SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200758. November 10, 2021.]
CONCHITA AMONGO FRANCIA [DECEASED, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS, NOEL AMONGO FRANCIA, ET AL.], respondent,vs. DOMINGO POMBO [DECEASED, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, PUREZA JOYCE POMBO-PALENCIA, ET AL.]), complainant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200758(Conchita Amongo Francia[deceased, as substituted by her legal heirs, Noel Amongo Francia, et al.] v. Domingo Pombo [deceased, as substituted by his legal heirs, Pureza Joyce Pombo-Palencia, et al.]). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision 2 dated September 23, 2011 and Resolution 3 dated February 20, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86743 which reversed the Summary Judgment 4 dated December 20, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Manila and remanded the case to the RTC for trial on the merits.
Antecedents
The late Conchita Amongo Francia (Conchita) was married to the late Domingo Pombo (Domingo) on April 20, 1977. They lived together as husband and wife for decades in their conjugal home at No. 1025 Domingo Santiago Street, Balic-Balic, Sampaloc, Manila (subject property). The subject property was registered under two titles, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 180198 and 180199. 5
Unfortunately, the marriage between Conchita and Domingo turned sour. Sometime in 2004, Conchita left the conjugal home. 6
On December 16, 2004, Atty. Angel P. Ramos (Atty. Ramos) wrote Domingo a letter informing him that the subject property was now owned by Sonia A. Arguelles (Sonia) and Lorna A. Arguelles-Armas (Lorna). Atty. Ramos likewise informed Domingo that by January 2005, he would be charged a monthly rental of P10,000.00. This was confirmed to Domingo by Conchita herself four days later, or on December 20, 2004. 7
Domingo claimed that upon investigation, Conchita indeed executed two Deeds of Absolute Sale of the subject property. This resulted in the cancellation of TCT Nos. 180198 and 180199 and, in lieu thereof, the issuance of TCT Nos. 266311 and 266312 in the names of Sonia and Lorna. Moreover, Domingo discovered that Conchita misrepresented herself as a widow in the Deeds of Absolute Sale. 8
Aggrieved, Domingo filed on January 5, 2005 a Complaint 9 for nullification of TCT Nos. 266311 and 266312 before Branch 40 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. aScITE
In their Answer, 10 Conchita and her co-defendants admitted that Conchita had been representing herself as a widow because her marriage to Domingo was null and void ab initio. They claimed that the marriage contract between Domingo and Conchita was obtained through Domingo's insidious words and machinations because they never secured any marriage license. Moreover, no marriage ceremony ever took place between them. It was also claimed that the subject property was exclusively owned by Conchita and that Domingo never made a single contribution in obtaining the same.
Domingo and several of his witnesses were able to testify in open court. However, before he was able to complete the presentation of his evidence, Conchita and her co-defendants filed a motion asking the trial court to render a summary judgment on the case. Said motion was granted. 11
The RTC Ruling
On December 20, 2005, the trial court issued a Summary Judgment 12 dismissing Domingo's complaint. The trial court ruled, inter alia, that the marriage between Domingo and Conchita was void ab initio; that the subject property was exclusively owned by Conchita; and that, accordingly, Conchita acted well within her rights when she sold the subject property to third parties without the prior knowledge and consent of Domingo. Thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.
The counterclaim is also dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 13
Undaunted, Domingo filed an appeal with the CA.
In his Appellant's Brief, 14 Domingo asserted that the RTC's rendition of a Summary Judgment to dismiss his complaint was improper; that the trial court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction when it declared his marriage with Conchita void from the beginning; that the sale of the subject property was simulated because the buyers thereof are Conchita's relatives and nieces; and that the same was indeed, fraudulently sold conjugal property.
In their Appellees' Brief, 15 Conchita and her co-defendants countermanded that Domingo's admission that he was not employed for 28 years, or between 1977 and 2005, proves that he could not have contributed anything towards the purchase of the subject property; that their marriage contract appearing to be simulated on its face proves that the marriage between Domingo and Conchita is void; that this observation on the part of the trial court leads to the conclusion that he had no right to be protected and that there was no longer any genuine issue for the trial court to adjudicate upon; and that, accordingly, summary judgment was proper.
Sometime during the pendency of the appeal, Domingo and Conchita both passed away. 16
Domingo was substituted by his legal heirs, Pureza Joyce Pombo-Palencia and Helen Pombo-Ibañez (collectively, Heirs of Domingo). On the other hand, Conchita was substituted by her legal heirs, Noel Amongo Francia, Lourdes Amongo Valderama, Tarcilla Amongo Lopez, and Fe Amongo Arguelles (collectively, Heirs of Conchita). 17
The CA Ruling
On September 23, 2011, the CA issued the herein assailed Decision 18 in favor of the Heirs of Domingo.
The appellate court ruled that the issue concerning the nullity of marriage cannot be determined or settled in a summary judgment, and that "any conclusion reached pursuant to the declaration of the marriage as void in the said summary judgment is devoid of factual and legal basis." 19 The CA added that summary judgment is only proper when the facts of the case are not in dispute, which is not the case here. Accordingly, the conduct of trial on the merits was imperative. 20
In fine, the CA disposed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Summary Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40 in Civil Case No. 05-111612 is SET ASIDE and the instant case is REMANDED to RTC Branch 40, Manila for hearing on the merits.
The Notice of Substitution of Party filed by the Heirs of Domingo Pombo, namely Pureza Joyce Pombo-Palencia and Helen Pombo-Ibanez is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED. 21
The motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Conchita was denied by the CA in the herein assailed Resolution 22 dated February 20, 2012.
Hence, the present recourse.
Issues
The Heirs of Conchita submit the following issues for the Court's consideration:
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REMANDING THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR HEARING ON THE MERITS
II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO RULE UPON THE PETITION FOR REVIEW WHICH INVOLVED PURELY QUESTIONS OF LAW 23
The Heirs of Conchita postulate that because the facts of the case already establish that the marriage license between Domingo and Conchita was fraudulently obtained, their marriage was void ab initio. Thus, there was no longer issue with regard to the character of the subject property — the same being Conchita's exclusive property. The Heirs of Conchita likewise assert that the CA erred in poring over the factual issues of the case, its jurisdiction being limited to determining pure questions of law. HEITAD
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. 24 Its aim is to weed out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. 25 Conversely stated, the objective of summary judgment is to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from what is genuine and substantial so that only the latter may subject a party in interest to the burden of trial. 26
Rule 35, Sections 1 to 3 of the Rules of Court provide the following guideposts on the rendition of summary judgments:
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
Section 2. Summary judgement for defending party. — A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof.
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Prescinding from the foregoing, a summary judgment is one granted upon motion by a party for an expeditious settlement of the case, there appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that there are no important questions or issues of fact posed, except as to the amount of damages, and therefore, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 27
In a motion for summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues raised in the pleadings genuine, sham or fictitious, as shown by affidavits, depositions or admissions accompanying the motion? 28 The presence of a genuine issue of fact, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived, or false claim, requires the presentation of evidence. 29 Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. 30
In the case at bar, the CA correctly identified the genuine issues that must be determined in a full-blown trial, viz.:
1. Whether or not the marriage between Domingo and Conchita is void ab initio; and
2. Whether or not the subject property is conjugal property of Domingo and Conchita, or the exclusive property of Conchita. 31
While the trial court was able to secure Domingo's admission that he did not apply for a marriage license, it also acknowledges the fact that a marriage license was issued to Domingo and Conchita and the same was indicated in their marriage contract.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that their marriage is void ab initio, the same does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the subject property was exclusively owned by Conchita. Case law states that contribution towards conjugal property is not limited to monetary funds. If an unemployed spouse is able to show that he or she cared for and maintained the family and the household, his or her efforts shall be deemed the equivalent of the contributions made by the employed spouse. 32
Clearly, these are matters that are best taken up during the trial of the case.
At any rate, jurisprudence holds that "[t]he grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor summary judgment is allowed." 33 On this score alone, it is clear that the RTC transgressed the rules on summary judgments.
Furthermore, it appears that the Heirs of Conchita are confused as to the manner by which Domingo elevated the instant case from the RTC to the CA. They mistakenly assert that Domingo filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the appellate court.
The Heirs of Conchita are wrong.
A summary judgment is a final suit which can be rectified by means of an appeal therefrom. 34 This is exactly what Domingo filed with the CA. The appellate court docketed the same as an ordinary appeal. Conchita and her co-defendants even submitted an Appellees' Brief to countermand the arguments advanced by Domingo in his Appellant's Brief. We will not belabor further on the Heirs of Conchita's gross misappreciation of this matter.
If the Heirs of Conchita are fully confident that the facts and the law are on their side, as they have repeatedly stressed in all of their pleadings, they should not have any qualms in presenting their case before the trial court. 35
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 23, 2011 and Resolution dated February 20, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86743 are hereby AFFIRMED. ATICcS
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-40.
2.Id. at 43-60. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (a retired Member of this Court) concurring.
3.Id. at 61-65.
4.Id. at 66-79. Penned by Judge Placido C. Marquez.
5.Id. at 46.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 47.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 80-85. Entitled, "Domingo Pombo, Plaintiff, versus Conchita Amongo Francia-Pombo, Sonia A. Arguelles, Lourdes A. Valderama, and Spouses Bruno Armas and Lorna Arguelles-Armas, Defendants."
10.Id. at 86-95.
11.Id. at 127.
12.Id. at 66-79.
13.Id. at 78-79.
14.Id. at 121-135.
15.Id. at 96-120.
16.Id. at 45.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 43-60.
19.Id. at 54.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 59.
22.Id. at 61-65.
23.Id. at 24.
24.Solidbank Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 439 Phil. 23, 33 (2002).
25.Evadel Realty & Development Corp. v. Spouses Soriano, 409 Phil. 450, 460 (2001).
26.Sps. Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc., 438 Phil. 168, 189-190 (2002).
27.Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 391 Phil. 362, 368 (2000).
28.Cotabato Timberland Co., Inc. v. C. Alcantara and Sons, Inc., 474 Phil. 259, 267 (2004).
29.Polyfoam Chemical Corp. v. Chen, 689 Phil. 357, 360 (2012).
30.Singleton v. Philippine Trust Co., 99 Phil. 91, 97 (1956).
31.Rollo, p. 56.
32.Paterno v. Paterno, G.R. No. 213687, January 8, 2020.
33.Carlos v. Sandoval, 594 Phil. 534, 548 (2008).
34.Aqualyn Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 288 Phil. 1089, 1094 (1992).
35.Digitel Employees Union v. Digital Telecoms Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 217529, July 3, 2019.