G.R. No. L-39828 October 5, 1990
MELCHOR ALCANTARA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERINO BONEO, FELICISIMA BONEO and JESUS MEJIS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Melchor Alcantara, registered owner of land under TCT No. T-56897, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against defendants Severino and Felicisima Boneo and Jesus Mejis. Alcantara alleged continuous possession since 1964 until the Boneo spouses occupied a portion in 1966. The defendants, asserting ownership under OCT No. 6870 derived from a homestead application, claimed open and continuous possession since 1924. To expedite proceedings, the parties agreed to a relocation survey. Subsequently, the trial court, noting the plaintiff’s manifestation that the sole issue was which title should prevail and that a commissioner’s report had been submitted, agreed to submit the case for summary judgment, instructing both parties to file memoranda with documentary evidence.
The defendants failed to file their memorandum initially. Upon their motion for reconsideration, the court granted them an extension to submit. They eventually filed a one-page pre-trial memorandum merely reiterating their ownership claims and alleging valuable improvements but without submitting any supporting documentary evidence. The trial court thereafter rendered a summary judgment in favor of Alcantara, declaring him the absolute owner and ordering the defendants to vacate. The defendants appealed, contending the summary judgment was improper.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the summary judgment was proper. The legal logic hinges on the application of the rules on summary judgment under Rule 34. A summary judgment is appropriate when, upon the pleadings and supporting documents, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The Court found that the defendants failed to show the existence of a genuine issue. Their answer, while denying the plaintiff’s allegations and asserting affirmative defenses, was not supported by concrete evidence when the court directed the submission of memoranda and documents. Their belatedly filed memorandum contained bare allegations without any substantiating documentary proof, such as their alleged OCT or tax receipts.
Furthermore, the defendants were deemed to have acquiesced to the summary judgment procedure. They failed to timely object to the trial court’s February 22, 1971 and April 21, 1971 orders which set the case for summary judgment based on the pleadings and documents. Their subsequent attempt to question the procedure was barred by estoppel. The Court emphasized that where a motion for summary judgment is made, the defending party must show a plausible, substantial defense. The defendants’ failure to present any documentary evidence to support their claim of title under OCT No. 6870, in contrast to the plaintiff’s meticulous presentation of his chain of title and tax receipts, demonstrated the absence of a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the trial court correctly resolved the case as a matter of law based on the undisputed documentary evidence.