View full case

ANSELMO D. MALONZO v. SUCERE FOODS CORPORATION

FACTS:

The heirs of the deceased Ronaldo T. Palomo and other parties filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, and Damages against Sucere Foods Corporation and the Register of Deeds, alleging that Lot Nos. 3069 and 3070 were consolidated and subdivided. Ronaldo T. Palomo and other individuals acquired certain lots from the consolidation. The plaintiffs claimed that prior to the consolidation, a portion of the lots was purchased by the Provincial Government of Bulacan. The plaintiffs sought to quiet their title, recover possession, and claim damages.

After the consolidation and subdivision, Florencio Cruz obtained a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) and Emancipation Patent (EP) covering a portion of Lot No. 3069. Virginia Vda. de Dela Cruz also obtained an EP for another portion. Florencio then filed a petition for the reconstitution of TCT No. 17377, which was granted. New titles were issued in the names of Florencio and Virginia.

Florencio later applied for the conversion of the lot covered by TCT No. T-024-EP, which was approved. It was alleged that Florencio sold the lot to the respondent even before the conversion was approved. TCT No. T-024-EP was cancelled, and TCT No. T-62591 was issued in the name of the respondent.

Virginia sold the lot covered by TCT No. 023-EP to the spouses Dominador and Teresita Balaga, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. T-64747. Teresita later sold a portion of the land to the respondent, leading to the issuance of TCT No. T-74871.

The respondent then entered into a deed of exchange with Centro Escolar University and consolidated the lots acquired from Florencio and Teresita. The consolidated lot, including the portion owned by the Provincial Government of Bulacan, was subdivided into three, with all three lots now registered under the respondent's name.

The plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, and Damages against the respondent, who claimed to have purchased the land in good faith and for value. The respondent also filed notices to take deposition without the court's permission, which were denied by the RTC.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it ruled that there is no requirement to state the purpose of the deposition.

  2. Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it ruled that depositions may be taken before a notary public.

  3. Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it granted respondent's petition for certiorari and ordered the RTC to allow the taking of the deposition.

  4. Whether there is a requirement to state the purpose for taking deposition in the notice to take deposition under Rule 23 of the Rules.

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in setting aside the Order of Branch 7, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 529-M-2014 denying respondent's notice to take deposition.

  6. Whether depositions can be taken before a notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths.

  7. Whether the specific purpose or purposes of the deposition need to be stated.

RULING:

  1. Yes. The CA committed a reversible error when it ruled that there is no requirement to state the purpose of the deposition. The RTC correctly ruled that the scope of the depositions and the reasons for taking them were not clear. While it is true that under Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules, leave of court is not required if an answer has already been served, this does not mean that the purpose or reason for taking the deposition can be left unspecified. The purpose of stating the purpose of the deposition is to avoid fishing expeditions and to ensure that the taking of the deposition is done in accordance with the essential legal requirements.

  2. Yes. The CA committed a reversible error when it ruled that depositions may be taken before a notary public. The RTC correctly stated that Sections 3 and 17 of the Rules require that depositions be taken before the court and not before a notary public or any person authorized to administer an oath. This requirement is essential to ensure the reliability and admissibility of the deposition. Allowing depositions to be taken before a notary public would undermine the purpose of the Rules and may lead to doubts about the authenticity and accuracy of the deposition.

  3. No. The CA did not commit a reversible error when it granted respondent's petition for certiorari and ordered the RTC to allow the taking of the deposition. The CA correctly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Rules regarding the taking of depositions. It ruled that an answer has already been served, thus, leave of court is not required for the filing of the notice of deposition. The CA also held that the RTC has the discretion to allow the deposition under specified circumstances, as long as it is exercised reasonably and in accordance with the spirit of the law. The CA found that respondent has complied with the legal requirements and that there is no reason to deny the deposition.

  4. There is no requirement to state the purpose for taking deposition in the notice to take deposition under Rule 23 of the Rules. The only matters that have to be stated in the notice are the time and place for taking the deposition, the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, or if unknown, a general description sufficient to identify the person to be examined or the class or group to which he belongs. The trial court cannot expand the requirements under Rule 23.

  5. The Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in setting aside the Order of Branch 7, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 529-M-2014 denying respondent's notice to take deposition. The petition has no merit.

  6. Depositions may be taken before a notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths, provided the parties stipulate in writing.

  7. The specific purpose or purposes of the deposition do not need to be stated.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The purpose or reason for taking a deposition must be stated to avoid fishing expeditions and to ensure that the taking of the deposition is done in accordance with the essential legal requirements.

  • Depositions must be taken before the court and not before a notary public or any person authorized to administer an oath to ensure reliability and admissibility.

  • The court has discretion to allow the taking of depositions under specified circumstances, but this discretion must be exercised reasonably and in consonance with the spirit of the law.

  • Depositions pending action may be obtained without leave of court after an answer has been served in accordance with Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules.

  • The purpose of the deposition-discovery procedure is to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties and to ascertain the facts relative to those issues.

  • The rules providing for pre-trial discovery of testimony and other evidence were designed to remedy the inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation, and fact revelation primarily performed by pleadings.

  • The rules on discovery procedures aim to expedite the disposition of cases and contribute to the judiciary's goal of speedy adjudication.

  • Depositions are used as both a mode of discovery between the parties and a means to ascertain the facts relative to the issues.

  • The field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions is as broad as when a party is called as a witness to testify orally at trial.

  • The use of depositions, like other modes of discovery, should be encouraged to gather information for the speedy disposition of cases.

  • Section 10, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court allows depositions to be taken before a notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths if the parties so stipulate in writing. The trial courts cannot arrogate these duties exclusively upon themselves.