ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 160797.� April 25, 2005]
SALAZAR vs. SALAZAR
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 25 2005.
G.R. No. 160797 (Pedro M. Salazar and Oscar M. Salazar vs. Heirs of Orestes Salazar, et. al.)
The petitioners assail the Decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Order [2] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga, Bataan, Branch 2, dated August 21, 2003 in Civil Case No. 7671, which recalled an earlier Order granting the motion to dismiss and thereby setting the case for pre-trial.
The background facts are as follows:
Spouses Regino and Gervacia Salazar left properties situated in Balanga, Bataan, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2138, with an area of 102,613 square meters; and Original Certificate of Title No. 0-3065, with an area of 45,666 square meters. An "Extrajudicial Settlement With Waiver of Rights" and a "Partition Agreement" were executed, whereby transfer certificates of title were issued in the names of herein petitioners, among others.
On February 12, 2003, herein respondents Heirs of Orestes Salazar and Heirs of Guillermo Salazar filed a Complaint [3] cralaw for declaration of nullity of certificates of titles, deed of extrajudicial settlement with waiver of rights and partition agreement, and for reconveyance, alleging that they are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the spouses Regino and Gervacia Salazar. The complaint alleged that the petitioners falsely made it appear that they are the only heirs entitled to inherit, benefit and share in the estate of the late Spouses Salazar. The respondents were excluded and had no knowledge of the extrajudicial partition agreement executed in favor of the petitioners. The complaint also prayed for the reconveyance of the portions legally accruing to the respondents, and payment of damages.
A Motion to Dismiss [4] cralaw was filed by the petitioners on grounds of forum shopping, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, non-compliance of the barangay conciliation requirement and failure to sufficiently allege capacity to sue in a representative capacity. The respondents filed their Opposition [5] cralaw thereto, followed by a Reply. [6] cralaw
On June 9, 2003, the RTC issued an Order [7] cralaw granting the motion to dismiss. It ruled that the respondents are not compulsory heirs of the deceased spouses Regino and Gervacia Salazar and that the execution of the deed of extrajudicial partition was not tainted with fraud or bad faith.
Consequently, a Motion for Reconsideration [8] cralaw was filed by the respondents alleging in the main that even if there was no bad faith or fraud in the execution of the subject partition, there was, however, preterition of heirs. The petitioners filed their Opposition [9] cralaw on the following grounds:
(1)�� the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time;
(2)�� there was a defective notice of hearing;
(3)�� the motion for reconsideration failed to raise new issues for the consideration of the court;
(4)�� there are grounds for the motion to dismiss;
(a)�� plaintiffs engaged in forum shopping,
(b)�� the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case for non-payment of docket fees;
(c)�� the petition failed to state a cause of action;
(d)�� the plaintiffs are not the proper parties to file the suit. [10] cralaw
On August 21, 2003, the RTC recalled its earlier order and set the case for pre-trial, thus:
Upon study of the contention of both parties with circumspection, the Court is persuaded to grant this instant motion as the arguments presented by the plaintiffs-movants are sufficient and meritorious enough to set aside the assailed Order. The Court finds issues which can not be deliberated upon without necessarily undergoing full blown trial lest the Court runs the risk of a miscarriage of justice. In order therefore for this Court to have access to vital evidences susceptible of this case to be able to judiciously rule upon the issues, a trial on the merit is necessary.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby granted and the Order dated June 9, 2003 is hereby recalled and set aside.
Meantime, let this case be set for pre-trial on September 22, 2003 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. [11] cralaw
The petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, they filed a Petition for Certiorari [12] with the Court of Appeals assailing the said Order on the same grounds raised in their Opposition.
Finding no error, nor grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the assailed Order, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit on November 10, 2003.
Hence, the petitioners filed the instant petition raising the same issues.
We affirm the CA.
The CA correctly stressed that an Order denying a motion to dismiss is merely an interlocutory order and the proper remedy is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. The same can not be questioned via a special civil action on certiorari unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order. [13] cralaw The CA found this wanting in the case at bar. Moreover, the CA noted that the petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration, a condition sine qua non to the institution of the special civil action for certiorari in this case. [14] cralaw
The pivotal issue is whether or not it was proper for the trial court to admit the motion for reconsideration which was filed one-day late. Admittedly, the respondents filed their motion for reconsideration one-day late but they justified that the delay was due to an ongoing settlement with the majority of the petitioners. The CA found that there was no intent to delay the administration of justice nor was there a mistake in the computation of the days, attributable to the respondents' counsel. The filing of the motion for reconsideration one-day late was allowed, considering that the parties are close relatives exploring the possibilities of amicable settlement. In fact, the CA observed that "during the hearing held before the trial court even after the filing of the present petition with the [CA], the petitioners [were] still willing to compromise and terminate the case if only the private respondents would accept their proposal that 32.759 hectares in the name of Crispina Salazar, who died single, be taken as the share of private respondents. This circumstance supports the claim of private respondents that the one (1)-day delay was due to the pressures of the ongoing proposal for settlement coming from the majority of the defendants ("non-petitioners")." [15] cralaw Under the attendant circumstances, there is justification for the admission of the motion for reconsideration which was not only necessary but just. [16] cralaw
Anent the defective notice of hearing rendering allegedly the motion as a mere scrap of paper, there was substantial compliance of the three-day notice rule. We agree that there was no prejudice of interests since the petitioners were able to file an opposition thereto.
As to the other grounds for the motion to dismiss, the CA did not err in finding them bereft of merit. It correctly ratiocinated that these are matters and defenses which can be very well threshed out and resolved after a full-blown trial on the merits can be had. We agree with the CA that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its order of dismissal so as not to deprive the parties of due process. As has been the constant ruling of this Court, every party litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his case, free from the constraints of technicalities. [17] cralaw
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error with the Decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Mario L. Guari�a III and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring.
[2] cralaw Issued by Judge Manuel Tan, Regional Trial Court, Balanga, Bataan, Branch 2.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 33-41.
[4] cralaw Id. at 42-52.
[5] cralaw Id. at 61-64.
[6] cralaw Id. at 71-78.
[7] cralaw Rollo, p. 85.
[8] cralaw Id. at 86
[9] cralaw Id. at 90.
[10] cralaw Id. at 90.
[11] cralaw Id. at 96.
[12] cralaw Id. at 97.
[13] cralaw Dasmari�as Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127276, 3 December 1998, 299 SCRA 598.
[14] cralaw Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142133, 19 November 2002, 392 SCRA 229.
[15] cralaw Rollo, p. 29.
[16] cralaw See De las Alas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38006, 16 May 1978, 83 SCRA 200.
[17] cralaw B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80223, 5 February 1993, 218 SCRA 446.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
