Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
*SECOND DIVISION.
220
221
222
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
223
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
BRION, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of
the
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 930.
224
_______________
2Id., at pp. 3143 penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Ramon M.
Bato, Jr.
3Id., at pp. 4445.
4Id., at pp. 5860 penned by Presiding Judge Antonio T. Echavez.
5Id., at pp. 6667.
6Docketed as Civil Case No. CEB25327 Id., at p. 32.
225
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 1314.
8 Id., at p. 15.
9 Id., at p. 34.
10Ibid.
11Id., at p. 35.
12Ibid.
13Supra note 4.
14Supra note 6.
226
The RTC Ruling
The RTC denied the respondents motion to dismiss. It
ruled that, save for the grounds for dismissal which may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, a motion to dismiss
based on the grounds invoked by the respondents may only
be filed within the time for, but before, the filing of their
answer to the amended complaint. Thus, even granting
that the defenses invoked by the respondents are
meritorious, their motion was filed out of time as it was
filed only after the conclusion of the pretrial conference.
Furthermore, the rule on substitution of parties only
applies when the parties to the case die, which is not what
happened in the present case.17
_______________
15Rollo, pp. 3536.
16Id., at p. 83.
17Id., at pp. 59, 6667.
227
_______________
18Id., at p. 66.
19CA Rollo, p. 10.
20Id., at p. 11.
21Ibid.
22Rollo, pp. 3739.
2398 Phil. 880 (1956).
24Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario, 363 Phil. 393, 397398 304
SCRA 18, 22 (1999) Litam, etc., et al. v. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364, 378 (1956)
and Solivio v. Court of Appeals, 261 Phil. 231, 242 182 SCRA 119, 128
(1990).
228
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
_______________
25Rollo, p. 35.
26379 Phil. 939 322 SCRA 853 (2000).
27Rollo, p. 41.
28Id., at p. 42.
29Id., at pp. 2021.
229
_______________
30Id., at pp. 22, 126.
31Id., at pp. 21, 26, 126.
32Id., at p. 131.
33100 Phil. 64 (1956).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
34Rollo, p. 130.
35Id., at pp. 7879.
36Id., at pp. 7980.
230
_______________
37Id., at pp. 7576.
38521 Phil. 53, 5960 486 SCRA 555, 562 (2006).
39 Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman et al., 538 Phil. 326, 334 508
SCRA 469, 481 (2006) Tankiko v. Cezar, 362 Phil. 184, 194195 302
SCRA 559, 570 (1999), citing Lucas v. Durian, 102 Phil. 11571158 (1957)
Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio, 104 Phil. 126, 128129
231
_______________
(1958) Gabila v. Barriga, 148B Phil. 615, 618619 41 SCRA 131, 135
(1971) Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. v. CA, 276 Phil. 219,
224 199 SCRA 205, 209 (1991).
40 Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario, supra note 23 and
Filipinas Industrial Corp., et al. v. Hon. San Diego, et al., 132 Phil. 195 23
SCRA 706 (1968).
232
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
233
_______________
41Remedial Law, Volume I, 2007 Ed., pp. 794795.
234
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
_______________
42 Section 1. Grounds.Within the time for but before filing the
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss
may be made on any of the following grounds[.]
43 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.Defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
235
_______________
44Rollo, p. 22.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
236
_______________
48Id., at p. 112.
49Id., at pp. 133, 136.
50Id., at p. 83.
51Id., at pp. 7377.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
237
_______________
the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist xxx (i) Such
other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
53Sps. Mercader v. Devt Bank of the Phils. (Cebu Br.), 387 Phil. 828,
843 332 SCRA 82, 9596 (2000).
54Supra note 25.
238
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
_______________
55Id., at p. 946.
56 G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 106107, citing Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Ninth Revised Ed. (2005), p. 182.
239
der Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause
[of] action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove
the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a
recognized commentator on remedial law, has explained the
distinction:
xxx What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state
a cause of action which is provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16.
This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
Rule 10, which was also included as the last mode for
raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation where
the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is,
therefore, a matter of insufficiency of evidence. Failure to
state a cause of action is different from failure to prove a
cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for
dismissal of the pleading, while the remedy in the second is
to demur to the evidence, hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule
10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would
consequently be to require the pleading to state a cause of
action, by timely objection to its deficiency or, at the trial,
to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.
[italics supplied]
240
_______________
57538 Phil. 319, 333334 508 SCRA 469, 482 (2006).
241
_______________
58Republic v. MarcosManotoc, G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012, 665
SCRA 367, 392.
59540 Phil. 289, 301303, 305306 511 SCRA 268, 279280 (2006).
60G.R. No. 194024, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 461, 475478, 482.
61G.R. No. 183105, July 22, 2009, 593 SCRA 468, 503.
62345 Phil. 250, 275 280 SCRA 20, 45 (1997).
63G.R. No. 182819, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 585, 597.
64417 Phil. 303, 318 364 SCRA 812, 822 (2001).
242
_______________
65G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686, 692693.
66G.R. No. 183059, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 519, 525.
67G.R. No. 169276, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 224, 236.
68502 Phil. 816, 822 464 SCRA 591, 596 (2005).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
243
244
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
_______________
72549 Phil. 595, 610 521 SCRA 85, 98 (2007).
73466 Phil. 235, 266 421 SCRA 468, 484 (2004).
74G.R. No. 109910, April 5, 1995, 243 SCRA 239.
75Lagunilla v. Velasco, supra and Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, supra.
76Nocom v. Camerino, et al., G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, 578
SCRA 390, 413.
245
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/24
1/20/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME711
246
_______________
77Article 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which
the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the
inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or
others either by his will or by operation of law.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bfc2c049cfa44c1d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24