Ongoco v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Felix Ongoco and Belen Consunji, spouses, were the owners of a parcel of land in Abucay, Bataan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8185. On May 2, 1959, they sold this land to Apolonio Soriano and Cirila Mina for P1,500.00, with a right to repurchase within three years. The vendors failed to repurchase the property within the stipulated period. 2. Procedural History: Following the vendors' failure to repurchase, Apolonio Soriano and Cirila Mina filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bataan on August 29, 1962, seeking an order to declare them absolute owners and to transfer the title. Despite the petition being docketed as a special civil case, the original owners (respondents-vendors) were not served with summons, but only received a copy of the petition by registered mail. The respondents-vendors moved for a postponement of the hearing, which was denied. On the scheduled hearing date, the respondents-vendors were absent, and the court rendered judgment in favor of the vendees. A subsequent motion to set aside the judgment was denied. The respondents-vendors then filed the present suit for certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioners contend that the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bataan gravely abused his discretion and acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. They argue that Article 1607 of the New Civil Code requires an ordinary civil action for the consolidation of ownership, which necessitates proper service of summons and an opportunity for the vendor to be heard. The petitioners assert that the lower court's failure to follow these procedural requirements, particularly by not serving summons and by rendering judgment without affording the vendors their right to be heard, violated Article 1607 and the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering judgment consolidating ownership without affording the vendors a retro their right to be heard. Whether the procedure followed by the Court of First Instance in consolidating ownership complied with Article 1607 of the New Civil Code and due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance, and ordered the respondent Judge to allow the petitioners (vendors a retro) to file their answer within 15 days from notice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction: The Court held that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion and acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. Article 1607 of the New Civil Code explicitly requires that the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to repurchase shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, "after the vendor has been duly heard." This provision necessitates an ordinary civil action, not a summary proceeding, where the vendor is afforded the opportunity to be heard. The procedure followed by the CFI, which involved sending a copy of the petition by registered mail and denying a motion for postponement without granting the vendors the right to file an answer, deprived them of their fundamental right to due process. The Court emphasized that the codal provision implies a regular court proceeding governed by the Rules of Court, including the proper service of summons and the opportunity to file responsive pleadings. On compliance with Article 1607 and due process: The Court found that the procedure did not comply with Article 1607 of the New Civil Code. The article requires that the vendor be "duly heard," which implies a formal proceeding where the vendor has the chance to present their side. The filing of a "petition" without proper summons and an opportunity to answer does not satisfy this requirement. Even if the motion for postponement were considered a voluntary submission to jurisdiction, the vendors were still entitled to the statutory period of 15 days to file an answer. The CFI's immediate rendition of judgment violated this right. The Court reiterated its ruling in Tacdoro vs. Arcenas that a petition for consolidation of ownership is an ordinary civil action, not a mere motion, and must be governed by the rules on summons and pleadings. The legislative intent behind Article 1607 is to provide maximum safeguards for the vendor's rights and to prevent the circumvention of laws, thus requiring a full judicial proceeding.
Main Doctrine
The consolidation of ownership in the vendee a retro, in case of real property, requires an ordinary civil action with due notice and hearing to the vendor a retro, as mandated by Article 1607 of the New Civil Code.