Lawyerly

GR No. 189434

2012-04-25

SERENO, J.

It is the law itself that determines when a summary judgment is proper. Under the rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact that 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. What is crucial to a determination, therefore, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then summary judgment is called for.[73]

GR NO. 156605

2007-08-28

EDWARD T. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

GARCIA, J.

Incidentally, the instant motions for summary judgment were filed before the [anti- graft] Court could issue an order under Section 1, Rule 9[31] of the Rules of Court relative to the written interrogatories. Moreover, the factual details alleged and conclusions of fact and law adduced in the said pleadings largely rely on the terms and conditions of the [favored] contract ... and its amendments which are precisely being questioned ... to be a "favored contract". From the allegations of the defendants, it is apparent that the [Republic] extended enormous sums of money .... Even assuming ... that the factual background alleged in the Answer of ... Marcelo which was reiterated in the Answer of [MFC], to be true or to have been established or admitted, still, a genuine factual issue remains to be tried and that is whether or not the subject contract ... was a "favored contract" ... as it appears from the record that the implementation of its terms, as narrated by the defendants, had resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pesos on the part of the [Republic] without a single delivery having been made or required to be made .... The factual issue of whether or not the subject contract is a favored one, which we take to mean as "disadvantageous" to the government, is not settled by the allegation that the contract was implemented in the midst of a foreign exchange crisis and that the government failed to comply with the staggered payments which the government was required to tender before any delivery could be made by the ... [MFC] under the terms of the contract. For the defendant to invoke the terms of the contract to excuse the non-delivery of the subject matter thereof simply begs the questions because the very stipulations of the contract are in issue in this case.[32] (Words in brackets added) We examine the records and found that summary judgment is in order. Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment may be allowed where, save for the amount of damages, 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 or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the expense of time involved in a trial. Even if the pleadings appear, on their face, to raise issues, summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine.[33] The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines, at bottom, the propriety of summary judgment. A genuine issue, as opposed to fictitious or contrived one, is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. To the moving party rests the onus of demonstrating 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.[34] In Estrada v. Consolacion,[35] the Court stated that when the moving party is a defending party, his pleadings, depositions or affidavits must show that his defenses or denials are sufficient to defeat the claimant's claim. The affidavits or depositions shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or the cause of action has no merits, as the case may be. In fine, in proceedings for summary judgment, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the cause of action and to show that the defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay. After the plaintiff discharges its burden, the defendants has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him to defend.

GR NO. 156207

2006-09-15

EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROWENA ONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Certainly, when the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there's no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for.[17]

GR NO. 153827

2006-04-25

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

GARCIA, 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.[13]

GR NO. 168809

2006-03-10

EDWARD ROCO TAN v. BENIGNO DE LA VEGA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In any case, a summary judgment is likewise not warranted in this case as there are genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. 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.[20]

GR NO. 159224

2006-01-20

JOSE D. ONTIMARE v. SPS. RENATO AND ROSARIO ELEP

QUISUMBING, J.

When, on their face, the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. An issue is genuine if it requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.[11]

GR NO. 153867

2005-02-17

WOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

At the outset, we must stress the Court's policy that cases and controversies should be promptly and expeditiously resolved. The Rules of Court seeks to shorten the procedure in order to allow the speedy disposition of a case. Specifically, we have rules on demurrer to evidence, judgment on the pleadings, and summary judgments. In all these instances, a full blown trial is dispensed with and judgment is rendered on the basis of the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions of the parties.[8]

GR No. 145469

2004-05-28

COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO. v. C. ALCANTARA

QUISUMBING, J.

In Evadel Realty and Development Corporation v. Soriano,[17] this Court defined what a "genuine issue" is, in this wise: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. (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 146815

2003-04-09

HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA v. STERLING TECHNOPARK III

PANGANIBAN, J.

Verily, even if petitioners were mere usurpers of the land owned by respondents, still they are entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully ejected therefrom. Under appropriate circumstances, respondents may file, other than an ejectment suit, an accion publiciana -- a plenary action intended to recover the better right to possess;[20] or an accion reivindicatoria -- an action to recover ownership of real property.[21]

GR No. 141463

2002-08-06

VICTOR ORQUIOLA v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

for the first time on appeal issues that they could have raised but never did during trial and even during proceedings before the Court of Appeals.[13] Nevertheless, we deem it proper that this issue be resolved now, to avoid circuitous litigation and further delay in the disposition of this case. On this score, we find that petitioners are indeed builders in good faith. A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title.[14] As earlier discussed, petitioner spouses acquired the land in question without knowledge of any

	GR No. 189434 2012-04-25	FERDINAND R. MARCOS v. REPUBLIC SERENO, J.
It is the law itself that determines when a summary judgment is proper. Under the rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact that 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. What is crucial to a determination, therefore, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then summary judgment is called for.[73]
	GR NO. 156605 2007-08-28	EDWARD T. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN GARCIA, J.
Incidentally, the instant motions for summary judgment were filed before the [anti- graft] Court could issue an order under Section 1, Rule 9[31] of the Rules of Court relative to the written interrogatories. Moreover, the factual details alleged and conclusions of fact and law adduced in the said pleadings largely rely on the terms and conditions of the [favored] contract ... and its amendments which are precisely being questioned ... to be a "favored contract". From the allegations of the defendants, it is apparent that the [Republic] extended enormous sums of money .... Even assuming ... that the factual background alleged in the Answer of ... Marcelo which was reiterated in the Answer of [MFC], to be true or to have been established or admitted, still, a genuine factual issue remains to be tried and that is whether or not the subject contract ... was a "favored contract" ... as it appears from the record that the implementation of its terms, as narrated by the defendants, had resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pesos on the part of the [Republic] without a single delivery having been made or required to be made .... The factual issue of whether or not the subject contract is a favored one, which we take to mean as "disadvantageous" to the government, is not settled by the allegation that the contract was implemented in the midst of a foreign exchange crisis and that the government failed to comply with the staggered payments which the government was required to tender before any delivery could be made by the ... [MFC] under the terms of the contract. For the defendant to invoke the terms of the contract to excuse the non-delivery of the subject matter thereof simply begs the questions because the very stipulations of the contract are in issue in this case.[32] (Words in brackets added) We examine the records and found that summary judgment is in order. Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment may be allowed where, save for the amount of damages, 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 or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the expense of time involved in a trial. Even if the pleadings appear, on their face, to raise issues, summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine.[33] The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines, at bottom, the propriety of summary judgment. A genuine issue, as opposed to fictitious or contrived one, is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. To the moving party rests the onus of demonstrating 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.[34] In Estrada v. Consolacion,[35] the Court stated that when the moving party is a defending party, his pleadings, depositions or affidavits must show that his defenses or denials are sufficient to defeat the claimant's claim. The affidavits or depositions shall show that there is no defense to the cause of action or the cause of action has no merits, as the case may be. In fine, in proceedings for summary judgment, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the cause of action and to show that the defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay. After the plaintiff discharges its burden, the defendants has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him to defend.
	GR NO. 156207 2006-09-15	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROWENA ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Certainly, when the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there's no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for.[17]
	GR NO. 153827 2006-04-25	ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK GARCIA, 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.[13]
	GR NO. 168809 2006-03-10	EDWARD ROCO TAN v. BENIGNO DE LA VEGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In any case, a summary judgment is likewise not warranted in this case as there are genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. 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.[20]
	GR NO. 159224 2006-01-20	JOSE D. ONTIMARE v. SPS. RENATO AND ROSARIO ELEP QUISUMBING, J.
When, on their face, the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. An issue is genuine if it requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.[11]
	GR NO. 153867 2005-02-17	WOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must stress the Court's policy that cases and controversies should be promptly and expeditiously resolved. The Rules of Court seeks to shorten the procedure in order to allow the speedy disposition of a case. Specifically, we have rules on demurrer to evidence, judgment on the pleadings, and summary judgments. In all these instances, a full blown trial is dispensed with and judgment is rendered on the basis of the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions of the parties.[8]
	GR No. 145469 2004-05-28	COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO. v. C. ALCANTARA QUISUMBING, J.
In Evadel Realty and Development Corporation v. Soriano,[17] this Court defined what a "genuine issue" is, in this wise: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. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 146815 2003-04-09	HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA v. STERLING TECHNOPARK III PANGANIBAN, J.
Verily, even if petitioners were mere usurpers of the land owned by respondents, still they are entitled to remain on it until they are lawfully ejected therefrom. Under appropriate circumstances, respondents may file, other than an ejectment suit, an accion publiciana -- a plenary action intended to recover the better right to possess;[20] or an accion reivindicatoria -- an action to recover ownership of real property.[21]
	GR No. 141463 2002-08-06	VICTOR ORQUIOLA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
for the first time on appeal issues that they could have raised but never did during trial and even during proceedings before the Court of Appeals.[13] Nevertheless, we deem it proper that this issue be resolved now, to avoid circuitous litigation and further delay in the disposition of this case. On this score, we find that petitioners are indeed builders in good faith. A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title.[14] As earlier discussed, petitioner spouses acquired the land in question without knowledge of any

EVADEL REALTY v. SPS. ANTERO