G.R. No. 182984 , February 10, 2009.
MARIANO NOCOM, Petitioner, vs. OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE and MILDRED DEL ROSARIO, in her capacity as legal heir and representative of NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO, Respondents.

FACTS

This case stems from a prior case ( G.R. No. 161029 ) where respondents, as agricultural tenants, were declared entitled to redeem parcels of land from Springsun Management Systems Corporation (SMSC). The Supreme Court affirmed this right, and the decision became final on May 4, 2005. Prior to this finality, on December 3, 2003, petitioner Mariano Nocom gave respondents checks totaling ₱500,000 each for their “inchoate and contingent rights” over the land. On December 18, 2003, respondents executed an “Irrevocable Power of Attorney” in favor of Nocom, authorizing him to, among other things, pay the redemption price, secure the titles in his name, and sell or mortgage the properties. After the final judgment, respondents moved for execution, deposited the redemption money with the court, and titles were issued in their names, with the Power of Attorney annotated thereon. Subsequently, respondent Oscar Camerino filed a “Petition to Revoke Power of Attorney” (Civil Case No. 05-172) against Nocom, alleging they were misled by their counsel into signing the document without understanding its contents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a summary judgment revoking the Power of Attorney and ordering Nocom to surrender the titles. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC and dismissed Nocom’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling he failed to pay the correct docket fees for his appeal. Nocom filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Nocom’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of the correct docket fees.
2. Whether the RTC correctly rendered a summary judgment revoking the Irrevocable Power of Attorney.

RULING

1. On the jurisdictional issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The action filed by respondent Camerino was a personal action to revoke the Power of Attorney and recover titles, not a real action to recover ownership of the land itself. Therefore, the docket fees paid by Nocom for his appeal were correct. The nature of the suit remained a personal action unless the complaint was amended to seek recovery of ownership, which would then require payment of the proper docket fees.
2. On the summary judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in rendering a summary judgment. A summary judgment is only proper when there are no genuine issues of fact requiring a trial. In this case, genuine issues of fact existed, including whether the Power of Attorney was validly executed, whether there was consideration, whether respondents understood its contents, and whether they were misled by their counsel. These issues required a full trial on the merits and could not be resolved summarily.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition was PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case was REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, for further proceedings and a regular trial on the merits. No costs.