8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

1/23

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 175507, October 08, 2014

RAMON CHING AND PO WING PROPERIES, INC., Petitioners, v. !OSEPH

CHENG, !AIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE1 AND "#CINA SANOS, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

"EONEN, J.$

Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissals of actions at the instance of the

 plaintiff. Hence, the "two-dismissal rule" under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of CivilProcedure will not appl if the prior dismissal was done at the instance of the defendant.

!his is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision and resolution# of the Court of 

$ppeals in C$-%.R. SP. &o. '('1', which upheld the )1* order + dated &ovemer ,

dismissing Civil Case &o. -1##1 without pre/udice, and )* the omnius order 0 dated ul

#, +, which denied petitioners2 motion for reconsideration. 3oth orders were issued the

Regional !rial Court of 4anila, 3ranch (.(

!he issues efore this court are procedural. However, the factual antecedents in this case,

which stemmed from a complicated famil feud, must e stated to give conte5t to its procedural development.

6t is alleged that $ntonio Ching owned several usinesses and properties, among which was Po

ing Properties, 6ncorporated )Po ing Properties*.7 His total assets are alleged to have een

worth more than P#' million.' 6t is also alleged that while he was unmarried, he had childrenfrom two women.

Ramon Ching alleged that he was the onl child of $ntonio Ching with his common-law wife,

8ucina Santos.1 She, however, disputed this. She maintains that even if Ramon Ching2s irth

certificate indicates that he was $ntonio Ching2s illegitimate child, she and $ntonio Ching

merel adopted him and treated him li9e their own. 11

oseph Cheng and aime Cheng, on the other hand, claim to e $ntonio Ching2s illegitimatechildren with his housemaid, 4ercedes 6gne.1 hile Ramon Ching disputed this,1# oth

4ercedes and 8ucina have not.1+

8ucina Santos alleged that when $ntonio Ching fell ill sometime in 1

with the distriution of his estate to his heirs if something were to happenthat she handed all the propert titles and usiness documents to

safe9eeping.10 :ortunatel, $ntonio Ching recovered from illness and alle

Ramon Ching return all the titles to the properties and usiness documents

;n ul 1', .1(, $ntonio Ching was murdered.17 Ramon Ching alleged

igne and her children, oseph Cheng and aime Cheng, to sign an agree

$ntonio Ching2s estate in consideration of P.0 million. 4ercedes 6gne2s

Ramon Ching never paid them.1 ;n ;ctoer , 1(, Ramon Ching aaffidavit of settlement of estate,  naming himself as the sole heir an

himself the entiret of $ntonio Ching2s estate.1

Ramon Ching denied these allegations and insisted that when $ntonio C

famil association, headed

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

2/23

dismiss on the ground of lac9 of /urisdiction over the su/ect matter. # ?pon motion of the

Chengs2 counsel, however, the Chengs and 8ucina Santos were given fifteen )10* das to filethe appropriate pleading. !he did not do so.#1

;n $pril 1, , the Chengs and 8ucina Santos filed a complaint for "$nnulment of 

$greement, aiver, =5tra-udicial Settlement of =state and the Certificates of !itle 6ssued

ocuments with Praer for !emporar Restraining ;rder and rit of 

Preliminar 6n/unction" against Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties.# !his case was

doc9eted as C%&%' C()e No. 02+10--1*  )the second case* and raffled to 3ranch of the

Regional !rial Court of 4anila.##

hen 3ranch was made aware of the first case, it issued an order transferring the case to

3ranch (, considering that the case efore it involved sustantiall the same parties and causes

of action.#+

;n &ovemer 11, , the Chengs and 8ucina Santos filed a motion to dismiss their 

complaint in the second case, praing that it e dismissed without pre/udice.#0

;n &ovemer , , 3ranch ( issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on the asis

that the summons had not et een served on Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties, and the

had not et filed an responsive pleading. !he dismissal of the second case was made without 

 prejudice.#(

;n >ecemer , , Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the order dated &ovemer , . !he argue that the dismissal shouldhave een with pre/udice under the "two-dismissal rule" of Rule 17, Section 1 of the 17

Rules of Civil Procedure, in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.#7

 During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, the Chengs and 8ucina Santos filed a

complaint for ">isinheritance and >eclaration of &ullit of $greement and aiver, $ffidavit

of =5tra/udicial $greement, >eed of $solute Sale, and !ransfer Certificates of !itle with

Praer for !R; and rit of Preliminar 6n/unction" against Ramon Ching and Po ingProperties. !his case was doc9eted as C%&%' C()e No. 02+105251 )the third case* and was

eventuall raffled to 3ranch (.#'

;n >ecemer 1, , Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties filed their comment@oppositionto the application for temporar restraining order in the third case. !he also filed a motion to

dismiss on the ground of res jiidicata, litis pendencia, forum-shopping, and failure of the

complaint to state a cause of action. $ series of responsive pleadings were filed oth

 parties.#

;n ul #, +, 3ranch ( issued an omnius order + resolving

reconsideration in the second case and the motion to dismiss in the third

denied the motion for reconsideration and the motion to dismiss, holding

the second case was without pre/udice and, hence, would not ar the filing

;n ;ctoer ', +, while their motion for reconsideration in the thir

Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties filed a petition for certiorari )the

with the Court of $ppeals, assailing the order dated &ovemer , aomnius order dated ul #,.+, which upheld the dismissal of the seco

;n >ecemer ', +, the trial court issued an order dening the motion

in the third case. !he denial prompted Ramon Ching and Po ing Prope

for certiorari and prohiition with application for a writ of prelimina

issuance of a temporar restraining order )the second certiorari case

$ppeals.+#

;n 4arch #, (, the Court of $ppeals rendered the decision ++  in th

dismissing the petition. !he appellate court ruled that Ramon Ching and

reliance on the "two-dismissal rule" was misplaced since the rule invol

dismissals filed the plaintiff onl. 6n this case, it found that the dismi

was upon the motion of the defendants, while the dismissal of the secinstance of the plaintiffs.+0

?pon the denial of their motion for reconsideration,+( Ramon Ching and

filed this present petition for review+7 under Rule +0 of the Rules of Civil P

Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties argue that the dismissal of the se

 pre/udice since the non-filing of an amended complaint in the first case op

on the merits.+' !he also argue that the second case should e dismissed

 judicatasince there was a previous final /udgment of the first case involvsu/ect matter, and cause of action.+

8ucina Santos was ale to file a comment 0 on the petition within the p

Chengs, however, did not compl.0

 ?pon the issuance this court of a Septemer +, 7,0# the eventuall filed a comment with sustantiall

and arguments as that of 8ucina Santos2.0+

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

3/23

6n their comment, respondents allege that when the trial court granted the motion to dismiss,

Ramon Ching2s counsel was notified in open court that the dismissal was without pre/udice.!he argue that the trial court2s order ecame final and e5ecutor when he failed to file his

motion for reconsideration within the reglementar period.00

Respondents argue that the petition for review should e dismissed on the ground of forum

shopping and litis pendencia. since Ramon Ching and Po ing Properties are see9ing relief 

simultaneousl in two forums filing the two petitions for certiorari, which involved the

same omnius order the trial court. 0( !he also argue that the "two-dismissal rule" and res

 judicata did not appl since )1* the failure to amend a complaint is not a dismissal, and )*the onl moved for dismissal once in the second case.07

6n their repl,0' petitioners argue that the did not commit forum shopping since the actions

the commenced against respondents stemmed from the complaints filed against them in the

trial courts.0 !he reiterate that their petition for review is onl aout the second caseB it /ust

so happened that the assailed omnius order resolved oth the second and third cases.(

?pon the filing of the parties2 respective memoranda,(1 the case was sumitted for decision.(

:or this court2s resolution are the following issues

6. hether the trial court2s dismissal of the second case operated as a ar to the filing of a

third case, as per the "two-dismissal rule"B and

66. hether respondents committed forum shopping when the filed the third case while

the motion for reconsideration of the second case was still pending.

!he petition is denied.

e /to+%)%))(' r3'e/ &%)+(+&%)

te R3'e) o C%&%' Proce3re

>ismissals of actions are governed Rule 17 of the 17 Rules of Civil Procedure. !he

 pertinent provisions stateChanRoles6S46SS$8 ;: $C!6;&S

SEC. 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. D $ complaint ma e dism

  filing a notice of dismissal at an time efore service of the answesummar /udgment. ?pon such notice eing filed, the court shall issue an

dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without p

a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a pl

dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same c

SEC. 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. D =5cept as provided in the

complaint shall not e dismissed at the plaintiffs instance save upon appr

upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. 6f a countercla  a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motio

dismissal shall e limited to the complaint. !he dismissal shall e wit

right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action

)10* das from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to ha

resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a

 paragraph shall be without prejudice. $ class suit shall not e dismis

without the approval of the court.

SEC. -. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff . D 6f, for no /ustifiale cause

appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the comp

his action for an unreasonale length of time, or to compl with these Rul

court, the complaint ma e dismissed upon motion of the defendant or u

motion, without pre/udice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his

same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an a

merits, unless otherwise declared by the court . )=mphasis supplied*chanro

!he first section of the rule contemplates a situation where a plaintiff reAu

the case efore an responsive pleadings have een filed the defendan

notice the plaintiff and confirmation the court. !he dismissal is wit

otherwise declared the court.

!he second section of the rule contemplates a situation where a countercla  the defendant efore the service on him or her of the plaintiffs motion t

leave of court, and the dismissal is generall without pre/udice unless o

the court.

!he third section contemplates dismissals due to the fault of the plaintiff s

 prosecute. !he case is dismissed either upon motion of the defendant o

 propio. %enerall, the dismissal is with pre/udice unless otherwise declare

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

4/23

6n all instances, Rule 17 governs dismissals at the instance of the plaintiff, not of thedefendant. >ismissals upon the instance of the defendant are generall governed Rule 1(,

which covers motions to dismiss.(#

6n nsular !eneer, nc. v. "on. Plan,(+ Consolidated 8ogging and 8umer 4ills filed a

complaint against 6nsular

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

5/23

Here, the first case was filed as an ordinar civil action. 6t was later amended to include not

onl new defendants ut new causes of action that should have een ad/udicated in a special proceeding. $ motion to dismiss was inevital filed the defendants on the ground of lac9 

of /urisdiction.

!he trial court granted that motion to dismiss, stating thatChanRolesismiss filed $tt. 4aria 8ina

 &ieva S. Casals to e meritorious and the Court is left with no alternative ut to dismiss as ithere dismisses the $mended Complaint.

However, on motion of $tt. 4irardo $rroo ;ias, counsel for the plaintiffs, he is given a

 period of fifteen )10* das from toda, within which to file an appropriate pleading, cop

furnished to all the parties concerned.

. . . .

S; ;R>=R=>.7+

Petitioners are of the view that when $tt. 4irardo $rroo ;ias failed to file the appropriate

 pleading within fifteen )10* das, he violated the order of the court. !his, the argue, made the

original dismissal an ad/udication upon the merits, in accordance with Rule 17, Section #, i.e.,

a dismissal through the default of the plaintiff. Hence, the argue that when respondents filed

the second case and then caused its dismissal, the dismissal should have een with pre/udiceaccording to Rule 17, Section 1, i.e., two dismissals caused the plaintiff on the same claim.

?nfortunatel, petitioners2 theor is erroneous.

!he trial court dismissed the first case granting the motion to dismiss filed by the

defendants. hen it allowed $tt. 4irardo $rroo ;ias a period of fifteen )10* das to file

an appropriate pleading, it was merel acAuiescing to a reAuest made the plaintiffs counsel

that had no earing on the dismissal of the case.

?nder Rule 17, Section #, a defendant ma move to dismiss the case if th

does not contemplate a situation where the dismissal was due to lac9 o

there was alread a dismissal prior to plaintiffs default, the trial court2s i

appropriate pleading will not reverse the dismissal. 6f the plaintiff fails to

 pleading, the trial court does not dismiss the case anewB the order dism

stands.

!he dismissal of the first case was done at the instance of the defendant un

1)* of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which statesChanRoles

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

6/23

:or this reason, the trial court issued its order dated &ovemer , dismissing thecase, without prejudice. !he order statesChanRolesismiss, as shown their signatures over their 

respective names reflected thereat. Similarl, none of the defendants appeared, e5cept the

counsel for defendant, Ramon Chang EsicF, who manifested that the have not et filed their $nswer as there was a defect in the address of Ramon Cheng EsicF and the latter has not et

 een served with summons.

?nder the circumstances, and further considering that the defendants herein have not et filed

their $nswers nor an pleading, the plaintiffs has EsicF the right to out rightl EsicF cause the

dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Section , Rule 17 of the 17 Rules of Civil Procedure

without pre/udice. !here, and as praed for, this case is hereby ordered D+)++*D without 

 prejudice.

S; ;R>=R=>.7' )=mphasis supplied*

hen respondents filed the third case on sustantiall the same claim, there was alread one

 prior dismissal at the instance of the plaintiffs and one prior dismissal at the instance of the

defendants. hile it is true that there were two previous dismissals on the same claim, it does

not necessaril follow that the re-filing of the claim was arred Rule 17, Section 1 of theRules of Civil Procedure. !he circumstances surrounding each dismissal must first e

e5amined to determine efore the rule ma appl, as in this case.

=ven assuming for the sa9e of argument that the failure of $tt. 4irardo $rroo ;ias to file

the appropriate pleading in the first case came under the purview of Rule 17, Section # of the

Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal in the second case is still considered as one without 

 prejudice. 6nome- v. lcantara7

!he dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of ad/udication on the merits, and

is necessaril understood to e with pre/udice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise

 provided in the order of dismissal. Stated differentl, the general rule is that dismissal of a case

for failure to prosecute is to e regarded as an ad/udication on the merits and with pre/udice tothe filing of another action, and the onl e5ception is when the order of dismissal e5pressl

contains a Aualification that the dismissal is without pre/udice.' )=mphasis supplied*

6n granting the dismissal of the second case, the trial court specificall or

 e without pre/udice. 6t is onl when the trial court2s order either is silstates otherwise, that the dismissal will e considered an ad/udication on th

However, while the dismissal of the second case was without pre/udice

filing the third case while petitioners2 motion for reconsideration was still

forum shopping.

e r3'e ((%)t or3 )o66%( te /t%+%)%))(' r3'e/

6n /ap v. (hua'1

 0orum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceeding

 parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successivel

that one or the other court would ma1e a favorable disposition . :oru

resorted to an part against whom an adverse /udgment or order haforum, in an attempt to see9 a favorale opinion in another, other than

civil action for certiorari. 0orum shopping trifles with the courts, abu

degrades the administration of justice and congest court doc1ets. 2h

vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who as1s dif

on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the sam

 process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered b

upon the same issues. illful and delierate violation of the rule againstground for summar dismissal of the caseB it ma also constitute direct con

!o determine whether a part violated the rule against forum shopping

factor to as9 is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whe

in one case will amount to  res judicata  in anotherB otherwise stated, the

forum shopping is whether in the two )or more* cases pending, there is

rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought.')=mphasis supplied*

hen respondents filed the third case, petitioners2 motion for reconsidera

of the second case was still pending. Clearl, the order of dismissal was

could still e overturned upon reconsideration, or even on appeal to a high

4oreover, petitioners were not prohiited from filing the motion for re

court has alread stated in 3arciso v. arcia'# that a defendant has the righ

reconsideration of a trial court2s order dening the motion to dismiss since

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

7/23

the filing of such a motion for reconsideration." '+ !he second case, therefore, was still pending

when the third case was filed.

!he prudent thing that respondents could have done was to wait until the final disposition of 

the second case efore filing the third case. $s it stands, the dismissal of the second case was

without pre/udice to the re-filing of the same claim, in accordance with the Rules of Civil

Procedure. 6n their haste to file the third case, however, the unfortunatel transgressed certain

 procedural safeguards, among which are the rules on litis pendentia and res judicata.

6n /apChanRoles

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

8/23

6n this case, however, the dismissal of the first case ecame final and e5ecutor upon thefailure of respondents2 counsel to file the appropriate pleading. !he filed the correct pleading

the second time around ut eventuall sought its dismissal as the "EsuspectedF that their 

counsel is not ampl protecting their interests as the case is not moving for almost three )#*

ears."1 !he filing of the third case, therefore, was not precisel for the purpose of otaining a

favorale result ut onl to get the case moving, in an attempt to protect their rights.

6t appears that the resolution on the merits of the original controvers etween the parties has

long een mired in numerous procedural entanglements. hile it might e more /udiciall

e5pedient to appl the "twin-dismissal rule" and disallow the proceedings in the third case tocontinue, it would not serve the ends of sustantial /ustice. Courts of /ustice must alwas

endeavor to resolve cases on their merits, rather than summaril dismiss these on

technicalitiesChanRoles

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

9/23

did not receive an pament from %onales. !his prompted Spouses Raa/a to suspend further 

 pament of the purchase priceB and as a conseAuence, the received a notice to vacate thesu/ect propert from Spouses Salvador for non-pament of rentals.

!hereafter, Spouses Salvador instituted an action for e/ectment against Spouses Raa/a. 6n

turn, Spouses Raa/a filed an action for rescission of contract against Spouses Salvador and

%onales, the su/ect matter of the present petition.

6n the action for e/ectment, the complaint was filed efore the 4etropolitan !rial Court of 

4andaluong Cit, 3ranch ( ) )eT( *, where it was doc9eted as Civil Case &o. 17#++. 6n its

$ugust 1+, >ecision,0  the 4e!C ruled in favor of Spouses Salvador finding that validgrounds e5isted for the eviction of Spouses Raa/a from the su/ect propert and ordering

them to pa ac9 rentals. Spouses Salvador were ale to garnish the amount of 

P0#,+.( from Spouses Raa/aIs time deposit account pursuant to a writ of e5ecution

issued the 4e!C.7 Spouses Raa/a appealed to the Regional !rial Court, 3ranch 1,

4andaluong Cit ) RT($&r. 454* which reversed the 4e!C ruling in its 4arch 1, 0

decision.' !he R!C-3r. 1 found that no lease agreement e5isted etween the parties.!hereafter, Spouses Salvador filed an appeal with the C$ which was doc9eted as CA+G.R. SP

No. 8*25*. ;n 4arch #1, (, the C$ ruled in favor of Spouses Salvador and reinstated  the

4e!C ruling e/ecting Spouses Raa/a. &ot having een appealed, the C$ decision in C$-

%.R. SP &o. '0 ecame final and e5ecutor on 4a 1, (.1chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

4eanwhile, the rescission case filed Spouses Raa/a against Spouses Salvador and

%onales and doc9eted as Civil Case &o. 4C &o. #-170 was also raffled to R!C-3r. 1. 6n

their complaint,11dated ul 7, #, Spouses Raa/a demanded the rescission of the contract tosell praing that the amount of P0,. the previousl paid to Spouses Salvador e

returned to them. !he li9ewise praed that damages e awarded due to the contractual reach

committed Spouses Salvador.

Spouses Salvador filed their answer with counterclaim and cross-claim1 contending that there

was no meeting of the minds etween the parties and that the SP$ in favor of %onales was

falsified. 6n fact, the filed a case for falsification against %onales, ut it was dismissed ecause the original of the alleged falsified SP$ could not e produced. !he further averred

that the did not receive an pament from Spouses Raa/a through %onales. 6n her defense,

%onales filed her answer 1# stating that the SP$ was not falsified and that the paments of 

Spouses Raa/a amounting to P0,. were all handed over to Spouses Salvador.

!he pre-trial conference egan ut attempts to amical settle the case were unsuccessful. 6t

was formall reset to :eruar +, 0, ut Spouses Salvador and their counsel failed to

attend. ConseAuentl, the R!C issued the pre-trial order 1+declaring Spouse

and allowing Spouses Raa/a to present their evidence ex parte against S%onales to present evidence in her favor.

$ motion for reconsideration,10 dated 4arch ', 0, was filed Spou

said pre-trial order eseeching the lieralit of the court. !he rescissio

raffled to R!C-3r. 1+ after the Presiding udge of R!C-3r. 1 inhi

;rder,1( dated ;ctoer +, 0, the R!C-3r. 1+ denied the motion

 ecause Spouses Salvador provided a flims e5cuse for their non-appea

conference.

!hereafter, trial proceeded and Spouses Raa/a and %onales presen

testimonial and documentar evidence.

 RT( Ruling 

;n 4arch , 7, the R!C-3r. 1+ rendered a decision 17 in favor of Spthat the signature of Spouses Salvador affi5ed in the contract to sell appea

also held that the contract, although denominated as Jcontract to sell,K wa

of sale ecause Spouses Salvador, as vendors, did not reserve their title to

vendees had full paid the purchase price. Since the contract entered in

contract, it could e validl rescinded Spouses Raa/a, and in the

recover the amount of P0,. /ointl and severall from Spouses Sa

!he R!C stated that %onales was undoutedl the attorne-in-fact o

asent an taint of irregularit. Spouses Raa/a could not e faulted in dewho was dul eAuipped with the SP$ from Spouses Salvador.

!he R!C-3r. 1+ then ruled that the amount of P0#,+. garnished f

account of Spouses Raa/a, representing the award of rental arreara

e/ectment suit, should e returned Spouses Salvador.1' !he court view

was part of the purchase price of the su/ect propert which must e retur

moral and e5emplar damages in favor of Spouses Raa/a and attorne%onales. !he dispositive portion of the said decision readschanRolesvi

H=R=:;R=, this court renders /udgment as followschanRolesvirtual

a. ;rdering the JContract to SellK entered into the plaintiff anRolando and Herminia Salvador on ul +, 1' as R=SC6&>=>

 . ;rdering defendant spouses Rolando and Herminia Salvador and

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

10/23

%onales /ointl and severall liale to pa plaintiffschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

1. the amount of &6&= H?&>R=> :6:!L !H;?S$&> P=S;S )P0,.*,representing the paments made the latter for the purchase of su/ect

 propertBchanroleslaw

. the amount of !=&!L !H;?S$&> P=S;S )P,.*, as moral

damagesBchanroleslaw

#. the amount of !=&!L !H;?S$&> P=S;S )P,.*, as e5emplar

damagesBchanroleslaw

+. the amount of ;&= H?&>R=> !H;?S$&> P=S;S )P1,.*, as

attorneIs feesBchanroleslaw

0. the cost of suit.

c. ;rdering defendant Spouses Rolando and Herminia Salvador to pa plaintiffs the

amount of :6R=> &6&=!L !HR== !H;?S$&> P=S;S )P0#,.*)sic*, representing the amount garnished from the 4etroan9 deposit of plaintiffs as

 pament for their alleged ac9 rentalsBchanroleslaw

d. ;rdering the defendant Spouses Rolando and Herminia Salvador to pa defendant

Rosario %onales on her cross-claim in the amount of ;&= H?&>R=> !H;?S$&>

P=S;S )P1,.*Bchanroleslaw

e. >ismissing the counterclaims of the defendants against the plaintiff.

S; ;R>=R=>.1

%onales filed a motion for partial reconsideration, ut it was denied the R!C-3r. 11+ in its

;rder, dated Septemer 1, 7. ?ndaunted, Spouses Salvador and %onales filed an appeal

 efore the C$.

( Ruling 

;n 4arch , 7, the C$ affirmed the decision of the R!C-3r. 11+ with modifications. 6t

ruled that the Jcontract to sellK was indeed a contract of sale and that %onales was armed with

an SP$ and was, in fact, introduced to Spouses Raa/a Spouses Salvador as the

administrator of the propert. Spouses Raa/a could not e lamed if the had transacted with

%onales.

!he C$ then held that Spouses Salvador should return the amount of P0#,+. pursuant to

a separate e/ectment case, reasoning that Spouses Salvador misled the court ecause an

e5amination of CA+G.R. SP No. 8*20 showed that Spouses Raa/a were

case. C$-%.R. SP &o. 0( was an action etween Spouses Salvador aninvolved a completel different residential apartment located at #

>reamland Sudivision, 4andaluong Cit.

!he C$, however, ruled that %onales was not solidaril liale with Sp

agent must e5pressl ind himself or e5ceed the limit of his authorit in

liale. 6t was not shown that %onales as agent of Spouses Salvador e5cee

e5pressl ound herself to e solidaril liale. !he decretal portion

readschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

H=R=:;R=, the appeal is P$R!8L %R$&!=>. !he assailed >ecis7 and the ;rder dated Septemer 1, 7, of the Regional !rial

4andaluong Cit, in Civil Case &o. 4C-#-170, are $::6R4=> with

that Rosario %onale is not /ointl and severall liale to pa Spouses

enumerated in paragraph )* of the >ecision dated 4arch , 7.

S; ;R>=R=>.1

Spouses Salvador filed a motion for reconsideration ut it was denied

0, 1 Resolution.

Hence, this petition.

ASSIGNMEN O9 ERRORS

I

HE CO#R O9 APPEA"S ERRED IN NO 9INDING HA HE

GRAVE"= AAMINE RESPONDENS SPS. RA

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

11/23

IMPROVISED RECEIPS WERE EVIDEN"= MADE #P AND 9A"SI9IED

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

12/23

Procedure, a defendant is onl declared in default if he fails to file his $nswer within the

reglementar period.;n the other hand, if a defendant fails to attend the pre-trial conference,the plaintiff can present his evidence ex parte. Sections + and 0, Rule 1' of the Rules of Court

 providechanRolesvirtual8awlirar

Sec. +. $ppearance of parties.

6t shall e the dut of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. !he non-

appearance of a part ma e e5cused onl if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a

representative shall appear in his ehalf full authoried in writing to enter into an amicale

settlement, to sumit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations

or admissions of facts and of documents.

Sec. 0. =ffect of failure to appear.

!he failure of the plaintiff to appear when so reAuired pursuant to the ne5t preceding section

shall e cause for dismissal of the action. !he dismissal shall e with pre/udice, unless

otherwise ordered the court. A )%%'(r (%'3re o te 6(rt o te ee(t )('' be c(3)eto (''o te 6'(%t% to 6re)et %) e&%ece e@ 6(rte ( te co3rt to reer 3et o

te b()%) tereo.

E=mphasis suppliedF

!he case of Philippine merican #ife 7 eneral nsurance (ompany v. 'oseph

 *nario# discussed the difference etween the non-appearance of a defendant in a pre-trial

conference and the declaration of a defendant in default in the present Rules of CivilProcedure. !he decision instructschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

Prior to the 17 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the phrase "as in default" was initiall

included in Rule of the old rules, and which read as followschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

Sec. . $ part who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference ma e non-suited or considered as

in default.cralawred

6t was, however, amended in the 17 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. ustice Regalado, in

his oo9, R=4=>6$8 8$ C;4P=&>6?4, e5plained the rationale for the deletion of the

 phrase "as in default" in the amended provision, to witchanRolesvirtual8awlirar1. !his is a sustantial reproduction of Section of the former Rule with the change that,

instead of defendant eing declared "as in default" reason of his non-appearance, this

section now spells out that the procedure will e to allow the e5 parte presentation of 

 plaintiffIs evidence and the rendition of /udgment on the asis thereof. hile actuall the

 procedure remains the same, the purpose is one of semantical propriet or terminological

accurac as there were criticisms on the use of the word "default" in the former provision since

that term is identified with the failure to file a reAuired answer, not appearance in

court.cralawred

Still, in the same oo9, ustice Regalado clarified that while the order otained, its effects were retained, thuschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

:ailure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementar period, and

at the hearing, is the sole ground for an order of default, e5cept the failu

trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of the defenda

is, the plaintiff shall e allowed to present evidence e5 parte and a /udg

ma e rendered against defendant.cralawred

:rom the foregoing, the failure of a part to appear at the pre-trial

conseAuences. 6f the asent part is the plaintiff, then his case shall e d

defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to present his ethe court shall render /udgment ased on the evidence presented. !hus,

the privilege to present his evidence without o/ection from the defendant

that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant h

opportunit to reut or present its own evidence.#1 !he stringent applic

 pre-trial is necessitated from the significant role of the pre-trial stage in t

Pre-trial is an answer to the clarion call for the speed disposition of cadiscretionar under the 1+ Rules of Court, it was made mandator unde

the suseAuent amendments in 17.# J!he importance of pre-trial in ci

overemphasied.K##chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

!here is no dispute that Spouses Salvador and their counsel failed to

conference set on :eruar +, 0 despite proper notice. Spouses Sal

non-attendance was due to the fault of their counsel as he forgot to updat

e5cuse smac9s of carelessness, and indifference to the pre-trial stage.considered as a /ustifiale e5cuse the Court. $s a result of their inatt

Salvador could no longer present an evidence in their favor. Spouses R

were properl allowed the R!C to present evidence ex parte against

defendants. Considering that %onales as co-defendant was ale to

conference, she was allowed to present her evidence. !he R!C could o

 ased on the evidence presented during the trial.

on-ales, as agent of +pouses +alvador, could validly receive the payment

=ven on the sustantial aspect, the petition does not warrant consideratio

with the courts elow in finding that the contract entered into the partcontract of sale which could e validl rescinded. Spouses Salvador in

receive the paments made Spouses Raa/a from %onales which tota

that %onales was not their dul authoried agent. !hese contentions, h

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

13/23

light of the applicale provisions of the &ew Civil Code which

statechanRolesvirtual8awlirar$rt. 1. So far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have een performed

within the scope of the agent2s authorit, if such act is within the terms of the power of 

attorne, as written, even if the agent has in fact e5ceeded the limits of his authorit according

to an understanding etween the principal and the agent.

5 5 5 5

$rt. 1. $ third person with whom the agent wishes to contract on ehalf of the principal

ma reAuire the presentation of the power of attorne, or the instructions as regards the agenc.Private or secret orders and instructions of the principal do not pre/udice third persons who

have relied upon the power of attorne or instructions shown them.

5 5 5 5

$rt. 11. !he principal must compl with all the oligations which the agent ma have

contracted within the scope of his authorit.cralawred

Persons dealing with an agent must ascertain not onl the fact of agenc, ut also the nature

and e5tent of the agentIs authorit. $ third person with whom the agent wishes to contract on

 ehalf of the principal ma reAuire the presentation of the power of attorne, or the instructions

as regards the agenc. !he asis for agenc is representation and a person dealing with an

agent is put upon inAuir and must discover on his own peril the authorit of the

agent.#0chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

$ccording to $rticle 1 of the &ew Civil Code, insofar as third persons are concerned, an

act is deemed to have een performed within the scope of the agent2s authorit, if such act is

within the terms of the power of attorne, as written. 6n this case, Spouses Raa/a did not

rec9lessl enter into a contract to sell with %onales. !he reAuired her presentation of the

 power of attorne efore the transacted with her principal. $nd when %onales presented the

SP$ to Spouses Raa/a, the latter had no reason not to rel on it.

!he law mandates an agent to act within the scope of his authorit which what appears in the

written terms of the power of attorne granted upon him. #( !he Court holds that, indeed,

%onales acted within the scope of her authorit. !he SP$ precisel stated that she could

administer the propert, negotiate the sale and collect an document and all paments related

to the su/ect propert.#7 $s the agent acted within the scope of his authorit, the principalmust compl with all the oligations. #'$s correctl held the C$, considering that it was not

shown that %onales e5ceeded her authorit or that she e5pressl ound herself to e liale,

then she could not e considered personall and solidaril liale with th

Salvador.#chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

Perhaps the most significant point which defeats the petition would e

Herminia herself who personall introduced %onale to Spouses Raa/a

of the su/ect propert. 3 their own ostensile acts, Spouses Salvado

 elieve that %onales was dul authoried to administer, negotiate

 propert. !his fact was even affirmed Spouses Salvador themselves in

the stated that the had authoried %onales to loo9 for a uer of t

alread too late in the da for Spouses Salvador to retract the representa

escape their principal oligation.

$s correctl held the C$ and the R!C, considering that there wa

Spouses Raa/a properl made paments to %onales, as agent of Spou

was as if the paid to Spouses Salvador. 6t is of no moment, insofar as

concerned, whether or not the paments were actuall remitted to Spo

internal matter, arrangement, grievance or strife etween the principal analone and should not affect third persons. 6f Spouses Salvador did not rec

the wish to specificall revo9e the SP$, then their recourse is to instit

against %onales. Such action, however, is not an more covered the pr

The amount of P89:,6;;.;; should not be returned by +pouses +alvador 

 &evertheless, the assailed decision of the C$ must e modified with resp

P0#,+. garnished Spouses Salvador and ordered returned to Spouordered the return of the amount garnished holding that it constituted a

 price. !he C$ ruled that Spouses Salvador misled the Court when the i

%.R. SP &o. '( to prove their entitlement to the said amount. 3oth

ruling.

:irst, the garnishment of the amount of P0#,+. against Spouses Ra

the C$ decision in C$-%.R. SP &o. '0, an entirel different case inve/ectment, and it does not concern the rescission case which is on appe

4oreover, the decision on the e/ectment case is final and e5ecutor and a

has alread een made.+1  &othing is more settled in law than that when

e5ecutor, it there ecomes immutale and unalterale. !he /udgmemodified in an respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what

erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modific

 e made the court which rendered it or the highest Court of the

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

14/23

founded on consideration of pulic polic and sound practice that, at the ris9 of occasional

errors, /udgments must ecome final at some definite point intime.+chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

!he 4arch #1, ( C$ decision+#% CA+G.R. SP No. 8*25* has long een final and

e5ecutor and cannot an more e distured the Court. Pulic polic dictates that once a

 /udgment ecomes final, e5ecutor and unappealale, the prevailing part should not e

denied the fruits of his victor some suterfuge devised the losing part. ?n/ustified

dela in the enforcement of a /udgment sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to

resolve /usticiale controversies with finalit.++chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

4eanwhile, in ruling that the garnishment was improper and thus ordering the return of the

garnished amount, the C$ referred to its decision in C$-%.R. SP &o. '(. Spouses

Salvador, however, clarified in its motion for reconsideration+0 efore the C$ and in the

 present petition+( that the garnishment was pursuant to C$-%.R. SP &o. '0, and not C$-

%.R. SP &o. '(, another e/ectment case involving another propert. $ perusal of the

records reveals that indeed the garnishment was pursuant to the e/ectment case in the 4e!C,doc9eted as Civil Case &o. 17#++,+7where Spouses Raa/a were the defendants. !he 4e!C

decision was then reinstated the C$ in C$-%.R. SP &o. '0, not C$-%.R. SP &o. '(.

!here, a writ of e5ecution+' and notice of pa+ were issued against Spouses Raa/a in the

amount of P01,..

Second, Spouses Raa/aIs appeal with the R!C never sought relief in returning the garnished

amount.0 Such issue simpl emerged in the R!C decision. !his is highl improper ecause the

courtIs grant of relief is limited onl to what has een praed for in the complaint or relatedthereto, supported evidence, and covered the partIs cause of  

action.01chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

6f Spouses Raa/a would have an o/ection on the manner and propriet of the e5ecution,

then the must institute their opposition to the e5ecution proceeding a separate case. Spouses

Raa/a can invo9e the Civil Code provisions on legal compensation or set-off under $rticles

17', 17 and 17.0 !he two oligations appear to have respectivel offset each other,compensation having ta9en effect operation of law pursuant to the said provisions of the

Civil Code, since all the reAuisites provided in $rt. 17 of the said Code for automatic

compensation are dul present.

 3o award of actual, moral and exemplary damages

!he award of damages to Spouses Raa/a cannot e sustained this Court. !he filing alone

of a civil action should not e a ground for an award of moral damages in

clearl unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral damagthe &ew Civil Code provides that to award moral damages in a rea

defendant must act fraudulentl or in ad faith. 6n this case, Spous

sufficientl show that Spouses Salvador acted in a fraudulent manner or w

 reached the contract of sale. !hus, the award of moral damages cannot e

$s to the award of e5emplar damages, $rticle of the &ew Civil

e5emplar damages ma e imposed wa of e5ample or correction fo

addition to the moral, temperate, liAuidated or compensator damages.

first estalish his right to moral, temperate, liAuidated or compensator dconsidering that Spouses Raa/a failed to prove moral or compensator

could e no award of e5emplar damages.

ith regard to attorneIs fees, neither Spouses Raa/a nor %onales is e

!he settled rule is that no premium should e placed on the right to litiga

winning part is entitled to an automatic grant of attorneIs fees. 00 !h%onales was forced to litigate due to the acts of Spouses Salvador. !he C

%onales, as agent of Spouses Salvador, should have e5pected that sh

litigation in connection with her fiduciar duties to the principal.

6n view of all the foregoing, the C$ decision should e affirmed

modificationschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

1. !he order reAuiring defendant Spouses Rolando and Hermin

 plaintiffs the amount of :ive Hundred &inet !hree !housand )

representing the amount garnished from the 4etroan9 deposit of

 ac9 rentals should e deletedBchanroleslaw

. !he award of moral damages in the amount of !went !housand

e5emplar damages in the amount of !went !housand )PattorneIs fees in the amount of ;ne Hundred !housand )P1,

of Spouses Raa/a should e deletedB and

#. !he award of attorneIs fees in amount of ;ne Hundred !housand

in favor of %onales should e deleted.

!he other amounts awarded are su/ect to interest at the legal rate of (

rec9oned from the date of finalit of this /udgment until full paid.

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

15/23

WHERE9ORE, the petition is PAR"= GRANED. !he 4arch , 7 >ecision of the

Regional !rial Court, 3ranch 1+, 4andaluong Cit, in Civil Case &o. 4C-#-170,is MODI9IED to read as followschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

JH=R=:;R=, this Court renders /udgment as followschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

a. ;rdering the JContract to SellK entered into Spouses Rogelio and =liaeth Raa/a

and Spouses Rolando and Herminia Salvador on ul +, 1' as

R=SC6&>=>Bchanroleslaw

 . ;rdering Spouses Rolando and Herminia Salvador to pa Spouses Rogelio and

=liaeth Raa/achanRolesvirtual8awlirar1. !he amount of &ine Hundred :ift !housand )P0,.* Pesos,

representing the paments made the latter for the purchase of the su/ect

 propertB and

. !he cost of suitBchanroleslaw

c. >ismissing the counterclaims of Spouses Rolando and Herminia Salvador and Rosario%onales against Spouses Rogelio and =liaeth Raa/a

!he amounts awarded are su/ect to interest at the legal rate of (M per annum to e rec9oned

from the date of finalit of this /udgment until full paid.K

$s aforestated, this is without pre/udice to the invocation either part of the Civil Code

 provisions on legal compensation or set-off under $rticles 17', 17 and 17.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 15758-, Se6teber 10, 2014

9R#MENCIO E. P#"GAR , Petitioner , v. HE REGIONA" RIA

MA#

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

16/23

dated >ecemer ,  and 4arch 1#, ## issued the Regional !rial Court of 4auan,

Gueon, 3ranch (+ )R!C* which dismissed Civil Case &o. 0'7-4 on /urisdictional groundsand, concomitantl, petitioner :rumencio =. PulgarIs )Pulgar* motion for intervention therein.

e 9(ct)+

Sometime in 1, the 4unicipal $ssessor of 4auan, Gueon issued #+ ta5 declarations on

the uildings and machiner comprising the 4auan Plant N a coal-fired electric generation

facilit owned and operated respondent Gueon Power )Philippines* 8imited, Co. )GP8* N and there assessed it with a total mar9et value of P,((,07',1. and, hence, P0

4illion, more or less, in realt ta5es  per annum. !he 4unicipal $ssessor maintained that the4auan Plant was completed and alread operational in ;ctoer 1. SuseAuentl, or on

4a 1', , GP8 filed with the 4unicipal $ssessor a sworn statement declaring that the

said properties had a value of onl P10,00,01,#7'..0cralawred

;n 4arch 1( and #, 1, GP8 tendered to the 4unicipal $ssessor the amount of 

P(,#,'0.01 as first Auarter installment of the realt ta5es on the plant, which the latter re/ected.( Hence, GP8 filed a Complaint for Consignation and >amages 7 efore the R!C

against the Province of Gueon, the 4unicipal $ssessor and 4unicipal !reasurer of 4auan,

Gueon, and the Provincial $ssessor and Provincial !reasurer of Gueon )defendants*,

doc9eted as Civil Case &o. 0'7-4, depositing to the R!C the aove-stated amount in

 pament of the first Auarter realt ta5 for 1.' $leit classified as a consignation and

damages case, GP8 essentiall protested the 4unicipal $ssessorIs assessment for, among

others, its lac9 of legal authorit to ma9e such assessment and its supposed non-compliancewith the prescried valuation process.cralawred

:or their part,1 defendants averred, among others, that GP8 was estopped from dening the

authorit of the 4unicipal $ssessor since it previousl paid realt ta5es for its properties for 

the ear 1 ased on the assessment of the latter.

;n anuar ', , Pulgar filed a 4otion for 8eave to $dmit $nswer-in-6ntervention 11 and

$nswer-in-6ntervention1 )motion for intervention*, alleging, among others, that as a residentand ta5paer of Gueon Province, he has an interest in the aggressive collection of realt ta5es

against GP8. 3 wa of counterclaim, he praed for the award of moral damages and

attorneIs fees, anchoring the same on the Jmindless disturance of the forest and marine

environment whereon the power plant of EGP8F stands.K 1#PulgarIs motion was initiall granted

and his $nswer-in-6ntervention was admitted.1+cralawred

Sometime in une , GP8 and the Province of Gueon agreed to sumit their dispute

 efore the Secretar of :inance, which resulted in a Resolution10 dated $u

the asic issues etween the principal parties were passed upon.

e RC R3'%

6n an ;rder 1( dated >ecemer , , the R!C dismissed Civil Case &o

 /urisdiction in the asence of a pament of the ta5 assessed under protes

GP8 attempted to s9irt alleging in its complaint that it is the ver autho$ssessor to impose the assessment and the treasurer to collect the ta5 tha

>eclaring that GP8Is complaint essentiall challenged the amount of thR!C ruled that it is the 8ocal 3oard of $ssessment $ppeals that had /

complaint. ConseAuentl, it also dismissed PulgarIs motion for interve

dismissal of the main case, the same had no leg to stand on.17cralawred

$ggrieved, Pulgar filed a motion for reconsideration which was, how

;rder 1' dated 4arch 1#, #, hence, this petition.

e I))3e

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

17/23

 /urisdictional grounds at that N means that Pulgar had, as a matter of course, lost his right to

intervene. ecision  of 

the Court of $ppeals )C$* in C$-%.R. C< &o. 17'# reversing the ;ctoer , ( ;rder # of 

the Regional !rial Court, 7 th  udicial Region, 4andaue Cit )R!C 4andaue*, 3ranch 00 in

Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1B as well as * the C$Is 4arch , 1 Resolution+ dening

 petitionerIs 4otion for Reconsideration0 and Supplement( thereto.

Civil Case No. MAN-482

;n $pril 1+, +, petitioner !eofilo 3. $dolfo filed with the R!C 4andaue a Petition 7 for 

 /udicial separation of propert against his estranged wife, respondent :e $dolfo, nee !udtud.

>oc9eted as Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1 and assigned to 3ranch 00, the

the parties were married on &ovemer (, 1((B that the union ore one cmarriage, the acAuired through con/ugal funds 8ot 1'7-$--=, a

 propert in 3rg. Caancalan, 4andaue Cit, Ceu )the su/ect propert*

Certificate of !itle &o. )!C!* 1'#('B that later on, the parties separated

differencesB that since reunion was no longer feasile, petitioner suggeste

con/ugal propert, ut respondent adamantl refusedB that respondent de

ownership of the su/ect propert, claiming the same as her paraphernal p

earnest efforts to amical settle the matter etween them proved un

 /udicial separation of propert is proper under the circumstances and pursu

of the :amil Code.'  Petitioner thus praed that /udgment e rendered dof the con/ugal propert and the sudivision or sale thereof, to the end of

the proceeds thereofB and ordering respondent to pa petitioner P0,.

appearance fees )P,. per hearing*, and P,. litigation costs.

6n her $nswer  with counterclaim, respondent contended that while she

 petitioner, she is the sole owner of the su/ect propert, the same e propert which she inherited from her motherB that petitioner is a la um

wife auser, and neglectful fatherB that respondent found all means to sup

as petitioner neglected itB that respondent ought on installment a triccl

use in usiness, ut he 9ept the proceeds thereof to himself and used the s

and drin9ing spreesB that respondent alone too9 the initiative to support t

was to ta9e care of the dail needs of her childB that she caused to e ui

motherIs land a house even while petitioner was umming aroundB thadestroed the roof of the house that was then eing uiltB that petaandoned her and their child in 1(', and transferred to >avao Cit whe

and egot four children herB that in 1'(, petitioner returned to

reconciliation with respondentB that respondent too9 petitioner ac9, u

more separatedB that thereafter, respondent never again saw or heard from

Respondent claimed in her $nswer that the su/ect propert was a po

)mother lot* owned her mother Petronila !udtud which was covered ;ctoer 11, 1(7, her mother e5ecuted a Auitclaim deed transferring a p

lot N the su/ect propert N to respondent. !he mother title !C! !-10+

and a new one, !C! )171(*-0+10, was issued in respondentIs name. R

the su/ect propert to her rother on anuar 1, 1(', and a new !C!

issued in her rotherIs name. Her rother then mortgaged the propert t

of the Philippines )>3P*, which foreclosed on the same. !C! 1'#1 w

name. >3P then sold the propert to the spouses $ntonio and 8uc %arc

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

18/23

!C! 1'(( was in turn issued in their name. :inall, on 4a 0, 1'#, the %arcias sold ac9 

the su/ect propert to respondent, and a new title N !C! 1'#(' 1 N was then issued in thename of respondent J:= 4. !?>!?>, 5 5 5 married to !eofilo $dolfo.K

Respondent argued that she is the sole owner of the su/ect propert, the same eing her 

 paraphernal propert which she alone redeemed from the %arciasB that the inclusion of 

 petitionerIs name in !C! 1'#(' does not ma9e him a co-owner of the propert, ut was

merel necessar to descrie respondentIs civil statusB and that under $rticle 1#0 11 of the Civil

Code, all propert rought the wife to the marriage as well as all propert she acAuires

during the marriage in accordance with $rticle 1+'1 of the same Code constitutes paraphernal

 propert.

Respondent thus praed that the petition e dismissed. 3 wa of counterclaim, she sought

the pament of moral, e5emplar, and nominal damages, attorneIs fees, and litigation

e5penses.

Civil Case No. MAN-2!8"

6n 1(, respondentIs sister :lorencia !udtud and her husand uanito %ingoon )the

%ingoons* filed a case for partition with damages against respondent. !he case was doc9eted

as Civil Case &o. 4$&-('# and raffled to 3ranch 00 of the R!C 4andaue. !he

Complaint1# therein alleged that in 1'', respondent e5ecuted a deed of sale in favor of the

%ingoons over a #-sAuare meter portion of the su/ect propert, ut that respondent refused

to partition@sudivide the same even after the %ingoons paid the ta5es, fees and e5penses of the sale. :or her defense, respondent claimed in her $nswer 1+ that when the sale to the%ingoons was made, the su/ect propert constituted con/ugal propert of her marriage with

 petitionerB that as earl as 1'#, or when the %arcias e5ecuted the deed of sale in her favor, the

su/ect propert ecame a con/ugal assetB since petitioner did not sign the deed of sale in favor 

of the %ingoons as he was in >avao at the time and 9new nothing aout the sale, the sale was

null and void.

;n 4a 10, , the trial court rendered its >ecision10  in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#,declaring that the su/ect propert constituted con/ugal propert of the marriage. 6t thus

nullified the 1'' deed of sale e5ecuted respondent in favor of the %ingoons for lac9 of 

consent on the part of petitioner, citing $rticle 1+ of the :amil Code. 1(  !he trial court

li9ewise awarded moral and e5emplar damages, attorne2s fees and litigation e5penses in

favor of the respondent in the total amount of P17,..

!he %ingoons filed an appeal with the C$, which was doc9eted as C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71.

 Motion for Jud#ment $ased on t%e &leadin#s in Civil Case No. MAN-48

4eanwhile, during the pre-trial conference in Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1

as part of his evidence and for mar9ing certified true copies of the %ing

Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#, respondentIs $nswer thereto, and the trial c

>ecision in said case.

;n $ugust 1, 0, petitioner filed a ReAuest for $dmission17 of 1* the ge

mar9ed certified true copies of the Complaint, $nswer, and >ecision in C

('# )=5hiits J:,K J%K and JH,K respectivel*B * respondentIs declarathat the su/ect propert constituted con/ugal propert of the marriageB an

 pronouncement in said case that the su/ect propert forms part of the con

Respondent failed to file her answer or response to the reAuest for admissi

;n Septemer 0, 0, petitioner filed a 4otion for udgmPleadings,1' stating that since respondent failed to answer his reAues

matters contained in the reAuest are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule

17 Rules of Civil Procedure1 )17 Rules*B that as a conseAuence of t

rule, respondent is in effect considered to have admitted that the su/ect p

asset of their susisting marriage which ma thus e the su/ect of his

separation of propertB and that on account of said admission, a hearing on

unnecessar and, instead, Rule #+ of the 17 Rules on /udgments on appl. Petitioner thus praed that the trial court render /udgment in hi pleadings.

Respondent filed an ;pposition.1  6n her ;pposition to PlaintiffIs 4emo

argued among others that the reAuest for admission was premature

decision in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('# was the su/ect of an appeal, and th

6n an ;ctoer 11, 0 ;rder,# the trial court directed the transfer of C+'1 to 3ranch 00 of the R!C 4andaue, since it is said court which decid

Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#.

;n ;ctoer , (, 3ranch 00 issued an ;rder + granting petitionerIs mo

the pleadings. 6t held as followschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

!his court has painsta9ingl e5erted effort in going over the record and to

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

19/23

the pleadings, documents and others on file. $fter serious consideration, the court elieves

and so holds that there is asis in rendering /udgment. !he 4otion for udgment 3ased on thePleadings though denominated as such ut EsicF shall e treated as a move to see9 summar

 /udgment. 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

!he court in arriving at this resolution was guided the following pronouncements the

Supreme Court in the case of >iman vs. $lumres, %.R. &o. 1#1+((, &ovemer 7, 1',

SCR$ +0 5 5 5

5 5 5 5

6n the same case, it was held N 

J6t is also the law which determines when a summar /udgment is proper. 6t declares that

although the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues of fact N e.g., there are denials of, or 

a conflict in, factual allegations N if it is shown by admissions, depositions or affidavits, thatthose issues are sham, fictitious, or not genuine, or, in the language of the Rules, that Oe5cept

as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to an material fact and that the

moving part is entitled to a /udgment as a matter of law, the Court shall render a summar

 /udgment for the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case ma e. )6talics and underscoring

supplied*

;n the other hand, in the case of a summar /udgmentE,F issues apparentl e5ist N i.e.. facts areasserted in the complaint regarding which there is as et no admission, disavowal or AualificationB or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer N ut

the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown

EaffidavitsF, depositions or admissions. 6n other words, as a noted authorit remar9s, a

 /udgment on the pleadings is a /udgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summary judgment is

a judgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or admissions .K )6talics

and underscoring supplied*

5 5 5 5cralawlawlirar

>efendant0 did not file an verified answer or a pleading dening under oath the genuineness

and authenticit of the documents attached to the ReAuest for $dmission and of the other 

matters therein set forth. !his failure has far reaching implications in that the following are

deemed admitted a* the genuineness of =5hiits :, % and H, all attached to the ReAuest for 

$dmissionB * that she admitted in paragraph 1 in her $nswer to Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#

that 8ot 1'7-$--= was no longer paraphernal propert ut rather a c

Spouses !eofilo and :e $dolfo andB c* that R!C, 3ranch 00, 4andaue Cheld the view of defendant ):e !udtud* that 8ot 1'7-$--= is a con/ugal

!eofilo and :e $dolfo, thus, dismissed Civil Case &o. 4$&-('# and aw

defendant.

udicial admissions ma e made in )a* the pleadings filed the parties

the trial either veral or written manifestations or stipulations, or )c* i

 /udicial proceeding, as in the pre-trial of the case. $dmissions otained

written interrogatories or reAuests for admission are also considered /udici

('(, Remedial 8aw Compendium,

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

20/23

!he plaintiff is directed to sumit to this court the proposed sudivision plan for its

consideration efore sumitting the same for approval to the 3ureau of 8ands.

6n case of disagreement as to their respective location, the same shall e done through raffle to

 e conducted the sheriff who shall see to it that /udgment in this case shall e full

implemented.

S; ;R>=R=>.'cralawlawlirar

Respondent instituted an appeal with the C$, which was doc9eted as C$-%.R. C< &o. 17'#.

Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.'. C( No. )8*)

4eanwhile, on 4a #, 7, the C$ rendered its >ecision  in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71. 6t

reversed the 4a 10, >ecision of the trial court in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#. 6t

declared, among others, that the su/ect propert was respondentIs paraphernal propert.

!hus, it heldchanRolesvirtual8awlirar

Proceeding from the foregoing consideration, the finding that 8ot &o. 1'7-$--= is a

con/ugal propert does not have an asis, hence, does not have an merit at all. ;n thecontrar, plaintiffs-appellants# sufficientl proved that the aforesaid lot was defendant-

appelleeIs#1 paraphernal propert as the latter even admitted that she inherited the same from

her mother although she claimed it as a con/ugal propert ased on the !C!Is attached to her 

answer. $nother strong indication that 8ot &o. 1'7-$--= is solel owned defendant-

appellee is the fact that in another case )Civil Case &o. 4$&-'* involving the same

 propert and the same parties ut for a different issue )road right of wa*, defendant-appellee

alone signed the compromise agreement ceding a portion of the su/ect lot as a right of wa perpetuall open and unostructed for the enefit of plaintiffs-appellants, defendant-appellee,

their respective heirs, assigns and transferees and guests. !he same compromise agreement

which ecame the decision of the case attained finalit without defendant-appellee Auestioning

the asence of her husandIs signature.chanroleslaw

5 5 5 5

H=R=:;R=, prescinding from the foregoing premises, the appeal is here %R$&!=> and

the >ecision of the Regional !rial Court of 4andaue Cit, 3ranch 00, dated 10 4a , inCivil Case &o. 4$&-('# is R= and S=! $S6>=.

8et the partition of 8ot &o. 1'7-$--= consisting of # sAuare meters

appellants from defendant-appellee e done in accordance to EsicF the s9ethat purpose.

S; ;R>=R=>.#cralawred

cralawlawlirar

;n une #, 7, the aove C$ decision ecame final and e5ecutor.##cra

 'ulin# of t%e Court of Appeals in CA-G.'. C( No. +)8"

6n C$-%.R. C< &o. 17'#, respondent filed her $ppellantIs 3rief, #+ wher

trial court erred in issuing its ;ctoer , ( ;rder directing the pa

su/ect propertB that it was error for the trial court to ta9e /udicial notice

in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('# and thus declare that the su/ect propert i

issue of whether it constitutes con/ugal or paraphernal propert was still p

in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71B that since the proceedings in Civil Case &o.  een terminated and the issue regarding the character of the su/ect pr

resolved with finalit, then petitionerIs resort to a reAuest for admis

 /udgment on the pleadings was prematureB and that with the 4a #,

%.R. C< &o. 7'71, petitioner and the trial court should sumit to the fin

su/ect propert is her paraphernal propert.

6n his $ppelleeIs 3rief,#0 petitioner insisted that the trial court did not err ifor /udgment on the pleadings as one for summar /udgmentB that respondCase &o. 4$&-('# constituted a /udicial admission that the su/ect pro

asset, which reAuired no further proofB that respondentIs failure to repl t

for admission also resulted in the ac9nowledgment that the su/ect proper

that the trial court correctl too9 /udicial notice of the proceedings in C

('#, as the were relevant and material to the resolution of Civil Case &

since it was not respondent who appealed the 4a 10, decision in C

('#, then the finding therein that the su/ect propert is con/ugal should C$Is eventual finding in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71 that the su/ect l

 paraphernal propert cannot ind him ecause he was not a part to C

('#.

;n ;ctoer (, , the C$ issued the assailed >ecision containing th

 portionchanRolesvirtual8awlirar

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

21/23

H=R=:;R=, ased from the foregoing premises, the ;rder of the Regional !rial Court,

3ranch 00, 4andaue Cit, in Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1, is here R= and S=!$S6>= and the records of this case are remanded to R!C )3ranch 00*, 4andaue Cit, for 

further proceedings.

S; ;R>=R=>.#(cralawlawlirar

6n arriving at the aove conclusion, the C$ held that the trial court cannot treat petitionerIs

motion for /udgment on the pleadings as one for summar /udgment. 6t stated that in a proper 

case for /udgment on the pleadings, there are no ostensile issues at all on account of the

defending partIs failure to raise an issue in his answer, while in a proper case for summar /udgment, such issues e5ist, although the are sham, fictitious, or not genuine as shown

affidavits, depositions or admissions. 6n other words, a /udgment on the pleadings is a

 /udgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summar /udgment is a /udgment on the facts as

summaril proved affidavits, depositions, or admissions.#7 6t added that respondentIs

$nswer appeared on its face to tender an issueB it disputed petitionerIs claim that the su/ect

 propert is their con/ugal propert. !he ne5t thing to e determined is whether this issue isfictitious or sham as to /ustif a summar /udgment.

!he C$ added that although respondent was ound the resulting admission prompted her 

failure to repl to petitionerIs reAuest for admission, her claims and documentar e5hiits

clearl contradict what petitioner sought to e admitted in his reAuestB that the trial court

disregarded the fact that the issue of whether the su/ect propert is con/ugal was still

unresolved as C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71 was still pendingB and that finall, the trial court shouldhave een guided the principles that trial courts have ut limited authorit to render summar /udgments and that summar /udgments should not e rendered hastil.#'cralawred

Petitioner moved to reconsider, ut in a 4arch , 1 Resolution, he was reuffed. Hence,

the present Petition was filed on $pril #, 1.

6n a 4arch , 1# Resolution,#  the Court resolved to give due course to the instant

Petition.chanrolesvirtuallawlirar

I))3e

Petitioner now claims that the Court of $ppeals erred in deciding the case on a Auestion of 

sustance not in accord with law, Rule ( of the 17 Rules, and applicale /urisprudence.+cralawred

 &etitioner,s Ar#uments

6n his Petition see9ing to reverse and set aside the assailed C$ dispositio

the ;ctoer , ( ;rder of the trial court, petitioner insists that respond

to his written reAuest for admission resulted in her admitting that the s

con/ugal asset, appling Rule (, Section of the 17 RulesB that the

disregarding the ruleB that with the resulting admission, there remains no

resolved in Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1, such that /udgment ased on the

:inall, petitioner adds that respondentIs trifling with the law and rule

convenientl claiming in one case that the su/ect propert is con/ugal, an

it is paraphernal N should not e countenancedB she should e held to herthat the su/ect propert is con/ugal.

 'espondent,s Ar#uments

6n her Comment,+1 respondent counters that, as correctl ruled the C$,

wrong remed in filing a motion for /udgment on the pleadings when hefor summar /udgmentB that in a motion for /udgment on the pleadings, th

to admit the truth of all of the opposing partIs material and relevant alle

motion on those allegations ta9en together with that of his own as

 pleadingsB+ that the effect of this is that petitioner is deemed to have adm

 propert is paraphernal, as claimed in her $nswerB that with the final an

7 >ecision of the C$ in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71, the su/ect prop

considered as her paraphernal propert, and petitionerIs case for partitionsu/ect propert is con/ugal should e dismissed for eing moot and acade

;ur Ruling

!he Court denies the Petition.

udgment on the pleadings is proper Jwhere an answer fails to tender an

admits the material allegations of the adverse partIs pleading.K+#  Summother hand, will e granted Jif the pleadings, supporting affidavits, deposit

on file, show that, e5cept as to the amount of damages, there is no gen

material fact and that the moving part is entitled to a /udgment as a matte

e have elaorated on the asic distinction etween summar /udgment  pleadings, thuschanRolesvirtual8awlirar

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

22/23

!he e5istence or appearance of ostensile issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their 

sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summar /udgment from one for a /udgment on the pleadings. 6n a proper case for /udgment on the

 pleadings, there is no ostensile issue at all ecause of the failure of the defending partIs

answer to raise an issue. ;n the other hand, in the case of a summar /udgment, issues

apparentl e5ist i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as et no

admission, disavowal or AualificationB or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth

set out in the answerut the issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not

genuine, as shown affidavits, depositions, or admissions.+0cralawlawlirar

$n answer would Jfail to tender an issueK if it Jdoes not den the material allegations in thecomplaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse partIs pleadings confessing

the truthfulness thereof and@or omitting to deal with them at all. &ow, if an answer does in fact

specificall den the material averments of the complaint and@or asserts affirmative defenses

)allegations of new matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the complaint

e5pressl or impliedl, would nevertheless prevent or ar recover the plaintiff*, a

 /udgment on the pleadings would naturall e improper.K+(cralawred

;n the other hand, Jwhether 5 5 5 the issues raised the $nswer are genuine is not the cru5

of inAuir in a motion for /udgment on the pleadings. 6t is so onl in a motion for summar

 /udgment. 6n a case for /udgment on the pleadings, the $nswer is such that no issue is raised at

all. !he essential Auestion in such a case is whether there are issues generated the

 pleadings.K+7  J$ Ogenuine issueI is an issue of fact which reAuires the presentation of evidence

as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. hen the facts as pleadedappear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or Auestion as to thefacts, and summar /udgment is called for.K+'cralawred

6n rendering summar /udgment, the trial court relied on respondentIs failure to repl to

 petitionerIs reAuest for admission, her admission in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#, as well as its

4a 10, >ecision declaring that the su/ect propert is a con/ugal asset. 6t too9 /udicial

notice of the proceedings in said case. hile there is nothing irregular with this N as courts

ma Jta9e /udicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in thesame court if )1* the parties present them in evidence, asent an opposition from the other

 partB or )* the court, in its discretion, resolves to do soK+ N the trial court however

disregarded the fact that its decision was then the su/ect of a pending appeal in C$-%.R. C<

 &o. 7'71. 6t should have 9nown that until the appeal is resolved the appellate court, it

would e premature to render /udgment on petitionerIs motion for /udgment on the pleadingsB

that it would e presumptuous to assume that its own decision would e affirmed on appeal.

;ne of the issues raised in the appeal is precisel whether the su/ect propert is con/ugal, or a

 paraphernal asset of the respondent. !hus, instead of resolving petitionerI

 /udgment on the pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it ishould have guided petitioner to this end, instead of aiding in the hast res

6n the first place, Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1 was transferred to it from 3r

the reason that it was the court which tried the closel related Civil Case &

=ven if respondent is deemed to have admitted the matters contained in pe

admission her failure to repl thereto, the trial court should have consid

appeal in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71. 6t cannot ta9e /udicial notice solel of

Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#, and ignore the appeal in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'

%.R. C< &o. 7'71 is merel a continuation of Civil Case &o. 4$&-('deemed a continuation of the same case commenced in the lower court.0c

;n the part of petitioner, it must e said that he could not have validl reso

 /udgment on the pleadings or summar /udgment. hile it ma appear th

and #0 of the 17 Rules, he ma file a motion for /udgment on the pleadi

 /udgment as a result of the conseAuent admission respondent that the sucon/ugal, this is not actuall the case. Guite the contrar, invo9ing the

decision in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('#, petitioner is precluded from otain

the appeal in said case is pending, ecause the result thereof determines w

 propert is indeed con/ugal or paraphernal. He ma not preempt the appe

 &o. 7'71.

hile it is true that a /udgment cannot ind persons who are not parties toaction,01 petitioner cannot, after invo9ing the proceedings in Civil Case &osecure affirmative relief against respondent and thereafter failing to otain

allowed to repudiate or Auestion the C$Is ruling in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'7

estoppel ars him from dening the resultant pronouncement the appell

 ecame final and e5ecutor, that the su/ect propert is respondentIs parap

estoppel, a person, who his deed or conduct has induced another to act

manner, is arred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or cours

there causes loss or in/ur to another. 6t further ars him from dening which has, in the contemplation of law, ecome settled the acts and pro

or legislative officers or the act of the part himself, either conventi

representations, e5press or implied or in pais.K0cralawred

:inall, the Court notes that the appellate court overloo9ed the 4a #,

%.R. C< &o. 7'71, which ecame final and e5ecutor on une #, 7.

included this development in her appelleeIs rief, ut the C$ did not ta9e

8/19/2019 Rule 17-34 cases

23/23

an unfortunate conseAuence, the case was not appreciated and resolved completel.

!hus, with the development in Civil Case &o. 4$&-('# rought upon the final and

e5ecutor decision in C$-%.R. C< &o. 7'71, petitionerIs case is left with no leg to stand on.

!here eing no con/ugal propert to e divided etween the parties, Civil Case &o. 4$&-

+'1 must e dismissed.

WHERE9ORE, the Petition is DENIED. !he ;ctoer (, >ecision and 4arch , 1

Resolution of the Court of $ppeals in C$-%.R. C< &o. 17'# are A99IRMED WIHMODI9ICAION in that Civil Case &o. 4$&-+'1 is ordered DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.