Case Digest (G.R. No. 101566)
Facts:
This is Hon. Florencio A. Ruiz, Jr., Sent of God Foundation, Inc., S of G Foundation, Inc., Raul G. Fores, Senen P. Valero and Father Odon de Castro v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Sps. Olegario Orbeta and Susana Rosario S. Orbeta, G.R. No. 101566, March 26, 1993, Supreme Court Special First Division, Grino-Aquino, J., writing for the Court. The Special First Division was composed for this resolution of Justices Isagani A. Cruz (chairman), Carolina C. Grino-Aquino (ponente), Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Jose A.R. Melo and Jose C. Campos, Jr.
The underlying dispute began with a complaint filed on July 29, 1988 by Carmeling P. Crisologo and her children for revocation of two deeds of donation: a 100-hectare island (Puro‑Salomague Island) donated on September 17, 1976 and two lots in Guimod. The donee was Sent of God Foundation, Inc. (represented by Susana Rosario Orbeta and Olegario Orbeta, who were members of the Foundation and instrumental in procuring the donations), later transferring the island on November 7, 1986 to S of G Foundation, Inc. (represented by Senen P. Valero) subject to the same conditions. The donations were expressly conditioned on use for a monastic life according to the Rule of St. Benedict, prohibition on sale/lease, and reversion to donors if no longer so used. The Foundations were associated with the Caryana Movement, led by Father Odon de Castro.
Events after the donors learned the Movement was denied canonical recognition and Fr. de Castro was expelled prompted Mrs. Crisologo to demand reconveyance by letters dated February–March 1988; the Foundations promised but then allegedly abandoned and dismantled improvements on the island. On July 29, 1988 the Crisologos sued the Foundations, the individual officers (including Dr. Raul Fores), Fr. de Castro and the Orbetas for revocation and return of the island (Civil Case No. 313‑KC, RTC Branch 24, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur).
The defendants (except the Orbetas) answered and later filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Drop Defendants (filed December 5, 1988), asserting among other defenses that the complaint stated no cause of action and that the individual defendants were not real parties in interest. The motion was heard on December 16, 1988; plaintiffs’ counsel’s office received notice one day short of the reglementary three‑day notice. On January 2, 1989 Judge Florencio A. Ruiz, Jr. overruled plaintiffs’ opposition as filed out of time and dismissed the complaint; the Orbetas’ separate answer with cross‑claim was likewise dismissed. Motions for reconsideration were denied on February 8, 1989.
The Crisologos filed a certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. No. SP‑16837) challenging the dismissal, which the CA dismissed on May 2, 1989 for being an inappropriate substitute for a lost appeal. The Orbetas thereafter filed their own certiorari petition (CA‑G.R. SP No. 17013). On September 28, 1990 the Court of Appeals granted the Orbetas’ petition, annulled the RTC’s dismissal and reinstated the complaint; reconsideration was denied on August 27, 1991.
This Court initially reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling and affirmed the trial court. The Orbetas moved for reconsideration of that Supreme Court decision; after a procedural vote issue the case was...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion by hearing and granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss without the requisite three‑day notice and after the defendants had already filed an answer?
- Are the Orbetas proper parties‑in‑interest entitled to institute a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the trial court’s dismissal of Civil Case No. 313‑KC despite the order’s fina...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)