LEONA CORPUS AND ILADIA CORPUS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. JACINTA CORPUS AND PEDRO ADUCA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Corpus versus Corpus

The Case

This is a case about a parcel of land in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and about who may rightfully hold it. Leona Corpus and her niece Iladia Corpus sued their relatives, the spouses Jacinta Corpus and Pedro Aduca, to recover possession of land registered in the name of the Heirs of Domingo Corpus, and to compel the surrender of the certificate of title. The plaintiffs claim to be the legitimate heirs of the late spouses Domingo Corpus and Clara Sibayan. The defendants claim the land through a document they say is a deed of sale in their favor. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the procedural rules on motions, notice of hearing, and pre-trial, and of the wide discretion of the trial court over postponements. Second, it shows how the Supreme Court reads a deed according to its true nature, as a reconveyance by a trustee, and not according to the label a party prefers.

Procedural History

The action for recovery of possession with damages was filed in May 1965 in the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. After several postponements at the request of both parties, the trial court set the pre-trial conference for the twenty eighth of August 1967. The defendants' counsel moved to postpone it. The trial court denied the motion because it carried no proof of service on the opposing party and stated no time and place of hearing, and it allowed the plaintiffs to present their evidence before the clerk of court. The defendants received a copy of that order but took no step to have it reconsidered. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs in April 1968. The defendants then moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied, holding that the earlier order had already become final and that the alleged misrepresentation of the date of Domingo Corpus's death was not a ground for new trial. The defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the denial of their motion for postponement and the denial of their motion for new trial.

Facts

Domingo Corpus and Clara Sibayan were spouses who owned a parcel of land of 2,153 square meters in Barrio Pinmaludpud, Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Clara Sibayan died in 1911. Domingo Corpus died, according to the plaintiffs in 1948, and according to the defendants in 1956. The plaintiffs say the spouses left two children: Leona Corpus, one of the plaintiffs, and Alberto Corpus, who died in 1936 leaving as his sole heir his daughter Iladia Corpus, the other plaintiff. During his lifetime, after Clara's death, Domingo lived with Fermina Tabas without benefit of marriage, because she was then a married woman, and begot a daughter, Jacinta Corpus, one of the defendants.

The land had been erroneously registered in the name of one Doroteo Cresencia. In May 1964, Pedro Aduca, husband of Jacinta and purporting to represent the heirs of Domingo Corpus, prevailed upon Cresencia to execute a document called a Deed of Reconveyance and Confirmation, reconveying the land to the heirs of Domingo Corpus. By virtue of that document the defendant spouses took possession of the land and procured a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Heirs of Domingo Corpus, represented by Pedro Aduca.

The plaintiffs demanded possession and the owner's copy of the title, but the defendants refused and claimed absolute ownership. The plaintiffs then sued. In their answer the defendants denied that the land belonged to the spouses Domingo and Clara, and claimed they had purchased it from Cresencia under the same document, insisting that they, though also heirs of Domingo, were the intended vendees.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants' motion for postponement of the pre-trial conference and in allowing the plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion for new trial.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

A motion shall state the time and place of the hearing of the same.

The Court used this requirement to test the defendants' motion for postponement, which stated no time and place of hearing.

Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

A motion shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three (3) days in advance.

The Court found no proof that the motion for postponement was served on the opposing counsel in the manner the Rules require.

Section 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

No motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice.

Because there was no proof of notice, the Court held that the motion was a useless piece of paper.

Section 5 of Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, requires proof of service by registered mail, namely an affidavit of the person who mailed the motion and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The Court noted that the motion for postponement contained neither, so the claim of service by registered mail failed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no abuse of discretion. The motion for postponement did not show that a copy had been served on the adverse party, since there was no proof of service, and the movants did not even indicate how service was made. The motion also failed to state the time and place of hearing, addressing the clerk of court instead with the request that the motion be submitted to the court for its consideration. The Court stressed that the grant or denial of a motion for postponement is discretionary on the court, and that the defendants and their counsel should not have presumed the motion would be granted, nor relied on the liberality of the court or the generosity of the adverse party. They also failed in their duty to inquire what action the court had taken on their motion. The Court added that it was their counsel who had to be in Cabanatuan City, so the defendants themselves could have appeared at the pre-trial, since their presence was also required.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found no error. The order denying the postponement had long become final when the motion for new trial was filed. The Court also saw no wisdom in reopening the case, because the defense theory was weak and the death certificate of Domingo Corpus would not vary the outcome, and because it would change the theory of the defense, which is not allowed. Reading the deed, the Court held that it was not a simple deed of sale in favor of the defendants, but a deed of reconveyance, in which the assignor had acted as a trustee in securing the title in his name and was now transferring it to the rightful owners, the heirs of Domingo Corpus. The document itself recites:

I promised that I merely acted as a trustee in securing the title for the above-named vendee until I receive the said title and I could have executed the proper document for registration.

Pedro Aduca, therefore, merely acted as representative of the heirs of Domingo Corpus, and the fact that Domingo may have died in 1956 rather than 1948 did not make his claim any better.

Doctrine

A motion that does not state the time and place of hearing, and is not served on the adverse party with proof of such service, is a useless piece of paper, and the court may not act on it. The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and a party may not presume that it will be granted or rely on the liberality of the court or the generosity of the adverse party. A party and counsel must inquire as to the action taken on their motion. The nature of a deed is determined by its terms and recitals, not by the label a party gives it, so an instrument styled a deed of reconveyance by a trustee passes title to the rightful owners and not to the person who merely represents them.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a motion without notice of hearing and proof of service is a useless piece of paper. Examiners use this case for the procedural rules on motions and postponements, and for the rule that a deed is judged by its recitals, not its title.