Active Wood Products v. Court of Appeals Digest

G.R. No. 86603 February 5, 1990

Facts:

1.       A mortgage on land was constituted by petitioner Active Wood in favor of private respondent State Investment to secure an indebtedness. The said mortgage was foreclosed and the lands auctioned off to State Investment as the highest bidder. The certificate of sale issued to State Investment was registered. 

2.       Petitioner filed a civil case with Branch XX questioning the validity of the foreclosure wherein the court declared as null and void the foreclosure including State Investment's certificate of sale.

3.       Subsequently, on February 14, 1984, State Investment filed a petition for a writ of possession pending redemption of the lands by Active Wood. The petition was assigned to Branch XIV, and that court granted the writ and also set aside the order of Branch XX that had earlier declared null and void the foreclosure and State Investment's certificate of sale.

4.       Petitioner filed a motion in Branch XIV for the consolidation  of the two cases, it also filed motion to dismiss and/or suspend the proceedings of that case until Branch XX resolved the issue of validity of the mortgage raised in Civil Case No. 6518-M. The judge denied the motion to the proposed consolidation of the 2 cases. Note that Civil Case No. 6518-M was filed by the petitioner herein on June 7, 1982, much ahead than the filing the private respondent on February 1, 1984, of its "Petition for Writ of Possession."

5.       CA denied the petition and ruled that the consolidation is proper when they involve a common question of law or fact and they are pending before the court.

Issue: W/N consolidation of the 2 cases is proper

YES. 

1.       Consolidation is proper when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court. The rationale for consolidation is to have all cases, which are intimately related, acted upon by one branch of the court to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered that will not serve the orderly administration of justice. Time and again we have said that the rules of procedure must be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

2.       It is true that a petition for a writ of possession is made ex-parte to facilitate proceedings, being founded on a presumed right of ownership. Be that as it may, when this presumed right of ownership is contested and made the basis of another action, then the proceedings for writ of possession would also become seemingly groundless. The entire case must be litigated and if need be as in the case at bar, must be consolidated with a related case so as to thresh out thoroughly all related issues. 

3.       The consolidation of cases becomes mandatory because it involves the same parties and the same subject matter which is the same parcel of land.  Such consolidation is desirable to avoid confusion and unnecessary costs and expenses with the multiplicity of suits. Thus the rules do not distinguish between cases filed before the same branch or judge and those that are pending in different branches, or before different judges of the same court, in order that consolidation may be proper, as long as the cases involve the resolution of questions of law or facts in common with each other.