Dy Sun-Ong v. Dy Sun
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by petitioner Norma Edita R. Dy Sun-Ong against her brother, respondent Jose Victory R. Dy Sun, for the delivery of shares and dividends in Yakult Philippines, Inc. Petitioner alleged that respondent held in trust approximately 90,848,000 shares belonging to the heirs of the late Don Vicente Dy Sun, Sr., and that 18,169,600 of these shares rightfully belonged to her. She claimed that written demands for the delivery of the shares and an accounting of dividends were made upon the respondent, but he failed to respond. The core of the dispute revolves around the petitioner's claim to these shares based on an alleged implied trust and the respondent's denial of this claim, asserting that any shares or dividends provided were acts of pure liberality. Procedural History: The petitioner filed her complaint on May 21, 2010. The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient docket fees, failure to state a cause of action, prescription, and laches. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially referred the case for re-assessment of filing fees. After the petitioner paid the deficiency, the RTC denied the respondent's motions to dismiss and supplemental motions to dismiss, as well as his motion for reconsideration and motion for a bill of particulars, finding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action and that issues of prescription and laches required a full trial. The respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's orders and dismissed the petitioner's complaint, ruling that the action had prescribed and was barred by laches. The petitioner sought reconsideration, which the CA denied. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. She argues that the CA erred in entertaining the respondent's petition for certiorari, contending that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and that the respondent was estopped from assailing the RTC's orders after filing an answer. The petitioner's primary contention is that her claim is based on an implied trust, which, according to her interpretation of civil law, prevents prescription from setting in. She asserts that the issues of prescription and laches are factual matters that require a full trial and cannot be decided summarily by the CA. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that the CA's dismissal was premature and remanding the case to the RTC for trial on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds of prescription and laches without a full-blown trial. Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly ruled on the sufficiency of the payment of docket fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the RTC for trial and judgment on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals' dismissal was premature because the issues of implied trust, repudiation, and prescription are questions of fact. Applying Article 1453 of the Civil Code, the Court noted that a trust is created when property is conveyed based on an intention to hold it for another, and such trusts can be proved by oral evidence under Article 1457. The petitioner's theory relies on an implied trust where the prescriptive period only begins to run upon clear repudiation by the trustee. Since the respondent denies the trust and claims the payments were acts of liberality, there is a clear factual dispute that the Court cannot resolve without evidence. Following the precedent in Vda. de Jacinto v. Vda. de Jacinto, the defense of prescription is not an absolute bar if the existence of the trust itself is the core of the dispute. Therefore, the CA overstepped by using judicial admissions to find prescription when the timing and act of repudiation remained unproven. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC and CA's finding that the docket fees were sufficiently paid. The Clerk of Court correctly assessed the fees based on the P1.00 par value of the shares as alleged in the complaint, rather than the P3.47 book value which was not stated in the pleadings. The Court reiterated that even if the docket fees were initially insufficient, the case should not be automatically dismissed as long as the party shows a willingness to abide by the rules and pays the deficiency within the prescriptive period. Since the petitioner paid the deficiency as soon as it was reassessed, jurisdiction was properly vested in the RTC. The denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order that generally cannot be challenged via Certiorari unless there is grave abuse of discretion, which was absent here as the RTC's decision to proceed to trial was legally sound.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals' dismissal of a complaint based on prescription and laches, without a full-blown trial to determine the existence of an implied trust and the reckoning point of prescription, is premature. Such factual matters require the presentation and appreciation of evidence.