Case Digest (G.R. No. 101682)
Facts:
The case involves Salvador D. Briboneria as the petitioner and Gertrudes B. Mag-isa, married to Pedro Mag-isa, as the respondents. The events leading to the case began on May 23, 1988, when Briboneria filed a complaint for Annulment of Document and Damages against Mag-isa in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 55961. Briboneria claimed to be the registered owner of a parcel of land located at 59 Amsterdam Street, Provident Village, Marikina, Metro-Manila, covered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-29859. He alleged that he and his wife, Nonita A. Briboneria, acquired the property through his earnings from employment abroad and that they had declared the property for tax purposes.
Briboneria was shocked to discover that his wife had sold the property to Mag-isa without his knowledge or consent through a Deed of Absolute Sale. He asserted that he never authorized his wife to sell the property and that the unauthorized sale deprived ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 101682)
Facts:
Ownership and Sale of Property
- Petitioner Salvador D. Briboneria and his wife, Nonita A. Briboneria, were the registered owners of a parcel of land located at 59 Amsterdam Street, Provident Village, Marikina, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-29859.
- The property was acquired through Salvador's hard-earned salaries and benefits from his employment abroad.
- Salvador alleged that his wife, Nonita, sold the property to respondent Gertrudes B. Mag-isa through a Deed of Absolute Sale without his knowledge or consent.
- Salvador claimed he never authorized Nonita to sell the property and that the sale was void.
Legal Proceedings
- On 23 May 1988, Salvador filed a complaint for Annulment of Document and Damages against Gertrudes B. Mag-isa in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, seeking to nullify the sale and recover damages.
- Gertrudes, in her answer, claimed she was a purchaser in good faith and that Nonita acted as Salvador's attorney-in-fact, supported by a Special Power of Attorney.
- Salvador served a Request for Admission on Gertrudes, seeking her admission or denial of certain material facts and documents related to the case.
- Gertrudes failed to respond to the Request for Admission within the prescribed period, leading Salvador to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The trial court initially denied the Motion for Summary Judgment but later reconsidered and granted it. However, upon Gertrudes' Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration, the court reversed its decision and set the case for pre-trial.
- Salvador filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, prompting Salvador to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- Whether the Request for Admission served by Salvador on Gertrudes was valid, given that it was served on her counsel and not directly on her.
- Whether Gertrudes' failure to respond to the Request for Admission within the prescribed period constituted an implied admission of the facts and documents requested.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Salvador's petition for certiorari.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the Request for Admission was improperly served and that Gertrudes' failure to respond did not constitute an implied admission. The trial court's orders were not issued with grave abuse of discretion, and the case should proceed to trial on the merits.