Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56218)
Facts:
The case at hand involves Alexis C. Almendras as the petitioner against South Davao Development Corporation, Inc. (SODACO), Rolando Sanchez, Leonardo Dalwampo, and Caridad C. Almendras as respondents. The events leading to this case arose on September 13, 2004, when the petitioner filed an Amended Complaint for the annulment of a Deed of Sale dated October 15, 1993, concerning a parcel of unregistered land located at Inawayan, Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur, measuring approximately 6.3087 hectares. Petitioner alleged his ownership and occupation of the said property since September 21, 1978 until his forcible dispossession by SODACO on April 23, 1994. The petitioner claimed that the property in question was sold by Caridad, who he identified as a relative and a purported dummy for SODACO, to Rolando.
During the proceedings on March 16, 2010, Rolando Sanchez filed a motion requesting for admissions, wherein he claimed, among other key points, that various resolutions from the Regiona
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56218)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioner Alexis C. Almendras filed an Amended Complaint seeking the annulment of the Deed of Sale (DOS) executed by respondents Caridad C. Almendras, Rolando C. Sanchez, and Leonardo Dalwampo over approximately 6.3087 hectares of unregistered land in Inawayan, Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur.
- Petitioner asserted ownership and possession of the property since September 21, 1978, claiming that he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondent South Davao Development Corporation, Inc. (SODACO) on April 23, 1994; he further alleged that respondent Caridad sold the property to Rolando, who was alleged to be a dummy for SODACO.
- Guardianship Proceedings and Related Litigation
- In a parallel matter, a guardianship proceeding was instituted over the person and properties of the late Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr., who had suffered a stroke in November 1992, rendering him incapacitated.
- The proceedings resulted in the issuance of several orders and resolutions by the RTC acting as a Guardianship Court, including:
- The Appointment of Rosalinda Almendras-Unson as the guardian over Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr. and the appointment of Paul C. Almendras and Elizabeth Almendras-Alba as guardians over his properties.
- Orders granting judicial guardians authority to sell the agricultural properties, with specific individual lot sales, including the subject property (Lot No. 53, Pcs-5021) sold to Rolando C. Sanchez.
- The Request for Admission and Motion for Summary Judgment
- During the proceedings on March 16, 2010, Rolando C. Sanchez filed a Request for Admission addressed to petitioner which set forth detailed admissions regarding:
- The genuineness of previous guardianship documents and orders, including resolutions and orders that served to validate the sale of various lots.
- Specific details concerning the guardianship proceedings, the sale of the Almendras coconut plantation (including cadastral lot specifications and areas), and the non-opposition by petitioner to both the inclusion of Lot No. 53 in the guardianship proceedings and to the sale itself.
- Petitioner did not file a sworn statement specifically denying or explaining the matters contained in the Request for Admission, which under the rules was taken as an admission.
- Rolando then moved for summary judgment arguing:
- There was no genuine issue as to any material fact.
- The issue of ownership raised by petitioner was sham or fictitious (except the issue of damages).
- Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint, upholding the validity of the DOS and his claim of ownership and possession.
- Service of Documents and Court Proceedings
- Petitioner objected to the Motion for Summary Judgment arguing lack of personal service of the Request for Admission and alleging a defect in compliance with Section 5, Rule 15 (notice of hearing).
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found that petitioner was indeed served by way of registered mail on March 24, 2010 (with counsel receiving an earlier copy on March 17, 2010) and that the notice of hearing requirements were complied with (the motion was filed on June 29, 2010, with the hearing set on July 9, 2010).
- Based on petitioner’s failure to answer the Request for Admission, the RTC ruled that petitioner had thereby admitted the assertions contained in it, leading to the partial summary judgment:
- The complaint against defendant Rolando Sanchez was dismissed.
- A separate notice was set for the hearing on the counterclaims regarding damages and for proceedings involving defendants Caridad Almendras and SODACO.
- Motion for Reconsideration and Further Orders
- Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, insisting that he could not be considered to have admitted the matters in the Request for Admission.
- SODACO also filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the suit should be dismissed in its entirety after issues were dropped against Rolando.
- The RTC’s Order dated August 9, 2011:
- Denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- Granted SODACO’s motion, modifying the earlier Order such that the complaint against all defendants was dismissed, including counterclaims.
- Petitioner subsequently elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
- Submission to the Supreme Court and Nature of the Petition
- In his Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, particularly emphasizing issues relating to the service of the Request for Admission and the timing indicated in the registry return card.
- The petition alleged that petitioner's rights were prejudiced because the objection to the Request for Admission should have been considered.
- The Supreme Court noted that the remedy pursued was inappropriate since the petition for review under Rule 45 is confined to questions of law and does not permit reexamination of factual disputes or evidentiary assessments.
Issues:
- Nature of Admission from Failure to Object
- Whether petitioner’s failure to file a sworn statement specifically denying the Request for Admission amounts to an implied admission of the stated matters, even though it was alleged that the Request was furnished only to his counsel.
- Proper Service and Notice Requirements
- Whether the service of the Request for Admission, as evidenced by the registered mail and certificate from the postmaster, complied with the requirements of Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether any alleged deficiency on this point could have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
- Applicability of the Summary Judgment
- Whether summary judgment is properly applicable in the case given the existence of disputed factual issues, especially regarding the alleged ownership of the subject property.
- Whether the lower court was correct in granting summary judgment and dismissing petitioner’s complaint based on the evidence and admissions on record.
- Mode of Appeal and Appropriate Remedy
- Whether petitioner properly availed himself of a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) when the issues raised might involve determinations of fact, which would be more appropriately addressed through an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- Whether his claims of grave abuse of discretion should have been raised in a different mode of appeal, such as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)