Alcantara v. Boneo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellee Melchor Alcantara filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against defendants-appellants Severino and Felicisima Boneo and Jesus Mejis. Alcantara claimed to be the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land under TCT No. T-56897 and alleged that the Boneos occupied a portion of this land and placed Mejis as a tenant thereon. The defendants-appellants asserted ownership over a parcel of land in the same barrio, covered by OCT No. 6870, and claimed open, peaceful, public, continuous, and adverse possession since 1924. Procedural History: The parties agreed to a relocation survey. The trial court ordered the submission of pre-trial memoranda. Plaintiff-appellee suggested submitting the case for summary judgment, as the sole legal issue was the precedence of titles. Defendants-appellants failed to submit their memorandum within the given period, leading the trial court to submit the case for decision. Defendants-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed. The trial court directed them to submit their memorandum and evidence within 20 days, stating that if these enabled judgment, the case would be submitted, otherwise, parol evidence would be presented. Defendants-appellants filed their pre-trial memorandum without documentary evidence. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, declaring him the owner and ordering the defendants to vacate the disputed portion. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The defendants-appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defendants-appellants assigned as errors the trial court's granting of a summary judgment not in accordance with the rules and rendering a summary judgment despite controverted issues. They argued the motion for summary judgment was not supported by affidavits, depositions, or admissions, and was made verbally in the absence of their counsel. They contended that their answer specifically denied allegations and raised affirmative defenses requiring trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment not in accordance with Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 34. Whether the trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment despite the fact that all the issues are controverted.
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon and its order denying the motion for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the trial court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment not in accordance with Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 34: The Supreme Court held that the defendants-appellants are estopped from questioning the orders of the trial court regarding the submission of the case for summary judgment because they failed to object at the opportune time or move for reconsideration of the February 22, 1971 and April 21, 1971 orders. Their failure to raise objections led to the setting in of estoppel. The Court noted that the defendants' counsel's actions, including repeated postponements and failure to appear, contributed to the procedural posture of the case. The trial court's order on April 21, 1971, which directed the submission of memoranda and documentary evidence, and stated that parol evidence would be admitted if the memoranda were insufficient, was apparently acquiesced to by the defendants' counsel, who then filed a pre-trial memorandum without substantiating it with documentary proofs. This conduct indicated an ignorance of the rules on summary judgment. On the issue of whether the trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment despite the fact that all the issues before the trial court were controverted: The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendants-appellants' contention. The Court reiterated that where a motion for summary judgment is made by a claimant, the defendant must show a plausible ground of defense that is fairly arguable and of a substantial character. An examination of the pleadings and documents revealed the non-existence of the defendants-appellants' claims and defenses, indicating no genuine issue as to any material fact. The trial court correctly observed that the defendants, other than averring ownership in fee simple, did not substantiate their claim with concrete evidence, rendering their defense open to discredit. In contrast, the plaintiff meticulously traced his right to the property with supporting documents and tax receipts, presenting evidence more than merely preponderant against the defendants.
Main Doctrine
A party who fails to object to orders of the trial court regarding the submission of the case for summary judgment or to move for reconsideration thereof is deemed to have assented to said orders, and is estopped from questioning them on appeal. Furthermore, a summary judgment may be rendered when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.