option to seeC relief of filing a petition to annul the certif

of sale in the proceeding involving the application for a writ of possession or

separate proceeding.

Respondent contends*)that, with respect to the first issue, the filing of two

separate foreclosure proceedings did not violate Article *9>6 of the ivil od

the indivisibility of a real estate mortgage since @ection * of Act No. :+:

e(pressly provides that e(tra%#udicial foreclosure may only be made in the

province or municipality where the property is situated. Respondent further
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt24


13/40

submits that the filing of separate applications for e(tra%#udicial foreclosure of

mortgage involving several properties in different locations is allowed by A.;. No.

66%+9%9%9, the 0rocedure on G(tra%udicial ?oreclosure of ;ortgage, as further

amended on August =, *99+.

As to the second issue, respondent maintains that there is no pre#udicial 7uestion

between ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B and @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B since the

pendency of a civil action 7uestioning the validity of the mortgage and the e(tra%

#udicial foreclosure thereof does not bar the issuance of a writ of possession.

Respondent also insists that petitioners should have filed their 0etition to Annulthe ertificate of @ale in the same case where possession is being sought, that is,

in @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B, and not in a separate proceeding /ivil ase No.

66%9+:-6%B3 because the venue of the action to 7uestion the validity of the

foreclosure is not discretionary since the use of the word "may" in @ection > of

Act No. :+: refers to the fil ing of the petition or action itself and not to the

venue. Respondent further argues that even if petitioners filed the 0etition to

Annul the ertificate of @ale in @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B, the writ of

possession must still be issued because issuance of the writ in favor of the

purchaser is a ministerial act of the trial court and the one%year period of

redemption has already lapsed.

Anent the first issue, the ourt finds that petitioners have a mistaCen notion thatthe indivisibility of a real estate mortgage relates to the venue of e(tra%#udicial

foreclosure proceedings. The rule on indivisibility of a real estate mortgage is

provided for in Article *9>6 of the ivil ode, which provides

Art. *9>6. A pledge or mortgage is indivisible, even though the debt may be

divided among the successors in interest of the debtor or of the creditor.

Therefore, the debtors heir who has paid a part of the debt cannot asC for the

proportionate e(tinguishment of the pledge or mortgage as the debt is not

completely satisfied.

Neither can the creditors heir who received his share of the debt return the

pledge or cancel the mortgage, to the pre#udice of the other heirs who have not

been paid.

?rom these provisions is e(cepted the case in which, there being several thi

given in mortgage or pledge, each one of them guarantees only a determina

portion of the credit.

The debtor, in this case, shall have a right to the e(tinguishment of the pled

mortgage as the portion of the debt for which each thing is specially answer

is satisfied.

This rule presupposes several heirs of the debtor or creditor*and therefore

applicable to the present case. ?urthermore, what the law proscribes is theforeclosure of only a portion of the property or a number of the several prop

mortgaged corresponding to the unpaid portion of the debt where, before

foreclosure proceedings, partial payment was made by the debtor on his tot

outstanding loan or obligation. This also means that the debtor cannot asC f

release of any portion of the mortgaged property or of one or some of the se

lots mortgaged unless and until the loan thus secured has been fully paid,

notwithstanding the fact that there has been partial fulfillment of the obligat

Fence, it is provided that the debtor who has paid a part of the debt cannot

for the proportionate e(tinguishment of the mortgage as long as the debt is

completely satisfied.*-In essence, indivisibility means that the mortgage

obligation cannot be divided among the different lots,*=that is, each and eve

parcel under mortgage answers for the totality of the debt.*>

8n the other hand, the venue of the e(tra%#udicial foreclosure proceedings is

place where each of the mortgaged property is located, as prescribed by @ec

* of Act No. :+:,*6to wit

@GTI8N *. @aid sale cannot be made legally outside of the province in whic

property sold is situated& and in case the place within said province in which

sale is to be made is sub#ect to stipulation, such sale shall be made in said p

or in the municipal building of the municipality in which the property or part

thereof is situated.

A.;. No. 66%+9%9%9,:9the 0rocedure on G(tra%udicial ?oreclosure of ;ortg

lays down the guidelines for e(tra%#udicial foreclosure proceedings on mortg

properties located in different provinces. It provides that the venue of the e(

#udicial foreclosure proceedings is the place where each of the mortgaged

property is located. Relevant portion thereof provides
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt30


14/40

Ehere the application concerns the e(tra#udicial foreclosure of mortgages of real

estates andMor chattels in different locations covering one indebtedness, only one

filing fee corresponding to such indebtedness shall be collected. The collecting

lerC of ourt shall, apart from the official receipt of the fees, issue a certificate

of payment indicating the amount of indebtedness, the filing fees collected, the

mortgages sought to be foreclosed, the real estates andMor chattels mortgaged

and their respective locations, =hih etifiate shall see the pupose of

haing the appliation doCeted =ith the leCs of out of the plaes

=hee the othe popeties ae loated and of allo=ing the eDtaEudiial

foelosues to poeed theeat. /Gmphasis supplied3

The indivisibility of the real estate mortgage is not violated by conducting two

separate foreclosure proceedings on mortgaged properties located in different

provinces as long as each parcel of land is answerable for the entire debt.

0etitioners assumption that their total obligation is 0*9,>=),9:9.)9 because the

two notices of e(tra%#udicial sale indicated that petitioners obligation

is 0+9,):=,9+.*9:+each, is therefore flawed. onsidering the indivisibility of a

real estate mortgage, the mortgaged properties in Bagupan ity and ueDon ity

are made to answer for the entire debt of 0+9,):=,9+.*6.:*

As to the second issue, that is, whether a civil case for annulment of a certificate

of sale is a pre#udicial 7uestion to a petition for issuance of a writ of possession,this issue is far from novel and, in fact, not without precedence. In 0ahang v.

Lestil,::the ourt said

A pre#udicial 7uestion is one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a

logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cogniDance of which

pertains to another tribunal. It generally comes into play in a situation where a

civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there e(ists in the former

an issue that must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may

proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would

be determinative #uris et de #ure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the

criminal case. The rationale behind the principle of pre#udicial 7uestion is to avoid

two conflicting decisions. 1avvp!$l.net

In the present case, the complaint of the petitioners for Annulment of

G(tra#udicial @ale is a civil action and the respondents petition for the issuance of

a writ of possession of ot No. :%A, !locC +, 0sd%9=%9*+)+9, TT No. ))--> is

but an incident in the land registration case and, therefore, no pre#udicial

7uestion can arise from the e(istence of the two actions. A similar issue was

raised in ;analo v. ourt of Appeals, where we held that

At any rate, it ta(es our imagination why the 7uestions raised in ase No. 6

9>-> must be considered determinative of ase No. 69++. The basic issue in

former is whether the respondent, as the purchaser in the e(tra#udicial

foreclosure proceedings, may be compelled to have the property repurchase

resold to a mortgagors successor%in%interest /petitioner3& while that in the l

is merely whether the respondent, as the purchaser in the e(tra#udicialforeclosure proceedings, is entitled to a writ of possession after the statutor

period for redemption has e(pired. The two cases, assuming both are pendi

can proceed separately and taCe their own direction independent of each oth

In the present case, ivil ase No. 66%9+:-6%B and @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996

are both civil in nature. The issue in ivil ase No. 66%9+:-6%B is whether t

e(tra%#udicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage e(ecuted by the petitio

in favor of the respondent and the sale of their properties at public auction a

null and void, whereas, the issue in @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B is whether

respondent is entitled to a writ of possession of the foreclosed properties.

no pre#udicial 7uestion can arise from the e(istence of the two actions. The

cases can proceed separately and taCe their own direction independently of other.

Nevertheless, there is a need to correct the As view that petitioners violate

@ection > of Act No. :+: and disregarded the proscription on multiplicity of

by instituting a separate civil suit for annulment of the certificate of sale wh

there is a pending petition for issuance of the writ of possession in a special

proceeding.

@ection > of Act No. :+: provides

@ec. >. Settin% aside of sale and rit of possession. O The debtor may, in th

proceedings in which possession was re7uested, but not later than thirty day

after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside

the writ of possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him,

because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accorda

with the provisions hereof, and the court shall taCe cogniDance of this petitio
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt33


15/40

accordance with the summary procedure provided for in section one hundred and

twelve of Act Numbered ?our hundred and ninety%si(& and if it finds the complaint

of the debtor #ustified, it shall dispose in his favor of all or part of the bond

furnished by the person who obtained possession. Gither of the parties may

appeal from the order of the #udge in accordance with section fourteen of Act

Numbered ?our hundred and ninety%si(& but the order of possession shall

continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal. /Gmphasis supplied3

of Act No. :+: is not applicable to the present case since

at the time of the filing of the separate civil suit for annulment of the certificate of

sale in RT !ranch )), no writ of possession was yet issued by RT !ranch ):.

@imilarly, the ourt re#ects the As application of the principle of litis pendentia

to ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B in relation to @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B. &itis

pendentiarefers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the

same parties for the same cause of actions and that the second action becomes

unnecessary and ve(atious. ?or litis pendentiato be invoCed, the concurrence of

the following re7uisites is necessary /a3 identity of parties or at least such as

represent the same interest in both actions& /b3 identity of rights asserted a

reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts& and, /c3 the

identity in the two cases should be such that the #udgment that may be rend

in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata

the other.:>

Applying the foregoing criteria in the instant case, litis pendentiadoes not o

in this case because of the absence of the second and third re7uisites. The

issuance of the writ of possession being a ministerial function, and summar'

nature, it cannot be said to be a #udgment on the merits, but simply an incidin the transfer of title. Fence, a separate case for annulment of mortgage an

foreclosure sale cannot be barred by litis pendentiaor res judicata.:6Thus, in

as @pec. 0roc. No. 66%996>>%B and ivil ase No. 66%9:+-6%B pending befo

different branches of RT Bagupan ity are concerned, there is no litis pend

To sum up, the ourt holds that the rule on indivisibility of the real estate

mortgage cannot be e7uated with the venue of foreclosure proceedings on

mortgaged properties located in different provinces since these are two unre

concepts. Also, no pre#udicial 7uestion can arise from the e(istence of a civi

for annulment of a certificate of sale and a petition for the issuance of a writ

possession in a special proceeding since the two cases are both civil in natu

which can proceed separately and taCe their own direction independently of other.

?urthermore, since the one%year period to redeem the foreclosed properties

lapsed on 8ctober +, +666, title to the foreclosed properties had already bee

consolidated under the name of the respondent. As the owner of the proper

respondent is entitled to its possession as a matter of right.)9The issuance o

writ of possession over the properties by the trial court is merely a ministeri

function. As such, the trial court neither e(ercises its official discretion nor

#udgment.)+Any 7uestion regarding the validity of the mortgage or its forec

cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of

possession.)*Regardless of the pending suit for annulment of the certificate

sale, respondent is entitled to a writ of possession, without pre#udice of cou

the eventual outcome of said case.):

EFGRG?8RG, the petition is +#N$#+.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_147902_2006.html#fnt43


16/40

+igest- %pouses Au s $5

?AT@ 0etitioners Licente Hu and Bemetria ee%Hu mortgaged their title,

interest, and participation over several parcels of land located in Bagupan ity

and ueDon ity, in favor of the 0hilippine ommercial International !anC,

respondent and highest bidder, as security for the payment of a loan.

As petitioners failed to pay the loan and the interest and penalties due thereon,

respondent filed petition for e(tra%#udicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage on

the Bagupan ity properties on uly *+, +66>. ity @heriff issued notice of e(tra%#udicial sale on August :, +66> scheduling the auction sale on @eptember +9,

+66>.

ertificate of @ale was issued on @eptember +), +66> in favor of respondent, the

highest bidder. The sale was registered with the Registry of Beeds in Bagupan

ity on 8ctober +, +66>. After two months before the e(piration of the

redemption period, respondent filed an e(%parte petition for writ of possession

before RT of Bagupan. 0etitioners complaint on annulment of certificate of sale

and motion to dismiss and to striCe out testimony of Rodante ;anuel was denied

by said RT. ;otion for reconsideration was then filed on ?ebruary +), *999

arguing that the complaint on annulment of certificate of sale is a pre#udicialissue to the filed e(%parte petition for writ of possession, the resolution of which

is determinative of propriety of the issuance of a Erit of 0ossession.

I@@y '#RN*N+& %*N$*G&, Respondents.

The constitutional faculty of the ourt to promulgate rules of practice and

procedure+necessarily carries the power to overturn #udicial precedents on p

of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of ourt. 8ne of the no

changes introduced in the +66= Rules of ivil 0rocedure is the e(plicit provis

that if a complaint is dismissed due to fault of the plaintiff, such dismissal is

"without pre#udice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclai

the same or in a separate action."*The innovation was instituted in spite of

previous #urisprudence holding that the fact of the dismissal of the complain

sufficient to #ustify the dismissal as well of the compulsory counterclaim.:

In granting this petition, the ourt recogniDes that the former #urisprudentia

can no longer stand in light of @ection :, Rule += of the +66= Rules of ivil0rocedure.

The relevant facts are simple enough. 0etitioner Gduardo 0inga was named a

one of two defendants in a complaint for in#unction)filed with !ranch *6 of t

Regional Trial ourt /RT3of @an ;iguel, 2amboanga del @ur, by responden

Feirs of 1erman @antiago, represented by ?ernando @antiago. The

omplaint-dated *> ;ay +66> alleged in essence that petitioner and co%

defendant Licente @aavedra had been unlawfully entering the coco lands of

respondent, cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of the coco

trees therein. Respondents prayed that petitioner and @aavedra be en#oined

committing "acts of depredation" on their properties, and ordered to pay

damages.

In their Amended Answer with ounterclaim,=petitioner and his co%defendan

disputed respondents ownership of the properties in 7uestion, asserting tha

petitioners father, Gdmundo 0inga, from whom defendants derived their inte
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt7


17/40

in the properties, had been in possession thereof since the +6:9s.>They alleged

that as far bacC as +6->, respondents had already been ordered e#ected from the

properties after a complaint for forcible entry was filed by the heirs of Gdmundo

0inga. It was further claimed that respondents application for free patent over

the properties was re#ected by the 8ffice of the 0resident in +6=+. Befendants in

turn prayed that owing to respondents forcible re%entry in the properties and the

irresponsible and recCless filing of the case, they be awarded various types of

damages instead in amounts totaling 0*,+99,999 plus costs of suit.6

!y uly of *99, the trial of the case had not yet been completed. ;oreover,respondents, as plaintiffs, had failed to present their evidence. It appears that on

* 8ctober *99), the RT already ordered the dismissal of the complaint after

respondents counsel had sought the postponement of the hearing scheduled

then.+9Fowever, the order of dismissal was subse7uently reconsidered by the

RT in an 8rder dated 6 une *99, which tooC into account the assurance of

respondents counsel that he would give priority to that case.++

At the hearing of *= uly *99, plaintiffs counsel on record failed to appear,

sending in his stead a representative who sought the postponement of the

hearing. ounsel for defendants /who include herein petitioner3 opposed the

move for postponement and moved instead for the dismissal of the case. The RT

noted that it was obvious that respondents had failed to prosecute the case foran unreasonable length of time, in fact not having presented their evidence yet.

8n that ground, the complaint was dismissed. At the same time, the RT allowed

defendants "to present their evidence e(%parte."+*

Respondents filed a ;otion for Reconsideration+:of the order issued in open court

on *= uly *99, opting however not to seeC that their complaint be reinstated,

but praying instead that the entire action be dismissed and petitioner be

disallowed from presenting evidence e()parte. Respondents claimed that the

order of the RT allowing petitioner to present evidence e()partewas not in

accord with established #urisprudence. They cited cases, particularly Cit' of

*anila v. #u'mann+)and +omin%o v. Santos,+which noted those instances in

which a counterclaim could not remain pending for independent ad#udication.

8n 6 August *99, the RT promulgated an order granting respondents ;otion

for Reconsideration and dismissing the counterclaim, citing as the only ground

therefor that "there is no opposition to the ;otion for Reconsideration of the

4respondents5."+-0etitioner filed a ;otion for Reconsideration, but the same

denied by the RT in an 8rder dated +9 8ctober *99.+=Notably, responden

filed an 8pposition to Befendants is that "compulsory

counterclaims cannot be ad#udicated independently of plaintiffs cause of act

and "a conversu, the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal

compulsory counterclaims."+6

The matter was elevated to this ourt directly by way of a 0etition for Revie

under Rule ) on a pure 7uestion of law, the most relevant being whether thdismissal of the complaint necessarily carries the dismissal of the compulsor

counterclaim.

Ee hold that under @ection :, Rule += of the +66= Rules of ivil 0rocedure,

dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily ca

with it the dismissal of the counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In fact, t

dismissal of the complaint is without pre#udice to the right of defendants to

prosecute the counterclaim.

8n a prefatory note, the RT, in dismissing the counterclaim, did not e(pres

adopt respondents argument that the dismissal of their complaint e(tended

well to the counterclaim. Instead, the RT #ustified the dismissal of thecounterclaim on the ground that "there is no opposition to 4plaintiffs5 ;otio

Reconsideration 4seeCing the dismissal of the counterclaim5."*9This e(plana

hollow, considering that there is no mandatory rule re7uiring that an opposit

be filed to a motion for reconsideration without need for a court order to tha

effect& and, as posited by petitioner, the "failure to file an opposition to the

0laintiffs ;otion for Reconsideration is definitely not one among the establis

grounds for dismissal 4of the counterclaim5."*+@till, the dismissal of the

counterclaim by the RT betrays at very least a tacit recognition of responde

argument that the counterclaim did not survive the dismissal of the complai

most, the dismissal of the counterclaim over the ob#ection of the defendant

/herein petitioner3 on grounds other than the merits of the counterclaim, de

the provisions under Rule += of the +66= Rules of ivil 0rocedure, constitutedebatable 7uestion of law, presently meriting #usticiability through the instan

action. Indeed, in reviewing the assailed orders of the RT, it is inevitable th

the ourt consider whether the dismissal of the complaint, upon motion of t
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_170354_2006.html#fnt21


18/40

defendant, on the ground of the failure to prosecute on plaintiffs part precipitates

or carries with it the dismissal of the pending counterclaims.

8ur core discussion begins with @ection :, Rule += of the +66= Rules of ivil

0rocedure, which states

@G. :. Bismissal due to fault of plaintiff.QIf, for no #ustifiable cause, the plaintiff

fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the

complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to

comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may bedismissed upon motion of defendant or upon the courts own motion, without

pre#udice to the right of the defenda

Documents

Civil Prod Midterms