CASE 2018-0007: SULTAN CAWAL P. MANGONDAYA  [HADJI ABDULLATIF] VS. NAGA AMPASO (G.R. NO. G.R. NO. 201763, 21 MARCH 2018, JARDELIZA J.) (BRIEF TITLE: SULTAN MANGONDAYA VS AMPASO)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition IN PART and SET ASIDE the Orders dated dated January 31, 2011, January 16, 2012, and March 23, 2012 of the Shari’a District Court. Civil Case No. 206-10 is REMANDED to the Shari’ a District Court for further proceedings and trial on the merits. The Shari’a District Court is ordered to resolve Civil Case No. 206-10 with utmost dispatch.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

CAN THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE PARTIES’ PLEADINGS WITHOUT CONDUCTING PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL?

 

NO.

 

To recall, no pre-trial was conducted in this case. While the pre-trial conference was set and rescheduled for various reasons at least four times, 49 none was conducted. Rather than conducting a pre-trial in order to clarify and define the issues and proceeding with the trial as both parties had wanted, the SDC dismissed the case. Worse, the SDC’s second and third assailed Orders dated January 16, 2012 and March 23, 2012, dismissing the complaint only summarized the parties’ contending arguments; they were bereft of any discussion on the factual and legal basis for the dismissal itself.

 

Indeed, it was erroneous for the SDC to peremptorily conclude, on the basis of the parties’ pleadings and their attachments, that petitioner failed to prove his claim over the land, that prescription and laches have set in, and that the ‘dda, assuming it exists, is contrary to the Constitution, laws and public policy. Had the SDC proceeded with the pre-trial and trial of the case, the parties would have had the opportunity to define and clarify the issues and matters to be resolved, present all their available evidence, both documentary and testimonial, and cross-examine, test and dispel each other’s evidence. The SDC would, in tum, have the opportunity to carefully weigh, evaluate, and scrutinize them and have such sufficient evidence on which to anchor its factual findings. What appears to have happened though is a cursory determination of facts and termination of the case without the conduct of full-blown proceedings before the SDC.. . . .”

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2018-0007-Sultan Cawal P. Mangondaya Abdullatif Vs. Naga Ampaso 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.