VERGARA, SR. v SUELTO
G.R. No. 74766
December 21, 1987
NARVASA, J.:
FACTS:
G.R. No. 74766
December 21, 1987
NARVASA, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Vergara commenced in the Municipal Trial Court of Davao City an action
for illegal detainer against the private respondents Montebon and Casabe for
defaulting in their lease payments.
later however, the defendants wrote Vergara another letter; this time, while acknowledging the latter's ownership of the building and their status as lessees thereof they announced their refusal to vacate the premises on the ground that the lot on which the building stands, though titled in Vergara's name, was part of a tract of land Identified as Lot 508 which had been ordered reverted to the public domain by the Regional Trial Court (Branch XIV) in a decision rendered in Civil Case No. 16192 for "Cancellation of Titles and Reversion" entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Kwong Tai Lung y Cia et al. ;
March 7, 1986 Vergara filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that Neither he (Vergara) nor the defendants were parties in Civil Case No. 16192 and consequently could not be bound by any judgment or order therein promulgated
Against this motion defendants filed an "Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss." They argued that — A genuine issue exists which "cannot be resolved by mere resort to summary judgment," that issue having arisen from defendants' controversion of Vergara's claim "of possession and ownership over the commercial building and the land on which the same is constructed, " and that - The Court had no jurisdiction over the case because "the real issue involved ... is title and/or ownership of the property and not physical possession," and "this case should not be by accion interdictal but accion de reivendicacion (sic). "
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*MTC: denied motions of both defendant and petitioner. directly to SC (mandamus)
ISSUES:
1. whether or not the appropriateness of a summary judgment may ever be so self- evident in a case as to make it well nigh a duty on the part of the Trial Judge to grant the plaintiff's motion therefor
2. propriety of the filing directly with this Court an application for a writ of mandamus against a municipal trial court, considering that jurisdiction to issue this extraordinary writ is also possessed by the Court of Appeals as well as the Regional Trial Court of the district.
HELD:
1. YES
even if the answer does tender issues and therefore a judgment on the pleadings is not proper-a summary judgment may still be rendered on the plaintiff's motion if he can show to the Court's satisfaction that "except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," 18 that is to say, the issues thus tendered are not genuine, are in other words sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, patently unsubstantial. The determination may be made by the Court on the basis of the pleadings, and the depositions, admissions and affidavits that the movant may submit, as well as those which the defendant may present in his turn.
later however, the defendants wrote Vergara another letter; this time, while acknowledging the latter's ownership of the building and their status as lessees thereof they announced their refusal to vacate the premises on the ground that the lot on which the building stands, though titled in Vergara's name, was part of a tract of land Identified as Lot 508 which had been ordered reverted to the public domain by the Regional Trial Court (Branch XIV) in a decision rendered in Civil Case No. 16192 for "Cancellation of Titles and Reversion" entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Kwong Tai Lung y Cia et al. ;
March 7, 1986 Vergara filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that Neither he (Vergara) nor the defendants were parties in Civil Case No. 16192 and consequently could not be bound by any judgment or order therein promulgated
Against this motion defendants filed an "Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss." They argued that — A genuine issue exists which "cannot be resolved by mere resort to summary judgment," that issue having arisen from defendants' controversion of Vergara's claim "of possession and ownership over the commercial building and the land on which the same is constructed, " and that - The Court had no jurisdiction over the case because "the real issue involved ... is title and/or ownership of the property and not physical possession," and "this case should not be by accion interdictal but accion de reivendicacion (sic). "
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*MTC: denied motions of both defendant and petitioner. directly to SC (mandamus)
ISSUES:
1. whether or not the appropriateness of a summary judgment may ever be so self- evident in a case as to make it well nigh a duty on the part of the Trial Judge to grant the plaintiff's motion therefor
2. propriety of the filing directly with this Court an application for a writ of mandamus against a municipal trial court, considering that jurisdiction to issue this extraordinary writ is also possessed by the Court of Appeals as well as the Regional Trial Court of the district.
HELD:
1. YES
even if the answer does tender issues and therefore a judgment on the pleadings is not proper-a summary judgment may still be rendered on the plaintiff's motion if he can show to the Court's satisfaction that "except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," 18 that is to say, the issues thus tendered are not genuine, are in other words sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, patently unsubstantial. The determination may be made by the Court on the basis of the pleadings, and the depositions, admissions and affidavits that the movant may submit, as well as those which the defendant may present in his turn.
They are moreover estopped to dispute the plaintiff's title. "The tenant is not
permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them."
2. NO
The remedy properly available to the petitioner in the premises, however, is not the writ of mandamus. Well known is the rule that mandamus issues only to compel performance of a mandatory, ministerial duty.
Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.
respondent Judge is hereby commanded forthwith to render a summary judgment in favor of the petitioner
2. NO
The remedy properly available to the petitioner in the premises, however, is not the writ of mandamus. Well known is the rule that mandamus issues only to compel performance of a mandatory, ministerial duty.
Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.
respondent Judge is hereby commanded forthwith to render a summary judgment in favor of the petitioner
No comments:
Post a Comment