CASE NAME: Naguiat vs IAC

G.R. No: 73836

Date:August 18, 1988
Plaintiff: ANTOLIN T. NAGUIAT
Respondent: HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THIRD SPECIAL
CASES DIVISION, TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RATION AND
MANUEL P. LAZATIN
CIVIL complaint for specific performance with damages; CRIMINAL violation of PD. 957
Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof

Lower Court Decision: granted the consolidation of the civil action and criminal action
Court of Appeals Decision: set aside
SC Decision: order of trial court reinstated
Facts: The petitioner purchased 4 lots, on installment basis, from Timog Silangan Development
Corp. represented by its President Manuel P. Lazatin. The Contract to Sell stipulated that those
lots shall be paid within two years. However, Antolin paid the 10%installment in February 1983
and completed payments for Lot No. 16 on August, in which petitioner was given the title to the
said lot and alleged that he had completed payments for the three remaining lots on November
1983. Thus, Antolin demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor of certificates of title for the
3 lots. However, TSDC alleged that the petitioner did not comply with the agreement and as
such, he is not entitled to the 10% rebate in price. Therefore, the payments made were not its full
purchase price
Thereafter, on 26 July 1984, petitioner, filed a complaint for specific performance with
damages, with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LX docketed as Civil Case No.
4224 with a prayer that TCTs for those 3 lots shall be delivered in his favor.
Before the civil action was filed, petitioner also filed on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of
Angeles City a criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin, for violation of
Presidential Decree No. 957, specifically Section 25 thereof, which provides:
SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the
lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those
required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be
collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit
is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or
developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within
six months such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may
be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.
Issue: WON the civil action and criminal action can be consolidated
Ruling:
Petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec. 3 (a), Rules of Court:
Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. Whenever the offended party shall have
instituted the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense, as contemplated in
the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof, the following rules shall be observed:

(a) "After a criminal action has been commenced, the pending civil action arising from the same
offense shad be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in the criminal
proceeding has been rendered. However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court
in the civil action, the same may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with
the court trying the criminal action. If the application is granted, the evidence presented and
admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action,
without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that any party may wish to present.
(Emphasis supplied)"
SC= the civil action that may be consolidated with a criminal action, is one for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the criminal offense, or ex delicto. In the case at bar, the civil action
filed by the petitioner was for specific performance with damages. The main relief sought in the
latter case, i.e., the delivery of the certificates of title to the lots which petitioner had allegedly
fully paid for, was grounded on the Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private
respondent. Hence the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an
obligation arising from a contract, or ex contractu and not one for the recovery of civil liability
arising from an offense; hence, the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable.
But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, 11 the consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action
arising not ex delicto, may still be done, based upon the express authority of Section 1, Rule 31
of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or
fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all
the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it
may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.
In Canos v. Peralta, where the Court sustained the order of a trial court to consolidate a civil
action (an action for the recovery of wage differential, overtime and termination pay, plus
damages) with a criminal action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law), it was held that:
A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where
they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues,
and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court
has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give
one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the
parties. ...
The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits to guard
against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to

simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment of justice with the least
expense and vexation to the parties litigants. 12
In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues involved, at least, the factual issues in the civil and
criminal actions are almost identical, i.e., whether or not petitioner had fully paid for the lots he
purchased from the private respondents, so as to entitle him to the delivery of the certificates of
title to said lots. The evidence in both cases, likewise would virtually be the same, which are, the
Contract to Sell, the letter which contains the conditions for the purchase of the lots and, to
which petitioner allegedly affixed his conformity, the official receipts for the alleged payments
made by the petitioner, and other related documents.
Based on the foregoing, and considering that the criminal action filed is one for violation of a
special law where, irrespective of the motives, mere commission of the act prohibited by said
special law, constitutes the offense, then the intervention of the petitioner's counsel, as private
prosecutor in the criminal action, will not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.
The consolidation of the two (2) cases in question, where petitioner's counsel may act as counsel
for the plaintiff in the civil case and private prosecutor in the criminal case, will instead be
conducive to the early termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to the benefit and
convenience of the parties; as well as to the speedy administration of justice