NICOS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JUAN COQUINCO and CARLOS COQUINCO, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, VICTORINO P. EVANGELISTA, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of Bulacan, UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, MANUEL L. CO, GOLDEN STAR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 88709
- Promulgated: 1992-02-11
- Ponente: Cruz, J.
Doctrine
A decision dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits and must be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which it is based (Art. VIII, Sec. 14).
When an order lacks sufficient factual and legal exposition, appellate review is impeded; the appropriate remedy is remand to the trial court for a revised order that supplies the necessary findings and legal basis.
Facts
Petitioners filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan alleging NICOS Industrial Corporation obtained a P2,000,000 loan from UCPB on 24 January 1980, secured by real estate mortgage; the mortgage was foreclosed and sheriff's sale held on 11 July 1983 amid alleged irregularities.
The trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint and counterclaims and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction.
The trial court's order sustaining demurrer to the evidence was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court invoking Article VIII, Section 14 (decisions must state facts and law).
Issues
Whether the trial court's order sustaining demurrer to the evidence complied with the constitutional requirement that every decision state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held the challenged order was insufficient as a reasoned decision for purposes of review; it set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the RTC to revise its 6 June 1986 order within 30 days, subject to appeal.
Keywords
G.R. No. 88709, demurrer to the evidence, annulment of sheriff’s sale, recovery of possession, damages, preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, lack of jurisdiction, prescription, estoppel, Act 3135, derivative suit, mortgage foreclosure, writ of possession, real estate mortgage, Section 1, Rule 36, Rules of Court, constitutional provision on court decisions, unauthorized representation, newspaper of general circulation, sheriff, plaintiff