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 an unregistered 330-square-meter lot extrajudicially settled among petitioner Bienvenido Paz and his siblings. Petitioner received Lot 1, while his siblings received Lots 2 to 6. The siblings later sold their respective lots to respondents Lovely, Joey, and Dennis Nepomuceno. The Nepomucenos 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, in response, petitioner filed a separate civil case for annulment of sale (Civil Case No. 54408), asserting his right of legal pre-emption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. He claimed the sale was void because his co-heirs failed to give him the required written notice of the sale and its terms.
The Nepomucenos moved for a summary judgment across all three cases, arguing no genuine issue existed. The trial court granted the motion, declaring the Nepomucenos as lawful owners, ordering petitioner to vacate the lots, and dismissing his annulment case. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering a summary judgment, thereby depriving petitioner of his right to due process.

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 is one that requires the presentation of evidence, not one that is sham or unsubstantial. Here, petitioner raised a substantive factual and legal issue: the validity of the sale based on the alleged lack of the written notice required for a co-owner’s right of legal pre-emption under Article 1623. This issue could not be resolved summarily as it necessitated a full trial on the merits to determine if proper notification was given.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a pre-trial is mandatory under the Rules of Court. The trial court’s failure to conduct a pre-trial in Civil Case No. 54408 before rendering summary judgment was a denial of due process. Pre-trial is designed to clarify issues, explore settlements, and determine the propriety of judgments like summary judgment. The hasty rendition of summary judgment without this procedural safeguard, especially where a genuine issue was tendered, constituted an abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Thus, certiorari was the proper remedy to nullify the void proceedings.