GR 120040; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120040 ; January 29, 1996
SPS. CAMILO Y. GO and DELIA L. GO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MARCELINO F. BAUTISTA, JR. and MANUELA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Go obtained a loan from respondent Manuela Realty Development Corporation, secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. Due to alleged non-payment, Manuela extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, acquired the property at auction, and consolidated ownership after the redemption period. The Spouses Go filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, asserting full payment of the loan through various installments and challenging the foreclosure’s validity and the stipulated interest rate as usurious. Manuela, in its answer, denied these claims, contending the petitioners were in default, which caused their debt to increase, and defended the foreclosure’s validity and interest rate.
The Spouses Go moved for summary judgment, attaching a joint affidavit. Manuela opposed the motion but did not submit a counter-affidavit. The trial court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a full trial. The petitioners then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to render summary judgment, which was denied. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
May a writ of mandamus compel a trial court to grant a motion for summary judgment when the opposing party’s opposition raises no genuine issue as to a material fact?
RULING
No. The petition is without merit. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The propriety of rendering a summary judgment under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court rests upon the sound discretion of the court. Petitioners failed to establish a clear, ministerial duty on the part of the trial court to grant their motion or a clear legal right to the relief sought.
The Court emphasized that the controlling factor for summary judgment is the presence or absence of any genuine issue regarding a material fact, not merely the submission or non-submission of counter-affidavits. The pleadings revealed substantial factual disputes, including the exact amount paid by petitioners, their compliance with payment terms, the months of default, the accumulated interest, and the validity of the foreclosure sale. These issues necessitate a trial on the merits where evidence can be presented. Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issues of fact exist, and any doubt must be resolved against the movant. The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly exercised their discretion in denying the motion for summary judgment to afford both parties their day in court. The assailed decision was affirmed.