Vergara, Sr. vs.
Suelto
No. L-74766
December 21, 1987
FACTS:
Petitioner Vergara commenced in the Municipal Trial Court of Davao City an action for
illegal detainer against the private respondents alleging that he is the owner of a
commercial building consisting of three (3) sections, that the defendants are lessees and
have defaulted in the payment of their rentals for many months. As a result, Vergara’s
lawyer sent each of them a demand letter for their unpaid rentals, termination of the
lease contract, and demanding that defendants vacate the building.
Defendants sent Vergara a joint reply confirming that they will vacate the building.
However, they requested for an extension of 3 months due to economic reasons. Later
however, the defendants wrote Vergara another letter, this time, while acknowledging the
latter's ownership of the building and their status as lessees thereof they announced
their refusal to vacate the premises on the ground that the lot on which the building
stands, though titled in Vergara's name, was part of a tract of land which had been
ordered reverted to the public domain by the Regional Trial Court.
Vergara wrote back to them, pointing out the error of the position thus taken by them,
and reiterating his demand to vacate.
In their answer, defendants mostly denied the averments of the complaint and even
claimed that their lease contract with Vergara were null and void.
Vergara filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that Neither he (Vergara) nor the
defendants were parties in Civil Case No. 16192 and consequently could not be bound
by any judgment or order therein promulgated.
Defendants filed an "Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to
Dismiss. " alleging that a genuine issue exists which "cannot be resolved by mere resort
to summary judgment," that issue having arisen from defendants' controversion of
Vergara's claim "of possession and ownership over the commercial building and the land
on which the same is constructed." That their answer "tendered a genuine issue and
does not only consist of a mere general denial" and that the court had no jurisdiction
over the case because "the real issue involved x x is title and/or ownership of the
property and not physical possession,"
MTC denied both motions of the parties.
ISSUE:
1. WON Vergara’s Motion for Summary Judgment is proper
2. WON filing directly to the SC an application for a writ of mandamus against the
MTC is proper
HELD:
1 YES
judgment on the pleadings is not proper in the case at bar since the answer does not
tender issues. However, a summary judgment may still be rendered on the plaintiff's
motion if he can show to the Court's satisfaction that "except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," that is to say, the issues
thus tendered are not genuine, are in other words sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in
bad faith, patently unsubstantial.
In this case, the defendants' answer appears on its face to tender issues. It purports to
deal with each of the material allegations of the complaint, and either specifically denies,
or professes lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as to them. It also sets up
affirmative defenses. But the issues thus tendered are sham, not genuine, as the
slightest reflection and analysis will readily demonstrate.
2 NO
The remedy properly available to the petitioner in the premises, however, is not the writ
of mandamus. Well known is the rule that mandamus issues only to compel
performance of a mandatory, ministerial duty. The determination that under the facts
and circumstances obtaining in a case a summary judgment is proper and the motion
therefor should be granted and summary judgment consequently rendered, rests in the
sound discretion of a trial court and cannot be regarded as a duty or ministerial function
compellable by the extraordinary writ of mandamus. In this case, the respondent Judge
had discretion to make that determination. What happened was that His Honor made
that determination with grave abuse of discretion Despite the plain and patent propriety
of a summary judgment, he declined to render such a verdict. The writ of certiorari will
he to correct that grave abuse of discretion.
