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.
