Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15539)
Facts:
J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc., represented by its managing partner, the Gregorio Araneta, Inc., plaintiff and appellee, vs. Adolfo Magdangal, defendant and appellant, G.R. No. L-15539. January 30, 1962. The Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.On January 7, 1959, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. Q-3700) for recovery of possession of a 700-square-meter parcel in Tatalon, Quezon City (part of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision), alleging that defendant Adolfo Magdangal had obtained possession by force, strategy, and stealth; the property was under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 in plaintiff’s name. The complaint sought surrender of possession, damages, and costs.
On February 26, 1959, Magdangal answered, denying the allegations and asserting title defenses: he claimed to have purchased the land from Eustaquio Alquiros, who had acquired it from Tomas Deudor, and alleged that plaintiff’s registration resulted from a misdescription or misrepresentation of boundaries, rendering the registered title void as to the disputed portion. The case was set for trial on March 19, 1959.
On March 6, 1959—after the trial date was already set—Alquiros filed a separate suit against J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. for reconveyance of 1.5 quinones (of which the parcel here forms part). Two days before the March 19 hearing, Magdangal moved to dismiss the present complaint on the ground of the other pending action; he scheduled the motion for hearing on the regular motion day, March 21. When the case was called on March 19, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss (the court noted that defendant had notice of the March 19 hearing and that plaintiff objected), appointed a commissioner to receive evidence, and proceeded in defendant’s absence after he left the courtroom, not submitting to trial by commissioner. On March 31, 1959 the trial court rendered judgment ordering defendant to vacate and to pay plaintiff P50 monthly from the date of his occupation until return of possession.
Appellant appealed directly to the Supreme Court. He alleged ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in proceeding to trial on March 19 before resolving appellant's motion to dismiss on grounds of a pending action?
- Did the trial court commit error in denying appellant's motion to dismiss without a hearing?
- Was it illegal for the trial court to appoint a commissioner to receive evidence and proceed in appellant's ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)