DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

(Rule 33)

Demurrer to Evidence
- A motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after the plaintiff had completed the
presentation of his evidence on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief.
- Objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence, which his
adversary produced is insufficient to make out a case or sustain then issue.

Motion to Dismiss in Rule 16 distinguished from Demurrer to Evidence in Rule 33

Rule 16 Rule 33
Made before the filing of the answer Made after the plaintiff rests its case
There are several grounds for a motion to There is only one ground under Rule 33
dismiss under Rule 16
When Denied: The defendant may file his When Denied: The defendant may present his
responsive pleading evidence
When Granted: The complaint may be When Granted: The complaint may not be
refilled, depending on the ground for dismissal refilled and the remedy of the plaintiff is to
appeal from the order of dismissal.

Stage of the proceedings when demurrer to evidence is availed of

- After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence.

Effects of denial of the Demurrer to Evidence

- It does not deprive the defendant to present his evidence.
- An order denying a Demurrer to Evidence is interlocutory and is, therefore, not
appealable. It can, however, be the subject of a petition for certiorari in case of grave abuse of
discretion.

Effects of granting the Demurrer to Evidence

- The case shall be dismissed. However, if, on appeal, the order of dismissal is reversed,
the defendant loses his right to present evidence. The appellate court should render judgment
on the basis of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.

Demurrer in a Civil Case as distinguished from a Demurrer in a Criminal Case

Civil Case Criminal Case
Leave of court is not required in filing a A demurrer is filed with or without leave of
demurrer court
When Granted: The order of dismissal is When Granted: The order of dismissal is not
appealable appealable
When Denied: The defendant may proceed to When Denied: The accused may adduce his
present his evidence evidence only if demurrer is filed with leave of
court
The court cannot, on its own, a make a The court may do so
demurrer

Related Case
Radiowealth Finance Company vs Del Rosario
GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000

Facts:
Spouses Vicente and Maria Sumilang del Rosario jointly and severally executed, signed
and delivered in favor of Radiowealth Finance Company a Promissory Note for P138, 948.00
without need of notice or demand, in installments of P11, 579.00 payable for 12 consecutive
months leaving the period for the installments blank. Radiowealth filed a complaint for the
collection of a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. During the trial, Jasmer
Famatico, the credit and collection officer of Radiowealth, presented in evidence the Spouses’
check payments, the demand letter, Spouses’ customer’s ledger card, another demand letter
and Metropolitan Bank dishonor slips. Famatico admitted that he did not have personal
knowledge of the transaction or the execution of any of these pieces of documentary evidence,
which had merely been endorsed to him. Spouses filed a Demurrer to Evidence for alleged lack
of cause of action. RTC dismissed the motion for Radiowealth’s failure to substantiate the
claims, the evidence it had presented being merely hearsay. CA reversed and remanded the
case for further proceedings. During the pre-trial, through judicial admissions or the spouses
admitted the genuineness of the Promissory Note and demand letter, their only defense was
the absence of an agreement on when the installment payments were to begin.

ISSUE: Whether or not the spouses can still present evidence after the appellate court’s
reversal of the dismissal on demurer of evidence.

HELD:
NO.

Section 1, Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides that:

SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence.— After the plaintiff has completed the presentation
of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and
the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right
to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. In this case,

Defendants who present a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence retain the right to
present their own evidence, if the trial court disagrees with them; if the trial court agrees with
them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees with both of them and reverses the dismissal
order, the defendants lose the right to present their own evidence. The appellate court shall
resolve the case and render judgment on the merits, inasmuch as a demurrer aims to
discourage prolonged litigations.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Rule 34

Judgment on the Pleadings

- It is a judgment based solely on the relief prayed for in the complaint or submitted
pleadings without plaintiff adducing any evidence.

When is it appropriate?
- It is appropriate when an answer to claim fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. Hence, if the defendant fails to
specifically deny the material allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff may move for a
judgment on the pleadings.

When does an answer fail to tender an issue?

- An answer fails to tender an issue when it does not comply with the requirements of a
specific denial as set out in Secs. 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, resulting in the
admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.

The answer admits the material allegations of the party’s pleading by:
a. Expressly admitting the truth of such allegations
b. Failing to make a specific denial of the material allegations
c. Omitting to deal with them at all

When can a court render Judgment to the Pleadings?

1. When an answer fails to tender an issue (Sec. 1, Rule 34)
 2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, when the defendant fails to answer the
complaint within 10 days from service of summons (Sec. 6, Rule on Summary
Procedure)
3. When the defendant is declared in default (Sec. 3, Rule 9)
4. During pre-trial if the court finds a valid ground therefore (Sec. 2 (g), Rule 18)
5. As a penalty for non-compliance or refusal to answer in discovery proceedings (Sec.
3 and 5, Rule 29)

When does Judgment on the Pleadings will not apply?

a. When no answer is filed
b. When an answer is served and filed but it fails to tender and issue
c. Admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings

Cases where Judgment on the Pleadings will not apply

a. Actions for declaration of nullity of a marriage
b. Actions for annulment of marriage
c. Actions for legal separation

Motion required
- Judgment on the pleadings cannot be rendered by the court motu proprio. It can be
done only where there is a prior motion to the effect filed by the claiming party.
- In resolving the motion, when the defendant admits all the ultimate facts in the
complaint, such facts will no longer require evidence. Hence, upon motion the court may be
asked to render judgment based on the pleadings.

Related Case
Capitol Motors vs. Yabut
32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970

Facts:
Capitol Motors filed a complaint for sum of money against Yabut. A copy of the
promissory note upon which the action was based was attached to the complaint. The
complaint alleges that Yabut defaulted in the payment of the note. Yabut filed an answer in
which he admits the paragraph regarding his personal circumstances but “specifically denies”
the rest of the allegations for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth thereof. Capitol Motors moved for a judgment on the pleadings in its favor.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court should grant the motion.

Held:
Yes.
The third mode of specific denial may not be availed of when the fact as to which want
of knowledge or information is claimed is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant’s
knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue. The defendant must aver
positively or state how it is that he is ignorant of the fact alleged. Since there is an implied
admission of the material averments of the complaint, a judgment on the pleadings may be
rendered.

Illustration
A promised to sell a parcel of land to B for P1M and B accepted A’s promise. Later on A
advised B that he was no longer interested in selling the land to B. B filed a complaint for
specific performance against A to compel him to sell the land. A filed an answer in which he
admits that he promised to sell the land to B and that B had accepted his promise but alleges
that the promise was not supported by any consideration. B and A jointly moved for the
judgment on the pleadings. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint stating
that the accepted unilateral promise to sell is not binding upon the promissor since it was not
supported by a distinct consideration. On appeal, may B contend that the trial court erred in
finding that there was no distinct consideration since cause is presumed in a contract?
Answer:
No. One who prays for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof as to the truth
of his own allegations, and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to produce
evidence, impliedly admits the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing
party, and to rest his motion for judgment on those allegations taken together with such of his
own as are admitted in the pleadings. (Sanchez vs Rigos, 45 SCRA 368)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Rule 35

Summary Judgment
- Also called Accelerated Judgment, is proper where, upon a motion filed after the
issues had been joined and on the basis of the pleadings and papers filed, the court finds that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact except as to the amount of damages.

Genuine Issue
- An issue of fact, which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a
sham, fictitious contrived or false claim.
- When facts appear uncontested or undisputed, there is no real or genuine issue or
question as to the facts, and only after then summary judgment is appropriate.

Summary Judgment is proper in:

a. Actions to recover a debt
b. Liquidation of sum of money
c. Declaratory relief
d. Personal injury cases

Motion required
- The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that a summary judgment on an action is in
order.
- The defending party or the claimant must invoke the rule on summary judgment by
filing a motion. The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary judgment and
furnished with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted.

Partial Summary Judgment

- It is a judgment, which results if in a motion for summary judgment, judgment is not
rendered upon the whole case or for all reliefs sought and a trial is necessary.
- The trial court at the hearing of the motion, shall ascertain what material facts exist
without substantial controversy and what are actually and in good faith controverted. The court
shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy
and the facts specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted on the
controverted facts accordingly.

Distinctions between a Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34) and a Summary Judgment
(Rule 35)
Rule 34 Rule 35
There is an absence of a factual issue in the Involves an issue but the issue is not genuine
case because the answer tenders no issue at at all. The issue is only as to the amount of
all damages but not as to any material fact
Filed by a claiming party Filed by either the claiming or the defending
party
Based on the pleadings alone Based on the pleadings, affidavits, depositions
and admissions
Only a 3-day notice to the adverse party is A 10-day notice to the adverse party is
required prior to the date of hearing required. The adverse party, in turn, may serve
opposing affidavits, depositions or admissions
at least 3 days before the hearing
Judgment against an entity without a juridical personality
- When 2 or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality, they
may be sued under the name, which they are generally or commonly known.

Entry of Judgment
- Refers to the physical act performed by the clerk of court in entering the dispositive
portion of the judgment in the book of entries of judgment after the same has become final and
executor, signed by the clerk of court with a certificate by said clerk that the judgment has
already become final and executory.

Date of Entry of Judgment

- The date when the judgment becomes final and executory regardless of the date
when the physical act of entry was done.
- The relevance of knowing the date of the entry of a judgment is that there are some
proceedings the filing of which is reckoned from the date of entry of judgment i.e. a. Execution
of a judgment by motion is within 5 years from the entry of judgment.

Related Case
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

FACTS:
On August 17, 1936, President Manuel L. Quezon issued Proclamation No. 80, which
declared a 39.3996-hectare landholding located at Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, a
military reservation site. The proclamation expressly stated that it was being issued "subject to
private rights, if any there be." Accordingly, the respondent obtained an Original Certificate of
Title No. over the property. On January 16, 1995, respondent filed before the RTC of
Tuguegarao, Cagayan a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners. Petitioners
allegedly refused to vacate the subject property despite repeated demands to do so. They
maintained that they and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open and continuous
possession of the subject property since the early 1900s. Petitioners acknowledged the
issuance of Proclamation No. 80 on August 17, 1936, but maintained that the subject property
(the 5-hectare portion allegedly occupied by them since1900s) was excluded from its operation,
citing a proviso in the proclamation “private rights, if any there be.”

ISSUE:
Is a motu propio rendition of a summary judgment violative of due process?

RULING:
No.
Summary judgments are proper when, upon motion of the plaintiff or the defendant,
the court finds that the answer filed by the defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any
material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Relief by summary
judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear
undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there
be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither
one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are
disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. "A
summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
[the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The test of the propriety of
rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact, "as distinguished
from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim." "[A] factual issue raised by a party is
considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the
party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it.
This usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and
thereby gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath
anyway.