Author: Earvin James M.
Atienza
TEOFILO B. ADOLFO V. FE T. ADOLFO (2015)
Petitioner: Teofilo B. Adolfo (Husband);
Respondent: Fe T. Adolfo (Wife);
Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
DOCTRINE: Judgment on the Pleadings v. Summary Judgments;
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.”
Same;
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”.
Same; Genuine Issues;
“Whether x x x the issues raised by the Answer are genuine is not the crux of
inquiry in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a motion for
summary judgment. In a case for judgment on the pleadings, the Answer is
such that no issue is raised at all. The essential question in such a case is
whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.” “A ‘genuine issue’ is an
issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from
a shame, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear
uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question
as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for.”
FACTS:
1. Husband filed a petition for legal separation (Case 1) against Wife and
prayed among others that their property in Cabancalan, Mandaue City,
Cebu be subdivided and partitioned accordingly. Wife answered
claiming that the same property is her paraphernal property being part
of her inheritance from her parents;
2. Meanwhile, Wife’s sister Florencia (Sister) filed a case for partition with
damages (Case 2) against her alleging that Wife executed a Deed of
Sale in favor of her Sister and Brother-in-Law over a 300-sqm. portion
of the property subject of Case 1. In this case, however, Wife claimed
that the subject property was her conjugal property and therefore the
absence of her Husband’s consent in the Deed of Sale made the same
void;
3. RTC rendered a Decision in Case 2 declaring the subject property as
conjugal and therefore nullified the Deed of Sale in favor of her Sister
and Brother-in-Law. The latter filed an Appeal before the CA;
4. Meanwhile, Husband submitted during the pre-trial conference in
Case 1 his Wife’s Answer as well as the Decision in Case 2 as part of
his evidence and made a Request for Admission of genuineness of
the same. Wife, however, failed to file her response or answer thereto
which prompted Husband to file a Motion for Judgment based on the
Pleadings on the ground of Wife’s implied admission pursuant to §2,
Rule 26 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
5. Wife opposed the same and argued among others that the request
was premature in view of the pendency of the Appeal on Case 2. Case
1 was then ordered to be transferred to the branch of Case 2 in view
of the latter’s close relation thereto. Thereafter, the RTC granted
Husband’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings but treated the same
as a Motion for Summary Judgment following the doctrine under
Diman v. Alumbres (1998);
6. Wife Appealed the Order granting Husband’s Motion. Meanwhile, the
CA rendered a Decision reversing RTC’s ruling in Case 2 for lack of
factual basis and the same became final and executory. Thereafter,
CA rendered a Decision in Case 1 also reversing the RTC’s earlier
ruling that the subject property was conjugal on the ground of the
technical differences between Judgment on the Pleadings and
Summary Judgment as remedies;
7. Having denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed for the case,
Husband filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45).
ISSUES:
WON Husband’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was a proper remedy
as ruled by the RTC.
PROVISION: Rules 34 and 35, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 34, Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. — Where an answer fails to
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
Author: Earvin James M. Atienza
party's pleading, the court may; on motion of that party, direct judgment on Rules, he may file a motion for judgment on the
such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of pleadings or summary judgment as a result of the
marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint consequent admission by respondent that the subject
shall always be proved. (1a, R19) property is conjugal, this is not actually the case.
Quite the contrary, by invoking the proceedings
Rule 35, Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party seeking to and decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683,
recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory petitioner is precluded from obtaining judgment
relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, while the appeal in said case is pending, because
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary the result thereof determines whether the subject
judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. (1a, R34) property is indeed conjugal or paraphernal. He
may not preempt the appeal in C.A.- G.R. CV No.
Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party against whom 78971.
a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is
sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or While it is true that a judgment cannot bind persons
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof. who are not parties to the action, petitioner cannot,
(2a, R34) after invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-
2683 to secure affirmative relief against respondent
RULING + RATIO: and thereafter failing to obtain such relief, be allowed
No, Husband’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was not the proper in to repudiate or question the CA’s ruling in C.A.-G.R.
this case. CV No. 78971. The principle of estoppel bars him
 The Court affirmed the Wife’s argument that the rendition of summary from denying the resultant pronouncement by the
judgment based on the Decision in Case 2 was premature as the latter appellate court, which became final and executory,
has not yet attained finality at that time, and that it should have instead that the subject property is respondent’s paraphernal
denied it or held the same in abeyance. Thus, the Court held: property. x x x

x x x In rendering summary judgment, the trial court (emphasis supplied)

relied on respondent’s failure to reply to petitioner’s
request for admission, her admission in Civil Case DISPOSITION: Petition is DENIED.
No. MAN-2683, as well as its May 15, 2002 Decision
declaring that the subject property is a conjugal asset.
x x x While there is nothing irregular with this x x x,
the trial court however disregarded the fact that
its decision was then the subject of a pending
appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971. It should have
known that until the appeal is resolved by the
appellate court, it would be premature to render
judgment on petitioner’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings; that it would be presumptuous to
assume that its own decision would be affirmed
on appeal. x x x

On the part of petitioner, it must be said that he could

not have validly resorted to a motion for judgment
on the pleadings or summary judgment. While it
may appear that under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997