Case Name: MARIANO NOCOM vs.

OSCAR CAMERINO, EFREN By: Joyce

CAMERINO, CORNELIO MANTILE and MILDRED DEL ROSARIO, in her Topic: Summary Judgement
capacity as legal heir and representative of NOLASCO DEL ROSARIO
GR No. 182984
Date: Feb 10, 2009
Facts
The present case is an offshoot of the prior case, G.R. No. 161029, entitled Springsun Management Systems
Corporation v. Oscar Camerino, Efren Camerino, Cornelio Mantile, Nolasco Del Rosario, and Domingo Enriquez,
which was promulgated on January 19, 2005 (449 SCRA 65) and became final and executory
GR No. 161029:
Respondents Oscar Camerino, Efren, Cornelio, Nolasco+, represented by Mildred and Domingo (Camerino, et al.) were
tenants who were tilling on the parcels of land planted to rice and corn previously owned by Victoria Homes covered by
TCT.
1983 - Without notifying Camerino, et al, Victoria Homes sold the said lots to Springsun Management Systems
Corporation (SMSC). The three deeds of sale were duly registered with the Registry of Deeds and new titles were issued
in the name of SMSC.
SMSC mortgaged to Banco Filipino (BF) the said lots as collaterals for its loans. As SMSC failed to pay the loans due,
BF extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and, later, was adjudged the highest bidder.
2000 - SMSC redeemed the lots from BF
Earlier, on March 1995, respondents filed a complaint against SMSC and BF for Prohibition/Certiorari,
Reconveyance/Redemption, Damages, Injunction with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with
the RTC Muntinlupa.
2002, RTC - Muntinlupa found respondents to be tenants who have been tilling on the subject land planted to rice and
corn since 1967 and, thus, authorized them to redeem the subject lots. It declared that respondents herein are entitled to
the landholding and ordered SMSC to vacate it.
CA , affirmed with modification the RTC by declaring the respondents to be tenants or agricultural lessees on the
disputed lots and, thus, entitled to exercise their right of redemption.
SC denied SMSCs MR.
The present GR No. 182984:
2003 - Nocom gave the Camerino, et al. several checks amounting to P500k each representing the price of their inchoate
and contingent rights over the subject lots which they sold to him
December 18, 2003, respondents, with the marital consent of their wives, executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney
appointing Nocom to sell, assign, transfer the subject lots, notarized by Atty. Santos
Meanwhile, Camerino, et al, in the March 1995 case, filed a motion filed a Motion for Execution with Prayer to Order
the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City to divest SMSC of title to the subject lots and have the same vested on them
RTC granted the motion for execution and and new TCTs were issues in the names of Camerino, et al. It also ordered
that the Irrevocable Power of Attorney, be annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances of the TCTs.
Thereafter, respondent Oscar Camerino filed a complaint against petitioner, seeking to annul the Irrevocable Power of
Attorney and the turnover of the titles to the properties in his favor
- He alleged that they were asked by their counsel to sign the document as it was urgently needed
- Said document was not explained to them
- Nocom had retained ownership over the lots
Nocom averred, among others, the following:
- Atty. Santos informed him of the desire of his clients, Camerino, et al, to sell and assign to him their "inchoate and
contingent rights and interests" over the lots because they were in dire need of money and could no longer wait until
the termination of the proceedings as SMSC would probably appeal the CA's Decision to this Court
- being coupled with interest, the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" cannot be revoked or cancelled at will by any of
the parties
Respondents Efren, Cornelio and Mildred filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Admit the Complaint-in-Intervention
with the attached Complaint-in-Intervention, seeking the nullification of the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney". Their
Complaint-in-Intervention alleged that they had a legal interest in the subject matter of the controversy and would either
be directly injured or benefited by the judgment in Civil case filed by Oscar Camerino; that they were co-signatories or
co-grantors of respondent Oscar Camerino in the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" they executed in favor of the Nocom
Respondent Oscar Camerino filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that since the existence of the "Irrevocable
Power of Attorney" was admitted by Nocom, the only issue to be resolved as whether the said document was coupled
with interest and whether it was revocable in contemplation of law and jurisprudence; that Summary Judgment was
proper because petitioner did not raise any issue relevant to the contents of the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney
Nocom filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that:
- the petition for the cancellation of the "Irrevocable Power of Attorney" was actually an action to recover the titles
and ownership over the properties;
- that since respondent Oscar Camerino alleged in his Motion for Summary Judgment that the assessed value of the
 subject lots amounted to P600,000,000, the case partook of the nature of a real action and, thus, the docket fees of
P3,929 was insufficient; and should be dismissed as the RTC was not vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the complaint.
Respondent Oscar Camerino filed his Reply to petitioner's Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment claiming
that the determinative issue of whether or not the amount of P500,000 given to him by petitioner rendered the power of
attorney irrevocable can be determined from the allegations in the pleadings and affidavits on record without the need
of introduction of evidence.
The RTC granted the Motion for Summary Judgment. It rendered a Summary Judgment annulling the "Irrevocable Power
of Attorney" for being contrary to law and public policy. The assailed "power of attorney" which was executed on is
void ab initio for being contrary to the express prohibition or the declared state and public policy on the qualification of
the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. It bears stressing that the redemption price of the subject lots was paid
only 1 year, 8 months and 14 days after the execution of the assailed power of attorney. If pursuant to the spirit of the
Agrarian Reform Law, the tenant cannot even sell or dispose of his landholding within ten (10) years after he already
acquired the same or even thereafter to persons not qualified to acquire economic size farm units in accordance with the
provisions of the Agrarian Reform Code, with more reason should the tenant not be allowed to alienate or sell his
landholding before he actually acquires the same.
CA affirmed RTCs joint order and Summary Judgment and dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CA ruled that as the RTC rendered the assailed Summary Judgment based on the pleadings and documents on record,
without any trial or reception of evidence, the same did not involve factual matters. The CA found the issues raised by
Nocom in his appeal to be questions of law. CA concluded that since the issues involved questions of law, the proper
mode of appeal should have been through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court directly
to this Court and not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 thereof and, thus, Nocom's appeal to the CA should be
dismissed outright
CA denied Nocoms Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this present petition.
Issue/s
WON CA erred in upholding the summary judgment of the trial court despite the genuine issue of fact raised in petitioners
answer. YES.

Ruling:
CA erroneously relied on the rationale that the Nocoms appeal raised questions of law and, therefore, it had no recourse but to
dismiss the same for lack of jurisdiction. The summary judgment rendered by the trial court has the effect of an adjudication on
the merits and, thus, the petitioner, being the aggrieved party, correctly appealed the adverse decision of the RTC to the CA by
filing a notice of appeal coupled with the appellants brief under Rule 41 of the Rules.

Where the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. A genuine issue is such issue of fact which
requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. Section 3 of the said rule
provides two (2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except
for the amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear to raise
issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not genuine.

The present case should not be decided via a summary judgment. Summary judgment is not warranted when there are genuine
issues which call for a full blown trial. 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.
Summary judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the
parties. In this present case, while both parties acknowledge or admit the existence of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney, the
variance in the allegations in the pleadings of the petitioner vis--vis that of the respondents require the presentation of evidence
on the issue of the validity of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney to determine whether its execution was attended by the vices
of consent and whether the respondents and their spouses did not freely and voluntarily execute the same. Indeed, the presentation
of evidence is necessary to determine the validity and legality of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney. From said main factual
issue, other relevant issues spring therefrom, to wit: whether the said Irrevocable Power of Attorney was coupled with interest;
whether it had been obtained through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation or other vices of consent, etc.

While the RTC erred in rendering the summary judgment, Civil Case No. 05-172 should not perforce be dismissed. Instead, this
present case should be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings
Doctrine Notes