Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44001)
Facts:
Paz Mercado, Carolina S. Chico, Luciana Cabrera, Joaquin Ignacio, Elmer Flores, Avelina C. Nucom, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Benigno Puno, Lolita C. Bulaong, Florentino Agulto, Severino Salaysay, Susana Bernardino, et al., G.R. No. L-44001, June 10, 1988, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.The private respondents (the Bulaong Group) had been individual lessees of stalls in the Baliuag, Bulacan public market from 1956. After a 1956 fire they rebuilt stalls at their own expense and paid rent to the Municipality. Beginning in 1972 members of the Bulaong Group sub‑leased their stalls to third persons (the Mercado Group). Municipal officials, invoking Municipal Ordinance No. 14 (prohibiting sub‑leasing) and a directive from the Office of the President (letter of Executive Secretary R. Zamora dated May 29, 1973), cancelled the Bulaong Group’s leases and recognized the Mercado Group as lessees by Municipal Ordinance No. 49 (July 5, 1973).
The Bulaong Group sued in the Court of First Instance (CFI), Bulacan (multiple docketed civil cases) to recover possession of their stalls and damages, alleging they were owners of the improvements and entitled to sub‑lease and recovery. After pleadings and a pre‑trial with broad stipulations, the Mercado Group moved for summary judgment under Rule 34, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court. The Bulaong Group opposed but identified only one factual issue needing formal proof: actual damages (the exact amounts to be proven at trial). The Bulaong Group filed affidavits and photographs purporting to prove the value of improvements; these exhibits were admitted by the trial court and the Mercado Group did not request a hearing or submit counter‑affidavits.
On October 24, 1975, the respondent Judge rendered a summary judgment disposing finally of the cases: he annulled the leases recognizing the Mercado Group, declared the Bulaong Group entitled as “builders in good faith” to retain the stalls until indemnified, and adjudged sums representing the stalls’ value payable to the Bulaong plaintiffs (with special provisions governing enforcement if the Municipality rescinded leases). The Mercado Group and the Municipality filed motions for reconsideration (Nov. 14, 1975), which were denied (notice received Dec. 18, 1975). The Mercado Group filed a notice of appeal, bond, and motion for extension on Jan. 7, 1976, which the trial court found untimely and directed execution of the judgment on Jan. 9, 1976; the Mercado Group’s motion to quash the writ and to re‑open was denied.
The Mercado Group petitioned the Court of Appeals by special civil action (docketed CA‑G.R. No. SP‑05002‑R) for certiorari and prohibition to annul that portion of the summary judgment awarding damages and to restrain enforcement. On May 14, 1976 the Court of Appeals (Escolin, J., ponente) upheld the trial court: it found the summary judgment properly rendered (Rule 34 procedure), ruled there was no denial of due process because parties presented affidavits and counter‑affidavits, and held certiorari was not a substitute for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a special civil action for certiorari a proper remedy to challenge a final summary judgment of a trial court when an appeal was available but not seasonably perfected?
- Was the Mercado Group denied due process when the trial court awarded damages on the basis of unopposed affidavits and photographs without receiving evidence at a formal hearing?
- Did the trial court err in applying Article 526 (rights of a builder in good faith) of the Civil Code instead o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)