GR 85332; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85332; January 11, 1990
BIENVENIDO PAZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LOVELY R. NEPOMUCENO, JOSE R. NEPOMUCENO, DENNIS R. NEPOMUCENO, GODOFREDO “EDDIE” NEPOMUCENO, BENJAMIN PAZ, AMORSOLO PAZ, JOSEFINA PAZ, LUZONICA PAZ, and ROMAN PAZ, JR., respondents.
FACTS
The controversy involves a 330-square-meter unregistered parcel of land. Upon the death of their common ancestors, the property was extrajudicially settled among petitioner Bienvenido Paz and his siblings. Bienvenido received Lot 1, while his brothers and sisters received Lots 2 to 6. These siblings subsequently sold their respective lots (Lots 2 to 6) to the private respondents, the Nepomucenos. The Nepomucenos then filed three related cases: an LRC case for survey and subdivision, a civil case for quieting of title and recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 54158), and later, a separate civil case filed by Bienvenido Paz for annulment of the sale (Civil Case No. 54408), wherein he invoked his legal right of pre-emption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. He alleged that his co-heirs failed to provide him with the required written notice of the sale and its terms, thereby depriving him of his opportunity to match the offer.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering a summary judgment in favor of the Nepomucenos, thereby depriving petitioner of his right to a full trial on the merits regarding his claim of a violated right of pre-emption.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the summary judgment, and remanded the cases for pre-trial and trial. The Court held that summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A genuine issue exists when it requires the presentation of evidence, as opposed to a sham or patently unsubstantial claim. Here, petitioner Bienvenido Paz squarely raised a genuine issue of fact and law: the alleged failure of his co-heirs to provide the written notice mandated by Article 1623 of the Civil Code for the exercise of his right of legal pre-emption. This issue could not be resolved summarily based solely on pleadings and affidavits, as it necessitated a trial to determine the veracity of the claim regarding notice. The affidavits presented by the respondents merely stated that the deeds of sale were shown to petitioner after the fact, which did not conclusively establish compliance with the statutory notice requirement.
Furthermore, the trial court’s failure to conduct a pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 54408, as mandated by the Rules of Court, constituted a denial of due process. Pre-trial is a mandatory proceeding designed to clarify issues and explore amicable settlements, and it serves as a proper venue to determine the propriety of a summary judgment. The hasty rendition of summary judgment without pre-trial, where substantial factual issues were tendered, amounted to grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, certiorari was the appropriate remedy to nullify the proceedings that deprived petitioner of his right to a full hearing.