Tan v Dela Vega

OA: Petition for quieting of title and declration of nullity of Free Patent against heris of Macario

Mencias.

199: !es"ondents learned that the defendant#heirs are e$ecting the occu"ants of the contested lot %

that Mencias o&tained a title of the said lot "reviously and such has &een inherited &y his heirs.

!es"ondents state that the said lot is a 'ere "ortion of their o(n lot (hich is covered &y their T)T.

Plainti*#heirs state that their right to the said lot arises fro' a di*erent T)T and that !es"ondents+

assertion is incorrect.

,aid lot (as sold already &y the res"ondent#heirs to -e( Atlantis !eal state (ho $oins this "etition as

co#"lainti* raising the defense of &uyers in good faith /given that the annotation (as not seen in the

 T)T of the heirs0.

For failure to le their Ans(er2 defendant Aurora M. 3a&at2 11 "u&lic defendants ,ecretary of the

De"art'ent of nviron'ent and -atural !esources2 Director of 4and Manage'ent 5ureau and the

!egister of Deeds of Mari6ina21 (ere declared in default.

778: !es"ondents led a 'otion for $udg'ent on the "leadings2 granted. T) ruled in favor of

res"ondents and ruled that free#"atent of Mencias is void and the su&sequent sale is invalid. )A

ar's.

,,;: <hether or not the $udg'ent on the "leadings is "ro"er in this case

=4D:

In this case, we fnd that the trial court erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings

 

because the pleadings fled by the parties generated ostensible issues that necessitate the

 

presentation o evidence. 

 

!es"ondents+ action for declaration of nullity of Free Patent -o. >9?@9

and the titles derived therefro' is &ased on their clai' that the lot titled in the na'e of "etitioners2 is

a "ortion of a &igger tract of land "reviously titled in the na'e of their /res"ondents0 "redecessors#in#

interest.

t is clear fro' the foregoing that the "leadings led in the instant case generated the follo(ing issues:

/10 (hether res"ondents+ T)T -o. ?1? is validB /0 (hether 4ot C9 is covered &y T)T -o. ?1?B

and /80 (hether "etitioners are "urchasers in good faith. This is clearly not a proper case or

 

 judgment on the pleadings considering that the Answers tendered actual issues. 

 

 The trial

court rendered a su''ary $udg'ent on March 12 778 and not a $udg'ent on the "leadings.

In any case, a summary judgment is likewise not warranted in this case as there are

genuine issues which call or a ull blown trial. A genuine issue is an issue of fact (hich

requires the "resentation of evidence as distinguished fro' a sha'2 ctitious2 contrived or false clai'.

<hen the facts as "leaded a""ear uncontested or undis"uted2 then there is no real or genuine issue or

question as to the facts2 and su''ary $udg'ent is called for. The "arty (ho 'oves for su''ary

 $udg'ent has the &urden of de'onstrating clearly the a&sence of any genuine issue of fact2 or that the

issue "osed in the co'"laint is "atently unsu&stantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.

 Trial courts have li'ited authority to render su''ary $udg'ents and 'ay do so only (hen there is

clearly no genuine issue as to any 'aterial fact. <hen the facts as "leaded &y the "arties are dis"uted

or contested2 "roceedings for su''ary $udg'ent cannot ta6e the "lace of trial. 7

n the instant case2 "resentation of evidence is necessary to deter'ine the validity of T)T -o. 89?

fro' (hich res"ondents+ title /T)T -o. ?1?0 (as derived. As alleged &y defendant heirs2 T)T -o.

89? (as a 'ere reconstitution of T)T -o. >?7>@2 (hich "er verication fro' the !egister of Deeds of 

!iEal "ertain to a di*erent "iece of land 'easuring only a&out 8?@ square 'eters and located in ,an

 

 uan2 !iEal. These allegations (ere never refuted &y res"ondents2 hence2 they cannot &e si'"ly

&rushed aside &y the trial court.