Colmenar v. Colmenar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Frank Colmenar, son of the late Francisco Jesus Colmenar, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of deeds of extrajudicial settlement of estate, deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages. He alleged that respondents Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria, who were not lawful heirs of Francisco, executed extrajudicial settlements of estate and subsequently sold properties of the deceased to respondents Philippine Estates Corporation (PEC), Crisanta Realty Development Corporation (Crisanta Realty), and Property Company of Friends (ProFriends). PEC later sold its acquired property to Amaia Land Corporation (Amaia). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Trece Martires City, Cavite, initially denied motions to dismiss and motions to hear affirmative defenses. However, through a subsequent Order dated May 22, 2020, the RTC, applying the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the complaint against PEC, Amaia, Crisanta Realty, and ProFriends on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The RTC reasoned that the complaint did not allege that the respondent companies were purchasers in bad faith or had notice of any defect in the sellers' titles. The Petition: Petitioner sought reversal of the RTC's Order, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the 2019 Amendments to a pending case, causing injustice and depriving him of his right to be heard and to seek reconsideration. He also contended that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action, as the core issue was the alleged lack of right of the individual respondents to sell the properties, rendering the subsequent sales void, irrespective of the buyers' good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it applied the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure to resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by respondent companies. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it dismissed the complaint against respondent companies on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action against them.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated May 22, 2020 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires, Cavite is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint is REINSTATED as against Philippine Estates Corporation, Crisanta Realty Development Corporation, Amaia Land Corporation, and Property Company of Friends. The trial court is DIRECTED to PROCEED with the resolution of the case with UTMOST DISPATCH.
Ratio Decidendi
On the application of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely erred in applying the 2019 Amendments to the case. Rule 144 of the 2019 Rules explicitly states that while the amendments govern pending proceedings, their application is subject to the court's opinion that such application would not be feasible or would work injustice. In this case, the application of the new rules resulted in injustice to the petitioner, as it peremptorily dismissed his claim without a full hearing and deprived him of the right to seek reconsideration. Furthermore, the trial court's motu proprio resolution of affirmative defenses was done beyond the prescribed 30-day period under Section 12(c), Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments, rendering its application infeasible. The Court also noted that the trial court had previously denied the motions to dismiss and affirmative defenses, indicating that the issues were complex and better threshed out in trial, making the subsequent dismissal based on the new rules a hasty turn-about. On whether the complaint stated a cause of action: The Supreme Court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against the respondent companies. The essential elements of a cause of action are a legal right in favor of the plaintiff, a correlative obligation on the defendant, and an act or omission by the defendant violating the plaintiff's right. The complaint alleged that the petitioner was the legitimate son and heir of the deceased owner, Francisco Jesus Colmenar, and that the individual respondents, not being lawful heirs, had no right to settle the estate or sell the properties. Consequently, the deeds of sale executed by them in favor of the respondent companies were void, and the companies could not have acquired valid titles. The Court clarified that the issue was not whether the buyers were in bad faith, but rather whether the sellers had the right to transfer ownership, based on the principle that no one can give what they do not have. The allegation that the sellers were not lawful heirs was sufficient to establish a cause of action for the declaration of nullity of the deeds and titles.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the trial court gravely erred in applying the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure to a pending case where such application would work injustice, and that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against the respondent companies as it alleged that the sellers were not lawful heirs and thus could not validly transfer ownership of the properties.