Tan v Dela Vega

OA: Petition for quieting of title and declration of nullity of Free Patent against heris of Macario
Mencias.
1992: Respondents learned that the defendant-heirs are ejecting the occupants of the contested lot
that Mencias obtained a title of the said lot previously and such has been inherited by his heirs.
Respondents state that the said lot is a mere portion of their own lot which is covered by their TCT.
Plaintiff-heirs state that their right to the said lot arises from a different TCT and that Respondents
assertion is incorrect.
Said lot was sold already by the respondent-heirs to New Atlantis Real Estate who joins this petition as
co-plaintiff raising the defense of buyers in good faith (given that the annotation was not seen in the
TCT of the heirs).
For failure to file their Answer, defendant Aurora M. Gabat, 11 public defendants Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Director of Land Management Bureau and the
Register of Deeds of Marikina,12 were declared in default.
2003: Respondents filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted. TC ruled in favor of
respondents and ruled that free-patent of Mencias is void and the subsequent sale is invalid. CA
affirms.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment on the pleadings is proper in this case

HELD:
In this case, we find that the trial court erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings
because the pleadings filed by the parties generated ostensible issues that necessitate the
presentation of evidence. Respondents action for declaration of nullity of Free Patent No. 495269
and the titles derived therefrom is based on their claim that the lot titled in the name of petitioners, is
a portion of a bigger tract of land previously titled in the name of their (respondents) predecessors-ininterest.
It is clear from the foregoing that the pleadings filed in the instant case generated the following issues:
(1) whether respondents TCT No. 257152 is valid; (2) whether Lot 89 is covered by TCT No. 257152;
and (3) whether petitioners are purchasers in good faith. This is clearly not a proper case for
judgment on the pleadings considering that the Answers tendered factual issues. The trial
court rendered a summary judgment on March 21, 2003 and not a judgment on the pleadings.
In any case, a summary judgment is likewise not warranted in this case as there are
genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which
requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.
When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or
question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for summary
judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the
issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.
Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed
or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. 20
In the instant case, presentation of evidence is necessary to determine the validity of TCT No. 22395
from which respondents title (TCT No. 257152) was derived. As alleged by defendant heirs, TCT No.
22395 was a mere reconstitution of TCT No. 45046, which per verification from the Register of Deeds of
Rizal pertain to a different piece of land measuring only about 356 square meters and located in San

Juan, Rizal. These allegations were never refuted by respondents, hence, they cannot be simply
brushed aside by the trial court.