POLICARPIO, LUCIO, JULIAN, CATALINO, BONIFACIO, CONRADA, DOMINGO, PAQUITA, AND LILIA, ALL SURNAMED GALICIA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. WENCESLAO M. POLO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESI…

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set
aside the summary judgment entered by the then Court of First Instance of Samar, Br. V in Civil Case No. 758-CC entitled, “Policarpio, Lucio, Julian, Catalino, Bonifacio, Conrada, Domingo, Paquita and
Lilia, all surnamed Galicia v. Zosima Palajos, Titing Listojas, Alfredo Palajos and Manuelito Rosialda” and to
order the trial court to try the above-cited case on the merits.

The facts are undisputed.

On December 15, 1973, a complaint for forcible entry (Civil Case
No. 56) entitled “Amancio Palajos
v. Policarpio, Perfecto, Victorio,
Julian and Eduardo, all surnamed Galicia,” was filed in the Municipal
Court of Almagro, Samar,
alleging that Amancio Palajos
is the owner and in actual possession of a parcel of
land located at Bacjao, Almagro,
Samar, more particularly
described as follows:

“A parcel of
land with an area of about 4-88­-00 hectares,
more or less, assessed at P360.00 as per Tax Declaration No. 8547 in the name
of Juan Palajos, it is, however, 14.2860 hectares as
per approved survey plan, the boundaries of which are:  N – Pedro Galicia and the Poblacion
of Barrio Bacjao; S – Emilio Carpon,
Magno Suico and Teresa Subito; and W – Bernardo Ballarante
and Cenon S. Aguilar.”

which he
acquired by way of donation from his father, Juan Palajos.  It is further alleged that defendants (petitioners
herein) forcibly entered the northeastern portion of the said property covering
an area of about 1 1/2 hectares.

The trial of the case was set several times but was postponed at
the instance of defendants (petitioners herein).  For the fifth time, i.e., on July 19, 1974, neither the defendants
nor their counsel appeared.  Accordingly,
the court granted a trial ex parte on motion of plaintiff’s counsel (Rollo, p. 24).

Subsequently, the municipal trial court rendered judgment against
defendants (petitioners herein), the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby renders judgment ordering
defendants Policarpio Galicia, Perfecto Galicia, Victorio Galicia, Julian Galicia and Eduarda
Galicia to restore to plaintiff Amancio Palajos the portion of
land described in par. 4 of the plaintiff’s complaint consisting of one
and one-half hectares and which is the northeastern portion of land under Tax
Dec. No. 8547 as described in paragraph 2 thereof; ordering the defendants to
pay to plaintiff a monthly rental in the amount of FIFTY PESOS (P50.00) on the
premises in question for its use and occupation from September, 1973, up to the
time when said premises is finally restored to the plaintiff; and to pay the
costs.

“SO ORDERED.”

On September 28, 1974,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and to grant a
new trial but was denied in an Order dated October 24, 1974 (Rollo, p.
28).

On November 12, 1974,
defendants filed a notice of appeal but the same was likewise denied by the
trial court on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary
period of fifteen (15) days to perfect an appeal.

For failure of the defendants to pay the rentals adjudged in the
forcible entry case (CC No. 56), a writ of execution was issued and after levy,
the deputy sheriff of Calbayog City, on August 4,
1976, sold at public auction the real property owned by petitioners’ deceased
father adjoining the land subject of the forcible entry case more particularly
described as follows:

“A piece of real estate consisting of coconut and cornland situated at Bo. Bacjao, Almagro, Samar, Philippines,
bounded on the NORTH, by Isabelo Palajos;
on the SOUTH, by Narciso Paulino;
and on the WEST, by Seashore, containing an area of 2-60-00 hectares, more or
less, assessed at P180.00, under Tax Declaration No. 12048, in the name of
Pedro Galicia (deceased);”

(Rollo,
p. 30).

On October 10, 1977, or over 14 months after the execution sale,
petitioners filed a complaint for Ownership and Damages against herein
respondents in the then Court of First Instance of Samar,
13th Judicial District, Br. V, docketed as Civil Case No. 758-CC, alleging that
they are co-owners of a certain parcel of agricultural land (subject of the
auction sale) which they inherited from their deceased father, Pedro Galicia,
more particularly described as follows:

“A parcel of coconut and corn land located at Bacjao, Almagro, Samar, Philippines, with an area of 26,000 sq. m. and
bounded on the NORTH, by Isabelo Palajos;
SOUTH, by Narciso Paulino;
EAST, by Benedicto Paulino
and WEST, by Seashore covered by Tax Declaration No. 12048 in the name of Pedro
Galicia.”

The complaint further alleged that pursuant to Civil Case No. 56
(forcible entry case), respondents were able to take possession of the land in
question as said case was heard ex-parte; and that a
decision was rendered in respondents’
favor and said decision was executed sometime in 1976 (Rollo,
p. 36-37).

In their Answer, respondents (defendants below) countered that
they were able to take possession of the land described in the complaint by
virtue of the decision and later, execution of the decision in the forcible
entry case, which, by petitioners’ (plaintiffs below) averment in their complaint is an admission of an
existing judgment that would constitute res judicata; that they are the lawful owners of
the disputed land the same having been subjected to levy and execution in 1975
thru a sale in favor of
respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, Juan Palajos.

The issues having been joined, the case was set for pre-trial by
respondent judge Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo.  At the pre-trial, counsel for private
respondents moved for time within which to file a motion for summary judgment
which was granted by respondent judge in his order dated June 28, 1978.

Defendants’ (private respondents herein) motion for summary
judgment was filed on July 7, 1978 (Rollo, p. 43)
alleging that no genuine issue exists in the case at bar after the pre-trial
was conducted and admission of facts were had (Rollo,
p. 44), while plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed their opposition to the
motion for summary judgment dated July 17, 1978 alleging among others, that
genuine issues exist (Rollo, pp. 45-47).

On August 11, 1978,
the court a quo rendered the assailed summary
judgment dismissing petitioners’ complaint (Rollo, p.
48-53), the pertinent portion of which reads:

“As demonstrated by the parties, there is no question that the
land in dispute is that parcel described in paragraph 3 of the complaint, a
portion of which was a subject in a forcible entry case before the Municipal
Trial Court of Almagro, Samar
(Exhibit 1, 2 and 3) with the defendants now as successors-in-interest of the
Plaintiff, and most of the herein plaintiffs as defendants.

“The pleadings also show that upon the death of the primitive owner, Pedro Galicia,
the plaintiffs as children and
grandchildren possessed and owned this land pro-indiviso,
until the possession of said portion was transferred to the defendants when the
decision in that forcible entry case was executed in 1976 (Exhibit 7) such
being the case, therefore with respect to this portion of the land in dispute,
the possession is settled, which would constitute as a bar to this action.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“With respect to the other portion of the land in dispute, the
plaintiffs admit that possession was transferred to the defendant by virtue of
a sale executed by the sheriff; the one year period having elapsed without
exercising their right of redemption, as a result a final deed of sale was
issued.  The legality of the sale not
having been assailed by them, for all intents and purposes, ownership on this
land have been vested on the defendants as heirs of
Juan Palajos.

“WHEREFORE, premises above considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, without
pronouncement as to cost.”

A motion to re-open the
case for trial on the merits was filed by plaintiffs but was denied in an order
dated November 27, 1978 (Rollo, p. 62).  Hence, this instant
petition.

Petitioners contend that
the trial court erred when it decided Civil Case No. 758-CC by summary judgment
when there are several genuine issues involved therein which require a trial of
these issues on the merits, such
as:

“(A)    WAS THE EXECUTION SALE
CONDUCTED BY DEPUTY PROVINCIAL SHERIFF EUFROCINO T. OLIFERNES OF LOT
NO. 1363 OF THE LATE PEDRO GALICIA,
PETITIONERS’ FATHER, VALID TO CONFER UPON THE DEFENDANTS IN SAID CASE A JUST
TITLE OVER SAID REALTY?

 “(B)  WERE THE UNDIVIDED SHARES AND PARTICIPATIONS OF JULIAN GALICIA
AND CATALINO GALICIA
WHO WERE TWO OF THE LEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF PEDRO GALICIA
NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTIES IN CIVIL CASE NO. 56 IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT OF ALMAGRO, OVER LOT NO. 1363, AFFECTED BY THAT EXECUTION SALE?

“(C)   WERE THE UNDIVIDED
SHARES AND PARTICIPATIONS OF EDUARDA GALICIA
AND PERFECTO GALICIA
OVER LOT NO. 1363, BUT WHO WERE
NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTIES IN CIVIL CASE NO. 758-CC OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF SAMAR (CALBAYOG
CITY) AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF
THE LATTER COURT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT?” (Rollo, p. 10).

The crucial issue in this case is whether or not the trial court erred when it decided Civil
Case No. 758-CC by summary judgment.

It is the contention of petitioners that the trial court erred in deciding their
complaint (CC No. 758-CC) by summary judgment when there are several genuine
issues involved therein which require a full trial on the merits.  Among other things, petitioners contend that
the execution sale conducted by the Deputy Provincial Sheriff was null and void
and would have merited a trial on the merits. 
Moreover, it is further contended that as between Civil Case No. 56 and
Civil Case No. 758-CC, there can be no res judicata, considering that
there is no identity of parties, cause of action and subject matter between the
two actions.

 After a thorough review of
the records, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the summary judgment
rendered by respondent judge.

The Rules of Court authorizes the rendition of summary judgment
if the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file together with the
affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no issue as
to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law (Sec. 3, Rule 34). 
Conversely, summary judgment is not proper where the pleadings tender
vital issues the resolution of which call for the presentation of evidence (Villanuva
v. NAMARCO, 28 SCRA 729           [1969]; Guevarra, et al., v. CA, et al., 124 SCRA 297 [1983]).

Summary judgment “is a device for weeding out sham claims or
defenses at an early stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the expense and
loss of time involved in a trial.  The
very object is ‘to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment
from what is genuine and substantial, so that only the latter may subject a
suitor to the burden of trial.’ The test, therefore, of a motion for summary
judgment is – whether the pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits in support of the
motion are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and to justify a finding
as a matter of law that there is no defense to the action or the claim is
clearly meritorious” (Estrada v. Hon. Consolacion,
et al., 71 SCRA 523 [1976]).

In addition, summary judgment is one of the methods sanctioned in
the present Rules of Court for a prompt disposition of civil actions wherein
there exists no serious controversy.  The
procedure may be availed of not only by claimants, but also by defending
parties who may be the object of unfounded claims.  A motion for summary judgment assumes that
scrutinizing the facts will disclose that the issues presented by the pleadings
need not be tried because they are so patently unsubstantial as not to be
genuine issues, or that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or
where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions,
admissions and affidavits (Singleton v. Philippine Trust Co., 99 Phil. 91
[1956], cited in Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 [1987]).

Examining petitioners’
complaint, the Court finds that the disputed property is the same parcel of
land, which adjoins private respondents’ lot which was the subject of the
forcible entry case and from which petitioners were ordered to
vacate.  When petitioners (then
defendants), failed to satisfy the rentals adjudged in the forcible entry case, said adjoining parcel of
land was sold at public auction to Juan Palajos
(respondents’ predecessor-in?interest) as the highest bidder in the
execution sale to satisfy the monetary judgment rendered therein.  The property so described in petitioners’ complaint
(Rollo, p. 36)
squarely fits what has been levied upon and sold at public auction (Rollo, p. 30),
the owners of which are now private respondents upon the demise of their
predecessor-in?interest.

There is thus no question
that issue of ownership of the disputed land subject of the present
petition has long been foreclosed in the forcible entry case which culminated
in the public auction sale of the
parcel of land now sought to be recovered. 
Having failed to redeem the property sold at the public auction sale
within the reglementary period of twelve (12) months
(Sec. 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court), petitioners cannot now claim that
they still own said property. 
Petitioners’ complaint for Ownership and Damages is but a belated and disguised attempt to
revive a judgment debtors’ right of
redemption which has long expired. 
There being no issue as to
any material fact raised in the pleadings, summary judgment may be rendered.

Neither can the issue of
the validity of the execution sale help petitioners’ cause.  Well-settled in this jurisdiction, is the rule that issues not raised and/or ventilated in the lower court
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (Rebodos
v. WCC, 6 SCRA 717 [1962]; DBP v. CA, 116 SCRA 636 and a long line of
cases).  A review of the records
of the case shows that petitioners failed to directly assail and raise as issue, the validity of the aforementioned auction
sale in their complaint.  It was only
when the respondent judge noted such omission in his decision dismissing Civil
Case No. 758-CC dated August 11, 1978 (Rollo, p.
48-53) that petitioners later filed a separate action for Annulment of Auction
Sale and Damages on October 4, 1978 (Civil
Case No. 837-CC; Rollo, p. 31–35).  The validity of the
execution sale not having been raised and/or litigated in the case subject of
the present appeal, the Court, at this stage, cannot pass upon the same for the
purpose of determining the propriety of the summary judgment.  Objections to the execution sale cannot be
considered in the Supreme Court inasmuch as
it was not raised in the lower court (Ramiro v. Graño,
54 Phil. 744 [1930]; citing Tan Machan v. de la
Trinidad, 3 Phil. 684 [1904] and U.S. v. Inductivo,
40 Phil. 84 [1919]).

WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.  Costs
against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr.,
Feliciano, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.