Title
Colmenar vs. Colmenar
Case
G.R. No. 252467
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2021
Frank Colmenar, a legitimate heir, contested property sales by unauthorized respondents, claiming deprivation of successional rights. SC reinstated his complaint, ruling sellers lacked ownership rights, voiding sales.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156125)

Facts:

  • Petition and Case Background
    • Frank Colmenar filed a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 252467) to overturn the RTC’s May 22, 2020 Order dismissing his complaint for declaration of nullity of extrajudicial settlements, deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages.
    • He sued his half-siblings (Apollo A. Colmenar, Jeannie Colmenar Mendoza, Victoria Jet Colmenar), corporate respondents (Philippine Estates Corporation, Amaia Land Corporation, Crisanta Realty Development Corporation, Property Company of Friends), and the Register of Deeds of Cavite.
  • Facts Underlying the Dispute
    • Deceased, Francisco Jesus Colmenar, a Filipino citizen, owned several real properties in General Trias, Cavite (TCT Nos. 579, 588, 572, 25848). Frank, his legitimate son by his first wife Dorothy Crimmin, claimed succession rights.
    • In May 2008 and July 2011, Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria executed extrajudicial settlements purporting to be sole heirs, then sold the properties to the corporate respondents without notifying or obtaining consent from Frank.
    • Corporate respondents acquired titles: PEC (later to Amaia) took TCT No. 579; Crisanta took TCT No. 572; ProFriends took TCT No. 25848.
  • Procedural History
    • Complaint filed September 11, 2018; respondents answered raising (as affirmative or defensive) “no/failure to state a cause of action,” laches, prescription, and innocent purchaser defenses.
    • Trial court’s April 1, 2019 Order set affirmative defenses for hearing; February 12, 2020 Omnibus Order denied motions to dismiss and to hear defenses, deeming issues “complex” and fit for trial.
    • After the 2019 Amendments to the Rules became effective May 1, 2020, the court motu proprio applied Rule 8 §12, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and rendered pending motions moot.

Issues:

  • Does the petition present pure questions of law?
  • Did the RTC err by applying the 2019 Amendments to resolve affirmative defenses in a pending case?
  • Assuming all allegations true, does the complaint state a cause of action against the corporate respondents?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.