Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38037)
Facts:
Roque Enervida v. Lauro de la Torre and Rosa de la Torre, G.R. No. L-38037, January 28, 1974, First Division, Esguerra, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Roque Enervida sued respondents spouses Lauro and Rosa de la Torre in the Court of First Instance of Davao (Civil Case No. 3886), seeking to annul a deed of sale dated December 3, 1957, executed by his father Ciriaco Enervida over a parcel covered by a homestead patent and praying that, as the legitimate son and sole heir, he be allowed to repurchase the land.
In their answer the respondents pleaded, among other defenses, that the patentee Ciriaco was still living, that the petitioner was not the sole heir (naming Juan, Filomena, Nieves and Antonio as other living children), and that the sale actually took place on November 20, 1957 (formalized December 3, 1957). At the pre-trial conference on September 9, 1965, the petitioner admitted that his father was alive, admitted the existence of the other siblings, acknowledged the November 20, 1957 sale date (formalized December 3), and did not deny the certified copy of Original Certificate of Title showing Homestead Patent No. H-169512 issued to Ciriaco on November 17, 1952.
Relying on these admissions, respondents moved for summary judgment under Rule 34, Sections 2–3, and Rule 20, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The trial court granted the motion and, by order dated March 29, 1966, dismissed the complaint and ordered the plaintiff to pay P2,000 as actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court also criticized counsel for alleged malpractice. The petitioner appealed; the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as presenting ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal by summary judgment proper given petitioner’s admissions at pre-trial and the applicable Rules of Court?
- Was the challenged sale within the five-year prohibition under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, and had any right of repurchase under Section 119 expired?
- Were the award of moral/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees proper under the New Civil...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)