Title
Colmenar vs. Colmenar
Case
G.R. No. 252467
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2021
Frank Colmenar, a legitimate heir, contested property sales by unauthorized respondents, claiming deprivation of successional rights. SC reinstated his complaint, ruling sellers lacked ownership rights, voiding sales.
cause of action
complaint
respondent companies

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252467)

Factual Background

Petitioner alleged that he was the legitimate son and lawful heir of the late Francisco Jesus Colmenar, who left several registered real properties in General Trias, Cavite. Petitioner averred that respondents Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria executed two extrajudicial settlements of estate and thereafter sold parcels of the decedent’s properties to PEC, Crisanta Realty, and ProFriends, and that PEC later conveyed one parcel to Amaia. Petitioner asserted that the individual vendors were not lawful heirs and had no authority to effect the extrajudicial settlements or the subsequent sales. Petitioner alleged lack of his knowledge or consent to those transactions and claimed that the deeds and the titles derived therefrom were void, thereby seeking a declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial settlements and deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages.

Trial Court Proceedings

The complaint was docketed and answers and motions followed. ProFriends, PEC, and Crisanta Realty filed answers invoking affirmative defenses including lack of cause of action and status as innocent purchasers for value; Apollo and Amaia filed motions to dismiss. On April 1, 2019, an assisting judge granted a motion to set affirmative defenses for preliminary hearing. Judge Jean Desuasido-Gill later set aside that order and, by Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020, denied the motions to dismiss and declined to hear affirmative defenses under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, stating that the issues were complex and better threshed out at trial. Several defendants filed motions for reconsideration. After the 2019 Rules took effect on May 1, 2020, Judge Gill issued the May 22, 2020 Order that dismissed the complaint against PEC, Crisanta Realty, Amaia, and ProFriends on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action as to them and, invoking Section 12, Rule 8, purported to motu proprio resolve affirmative defenses within the scope of the 2019 Amendments.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in applying the 2019 Rules to a case filed in 2018 because their application worked injustice and was not feasible. Petitioner argued that Judge Gill had already denied affirmative defenses in February 2020 and that the May 22, 2020 Order deprived him of the right to be heard and the right to seek reconsideration because the 2019 Rules proscribe motions for reconsideration of the court’s action on affirmative defenses. Respondent corporations maintained that the May 22, 2020 Order was proper. They asserted that the 2019 Rules apply to pending cases under Rule 144 and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that the corporations purchased in bad faith or had notice of any defect. PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia emphasized their status as innocent purchasers for value and described the due diligence they performed.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court identified three core issues: (1) whether the petition raised pure questions of law; (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error in applying the 2019 Amendments to resolve affirmative defenses while the case was pending; and (3) whether the complaint, assuming its allegations to be true, stated a cause of action against the respondent companies.

Ruling on Justiciability

The Court held that the petition raised pure questions of law because resolution required interpretation and application of procedural rules without re-evaluating evidence. The Court observed that questions whether a trial court correctly applied a law or rule are legal questions when they can be resolved on the pleadings. The Court accepted direct recourse under Rule 45 because only questions of law remained.

Ruling on Application of the 2019 Rules

The Court held that the trial court gravely erred in applying Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Rules to resolve affirmative defenses in this case. The Court noted that Rule 144 permits application of the 2019 Rules to pending cases except where, in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice. The Court found that the motu proprio resolution by Judge Gill was not feasible because the thirty-day period to resolve affirmative defenses under Section 12(c), Rule 8 had long expired when she acted on May 22, 2020. The Court further found that Judge Gill had already resolved the affirmative defenses in her Omnibus Order of February 12, 2020, and that several motions for reconsideration were pending. The Court concluded that, instead of applying the new provision, the trial court should have resolved the pending motions for reconsideration or adhered to the procedure in force when the action commenced, because application of the 2019 Rules at that juncture worked injustice by depriving petitioner of rights afforded under the prior procedure, including the opportunity for reconsideration.

Ruling on Failure to State Cause of Action and Distinction from Lack of Cause of Action

The Court analyzed the dismissal grounds and reiterated the legal distinction between “failure to state a cause of action” and “lack of cause of action.” The Court explained that failure to state a cause of action tests the sufficiency of allegations in the complaint and may be resolved on the pleadings, whereas lack of cause of action concerns insufficiency of factual basis and is typically raised after the plaintiff has presented evidence, as in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33. The Court found error in dismissing the complaint against ProFriends for failure to state a cause of action because ProFriends had pleaded “lack of cause of action,” not “failure to state a cause of action,” and the two grounds are distinct. A dismissal for lack of cause of action could not be granted before plaintiff had presented evidence.

Ruling on Whether the Complaint Stated a Cause of Action Against the Corporate Respondents

Turning to PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta Realty, the Court applied the established test: assuming the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations, could the judge validly grant the relief demanded? The Court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that petitioner was a legitimate heir, that the decedent owned the subject properties, that the individual respondents were not lawful heirs and therefore lacked authority to settle the estate or sell the properties, and that the subsequent deeds and titles were void. The Court held that, on those allegations, petitioner stated a cause of action to seek nullity of the extrajudicial settlements, nullity of the deeds of sale, cancellation of titles, and damages against the buyers. The Court explained that whether the buyers were innocent purchasers and in good faith was a matter of defense to be pleaded and proved at trial, citing authorities that the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms