TOPIC: SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

The filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing on the motion
ANICETO CALUBAQUIB, WILMA CALUBAQUIB, EDWIN are therefore important because these enable the court to determine
CALUBAQUIB, ALBERTO CALUBAQUIB AND if the parties pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of, or
ELEUTERIO FAUSTINO CALUBAQUIB VS. REPUBLIC OF against, the motion are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers
THE PHILIPPINES and adequately justify the finding that, as a matter of law, the claim
is clearly meritorious or there is no defense to the action. The non-
G.R. No. 170658 | June 22, 2011 | J. Del Castillo observance of the procedural requirements of filing a motion and
Digested by: Quengilyn Quintos conducting a hearing on the said motion warrants the setting aside of
the summary judgment.
DOCTRINE: The remedy of summary judgment is in derogation of  
a party's right to a plenary trial of his case, the trial court cannot In the case at bar, the trial court proceeded to render summary
railroad the parties rights over their objections. judgment with neither of the parties filing a motion therefor. In fact,
  the respondent itself filed an opposition when the trial court directed
FACTS: it to file the motion for summary judgment. Respondent insisted that
   the case involved a genuine issue of fact. Under these
 President Quezon issued Proclamation No. 80, which circumstances, it was improper for the trial court to have persisted in
declared landholding in Cagayan, a military reservation rendering summary judgment. Considering that the remedy of
site. summary judgment is in derogation of a party's right to a plenary
 Respondent filed before the RTC a complaint for trial of his case, the trial court cannot railroad the parties rights over
recovery of possession against petitioners alleging that their objections.
petitioners unlawfully entered the military reservation  
through strategy and stealth.  The lower courts merely assumed that petitioners would not be able
 Petitioners allegedly refused to vacate the subject to prove their defense and factual allegations, without first giving
property despite repeated demands. Thus, respondent them an opportunity to do so.
prayed that the petitioners be ordered to vacate the subject  
property. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE PETITION
 Petitioners filed an answer denying the allegation that IS GRANTED. 
they entered the subject property through stealth and
strategy. They maintained that their predecessor-in- TOPIC: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
interest, Antonio have been in open and continuous
possession of the subject property since the early 1900s.
 When Antonio died in, his six children acknowledged PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS VS. SPOUSES
inheriting the subject property from him in a private JOSE GO AND ELVY GO
document.
 Nevertheless, these children continued cultivating the G.R. No. 175514 | February 14, 2011 | J. Mendoza
subject property. Digested by: Quengilyn Quintos
 Petitioners acknowledged the issuance of Proclamation
DOCTRINE: When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed
No. 80, but maintained that the subject property was
or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the
excluded from its operation. Petitioners prayed for the
place of trial.
dismissal of the complaint against them.
 
 The pre-trial conference was conducted.
FACTS
 Given the trial courts opinion that the basic facts of the
case were undisputed, it advised the parties to file a
 Respondent Go obtained two loans from PBCom,
motion for summary judgment.
evidenced by two promissory notes. 
 Neither party filed the motion. In fact, respondent
 To secure the two loans, Go executed two (2) pledge
expressed on two occasions its objection to a summary
agreements, covering shares of stock in Ever Gotesco
judgment. It explained that summary judgment is
Resources and Holdings, Inc. 
improper given the existence of a genuine and vital
 Two years later, however, the market value of the said
factual issue, which is the petitioner’s claim of ownership
shares of stock plunged to less than P0.04 per
over the subject property. It argued that the said issue can
share. Thus, PBCom, as pledgee, notified Go in writing
only be resolved by trying the case on the merits.
that it was renouncing the pledge agreements.
 RTC issued an Order thus: The Court noticed that the
 Later, PBCom filed before the RTC a complaint for sum
defendants in this case failed to raise any issue. For this
of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment
reason, a summary judgment is in order.
against Go and his wife.
 CA affirmed the RTC Decision.
 PBCom alleged that Spouses Go defaulted on the two (2)
  
promissory notes, having paid only three (3) installments
ISSUE: WON summary judgment was proper.
on interest payments.
 
RULING: The petition has merit.  Consequently, the entire balance of the obligations of Go
  became immediately due and demandable.
Summary judgments are proper when, upon motion of the plaintiff  PBCom made repeated demands upon Spouses Go for the
or the defendant, the court finds that the answer filed by the payment of said obligations, but the couple imposed
defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact and conditions on the payment, such as the lifting of
that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
 garnishment effected by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for
(BSP) on Gos accounts. trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render summary
 Spouses Go filed their Answer with judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine
Counterclaim denying the material allegations in the issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the
complaint. parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary
 PBCom filed a verified motion for summary judgment.  judgment cannot take the place of trial. (Underscoring supplied.)
 Spouses Go opposed the motion for summary judgment  
arguing that they had tendered genuine factual issues Juxtaposing the Complaint and the Answer discloses that the
calling for the presentation of evidence. material facts here are not undisputed so as to call for the rendition
 The RTC granted PBComs motion in its Judgment of a summary judgment. While the denials of Spouses Go could
 CA reversed  RTC’s judgment. It found the supposed have been phrased more strongly or more emphatically, and the
admission to be insufficient to justify a rendition of Answer more coherently and logically structured in order to
summary judgment in the case for sum of money, since overthrow any shadow of doubt that such denials were indeed made,
there were other allegations and defenses put up by the pleadings show that they did in fact raise material issues that
Spouses Go in their Answer which raised genuine issues have to be addressed and threshed out in a full-blown trial.
on the material facts in the action.  
      PBCom anchors its arguments on the alleged implied admission by
ISSUE: WON Summary judgment was proper. Spouses Go resulting from their failure to specifically deny the
  material allegations in the Complaint, citing as precedent Philippine
The core contention of Spouses Go is that summary judgment was Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, and Morales v. Court
not proper under the attendant circumstances, as there exist genuine of Appeals. Spouses Go, on the other hand, argue that although
issues with respect to the fact of default, the amount of the admissions were made in the Answer, the special and affirmative
outstanding obligation, and the existence of prior demand, which defenses contained therein tendered genuine issues.
were duly questioned in the special and affirmative defenses set  
forth in the Answer.  WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
   
RULING:
 
The Court agrees with the CA that the supposed admission of
defendants-appellants on the allegations in the complaint is clearly
not sufficient to justify the rendition of summary judgment in the
case for sum of money, considering that there are other allegations
embodied and defenses raised by the defendants-appellants in their
answer which raise a genuine issue as to the material facts in the
action.
 
The CA correctly ruled that there exist genuine issues as to three
material facts, which have to be addressed during trial: first, the fact
of default; second, the amount of the outstanding obligation,
and third, the existence of prior demand.

Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended, except

as to the amount of damages, when there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law, summary judgment may be allowed. Summary or
accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding
out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby
avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.

Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are

no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence
in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to
raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show
that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as
prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The
determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary judgment,
is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.

A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of

evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false
claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed,
then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and
summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for summary
judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any
genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is