ADOLFO v. ADOLFO
March 18, 2015 | Del Castillo, J. | Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings | Clyde Tan PETITIONERS:
TEOFILO B. ADOLFO RESPONDENTS: FE. T. ADOLFO SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
CIVIL CASE MAN-8241 Teofilo Adolfo filed a petition for judicial separation of property against his wife, Fe, alleging that they bought with conjugal funds because they have been separated in fact and reunion is now an impossibility due to irreconcilable differences. In her answer, Fe alleged that the property is not conjugal, but paraphernal property belonging to her. CIVIL CASE MAN-2683 Fe’s sister Florencia and her husband Juanito (Gingoyons) filed a civil case for partition with damages, alleging that in 1988, Fe sold a 300-square meter lot portion of the lot to the spouses Gingoyon, but that the former refused to subdivide it. This time, Fe alleged that the property was conjugal, and the sale was made without the signature of Teofilo, hence it was null and void. The RTC ruled in favour of Fe and declared it conjugal property, hence, the Gingoyons appealed to the CA. Going back to Civil Case No. MAN-4821 Teofilo filed a Request for Admission of (among others) respondent’s declaration in said Answer that the subject property constituted conjugal property of the marriage; and the trial court’s pronouncement in said case that the subject property forms part of the conjugal estate. Fe failed to answer the Request for Admission, hence, Teoflio filed a motion to render judgment on the pleadings, alleging that since Fe failed to answer the request for admission, the matters included in the request are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, he is now entitled to judgment on the pleading based on Rule 34. Fe opposed the motion, arguing that the decision, was the subject of an appeal, had not yet become final. The RTC granted the motion by Teofilo, treating it as a motion for summary judgment. It ruled that judicial separation was proper, taking judicial notice of its decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 that the property is conjugal property. With Fe’s failure to provide a verified answer or denial under oath to the request for admission of the documents, she is deemed to have admitted the genuineness of the same. Going back to Civil Case No. MAN-2683 The Gingoyon’s appeal to the CA, was resolved in their favour, the CA ruling that the property is paraphernal property as established by the records and the evidence. It became final and executory. Going back to Civil Case MAN-4821 Fe appealed to the CA saying that the TC was wrong in treating his motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment. She also asks the court to submit to the findings of the CA in Civil Case 2683 finding the property to be paraphernal. Her appeal was favourably acted upon by the CA. The CA held that the trial court cannot treat Adolfo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment. It stated that in a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there are no ostensible issues at all on account of the defending party’s failure to raise an issue in his answer, while in a proper case for summary judgment, such issues exist, although they are sham, fictitious, or not genuine as shown by affidavits, depositions or admissions. In other words, a judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summary judgment is a judgment on the facts as summarily proved by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. It added that Fe’s Answer appeared on its face to tender an issue; it disputed petitioner’s claim that the subject property is their conjugal property. The next thing to be determined is whether this issue is fictitious or sham as to justify a summary judgment. The CA added that although respondent was bound by the resulting admission prompted by her failure to reply to petitioner’s request for admission, her claims and documentary exhibits clearly contradict what petitioner sought to be admitted in his request; that the trial court disregarded the fact that the issue of whether the subject property is conjugal was still unresolved as CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 was still pending; and that finally, the trial court should have been guided by the principles that trial courts have but limited authority to render summary judgments and that summary judgments should not be rendered hastily.
Teofilo assailed the CA decision to the Supreme Court via petition ISSUES/HELD:
W/N summary judgment is proper in the case, considering the failure of Fe to answer or deny under oath the Request for Admission in Civil Case No. MAN-4821. RATIO:
Judgment on the pleadings is proper “where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.” Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be granted “if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
An answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would naturally be improper.”
