Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41824)
Facts:
- Petitioner, Jesusa R. Quiaoit, filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus against respondent judge, Francisco Consolacion.
- The case involves the cancellation of an award for a disputed property.
- On March 14, 1972, the spouses Francisco Blances and Valeriana B. Blances (private respondents) filed an action to recover possession of Lot No. 160 in Davao City and to secure a declaration of nullity of the transmission of rights and sale of improvements over the said property.
- The private respondents claimed that the property was acquired under Republic Act No. 477, which prohibits its sale, and that they only intended to use the property as security for a loan.
- The petitioner filed an answer denying the allegations and stating that the private respondents had mortgaged the property in violation of the conditions of the deed of sale.
- The Board of Liquidators cancelled the award of Lot No. 160 to the private respondents for violation of Republic Act No. 477.
- The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim or demand set forth in the complaint had been extinguished and the private respondents had no more cause of action.
- The respondent judge denied the motion.
- The petitioner filed a motion to admit a supplemental answer to include the cancellation of the award as a defense.
- The respondent judge initially granted the motion, but later set it aside upon motion for reconsideration by the private respondents.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and set aside the orders of the respondent judge.
- The Court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory in nature and does not terminate the proceedings or finally dispose of the contentions of the parties.
- The proper remedy for the defendant is to interpose the objections raised in the motion to dismiss as defenses in the answer, proceed to trial, and bring the case on appeal after an unfavorable decision.
- The Court also held that the cancellation of the award by the ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory in nature and does not terminate the proceedings or finally dispose of the contentions of the parties.
- The proper remedy for the defendant is to interpose the objections raised in the motion to dismiss as defenses in the answer, proceed to trial, and bring the case on appeal after an unfavorable decision...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41824)
Facts:
The case involves Jesusa R. Quiaoit as the petitioner and Hon. Francisco Consolacion, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch II, Court of First Instance of Davao, along with private respondents Valeriana B. Blances and Francisco Blances. The events leading to this case began on March 14, 1972, when the spouses Francisco and Valeriana Blances filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Davao City against Quiaoit. They sought to recover possession of Lot No. 160, located in the Guianga District of Davao City, which spans approximately five hectares. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale of the property to Quiaoit was null and void under Republic Act No. 477, which prohibits the sale of such properties. They argued that their intention was not to sell the property but to use it as collateral for a loan of P6,800.00.
In response, Quiaoit filed her answer on May 2, 1972, denying the allegations and asserting that the plaintiffs were not bona fide claimants of the land, as they had previously mortgaged it in violation of the conditions set forth in the deed of sale from the National Abaca and Other Fibers Corporation (NAFCO). During the proceedings, on April 1, 1975, the Board of Liquidators issued a resolution canceling the award of Lot No. 160 to Francisco Blances due to violations of Republic Act No. 477, declaring the payments made forfeited and ordering the land to be disposed of according to the law.
Following this cancellation, Quiaoit filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing t...