Case digest Bar Exam Question
Romeo Teston, represented by 1. In a civil case, the plaintiff filed two
Conrado Colarina v. Development separate actions arising from the
Bank of the Philippines, Land Bank of same set of facts. The cases
the Philippines, and Secretary of involve common issues of law and
Agrarian Reform fact, and the defendant has filed a
G.R. No. 144374, November 11, 2005 motion to consolidate the cases for
joint trial.
Facts: Petitioner Romeo Teston,
represented by Conrado Colarina, filed a Discuss the trial court's authority to
complaint (Special Civil Case No. 4243) consolidate the actions under Rule
against the Development Bank of the 31 of the Rules of Court. What
Philippines (DBP), Land Bank of the factors should the court consider
Philippines (LBP), and the Secretary of before granting the motion?
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR
Secretary) for the determination and 2. Two cases involving the same
payment of just compensation for two parties and arising from the same
parcels of agricultural land in Masbate. motor vehicle accident—one for
damages to property and the other
The two parcels of land were purchased for personal injuries—are pending
by Teston from DBP under a Deed of before the same branch of the
Conditional Sale on July 15, 1987. Regional Trial Court. As counsel
However, DBP rescinded the sale in 1990 for the defendant, can you move
due to Teston's failure to pay the for consolidation? Why or why not?
purchase price. In 1998, Teston
voluntarily offered the land for sale to the
DAR under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP), but DBP
transferred the properties to the DAR
without notifying Teston, claiming the
lands were subject to CARP coverage.
At the same time, Colarina filed a similar
case (Special Civil Case No. 4242)
against the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), LBP, and the
DAR Secretary, regarding fifteen parcels
of agricultural land in Masbate that he
allegedly purchased from the foreclosed
property of AAA Inc.
Both cases were raffled to the same RTC
branch. A motion to dismiss was filed by
GSIS, arguing that Colarina had no
standing to sell the property to the DAR
because he had not exercised his right of
redemption within the period allowed by
law.
The RTC dismissed both complaints for
failure to state a cause of action, relying
on the grounds presented in the motion to
dismiss for SCC No. 4242, which was
related only to the case involving
Colarina.
Issue: Whether the RTC erred in
dismissing the complaint in Special Civil
Case No. 4243 upon a motion to dismiss
directed at the complaint in Special Civil
Case No. 4242.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor
of the petitioner, finding that the RTC
exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing
SCC No. 4243 based on a motion to
dismiss filed with respect to SCC No.
4242. The Court held that:
1. Improper Consolidation of
Cases:
While both cases involved the
determination and payment of just
compensation, the causes of
action in the two cases were
distinct, as the properties in
question were different, and the
parties involved had different
claims and rights over the
properties. Thus, there was no
consolidation in the legal sense,
and the RTC's joint hearing was
improper.
2. Due Process Violated:
The RTC violated Teston's right to
due process by dismissing SCC
No. 4243 based on a motion to
dismiss for SCC No. 4242. The
motion to dismiss was specific to
Colarina's case (SCC No. 4242),
and DBP did not file a motion to
dismiss or even raise the issue of
Teston's lack of cause of action in
SCC No. 4243. The RTC cannot
consider grounds for dismissal not
raised by the parties, especially
when the right to due process is at
stake.
3. Grounds for Dismissal:
The Supreme Court also noted
that the RTC went beyond the
allegations in the complaint in
dismissing the case for failure to
state a cause of action. The claim
of Teston and Colarina were
separate, and the grounds for
dismissal in one case could not
automatically apply to the other.
Thus, the Court set aside the decision of
the Court of Appeals and remanded the
case to the RTC for further proceedings
concerning SCC No. 4243.
Principles:
1. Consolidation of Actions:
Under Section 1, Rule 31 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure,
consolidation of actions is allowed
when the cases involve common
questions of law or fact. However,
consolidation should be avoided if
it will cause prejudice, delay, or
confusion to any of the parties.
2. Right to Due Process:
A court cannot dismiss a case
based on grounds that have not
been raised by the parties.
Dismissing a case based on a
motion that concerns a different
party or cause of action violates
the right to due process.
3. Cause of Action:
A motion to dismiss can only be
granted when the complaint fails to
state a cause of action based on
the allegations in the complaint.
The court cannot dismiss a case
by considering grounds not
specifically raised by the parties in
the motion.
Disposition: The Supreme Court granted
the petition, set aside the decision of the
Court of Appeals, and remanded the case
to the RTC for further proceedings
concerning SCC No. 4243.
Case digest Bar Exam Question
Eugenio Basbas et al. vs. Beata 1. Mr. Santos filed a complaint for
Sayson and Roberto Sayson, Jr. annulment of a deed of sale and
G.R. No. 172660, August 24, 2011 reconveyance of a parcel of land,
alleging that his signature was
Facts: Basbas filed a complaint for the forged and that he never intended
declaration of nullity of a deed of sale and to sell his property. The defendant,
reconveyance of property, claiming that Mr. Delgado, filed an answer
her signature on the deed was forged and denying the allegations and moved
that she did not voluntarily sell her for summary judgment, arguing
property. The defendant, Sayson, that there was no genuine issue of
asserted that the transaction was valid material fact and that the sale was
and filed a motion for summary judgment valid. The trial court granted the
under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, motion and rendered judgment in
arguing that there was no genuine issue favor of Mr. Delgado without a full-
of material fact and that the case could be blown trial.
resolved as a matter of law. The trial court
granted the motion for summary As counsel for Mr. Santos, how
judgment, ruling that the evidence would you argue against the
presented showed the validity of the sale. propriety of summary judgment?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Briefly rule.
Issue: Whether the grant of summary
judgment proper under Rule 35?
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that
the summary judgment was improper.
Held: The Court ruled that summary
judgment under Rule 35 is only proper
when there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In
this case, the central issues involved
questions of fact, particularly:
Whether or not Basbas’ signature
on the deed of sale was forged,
and
Whether or not she consented to
the sale of the property.
These matters required the presentation
of evidence, including testimonial and
possibly expert testimony, which could
only be addressed in a full-blown trial.
Hence, the trial court erred in prematurely
dismissing the case via summary
judgment.
Doctrine: Summary judgment is
inappropriate when the pleadings and
supporting documents disclose a genuine
issue of material fact. Courts must
proceed with caution and cannot deprive
a party of the right to trial if factual
disputes are evident from the pleadings.
When allegations involve claims of
forgery or lack of consent, a trial is
necessary.
Case digest Bar Exam Question
Leoncio S. Solidum, PETITIONER, vs. 1. In a civil case for damages, the
Court of Appeals (Fifteen Division) and trial court rendered a final
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., judgment ordering the defendant
RESPONDENTS Mr. Bean, to pay P500,000 to the
G.R. No. 161647, June 22, 2006 plaintiff. Mr. Bean failed to
voluntarily satisfy the judgment,
Facts: Leoncio Solidum obtained a prompting the plaintiff to move for
favorable judgment in a collection case execution. The trial court issued a
against Unified Capital Management writ of execution and the sheriff
Corporation (UNICAP). To satisfy the levied on Mr. Bean's only property
judgment, he caused the garnishment of (family home) which he claims is
life insurance proceeds under policies exempt from execution.
owned by Susan Yee Soon, who had
executed Deeds of Relative Assignment Relying on Rule 39, is the sheriff
of the policy proceeds to UNICAP. These justified in proceeding with the
policies were issued by Insular Life levy? Briefly explain.
Assurance Co., Ltd. (Insular), which was
served notices of garnishment.
Initially, Insular acknowledged the
garnishment but later refused to release
the proceeds, claiming the basic policy
proceeds could not be paid unless the
insured died, and that the amounts were
subject to any existing loans.
The RTC issued several orders
compelling Insular to release the
garnished amounts. Insular filed motions
for reconsideration and later, a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals granted the petition,
annulling the RTC orders. Solidum
elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether a garnishee like Insular
Life may avail of the remedy of certiorari
under Rule 65 despite having other
remedies under Rule 39, Section 16.
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled in
favor of Solidum, holding that certiorari is
not the proper remedy for a garnishee or
third-party claimant who asserts an
adverse claim over garnished property.
The Court emphasized that:
• A garnishee is a stranger to the
original case but becomes an
involuntary intervenor due to the
garnishment.
• Under Rule 39, Section 16, a
garnishee or third party with an
adverse claim must either:
1. File a third-party claim with an
affidavit of ownership or right to
possession, or
2. File a separate reivindicatory
action or a complaint for
damages against the bond
posted by the judgment
obligee.
Insular failed to avail itself of either
remedy. Filing a petition for certiorari was
improper, as it had adequate remedies in
the ordinary course of law. Thus, the
Court of Appeals gravely erred in
entertaining the certiorari petition.
Doctrine: A garnishee who is not a party
to the original case cannot file a petition
for certiorari as a remedy against an
adverse trial court order. The proper
remedies are those provided under Rule
39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, such
as filing a third-party claim or a separate
action.
Disposition:
Petition GRANTED. Court of Appeals’
decision and resolution ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE.
