G.R. No. 159508 - Banez, Jr. vs. Concepcion

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159508)

Key Individuals and Context

Petitioner: Juan B. Banez, Jr., counsel of Leodegario B. Ramos and respondent-defendant in the underlying action.
Respondents: (1) Hon. Crisanto C. Concepcion, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 12, Malolos City; (2) Estate of the late Rodrigo Gomez, represented by its administratrix Tsui Yuk Ying.
Subject matter: Civil Case No. 722-M-2002 — action to recover ownership and possession (in substance, an action to revive and execute a judgment by compromise concerning a 1,233 sq. m. parcel).
Locale: Meycauayan and Valenzuela, Bulacan/Metro Manila environs; Regional Trial Courts of Valenzuela and Malolos; Court of Appeals and Supreme Court involvement.

Key Dates

Compromise agreement and RTC decision approving it: October 9, 1990.
Death of Rodrigo Gomez: November 7, 1990.
Specific performance action filed by Estate of Gomez (Valenzuela RTC): July 6, 1995 (Civil Case No. 4679-V-95).
CA disposition affirming dismissal of that action for improper venue: July 24, 2001 (CA-G.R. CV No. 54231).
Complaint to revive judgment/for recovery filed in Valenzuela RTC: September 20, 2002 (Civil Case No. 722-M-2002).
Petitioner’s motion to dismiss granted by RTC: February 18, 2003; RTC reversed that order: March 24, 2003; motions for reconsideration denied April 21, 2003 and August 19, 2003.
Petition for certiorari filed directly in the Supreme Court: September 4, 2003.

Applicable Law and Procedural Rules

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date).
Rules: Rule 65, Sections 1 and 4 (extraordinary writs — certiorari; venue/hierarchy policy); Section 6, Rule 39 (execution by motion or by independent action).
Civil Code provisions on prescription: Article 1144 (ten-year prescriptive period for actions upon a judgment) and Article 1155 (interruption of prescription by filing of action).
Relevant jurisprudence cited in the decision concerning interlocutory orders, hierarchy of courts, and prescription doctrine.

Factual and Transactional Background

Original controversy arose from competing claims over a portion (1,233 sq. m.) of a larger tract (3,054 sq. m.) allegedly disposed of by Ramos’s mother to Ricardo Asuncion and later sold to Rodrigo Gomez. Ramos sued Gomez (Civil Case No. 3287-V-90) for rescission and damages; before adjudication, the parties entered into a court-approved compromise on October 9, 1990.
The compromise required segregation by survey, registration of a deed of absolute sale transferring the 1,233 sq. m. to Gomez, delivery of title duplicate, and financial undertakings guaranteed by the petitioner through post-dated checks totaling P110,000.00. Gomez died in November 1990; only P80,000 was ultimately paid; a check for P30,000 issued by the petitioner was dishonored.
The Estate of Gomez performed the surveying obligation and attempted to secure registration, but Ramos allegedly failed to register and instead caused the 1,233 sq. m. to be registered under his own title (TCT No. T-13005-P(M)). The Estate filed subsequent suits to enforce the compromise/judgment.

Procedural History in Lower Courts

The Estate sued for specific performance and later sought enforcement/revival of the judgment by compromise. An RTC in Valenzuela dismissed the Estate’s July 6, 1995 suit for specific performance on venue/execution grounds; the CA affirmed on July 24, 2001.
On September 20, 2002 the Estate filed Civil Case No. 722-M-2002 (seeking revival/execution of the October 9, 1990 compromise-judgment). The petitioner moved to dismiss (Jan. 8, 2003) asserting prescription, res judicata, lack of real party-in-interest, and prior payment. The RTC initially granted dismissal for prescription (Feb. 18, 2003) but, on motion by the Estate, reversed that order and reinstated the case (Mar. 24, 2003). Subsequent motions for reconsideration by petitioner were denied (Apr. 21 and Aug. 19, 2003). Petitioner then filed a direct petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented by the Petitioner and Respondent Positions

Petitioner’s principal contentions: the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the dismissal based on prescription (Article 1144) and in applying Article 1155; Civil Case No. 722-M-2002 was time-barred because an action to revive a judgment must be filed within ten years from finality; the judgment had been fully satisfied or the rights waived/abandoned; and the Estate’s remedies had been exhausted or improperly pursued. Petitioner also argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction in reinstating the case and improperly ordered him to answer despite alleged defects in service on other defendants.
Estate’s principal responses: the filing of the July 6, 1995 specific performance action interrupted prescription (Article 1155), the CA’s July 24, 2001 disposition tolled or affected computation such that the subsequent revival action filed on September 20, 2002 was within ten years and therefore timely.

Legal Standards Applied by the Supreme Court

Interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss are generally not reviewable by certiorari because they do not terminate proceedings; certiorari is reserved where the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Rule 65, Sec. 1). The petitioner must demonstrate such jurisdictional excess or lack, or that no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.
The Court reaffirmed the policy of hierarchy of courts under Rule 65, Section 4: petitions for extraordinary writs should generally be filed first in the appropriate lower or intermediate court (i.e., the Court of Appeals for rulings of a Regional Trial Court), and direct resort to the Supreme Court requires special and compelling reasons. The petitioner offered no such reasons to justify direct filing in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; where resolution of a petition would necessarily require evaluation of evidentiary matters and disputed facts (e.g., interruption or suspension of prescription, compliance with compromise terms, alleged full payment, waiver/abandonment), the proper forum is the trial court to receive evidence and adjudicate those factual questions.

Application of Law to the Facts — Prescription and Evidentiary Necessities

The Court characterized Civil Case No. 722-M-2002 as in substance an action to revive and enforce a judgment by compromise; Article 1144 prescribes a ten-year period to bring such actions. However, whether the action was time-barred could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss unless the complaint on its face conclusively established prescription. The complaint did not so show; therefore prescription was an issue involving factual events (e.g., the filing of the 1995 specific-performance suit, the CA’s subsequent disposition, any suspensions or interruptions under Article 1155) that required full evidentiary resolution at trial.
The Court noted established doctrine that the filing of an action may interrupt prescription (Article 1155) and that time during which execution is stayed (by agreement, appeal, death, etc.) may be excluded in computing the period for enforcement; such matters require proof. The petitioner’s alternate factual defenses (full payment, waiver/abandonment) similarly entailed contested facts unsuitable for resolution in an interlocutory dismissal.

On the Appropriateness of Certiorari and Forum Choice

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159508)

Court, Citation, and Decision

Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division; G.R. No. 159508; reported at 693 Phil. 399.
Decision promulgated August 29, 2012; authored by Justice Bersamin.
Concurring: Chief Justice Sereno, Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes.
Relief sought: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging several RTC orders in Civil Case No. 722-M-2002.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Juan B. Banez, Jr. (counsel and later impleaded defendant in the underlying actions).
Respondent judge: Hon. Crisanto C. Concepcion, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 12, Malolos City, Bulacan.
Respondent plaintiffs/other party: Estate of the late Rodrigo Gomez, represented by its administratrix Tsui Yuk Ying (referred to as the Estate of Gomez).
Other principal private party: Leodegario B. Ramos (defendant in the underlying matters and principal obligor under compromise agreements).

Nature of the Case Below

Civil Case No. 722-M-2002 in the RTC, Branch 12, Malolos City — filed ostensibly as an action for recovery of ownership and possession but treated by the parties and the Court as an action to revive an earlier judgment by compromise (Civil Case No. 3287-V-90).
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari directly to the Supreme Court on September 4, 2003 to assail the RTC’s orders dated March 24, 2003; April 21, 2003; and August 19, 2003 (the March 24 order had reversed an earlier February 18, 2003 order that had granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss).

Antecedent Facts — Origin of the Dispute

The land: A bigger tract of approximately 3,054 square meters located in Meycauayan, Bulacan; within it, a portion of approximately 1,233 square meters was central to the dispute.
Ramos’ title claim: Leodegario B. Ramos adjudicated the disputed parcel to himself upon his mother’s death on November 16, 1982; subsequently discovered that his mother had earlier transferred the parcel to Ricardo Asuncion, who sold it to Rodrigo Gomez.
Initial litigation: On February 1, 1990, Ramos sued Gomez (also known as Domingo Ng Lim) in the RTC in Valenzuela — Civil Case No. 3287-V-90 — seeking rescission and damages.
Compromise: On October 9, 1990, before decision on the merits, Ramos and Gomez entered into a compromise agreement which the Valenzuela RTC approved the same date; petitioner (then counsel of Ramos) assisted Ramos in entering the compromise.

Terms of the October 9, 1990 Compromise Agreement (as approved by RTC)

Parties submitted a formal, court-approved compromise “to finally terminate this case,” with the following terms (as stated in the agreement):
- Defendant (Gomez) to cause survey at its expense to segregate 1,233 sq. m. from the 3,054 sq. m. parcel, following specified plan lines (lines two to three, then to four and five of plan Csd-04-001618-D).
- Upon completion of technical survey and plan, defendant to cause registration of Deed of Absolute Sale executed by plaintiff (Ramos) over the 1,233 sq. m. in defendant’s favor; defendant to deliver the survey and plan pertaining to the remaining 1,821 sq. m. to plaintiff; both parties to defray costs of registration and titling over their respective shares.
- Plaintiff (Ramos) to entrust the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-10179-P(M), Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to defendant upon court approval of the compromise agreement.
- Upon approval, plaintiff to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of defendant over the 1,233 sq. m. surveyed and segregated; the remaining 1,821 sq. m. to remain with plaintiff and be titled in his name.
- Plaintiff (Ramos) obligated to return loan obligation to defendant in principal sum of P80,000 plus P20,000 for use and P10,000 attorney’s fees — guaranteed by a post-dated check in the amount of P110,000 issued in plaintiff’s name with prior endorsement, issued by plaintiff’s counsel, for a period of 60 days from October 9, 1990.
- If the check referred to above is dishonored upon presentment for any reason, the compromise would be considered null and void.
- Upon faithful compliance with the terms, parties would waive, concede and abandon all claims and rights of action of whatever nature against each other over the subject property.

Specified Stipulations and Instrument Details

The compromise specifically contemplated a deed of absolute sale by Ramos over the 1,233 sq. m., covered by TCT No. T-13005 P(M) in Ramos’ name as a stipulation.
The petitioner (as counsel) was to issue post-dated checks totaling P110,000 to guarantee Ramos’ monetary obligations (breakdown: P80,000 loan; P20,000 for use; P10,000 attorney’s fees).
Actual payment and dishonor:
- Only P80,000 was ultimately paid to Gomez.
- The petitioner’s check dated April 23, 1991 for the remaining P30,000 was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Death: Gomez died on November 7, 1990; he was survived by his wife Tsui Yuk Ying and minor children (collectively, the Estate of Gomez).

Subsequent Proceedings and Compromises Involving the Estate

The Estate of Gomez sued Ramos and the petitioner for specific performance in RTC, Caloocan City — Civil Case No. C-15750 — to recover the balance of P30,000.
On February 28, 1994, Civil Case No. C-15750 was amicably settled by compromise: petitioner bound himself to pay the Estate P10,000 on or before March 15, 1994; P10,000 on or before April 15, 1994; and P10,000 on or before May 15, 1994.
The Estate performed Gomez’s obligation under the October 9, 1990 compromise by causing the survey of the 3,054 sq. m. tract to segregate the 1,233 sq. m. parcel and shouldering expenses to that purpose.
Ramos’ alleged default:
- Ramos failed to cause registration of the deed of absolute sale pursuant to the second paragraph of the October 9, 1990 compromise despite the Estate’s compliance.
- Ramos failed to deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-10179-P(M) as stipulated under the third paragraph.
- Instead, Ramos and the petitioner caused the 1,233 sq. m. portion to be registered in Ramos’ name under TCT No. T-13005-P(M) at the Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan.

Litigation History Following Ramos’ Alleged Default

July 6, 1995: Estate of Gomez filed complaint for specific performance against Ramos and the petitioner in RTC, Valenzuela — Civil Case No. 4679-V-95 — to recover the 1,233 sq. m. lot.
April 1, 1996: Valenzuela RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 4679-V-95 on motion of Ramos and petitioner on ground of improper venue — objective was recovery of realty situated in Meycauayan, Bulacan — and proper recourse held to be enforcement of the judgment by compromise via motion for execution.
Appeal: Estate of Gomez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
July 24, 2001: Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 54231) affirmed the Valenzuela RTC and dismissed the appeal.
September 20, 2002: Estate of Gomez commenced Civil Case No. 722-M-2002 in the Valenzuela RTC (later appearing before Branch 12, RTC Malolos