Case Digest (G.R. No. 203287)
Facts:
Renato S.D. Domingo On His Own Behalf And On Behalf Of His Co-Heirs Of The Late Spouses Felicidad De Domingo And Macario C. Domingo v. Spouses Engracia D. Singson And Manuel F. Singson, G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936, April 5, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The parties are the children and heirs of the late Spouses Macario C. Domingo and Felicidad S.D. Domingo (the petitioners, represented principally by Renato S.D. Domingo and other co-heirs) and respondent Engracia D. Singson (with her husband Manuel F. Singson implicated in the criminal prosecution). The Spouses Domingo formerly owned a parcel in San Juan, Metro Manila (the subject property) covered by TCT No. 32600 (23937) 845-R; Macario died in 1981 and Felicidad in 1997.
On September 26, 2006 Engracia filed an ejectment/unlawful detainer complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 9534), claiming ownership by virtue of an Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 6, 2006 and a new TCT in her name. The petitioners learned of the claimed sale only when served with the complaint. On July 31, 2006 the petitioners filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City Civil Case No. 70898 seeking annulment of sale, alleging the signatures of their deceased parents on the deed were forged.
Separately, on February 28, 2007, petitioners Renato, Consolacion, and Ramon filed a Joint Affidavit Complaint with the Pasig Office of the City Prosecutor alleging falsification of the deed and related crimes; an Information was filed on May 6, 2008 charging Spouses Singson with estafa through falsification (Criminal Case No. 137867, raffled to RTC Branch 264). On July 11, 2008 the Spouses Singson moved in the criminal case to suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question because Civil Case No. 70898 (then pending before RTC Branch 160) raised the genuineness of the deed signatures. The RTC Branch 264 granted the motion and suspended Criminal Case No. 137867 by Order dated February 12, 2010; a motion for reconsideration was denied on June 7, 2011.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) contesting the suspension; in CA-G.R. SP No. 122054 the CA denied the petition on August 31, 2012, finding the requisites of a prejudicial question were present. Meanwhile, Civil Case No. 70898 suffered repeated continuances and several changes in presiding judges; by July 29, 2011 the RTC Branch 264 dismissed the petitioners’ complaint for their and their counsel’s repeated failure to appear at scheduled pre-trial hearings (dismissal for failure to prosecute). The petitioners appealed to the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 98026, but the CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal on June 28, 2013.
The t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 137867 on the ground of prejudicial question proper?
- Was the dismissal of the petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 70898 for failure to prose...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)