Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > July 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40403 July 31, 1975 - RUPERTA CONSTANTINO v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40403. July 31, 1975.]

RUPERTA CONSTANTINO, Petitioner, v. HON. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ormoc City; NUMERIANO SADIA, married to ESPERANZA NICANOR and VALENTIN DULCE married to ELVIRA DULCE, Respondents.

Jose M. Maderazo for Petitioner.

Pablo P. Garcia for Respondents.

Valentin Dulce for himself & his wife.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner, as sole heir, sought the transfer of the title to a parcel of land. She discovered that the property had been the subject of a simulated extrajudicial partition and was later sold to respondents. Thus, she filed an action for the annulment of documents, cancellation of the transfer certificate of title and recovery of the land, with damages. Respondent judge, without receiving evidence on disputed factual matters, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action had already prescribed. Hence, this appeal by certiorari.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court, ruling that since the cause of action was premised on the claim that the deed of extrajudicial settlement was purely simulated, void, and of no effect, the same does not prescribe in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the Court held, where there are factual matters in dispute which need presentation and appreciation of evidence, summary or outright dismissal of the action is not proper.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTION; ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF SIMULATED/VOID CONTRACT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE. — It is not proper to dismiss a case where the case of action is premised on a claim that the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate of deceased person is purely simulated, void, and of no effect and that the deeds of sale of the property are likewise "illegal," "done in bad faith," and "null and void ab initio," because the right transferred by such deeds were derived from the contested deed of extrajudicial settlement.

2. ID.; ID.; REASON. — Article 1409(2) of the Civil Code provides that contracts absolutely simulated or fictitious are inexistent and void from the beginning, and Article 1410 of the same Code states that the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

3. ID.; DISMISSAL NOT PROPER WHERE THERE ARE FACTUAL MATTERS IN DISPUTE. — Summary or outright dismissals of actions are not proper where are factual matters in dispute which need presentation and appreciation of evidence. The demands of fair, impartial, and wise administration of justice call for a faithful adherence to legal precepts on procedure which ensure to litigants the opportunity to present their evidence and secure a ruling on all the issues presented in their respective pleadings. "Short cuts" in judicial processes are to be avoided where they impede rather than promote a judicious dispensation of justice.


D E C I S I O N


MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:


Submitted for resolution in this Petition for Review 1 is the sole question whether or not respondent Judge, Hon. Numeriano C. Estenzo, Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch V, erred and gravely abused his discretion when he dismissed petitioner’s complaint in Civil Case No. 1359-O, entitled: "Ruperta Constantino v. Numeriano Sadia, Et. Al." on Motion to Dismiss on grounds of prescription, without benefit of a trial on the merits.

On July 17, 1974, petitioner herein filed a complaint against spouses Numeriano Sadia and Esperanza Nicanor and spouses Valentin and Elvira Dulce, for "Annulment of documents, cancellation of transfer of certificate of title, and recovery of real property with damages." The complaint alleged inter alia the following: plaintiff, now petitioner, is the sole surviving legal heir of spouses Dionisia Caberos and Martin Constantino being the legitimate daughter of the latter. During the lifetime of petitioner’s parents they acquired an agricultural land with improvements located in Barrio Aguiting, Ormoc (now Kananga, Leyte) with an area of 182,888 square meters more or less for which O.C.T. No. 35984 was issued in their names and which was subsequently reconstituted as O.C.T. No. RO-102. Sometime in August, 1970 petitioner went to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Leyte for the purpose of seeking the transfer of the title of the property to her name and to her surprise she discovered that O.C.T. No. RO-102 (35984) had been cancelled by virtue of a deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition dated June 15, 1959, executed by Elpidio Adolfo, Norberta Caberos, and Florentina Caberos, who claimed to be the sole heirs of the registered owners. There was also another document whereby one-half of the property was sold to Numeriano Sadia while the other half was sold to Elpidio Adolfo, and by virtue of those transactions O.C.T. RO-102 was cancelled and transfer certificate of title T-2337 was issued in favor of Numeriano Sadia married to Esperanza Nicanor to the extent of one-half of the property, and to Elpidio Adolfo married to Agustina Salido, as regards the other half. Petitioner likewise found out that the one-half portion allegedly belonging to Elpidio Adolfo was sold by the latter to spouses Valentin and Elvira Dulce by virtue of which T.C.T. No. T-2338 was cancelled and in lieu thereof T.C.T. No. 3722 was issued on December 13, 1962, in favor of spouses Dulce, one-half share, and to spouses Sadia, as regards the other half. The aforementioned deed of extrajudicial settlement of the estate of deceased person which resulted in the cancellation of the title in the name of petitioner’s legitimate parents was a "simulated extrajudicial settlement" as the persons who executed the same were total strangers to the intestate estate of spouses Dionisia Caberos and Martin Constantino, and being a simulated alienation of property with intent to deprive the compulsory heirs of the registered owners of their legitime, the same is void and of no effect pursuant to Art. 221 paragraph (4) of the Civil Code, and the subsequent sales of the property are likewise null and void ab initio. (pp. 33-42, Rollo).

On August 21, 1974, defendant Numeriano Sadia, now one of the private respondents, filed his answer with counter-claim and as one of his affirmative defenses, alleged that the action had prescribed as fourteen years had elapsed from the date of the extrajudicial settlement and sale on June 15, 1959. (pp. 47-55, Rollo).

On August 28, 1974, respondent Judge issued an order to the following effect:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ORDER

"As the grounds set forth in the special and affirmative defenses of defendants Sadia are grounds for a motion to dismiss, parties are ordered to submit their respective memorandum on September 13, 1974 at 7:30 A.M., at which time the incident will be heard and submitted for resolution, with or without memorandum." (p 65, Rollo).

Pursuant to the above-quoted order of Judge Estenzo respondents Sadia filed their memorandum and so also did the other respondents Dulce without the latter having filed any answer to the complaint. In reply to the pleadings submitted by the private respondents, petitioner herein Constantino, opposed the dismissal of her complaint on the ground that there are factual allegations therein which need reception of evidence, especially since her complaint alleges that the deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate of deceased person is simulated and is null and void ab initio, and actions to declare such simulated contracts illegal or invalid do not prescribe.

Overruling the opposition of petitioner herein, and taking the memoranda of the private respondents as a basis, respondent Judge, on September 13, 1974, issued an order the pertinent portion of which follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"Viewed in the light of the foregoing allegations of the complaint, it is obvious that the present action is for recovery of real property on the ground of fraud so that as against all defendants the same should have been filed on or before December 13, 1966.

"Pursuant to the foregoing Armentia and Fabian cases, the filing of the present action on July 17, 1974 is time barred.

"WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs." (p. 107, Rollo).

It is this order of dismissal which is now before Us for review.

There is merit to this Petition.

From the allegations of petitioner’s complaint, it is obvious that her cause of action is premised on her claim that the deed of "extrajudicial settlement of the estate of deceased person" is purely simulated, void, and of no effect, and that the deeds of sale of the property are likewise "illegal", "done in bad faith", and "null and void ab initio", because the rights transferred by such deeds were derived from the contested deed of extrajudicial settlement. The prayer in the complaint expressly asks that all those transactions be declared null and void ab initio.

Considering the foregoing allegations and prayer in the complaint and the provisions of Article 1409 (2) of the Civil Code that contracts absolutely simulated or fictitious are inexistent and void from the beginning, and of Article 1410 of the same Code which states that the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe, 2 respondent Judge should not have summarily dismissed petitioner’s complaint, instead, he should have required the other defendants, now respondents Dulce, to answer the complaint, deferred action on the special defense of prescription, and ordered the parties to proceed to a trial on the merits.

In Garanciang v. Garanciang, supra, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action and on grounds of prescription. In setting aside said order of dismissal, this Court, through then Justice now Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, held that inasmuch as there are allegations in the complaint that the deeds of sale sought to be annulled are absolutely void and inexistent not only because of fraud but due to absence of cause or consideration, and considering that an action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, void, or inexistent does not prescribe (citing Art. 1410, Civil Code, Borromeo v. Borromeo, Et Al., 98 Phil. 432, Mapalo v. Mapalo, L-21628, May 19, 1966) the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint.

Had respondent Judge considered this Court’s ruling in Garanciang and a similar pronouncement in Boñaga v. Soler, supra, which also involved an outright dismissal of a complaint for reasons of prescription, he would have seen their applicability to the case before him, would have been guided accordingly, avoided undue delay in the proceedings below, saved the parties from unnecessary expense in litigating before this Court, and spared Us from the additional burden of rectifying errors of this nature. Summary or outright dismissals of actions are not proper where there are factual matters in dispute which need presentation and appreciation of evidence. The demands of a fair, impartial, and wise administration of justice call for a faithful adherence to legal precepts on procedure which ensure to litigants the opportunity to present their evidence and secure a ruling on all the issues presented in their respective pleadings. "Short-cuts" in judicial processes are to be avoided where they impede rather than promote a judicious dispensation of justice.

WHEREFORE, the appealed order of respondent Judge is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the court below for a trial on the merits after respondents surnamed Dulce shall have answered the complaint, and the proper pre-trial shall have been held. With costs against private respondents.

So Ordered.

Castro (Chairman), Makasiar, Esguerra and Martin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. This Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed on April 23, 1975 after an extension was granted to petitioner. Respondents were required to comment which they filed on May 16, 1975. In a Resolution of the First Division, May 28, 1975 the Court resolved to treat the petition for review as a special civil action, to consider respondents’s comment as answer to the Petition, and the case submitted for decision. Subsequent thereto additional pleadings were filed by respondents all in opposition to the Petition for Review.

2. Tipton v. Velasco, 6 Phil. 67; Boñaga v. Soler, L-15717, June 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 755; Caseñas v. Rosales, Et Al., L-18707, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 462; Garanciang, Et. Al. v. Garanciang, Et. Al. L-22351, May 21, 1969, 28 SCRA 229.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30736 July 11, 1975 - LIRAG TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT ON APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21814 July 15, 1975 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MELECIO ABANZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28017 July 15, 1975 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL. v. WILLIAM PFLEIDER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30543 July 15, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO CAWILI

  • G.R. No. L-30727 July 15, 1975 - CITY OF OZAMIZ v. SERAPIO S. LUMAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34897 July 15, 1975 - RAUL ARELLANO v. CFI OF SORSOGON, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37312 July 15, 1975 - MARCOS B. COMILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37662 July 15, 1975 - RCPI v. PHIL. COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39721 July 15, 1975 - BRAULIO BERNABE v. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-39324 July 16, 1975 - CATALINO MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-15 July 17, 1975 - ALFONSO GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. EULALIO JUANSON

  • A.M. No. P-55 July 17, 1975 - ESPERANZA SARMIENTO v. FLORENCIO M. DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. L-37645 July 17, 1975 - JESUS L. SANTOS v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-38137 July 17, 1975 - JOSE M. CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65120 July 18, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO

  • A.M. No. 32-MJ July 18, 1975 - LEON FRANADA, ET AL. v. VICENTE M. ERICTA, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-107 July 18, 1975 - ANTONIO PALAFOX, JR. v. CHARITO AKUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22375 July 18, 1975 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. PLASTIC ERA CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24754 July 18, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. P. J. KIENER COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29678 July 18, 1975 - JOSEFINA LODOVICA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39381 July 18, 1975 - FELISA LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 72-MJ July 22, 1975 - IGMEDIO T. LI v. JOSE H. MIJARES

  • A.M. No. P-105 July 22, 1975 - AUREA G. PEÑALOSA v. LIGAYA P SALAYON

  • A.M. No. P-167 July 22, 1975 - ALFREDO T. MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO C. ECLAVEA

  • A.M. No. P-202 July 22, 1975 - RENE P. RAMOS v. MOISES R. RADA

  • A.M. No. T-344 July 22, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO P. TONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-25012 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26544 July 22, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28853 July 22, 1975 - BICOL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. G. S. CUYUGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28905 July 22, 1975 - TIU PO v. LILY LIM TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28967 July 22, 1975 - AMELIA G. TIBLE v. JOSE C. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-30477 July 22, 1975 - CRESCENTE VICTORINO v. FELIX ELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30915 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31150 July 22, 1915

    KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37635 July 22, 1975 - CRESENCIO MARTINEZ v. LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-38196 July 22, 1975 - FEDERICO PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39677 July 22, 1975 - INTER-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39990 July 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL LICERA

  • A.M. No. P-1 July 25, 1975 - CIRILO TINAHA v. BENJAMIN MARAVILLA

  • A.M. No. 301-MJ July 25, 1975 - PABLO FETALINO v. CESAR L. MACALISANG

  • A.M. No. 306-MJ July 25, 1975 - MONICA SARMIENTO v. RAYMUNDO R. CRUZ

  • A.C. No. 532-MJ July 25, 1975 - PAULA S. QUIZON, ET. AL. v. JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR.

  • A.C. No. 610-MJ July 25, 1975 - GEORGE P. SUAN v. DELSANTO RESUELLO

  • A.C. No. 936 July 25, 1975 - FERMINA LEGASPI DAROY, ET AL. v. RAMON CHAVES LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-19462 July 25, 1975 - ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA v. ENRIQUE A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22781 July 25, 1975 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24917 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25434 July 25, 1975 - ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26872 July 25, 1975 - VILLONCO REALTY COMPANY v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27408 July 25, 1975 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28271 July 25, 1975 - SMITH, BELL & CO. (PHIL.), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-28399 July 25, 1975 - COMPANIA MARITIMA, ET AL. v. UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30343 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO MENGOTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31460 July 25, 1975 - GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LETICIA B. LOCSIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33502 July 25, 1975 - FEDERICO CABREJAS, ET AL. v. LUIS P. DONGALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34952 July 25, 1975 - RAMON D. BAGATSING, ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38135 July 25, 1975 - HILARIO C. ANTONIO v. ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38624 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40511 July 25, 1975 - MARA, INC. v. JUSTINIANO C. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40879 July 25, 1975 - IN RE: MAXIMO PAMPLONA v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF CALAMBA

  • G.R. No. L-22006 July 28, 1975 - BASILIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21231 July 30, 1975 - CONCORDIA LALUAN, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO MALPAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33713 July 30, 1975 - EUSEBIO B. GARCIA v. ERNESTO S. MATA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-143 July 31, 1975 - IN RE: APOLINAR O. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 392 July 31, 1975 - LUISA DE NACIONAL v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • A.C. No. 775 July 31, 1975 - BENJAMIN BAYOT v. JESUS R. BLANCA

  • A.M. No. 866-CJ July 31, 1975 - MIGUEL AGlLADA v. ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY

  • A.M. No. 899-MJ July 31, 1975 - MELQUIADES UDANI, JR. v. ALFONSO T. PAGHARION

  • A.C. No. 1236 July 31, 1975 - BERNARDA ARGANA v. VIRGILIO ANZ. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-22493 July 31, 1975 - ISLAND SALES, INC. v. UNITED PIONEERS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23035 July 31, 1975 - PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY, INC. v. STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26363 July 31, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26478-79 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF ANSELMA TUGADI, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27088 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF BATIOG LACAMEN v. HEIRS OF LARUAN

  • G.R. No. L-30822 July 31, 1975 - EDUARDO CLAPAROLS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31685 July 31, 1975 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. IMELDA R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-35377-78 July 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO PILOTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36424 July 31, 1975 - INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. LORENZO RELOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38224 July 31, 1975 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38388 July 31, 1975 - GABRIEL LOQUIAS v. CESARIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38577 July 31, 1975 - C.K. SAN v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40403 July 31, 1975 - RUPERTA CONSTANTINO v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40796 July 31, 1975 - REPUBLIC BANK v. MAURICIA T. EBRADA