Digest
Uploaded by
menforeverDigest
Uploaded by
menforeverCalubaquib-versus-Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 2011 FACTS: On August 17, 1936, President Manuel L.
Quezon issued Proclamation No. 80, which declared a 39.3996-hectare landholding located at Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, a military reservation site. The proclamation expressly stated that it was being issued "subject to private rights, if any there be." Accordingly, the respondent obtained an Original Certificate of Title No. over the property. On January 16, 1995, respondent filed before the RTC of Tuguegarao, Cagayan a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners. Petitioners allegedly refused to vacate the subject property despite repeated demands to do so. They maintained that they and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open and continuous possession of the subject property since the early 1900s. Petitioners acknowledged the issuance of Proclamation No. 80 on August 17, 1936, but maintained that the subject property (the 5-hectare portion allegedly occupied by them since 1900s) was excluded from its operation, citing a proviso in the proclamation private rights, if any there be. ISSUE: Is a motu propio renditioin of a summary judgment violative of due process? RULING: No. Summary judgments are proper when, upon motion of the plaintiff or the defendant, the court finds that the answer filed by the defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A deeper understanding of summary judgments is found in Viajar v. Estenzo: Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. "A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact, "as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim." "[A] factual issue raised by a party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway.