Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDWARD ROCO TAN v. BENIGNO DE LA VEGA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 201427 2015-03-18	TEOFILO B. ADOLFO v. FE. T. ADOLFO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party's answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist ? i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer?but the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions.[45]
	GR No. 175542 & 183205 2013-06-05	GREEN ACRES HOLDINGS v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is also worth noting that the fact that the DARAB by final judgment ordered the cancellation of the titles of the Spouses Moraga and Filcon does not automatically make the titles of Green Acres null and void. It is settled that a void title may be the source of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[44] An innocent purchaser for value is one who, relying on the certificate of title, bought the property from the registered owner, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.[45] The rationale therefor was expressed by this Court in the earlier case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,[46] thus:Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. This is contrary to the evident purpose of the law. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. x x x[47]
	GR No. 155680 2012-07-02	FIRST LEVERAGE v. SOLID BUILDERS PERALTA, J.
Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.[16] In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party's answer to raise an issue.[17] The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.[18] If an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would naturally be improper.[19]
	GR No. 172660 2011-08-24	EUGENIO BASBAS v. BEATA SAYSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Tan v. De la Vega,[52] citing Narra Integrated Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[53] the court distinguished summary judgment from judgment on the pleadings, viz: The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party's answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist - i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer - but the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. x x x.
	GR No. 155174 2009-08-04	D.M. CONSUNJI v. DUVAZ CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
As may be noted, Civil Case No. 99-1354 came after the proceedings in SEC Case No. 12-97-5850, and LRC Case No. M-3839 had finally been terminated. Be that as it may, the answer in Civil Case No. 99-1354 diluted any admission, if there were indeed admissions, made in the SEC and LRC cases and, as the CA put it, "engenders a cloud of doubt as to the certainty of the facts as alleged." Such doubt should be resolved against the grant of the motion for summary judgment.[20] To paraphrase what we said in Tan v. De la Vega,[21] lower courts, when faced with a motion for summary judgment, should resolve doubts in favor of the party against whom it is directed, giving such party the benefit of all favorable inferences.
	GR No. 166393 2009-06-18	CRISTINA F. REILLO v. GALICANO E.S. SAN JOSE PERALTA, J.
Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party's answer to raise an issue.[14] The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.[15]
	GR No. 182984 2009-02-10	MARIANO NOCOM v. OSCAR CAMERINO AZCUNA, J.
The present case should not be decided via a summary judgment. Summary judgment is not warranted when there are genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. 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 patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial.[7]
	GR No. 175176 2008-10-17	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SANTA LORO VDA. DE CAPIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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 patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial.[30]