G.R. No. L-21098 - MAY 1963 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-21098May 31, 1963 Carmen P. Novino, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-19258May 31, 1963 Manila Yacht Club, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-19247May 31, 1963 Insular Sugar Refining Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-19146May 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Sarmiento G.R. No. L-18943May 31, 1963 Ramon Yap vs. Fortunata Tingin, et al. G.R. No. L-18728May 31, 1963 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18629May 31, 1963 Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, et al. G.R. No. L-18365May 31, 1963 George de Bisschop vs. Emilio L. Galang G.R. No. L-18336May 31, 1963 Magdalena Estate, Inc., et al. vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Magdalena Estate, Inc. G.R. No. L-18319May 31, 1963 Leoncio Ngo vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-18270May 31, 1963 San Pablo Oil Factory, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-18125May 31, 1963 Board of Assessment Appeals, et al. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18085May 31, 1963 Anacleto B. Alzate vs. Benigno Aldana, et al. G.R. Nos. L-18083-84May 31, 1963 Jesus Z. Valenzuela vs. Irene Z. de Aguilar G.R. No. L-18043May 31, 1963 National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Gregorio D. Montejo G.R. No. L-17912May 31, 1963 Melanio Olano vs. Dominador Ronquillo, et al. G.R. No. L-17569May 31, 1963 Republic vs. Manuel Samia, et al. G.R. No. L-16894May 31, 1963 Modesta Vda. de Santos vs. Daniel Garcia G.R. No. L-16870May 31, 1963 Eloy Prospero vs. Alfredo Robles, et al. G.R. No. L-16610May 31, 1963 Francisco Jovelo vs. Nasaria Vda. de Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-15982May 31, 1963 Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. vs. Sec. of Public Works and Communications G.R. No. L-15972May 31, 1963 Concepcion Asetre Motoomull vs. Abundio Z. Arrieta G.R. No. L-15290May 31, 1963 Mariano Zamora vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-15289May 31, 1963 Esperanza A. Zamora vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-15281May 31, 1963 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Esperanza A. Zamora G.R. No. L-15280May 31, 1963 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Mariano Zamora G.R. No. L-15237May 31, 1963 Maria Santiago, et al. vs. Jose Ramirez, et al. G.R. Nos. L-15201-02May 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Policarpio G. Tiongson G.R. No. L-15184May 31, 1963 Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. vs. Phil. International Surety Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-14760May 31, 1963 Antonio M. Samia vs. Roman Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-11843May 31, 1963 Davao City Women's Club, Inc., et al. vs. Remedios Ponferrada G.R. No. L-20420May 30, 1963 Botelho Shipping Corp. vs. Jose N. Leuterio, et al. G.R. No. L-18354May 30, 1963 Ching Ban Yek Co., Inc. vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-18226May 30, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Santok G.R. No. L-17983May 30, 1963 Leoncio Soledad vs. Paulo Mamañgun G.R. No. L-17907May 30, 1963 Joaquin Hacbang, et al. vs. Leyte Autobus Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-17662May 30, 1963 San Teodoro Development Enterprises, Inc. vs. Social Security System G.R. No. L-17568May 30, 1963 Emilio M. Lumontad, Jr. vs. Provincial Governor, et al. G.R. No. L-17060May 30, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Kusain Saik, et al. G.R. No. L-16783May 30, 1963 Inocentes Vallecra, et al., vs. David Gamus, et al. G.R. No. L-16782May 30, 1963 Silvestre Cuñado vs. David Gamus, et al. G.R. No. L-16774May 30, 1963 Eugenio Urbayan, et al. vs. Evaristo Salvoro G.R. No. L-16727May 30, 1963 J. M. Tuason & Co., etc. vs. Ricardo Baloy G.R. No. L-16419May 30, 1963 Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-14791May 30, 1963 Ipekdjian Merchandising Co., Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18884May 29, 1963 J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Danny Vibat G.R. No. L-17832-33May 29, 1963 Alfonso Cababa vs. Balbino Remigio, et al. G.R. No. L-20508May 16, 1963 Genaro Visarra vs. Cesar Miraflor The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Carmen P. Novino, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Manila Yacht Club, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Insular Sugar Refining Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Sarmiento Ramon Yap vs. Fortunata Tingin, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, et al. George de Bisschop vs. Emilio L. Galang Magdalena Estate, Inc., et al. vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Magdalena Estate, Inc. Leoncio Ngo vs. Republic of the Phil. San Pablo Oil Factory, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Board of Assessment Appeals, et al. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Anacleto B. Alzate vs. Benigno Aldana, et al. Jesus Z. Valenzuela vs. Irene Z. de Aguilar National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Gregorio D. Montejo Melanio Olano vs. Dominador Ronquillo, et al. Republic vs. Manuel Samia, et al. Modesta Vda. de Santos vs. Daniel Garcia Eloy Prospero vs. Alfredo Robles, et al. Francisco Jovelo vs. Nasaria Vda. de Bautista, et al. Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. vs. Sec. of Public Works and Communications Concepcion Asetre Motoomull vs. Abundio Z. Arrieta Mariano Zamora vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Esperanza A. Zamora vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Esperanza A. Zamora Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Mariano Zamora Maria Santiago, et al. vs. Jose Ramirez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Policarpio G. Tiongson Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. vs. Phil. International Surety Co., Inc., et al. Antonio M. Samia vs. Roman Reyes, et al. Davao City Women's Club, Inc., et al. vs. Remedios Ponferrada Botelho Shipping Corp. vs. Jose N. Leuterio, et al. Ching Ban Yek Co., Inc. vs. Auditor General People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Santok Leoncio Soledad vs. Paulo Mamañgun Joaquin Hacbang, et al. vs. Leyte Autobus Company, Inc., et al. San Teodoro Development Enterprises, Inc. vs. Social Security System Emilio M. Lumontad, Jr. vs. Provincial Governor, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Kusain Saik, et al. Inocentes Vallecra, et al., vs. David Gamus, et al. Silvestre Cuñado vs. David Gamus, et al. Eugenio Urbayan, et al. vs. Evaristo Salvoro J. M. Tuason & Co., etc. vs. Ricardo Baloy Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Ipekdjian Merchandising Co., Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Danny Vibat Alfonso Cababa vs. Balbino Remigio, et al. Genaro Visarra vs. Cesar Miraflor The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21098 May 31, 1963
CARMEN P. NOVINO and RODOLFO NOVINO,petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, LINA Y. FUENTES, RAFAEL FUENTES and
PEOPLE'S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION (PHHC),respondents.
Luis Meneses for petitioner.
Romualdo Valera for respondent People's Homesite and Housing Corporation.
Campos, Mendoza and Hernandez for respondents Lina Y. Fuentes and Rafael Fuentes.
R E S O L U T I O N
BENGZON,C.J.:
This petition for review of the decision of the Court Appeals has been, by resolution, dismissed "for lack merit".
Now comes petitioners' counsel to argue that the resolution "does not interpret or clarify any law or right raised by the petitioners but simply denied or dismissed the petition without (giving) any reason for such action". And by citing sec. 12 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, counsel impliedly suggests that we disregarded it in failing to state the facts and the law on which our resolute rested.
In connection with identical short resolutions, the same question has been raised before; and we held that these "resolutions" are not "decisions" within the above constitutional requirement. They merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court and even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it. It should remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need fully to explain the court's denial. For one thing, the facts and the laws are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion.
By the way, this mode of disposal has — as intend — helped the Court in alleviating its heavy docket; it was patterned after the practice of the U. S. Supreme Court wherein petitions for review are often merely ordered "dismissed".
But let us — this time at least — consider the petitioners' arguments.
Regarding the claim that the Court of Appeals has failed to decide one question of law (Art. 144 of the Civil Code) that herein petitioners had submitted, it is enough to explain that the courts are not required to decideeach and every question of lawraised by one party, regardless of its materiality to the litigation.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.1äwphï1.ñët
And — contrary to petitioners' contention — a court's failure to decide one immaterial or unnecessary legal question, does not infringe Art. 9 of the New Civil Code, because that article refers to refusal of a judge to decide a material legal issueon the ground or excusethat the law on that pointis silentor obscure or insufficiently expressed.
To uphold herein petitioners' claim would bring about a situation wherein the time of judges will be wasted with useless and impertinent legal questions knowingly or unknowingly raised to delay the litigation or befuddle the issues.
And yet, what is Carmen Novino's gripe? She asserts that the Court of Appeals failed to apply Art. 144 of the Civil Code. The facts in short are these: Carmen sold some real property she had acquired from the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation. Now she wants the sale annulled alleging she had not obtained the consent of "her husband" Rodolfo Novino. The Court of Appeals found that her marriage to him was null and void from the beginning because both of them had surviving spouses.1Therefore, the Court of Appeals ruled: valid sale, no need of Rodolfo's consent. Here she asks that Art. 144 should be applied.2It says:
ART. 144. — When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
True, the Court of Appeals did not expressly rule on the point. But it impliedly held that at the time the property was acquired (by her) theywere not living as husband and wife; so, Art. 144 is immaterial.
The Court did not add — as it could have added — that if the sale was defective by reason of the lack of Rodolfo's consent, it was the heirs of Rodolfo — not Carmen — who have a right to ask for annulment. Carmen could not invoke her own fault or shortcoming (she did not get his consent) to invalidate a sale she had consummated. On the other hand, this Court takes into account in the use of its discretion, that apparently, the money was used for the benefit of Rodolfo, for his expenses at the Psychopatic Hospital.
The motion to reconsider is denied.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Labrador and Barrera, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
1Two conjugal partnerships with these still subsisting.
2If applied, would there bethreepartnerships?