Case Summary (G.R. No. 147420)
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns parcels of agrarian land formerly owned by Victoria Homes, Inc., then sold to Springsun Management Systems Corporation (SMSC) without notifying the tenants/respondents, who were tilling the land. Respondents filed a complaint for prohibition, certiorari, reconveyance, damages, and injunction to assert their redemption rights over the land under the Agrarian Reform Code. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, granting them the right to redeem the land at a fixed price. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed these rulings, recognizing the respondents as agricultural tenants entitled to redemption rights.
Separately, Mariano Nocom (petitioner) gave respondents five Philtrust Bank Manager’s Checks amounting to P500,000 each on December 3, 2003, representing payment for their “inchoate and contingent rights” over the land. Subsequently, on December 18, 2003, respondents, with marital consent, executed an “Irrevocable Power of Attorney” (SPA) appointing Nocom as their attorney-in-fact with broad powers over the subject properties, including selling and transferring titles in Nocom’s name.
Respondents later moved to execute the prior RTC decision ordering the redemption. They deposited the redemption money plus commission into court due to SMSC’s refusal to accept payment, resulting in the cancellation of SMSC’s titles and reissuance of Titles in respondents’ names.
On October 24, 2005, Oscar Camerino (respondent) filed a complaint against Nocom seeking to annul the “Irrevocable Power of Attorney,” demanding turnover of titles and payment of attorney’s fees, alleging the document was executed under misrepresentation and without proper explanation, and that Nocom retained ownership unlawfully.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that the issues raised were questions of law requiring a Rule 45 petition rather than appeal by Rule 41.
- Whether summary judgment was proper despite the presence of genuine issues of fact, particularly regarding the validity of the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" and alleged vices of consent.
- Whether the failure to implead Atty. Arturo S. Santos—alleged co-conspirator in procuring the SPA—as indispensable party warranted dismissal.
- Whether the civil case should have been dismissed for non-payment of correct docket fees due to its characterization as an action for recovery of ownership and title.
Summary Judgment and Genuine Issues of Fact
The Supreme Court emphasized that summary judgment is a procedural device appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court found that the conflicting allegations—particularly regarding whether respondents were misled into executing the SPA, the consideration received, and the role of counsel—create genuine issues of fact not resolvable by summary judgment.
Since questions of fraud, vitiated consent, whether the SPA was truly irrevocable, and involvement of legal counsel require factual determination, summary judgment was improper. The case merits full trial to allow presentation of evidence to resolve these material factual disputes.
Validity of the “Irrevocable Power of Attorney” and Agrarian Reform Law
The trial court initially annulled the SPA on grounds that it violated Republic Act No. 3844, Section 62, which prohibits sale, mortgage, encumbrance or transfer of agrarian landholdings within ten years from acquisition, except to qualified beneficiaries. The SPA’s grant of absolute power to sell and transfer titles before respondents had fully acquired ownership was held to contravene this public policy.
Moreover, the SPA was found to be champertous, as it apparently involved an agreement wherein respondents’ counsel and Nocom colluded to acquire interests in the property through the litigation process at their own expense, a practice prohibited as it violates fiduciary duty and public policy against champertous contracts in lawyer-client relationships.
However, the Supreme Court did not make final findings on the legality of the SPA but rather found factual issues requiring trial.
Non-Impleader of Indispensable Party and Docket Fees
The Court ruled that while joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory, failure to implead Atty. Santos as an indispensable party does not automatically warrant dismissal. The proper procedure is to order impleader, and refusal to comply may lead to dismissal, but the initial absence does not void the proceedings.
On docket fees, the case was correctly characterized as a personal action to revoke a power of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 147420)
Procedural History and Parties Involved
- This case arises from a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated February 14, 2008, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Joint Order dated June 9, 2005 and Summary Judgment dated June 15, 2006.
- The CA dismissed petitioner Mariano Nocom’s appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court for lack of jurisdiction and denied his motion for reconsideration on May 23, 2008.
- The petition is an offshoot of a prior case, G.R. No. 161029, which involved Springsun Management Systems Corporation (SMSC) and respondents Oscar Camerino, Efren Camerino, Cornelio Mantile, Nolasco Del Rosario, and Domingo Enriquez.
- Respondents were agricultural tenants tilling parcels of land formerly owned by Victoria Homes, Inc., which had sold the lots to SMSC without notifying them.
- The present controversy concerns the validity and revocation of an “Irrevocable Power of Attorney” executed by the respondents in favor of petitioner Mariano Nocom.
Factual Background
- The respondents were tenants on three parcels of land covered by specific Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) formerly owned by Victoria Homes, Inc.
- Victoria Homes, Inc. sold these parcels to SMSC who later mortgaged the properties but defaulted, leading to foreclosure by Banco Filipino (BF).
- Respondents filed a case against SMSC and BF for prohibition, reconveyance, damages, and injunction to redeem the landholdings due to lack of notice of the sale to SMSC.
- The RTC ruled respondents had the right to redeem the lands and ordered SMSC to accept payment for the redemption price, deliver the titles, and surrender possession to respondents.
- The CA affirmed this decision with modification, and the Supreme Court upheld the respondents’ right to redeem under pertinent agrarian laws.
The Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Subsequent Legal Actions
- On December 3, 2003, petitioner Mariano Nocom gave respondents Philtrust Bank Manager's Checks of P500,000 each, representing payment for their “inchoate and contingent rights” over the land.
- On December 18, 2003, respondents, with marital consent of their spouses, executed an “Irrevocable Power of Attorney” in favor of petitioner, granting him broad powers to sell, assign, transfer, mortgage, and dispose of the contested properties, procure titles in his name, negotiate with parties in ongoing litigation, and receive all proceeds exclusively.
- In 2005, respondents moved for execution of the RTC decision to transfer titles in their favor; the Redemption price and commission were deposited with the court after SMSC refused to accept payment.
- The RTC cancelled prior titles in SMSC’s name, issued new titles in the respondents’ names, and ordered annotation of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney on the new titles.
- Thereafter, respondent Oscar Camerino filed a complaint to revoke the Power of Attorney, asserting it was fraudulently obtained, not explained, and that petitioner refused