Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simon v. Canlas Judicial Admissions Contradicted
Simon v. Canlas Judicial Admissions Contradicted
Edgar died during the pendency of the case. Upon proper At the scheduled hearing, the RTC was apprised of
motion, the RTC ordered that Edgar be substituted by his another Urgent Motion to Reset filed by petitioners’
wife, Guia W. Canlas (respondent), as plaintiff. counsel due to a hearing in Valenzuela City. In view of the
vigorous objection of respondent’s counsel on the ground
The RTC issued a pre-trial order stating that the parties that the case has been postponed several times at
failed to arrive at a settlement. However, they agreed to petitioners’ instance, the RTC denied the motion to reset
stipulate on the following: "[t]hat the defendant and petitioners were deemed to have waived their right to
executed a deed of real estate mortgage in favor of present evidence. The case was then considered
the plaintiff involving a parcel of land covered by submitted for decision.
TCT No. 139884 located at San Nicolas, Victoria,
Tarlac." The RTC held that Milagros executed a deed of real estate
mortgage in favor of Edgar and she received the
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. consideration for the mortgage in the amount of
P220,000.00. The petitioners’ inaction for three years
before the filing of the complaint against them to protest process, since there are issues that cannot be decided
the alleged non-receipt of the consideration for the without a trial of the case on the merits.
mortgage casts serious doubts on their claim. Lastly, the
Ordinarily, when there is sufficient evidence before the
deed of real estate mortgage was duly notarized and
Court to enable it to resolve the fundamental issues, the
assumed the character of a public instrument.
Court will dispense with the regular procedure of
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming remanding the case to the lower court, in order to avoid
that they were denied due process when the RTC decided further delays in the resolution of the case. However, a
the case without petitioners’ evidence. The RTC denied remand in this case, while time-consuming, is necessary,
the motion for reconsideration, holding that petitioners because the proceedings had in the RTC are grossly
were given ample opportunity to hire a counsel, prepare inadequate to settle factual issues. Petitioners were
for trial and adduce evidence, which they took for granted unduly deprived of the full opportunity to present
and they should bear the fault. evidence on the merits of their defense and third-party
complaint.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA. The
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA merely Considering the foregoing, the Court need not delve on
noted that the RTC failed to dispose of petitioners’ third- the other issues raised by petitioners. Suffice it to say that
party complaint and without any further discussion, such matters are best decided by the RTC only after full
dismissed the third-party complaint in the dispositive reception of petitioners’ evidence.
portion of its decision.
ISSUE
RULING