Basbas vs. Sayson

Summary judgment is proper when the issues raised by the defending party's affirmative defenses are not genuine, meaning they can be resolved from the pleadings and records without requiring the presentation of evidence, even if such issues preclude a judgment on the pleadings.

Spouses Roberto and Beata Sayson filed a petition for land registration in 1976. The Court of First Instance adjudicated the land to them in 1979, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1985 and which became final and executory. A writ of possession was issued but remained unimplemented due to the occupants' refusal to vacate and their demand for a relocation survey. Following the survey, the trial court issued an order in 1989 directing the occupants to vacate. This order was not executed within the five-year period provided by the Rules of Court.

• Land Registration and Appeal: Respondent Spouses Sayson sought registration of an agricultural land. Eugenio Basbas, Teofilo Aras, and Rufino Aras opposed. The CFI adjudicated the land to the Saysons in 1979. Oppositors appealed, but the CA affirmed the decision in 1985.
• Execution Attempts: A Writ of Possession was issued in 1985 but not implemented. An Alias Writ was issued in 1989, yet Eugenio Sr. and Eugenio Jr. refused compliance, demanding a relocation survey.
• September 13, 1989 Order: The RTC appointed a commissioner who found the oppositors encroaching. The RTC issued an Order directing the oppositors and other named occupants to vacate the property, warning of contempt. This order was not executed within five years due to the sheriff's retirement and the clerk of court's health.
• Revival of Judgment Action: In 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment to enforce the lapsed order. They impleaded the original oppositors, their heirs, and spouses Basarte, who harvested coconuts on the land.
• Pleadings: Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss (no cause of action), which was denied. In their Answer, they admitted the material allegations regarding the case history but raised affirmative defenses: the action for revival of judgment was improper, and they were not proper parties.
• Pre-trial and Motion: During pre-trial, the court directed the amendment of parties to include heirs of deceased oppositors. Respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment, arguing the Answer admitted all material allegations. Petitioners opposed, citing controverted stipulations and questioning the validity of Beata's Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed in Canada without consular authentication.

• Propriety of Summary Judgment/Judgment on the Pleadings: Petitioners argued that controverted stipulations and issues in the pre-trial order required the presentation of evidence, rendering summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings improper.
• Cause of Action: Petitioners maintained that the Complaint stated no cause of action because the September 13, 1989 Order is not a "judgment" contemplated under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. They also averred that the CA Decision in the land registration case should not have been revived since it was not prayed for in the Complaint.
• Validity of the SPA: Petitioners contended that the SPA authorizing Roberto Jr. to represent Beata was invalid for lack of authentication by a Philippine consulate officer in Canada, citing Lopez v. Court of Appeals. Thus, Beata was not duly represented at pre-trial, warranting the case's dismissal as to her.

• Propriety of Summary Judgment/Judgment on the Pleadings: Respondents countered that the Answer failed to tender an issue and admitted material allegations, justifying judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34, Section 1. Alternatively, summary judgment was proper because the pleadings and exhibits showed no genuine issue for trial and the claim was clearly meritorious.
• Cause of Action: Respondents argued that the prayer in the Complaint, read in context, sought the implementation of the CA Decision and ancillary orders, sufficiently stating a cause of action.
• Validity of the SPA: Respondents submitted that the law does not require a power of attorney to be notarized, and Rule 18, Section 4 of the Rules of Court only requires that a representative appear fully authorized "in writing."

• Propriety of Summary Judgment: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's grant of judgment on the pleadings and/or summary judgment despite alleged controverted stipulations and issues.
• Cause of Action: Whether the Complaint for Revival of Judgment states a cause of action, considering the nature of the September 13, 1989 Order and the scope of the prayer.
• Authority to Sue: Whether the lack of consular authentication on the Special Power of Attorney renders it invalid and warrants the dismissal of the action with respect to Beata Sayson.

• Propriety of Summary Judgment: Judgment on the pleadings was improper because the Answer tendered issues through affirmative defenses. However, summary judgment was proper because the issues raised were not genuine. A genuine issue requires the presentation of evidence; here, the issues of whether revival of judgment was the proper action and whether petitioners were proper parties could be resolved by examining the RTC Order and the pleadings/records. A full-blown trial was unnecessary.
• Cause of Action: The Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. The September 13, 1989 Order was part of the process to enforce the final CA Decision. The Rules of Court provide that a judgment unenforced within five years may be enforced by an action, which was precisely what respondents sought—the implementation of the land registration judgment.
• Authority to Sue: Any defect in the SPA was immaterial. Roberto Jr. succeeded his late father as a co-owner of the subject property. Under the principle of co-ownership, a co-owner may bring an action for recovery of co-owned property alone, for the benefit of all co-owners. Since the revival of judgment action ultimately aimed to recover possession of the property, Roberto Jr. could prosecute the suit alone on behalf of himself and Beata. Dismissing the case against Beata would be futile.

• Distinction between Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment — Judgment on the pleadings applies when the Answer fails to tender an issue, i.e., it does not deny material allegations or admits them. Summary judgment applies when the Answer raises issues (through specific denials or affirmative defenses), but such issues are sham, fictitious, or not genuine. A "genuine issue" calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue that can be resolved from the pleadings, affidavits, or admissions.
• Right of a Co-Owner to Sue Alone — In a co-ownership, any co-owner may bring an action for the recovery of co-owned property without joining all other co-owners, as the suit is presumed filed for the benefit of all co-owners. A co-owner can thus prosecute a revival of judgment action aimed at recovering possession of the property alone.

• "The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist … but the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions."
• "[A] dismissal of the case with respect to Beata pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court will be futile as the case could nevertheless be continued by Roberto Jr. in behalf of the two of them."

• Tan v. De la Vega, G.R. No. 168809, March 10, 2006 — Cited to distinguish summary judgment from judgment on the pleadings; followed regarding the definition of genuine issues.
• Narra Integrated Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 733 (2000) — Cited as basis for the distinction between summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.
• Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 492 Phil. 106 (2005) — Cited for the definition of a "genuine issue" as one calling for the presentation of evidence.
• Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 240 Phil. 811 (1987) — Cited by petitioners to argue that an unauthenticated SPA is inadmissible; distinguished/overcome by the Court through the co-ownership doctrine.
• Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, November 29, 2006 — Cited to support the ruling that a co-owner may bring an action for recovery of co-owned property without joining all other co-owners.

• Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court — Provides that after the lapse of the five-year period for execution by motion, a judgment may be enforced by an independent action. Applied to hold that the revival of judgment action was proper to enforce the lapsed 1989 Order and the underlying CA Decision.
• Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court — Allows judgment on the pleadings where the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. Applied to analyze petitioners' Answer, though ultimately summary judgment was deemed the correct procedural vehicle.
• Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court — Provides for the dismissal of an action upon the plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial. The Court noted that even if Beata failed to appear due to an invalid SPA, dismissal would be futile because co-owner Roberto Jr. could continue the suit alone.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.