G.R. No. 252467 - Colmenar vs. Colmenar

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252467)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Relevant procedural timeline: complaint filed September 11, 2018; trial court Omnibus Order denying motions to dismiss dated February 12, 2020; 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Court took effect May 1, 2020; trial court Order dismissing complaint as to corporate respondents dated May 22, 2020. Applicable law: 1987 Constitution (applicable because decision date is after 1990), 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure as amended by the 2019 Rules (including Rule 144 and Section 12, Rule 8, and Section 12, Rule 15), Civil Code provisions (Articles 1458, 1459, 1505), PD 1529 Section 53 (Torrens protection for innocent purchasers), and relevant Supreme Court precedents cited in the decision.

Procedural Background and Trial Court Actions

Petitioner alleged that he is a legitimate son and heir of Francisco Jesus Colmenar and that several properties in General Trias, Cavite registered in his father’s name were the subject of extrajudicial settlements and subsequent sales effected by individual respondents who were not lawful heirs. Corporate respondents acquired properties via those sales. The trial court (Branch 23, Trece Martires City) initially set affirmative defenses for hearing but then, in an Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020, denied motions to dismiss and declined to hear affirmative defenses, stating the issues were complex and better resolved at trial. After the 2019 Rules took effect, the same trial judge issued an Order dated May 22, 2020 applying Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Rules and dismissed the complaint against PEC, Amaia, Crisanta Realty, and ProFriends on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them.

Trial Court’s Reasoning for Dismissal

The trial court concluded the complaint lacked allegations that the corporate respondents were purchasers in bad faith or had notice of defect in the sellers’ title. It relied on the Torrens protection for innocent purchasers (PD 1529, Sec. 53) and cases suggesting that, where a complaint does not allege that purchasers had notice or were in bad faith, dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is appropriate. The court also ordered the plaintiff to file summaries of witnesses, judicial affidavits, and documentary evidence in line with the 2019 Rules’ provisions.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issues framed by the petition were: (1) whether the petition raised pure questions of law suitable for direct review; (2) whether the trial court erred in applying the 2019 Amendments (specifically Section 12, Rule 8) to resolve affirmative defenses despite the case being pending when the Amendments took effect; and (3) whether, assuming the complaint’s allegations are true, the complaint stated a cause of action against the corporate respondents.

Characterization of Issues as Questions of Law

The Supreme Court found the issues to be questions of law because they required interpretation and application of procedural rules and assessment of whether, on the assumed truth of the complaint’s allegations, the plaintiff could obtain the relief sought. Resolution did not require re-evaluation of evidence or witness credibility, thereby fitting Rule 45’s requirement that only questions of law be raised in a petition for certiorari.

Applicability of the 2019 Rules and Rule 144

Rule 144 of the 2019 Rules provides that the 2019 Amendments govern pending proceedings unless, in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the prior procedure governs. The Supreme Court emphasized that application of new procedural rules to pending actions must be done with caution and in strict adherence to their provisions.

Error in Applying Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Rules

The Supreme Court held the trial court gravely erred in applying Section 12, Rule 8 to resolve affirmative defenses motu proprio because (a) the court did not comply with the 30-calendar-day period mandated by Section 12(c) to resolve those defenses “within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer,” and the answers had been filed well before May 22, 2020; (b) the trial judge had previously addressed those issues in the February 12, 2020 Omnibus Order by denying motions to dismiss and declining to resolve affirmative defenses at that stage, making application of the 2019 provision infeasible and unfair; and (c) the trial court’s subsequent motu proprio action effectively deprived the petitioner of rights afforded under the pre-amendment rules, including the opportunity to seek reconsideration of an adverse disposition on affirmative defenses (Section 12, Rule 15’s proscription on motions for reconsideration of actions on affirmative defenses made the proceeding prejudicial when applied in the circumstances).

Distinction Between “Failure to State a Cause of Action” and “Lack of Cause of Action”

The Court reiterated the critical distinction: failure to state a cause of action concerns the sufficiency of allegations in the pleading and may be raised via motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense, resolvable on the face of the complaint without evidence; lack of cause of action pertains to insufficiency of factual basis and may be raised only after the plaintiff has presented evidence (e.g., via demurrer to evidence under Rule 33). The trial court erred by treating ProFriends’ affirmative defense (lack of cause of action) as equivalent to failure to state a cause of action and dismissing the claim on that basis without the evidentiary context required for a lack-of-cause-of-action ruling.

Whether the Complaint Stated a Cause of Action

Applying settled tests, the Supreme Court held that, assuming the truth of the complaint’s allegations, the complaint did state a cause of action against the corporate respondents. The complaint sufficiently alleged: petitioner’s status as legitimate heir; ownership interests of the deceased in specified properties; that the individual respondents were not lawful heirs yet purported to settle the estate and sell the properties; and that those sales were void and resulted in titles that should be cancelled. Under the test (accepting the complaint’s factual averments as true), a judge could validly grant the relief demanded (declaration of nullity of extrajudicial settlements and deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages).

Legal Principles Governing Buyers’ Good Faith and Burden of Proof

The Court explained that defenses such as innocence of the purchaser and good faith under the Torrens system are defenses for the buyers to plead and prove; they are not prerequisites that the plain

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 252467)

The Petition and Relief Sought

The petition is a petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal and setting aside of the RTC, Branch 23, Trece Martires City, Cavite Order dated May 22, 2020 in Civil Case No. TMCV-062-18.
Petitioner, Frank Colmenar (in his capacity as an heir of the late Francisco Jesus Colmenar), sought relief from the Supreme Court because the trial court dismissed his complaint for declaration of nullity of deeds of extrajudicial settlement of estate, deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages as against respondent corporations (Philippine Estates Corporation (PEC), Amaia Land Corporation (Amaia), Crisanta Realty Development Corporation (Crisanta Realty), and Property Company of Friends (ProFriends)) for alleged failure to state a cause of action.
Petitioner contends the trial court erroneously applied the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure (now 2019 Rules on Civil Procedure) to a case pending prior to the Amendments’ effectivity despite the Amendments’ non-feasibility and the injustice thereby caused.

Antecedent Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

Petitioner is the second child and legitimate son of Francisco Jesus Colmenar and Dorothy Marie Crimmin; the family lived in Cleveland, Ohio; petitioner lived later in Las Vegas, Nevada.
After his parents’ divorce, Francisco Jesus Colmenar returned to the Philippines; petitioner and his father remained close; the father confided about meeting a woman named Loida.
Francisco Jesus Colmenar died having left interests in several real properties in General Trias, Cavite, registered in his name, specifically interests in properties under TCT No. 579 (130,743 sq. m.), TCT No. 588 (806 sq. m.), 1/2 interest in TCT No. 572 (27,175 sq. m.), and 1/6 interest in TCT No. 25848 (117,476 sq. m.).
Respondent individuals Apollo A. Colmenar, Jeannie Colmenar Mendoza, and Victoria Jet Colmenar executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated May 16, 2008 and another dated July 8, 2011, representing themselves as surviving heirs and allocating the decedent’s interests in the properties to themselves.
Using those extrajudicial settlements, the individual respondents executed deeds of sale conveying the properties to respondent corporations: ProFriends (TCT No. 25848) on January 3, 2012; Crisanta Realty (TCT No. 572) by deed dated September 21, 2012; PEC (TCT No. 579) by deed dated May 22, 2013; PEC later sold the property to Amaia, leading to issuance of TCT No. 057-2013024578 in Amaia’s name.
Petitioner alleges these transactions were done without his knowledge or consent, depriving him of successional rights as a legitimate son and heir; petitioner sent demand letters which were ignored or refused.

Causes of Action Alleged in the Complaint

Declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial settlements of estate executed by Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria.
Declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale executed by the individual respondents in favor of respondent corporations.
Cancellation of titles issued to respondent corporations by the Register of Deeds.
Damages against respondents for wrongful disposition of decedent’s properties.

Respondents’ Pleadings, Defenses and Motions

ProFriends, PEC, and Crisanta Realty filed answers asserting affirmative defenses; ProFriends invoked lack of cause of action; PEC and Crisanta Realty averred the complaint failed to state a cause of action and pleaded: (1) they were innocent purchasers for value; and (2) petitioner’s claim was barred by laches and/or prescription.
Apollo and Amaia filed motions to dismiss; Amaia averred the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it, that it was a buyer in good faith, and that petitioner’s claim had prescribed.
PEC and Crisanta Realty later filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Set the Case for Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses.
The chronology of relevant filings: ProFriends’ answer with affirmative defense in December 2018; PEC and Crisanta’s answers on January 3, 2019; Amaia’s answer on February 27, 2020.

Trial Court Proceedings and Key Orders (RTC, Branch 23)

April 1, 2019 Order (Assisting Judge Bonifacio S. Pascua): granted motion to set affirmative defenses for hearing and set hearing for May 27, 2019; deferred resolution of motions to dismiss by Apollo and Amaia.
December 26, 2019 Order (Assisting Judge Jean Desuasido-Gill): set aside the April 1, 2019 Order and deemed PEC and Crisanta Realty’s Motion for Leave, and Apollo and Amaia’s motions to dismiss, submitted for resolution.
February 12, 2020 Omnibus Order (Judge Gill): denied motions to dismiss of Apollo and Amaia (issues deemed complex and evidentiary, better threshed out at trial), directed them to file answers; exercised discretion under Section 1, Rule 16 to deny the Motion to Hear Affirmative Defenses by PEC and Crisanta Realty (affirmative defenses deemed matters better threshed out at trial).
PEC, Crisanta, and Amaia filed motions for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order; Amaia also filed an Answer re-pleading affirmative defenses.

May 22, 2020 Assailed Order (Judge Gill) and Its Rationale

The RTC applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules (effective May 1, 2020) and, invoking the court’s motu proprio authority thereunder, resolved affirmative defenses and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action as to PEC, Amaia, Crisanta Realty, and ProFriends.
Judge Gill’s specific findings included:
- The complaint did not allege PEC or Amaia were purchasers in bad faith or had notice of title defects; without such allegations, plaintiff failed to state a cause of action as to purchasers under prior jurisprudence.
- PEC and Amaia, having performed due diligence and being innocent purchasers for value, were protected by Section 53 of PD 1529 and could not be deprived of title absent allegation or proof of bad faith.
- Similar conclusions were reached as to Crisanta and ProFriends, concluding they were innocent purchasers for value and that the complaint lacked factual/legal basis for cancellation of their titles or deeds.
Final orders in the May 22, 2020 disposition included dismissal of the complaint against those corporations for lack of cause of action, directions to plaintiff to file witness summaries, judicial affidavits, and documentary evidence within 30 days consistent with Rule 7 Section 6(b) and (c) of the 2019 Amendments, and scheduling for possible marking of exhibits; the court noted defaults/non-answers of certain individual respondents.

Petitioner’s Contentions on Review

The trial court erred in applying the 2019 Amendments to a case filed in September 2018 since application would not be feasible and worked injustice to petitioner; the 2019 Amendments themselves allow courts to decline application where infeasible or unjust.
Judge Gill improperly acted motu proprio on affirmative defenses despite her prior Omnibus Order of February 12, 2020 which denied motions to dismiss and declined to hear affirmative defenses, causing prejudice and deprivation of petitioner’s right to be heard and to file motions for reconsideration (Section 12, Rule 15 of 2019 Amendments proscribes motions for reconsideration of court action on affirmative defenses).
The court breached the thirty (30) day period of Section 12(c), Rule 8 by resolving affirmative defenses only on May 22, 2020, well beyond the 30 days following the filing of answers (Pr