Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
G.R.No.125465.June29,1999.
341
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
341
anyoftheparties.InBaja v. Macandog,thisCourtmentionedthese
cases,towit:Thecourtcannotdismissacasemotu proprio without
violating the plaintiffs right to be heard, except in the following
instances:iftheplaintifffailstoappearatthetimeofthetrial;ifhe
failstoprosecutehisactionforanunreasonablelengthoftime;orif
hefailstocomplywiththerulesoranyorderofthecourt;orifthe
courtfindsthatithasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthe
suit.
Same; Judgment on the Pleadings; Where there are actual
issues raised in the answer, such as one involving damages, which
require the presentation of evidence and assessment thereof by the
trial court, it is improper for the judge to render judgment based on
the pleadings alone.Under the rules, if there is no controverted
matter in the case after the answer is filed, the trial court has the
discretiontograntamotionforjudgmentonthepleadingsfiledbya
party. Where there are actual issues raised in the answer, such as
oneinvolvingdamages,whichrequirethepresentationofevidence
and assessment thereof by the trial court, it is improper for the
judgetorenderjudgmentbasedonthepleadingsalone.Inthiscase,
asidefromtheamountofdamages,thefollowingfactualissueshave
to be resolved, namely, (1) private respondent Teodora Aysons
participation and/or liability, if any, to petitioners and (2) the
nature, extent, and duration of private respondents possession of
the subject property. The trial court, therefore, correctly denied
petitionersmotionforjudgmentonthepleadings.
342
342
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
343
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofIloiloCity,Br.25.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Ramon A. Gonzalesforpetitioners.
Resurreccion S. Salvillaforprivaterespondents.
MENDOZA,J.:
OnDecember3,1990,petitioners,thespousesAugustoand
MariaHontiveros,filedacomplaintfordamagesagainstpri
344
344
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
288.
2SeeAmendedComplaint;Petition,AnnexA;Rollo,pp.2830.
345
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
Hontiveros vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City
345
nullandvoidsinceitwasbaseduponagroundwhichwas
notpasseduponbythetrialcourt;thatpetitionersclaimfor
damageswasbarredbyprescriptionwithrespecttoclaims
before 1984; that there were no rentals due since private
respondentHontiveroswasapossessoringoodfaithandfor
value;andthatprivaterespondentAysonhadnothingtodo
withthecaseasshewasnotmarriedtoprivaterespondent
Gregorio Hontiveros and did not have any proprietary
interestinthesubjectproperty.Privaterespondentsprayed
forthedismissalofthecomplaintandforanorderagainst
petitionerstopaydamagestoprivaterespondentsbywayof
counterclaim,aswellasreconveyanceofthesubjectlandto
3
privaterespondents.
On May 16, 1991, petitioners filed an Amended
Complaint to insert therein an allegation that earnest
effortstowardsacompromisehavebeenmadebetweenthe
partiesbutthesamewereunsuccessful.
In due time, private respondents filed an Answer to
Amended Complaint with Counterclaim, in which they
denied, among other things, that earnest efforts had been
made to reach a compromise but the parties were
unsuccessful. On July 19, 1995, petitioners moved for a
judgment on the pleadings on the ground that private
respondents answer did not tender an issue or that it
otherwise 4 admitted the material allegations of the
complaint. Private respondents opposed the motion
alleging that they had denied petitioners claims and thus
tenderedcertainissuesoffactwhichcouldonlyberesolved
5
aftertrial.
OnNovember23,1995,thetrialcourtdeniedpetitioners
motion.Atthesametime,however,itdismissedthecaseon
thegroundthatthecomplaintwasnotverifiedasrequired
by Art. 151 of the Family Code and, therefore, it did not
believe
_________________
3SeeAmendedAnswer;Petition,AnnexB;Rollo,pp.3135.
4Petition,AnnexC;Rollo,pp.3646.
5Petition,AnnexH.
346
346
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
347
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
347
SOORDERED.
348
348
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
xxxwhenaCFI(RTC)adjudicatesacaseintheexerciseofitsoriginal
jurisdiction,thecorrectmodeofelevatingthejudgmenttotheCourtof
Appeals is by ordinary appeal, or appeal by writ of error, involving
merelythefilingofanoticeofappealexceptonlyiftheappealistaken
in special proceedings and other cases wherein multiple appeals are
allowedunderthelaw,inwhicheventhefilingofarecordonappealis
additionally required. Of course, when the appeal would involve purely
questions of law or any of the other cases (except criminal cases as
statedhereunder)specifiedinSection5(2),ArticleXoftheConstitution,
it should be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorariinaccordancewithRules42and45oftheRulesofCourt.
349
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
349
It must also be stressed that the trial courts order of 5 June 1992
dismissing the petitioners complaint was, whether it was right or
wrong, a final order because it had put an end to the particular
matter resolved, or settled definitely the matter therein disposed of
and left nothing more to be done by the trial court except the
execution of the order. It is a firmly settled rule that the remedy
againstsuchorderistheremedyofappealandnotcertiorari.That
appeal may be solely on questions of law, in which case it may be
taken only to this Court; or on questions of fact and law, in which
case the appeal should be brought to the Court of Appeals.
Pursuant to Murillo v. Consul, the appeal to this Court should be
bypetitionforreviewoncertiorariinaccordancewithRule45ofthe
RulesofCourt.
350
350
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
However,noneoftheseexceptionsappearsinthiscase.
__________________
12SeeRomanCatholicArchbishopofManilav.CourtofAppeals, 258
SCRA195,199(1996).
13158SCRA391,396397(1986).
351
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
351
1033(1973).
16 Rocamora v. RTC, Cebu (Branch VIII), 167 SCRA 615 (1988); 1 M.
352
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
whichareallegedaretrueandcorrect.Ifthecourtdoubted
the veracity of the allegations regarding efforts made to
settlethecaseamongmembersofthesamefamily,itcould
simply have ordered petitioners to verify them. As this
Court has already ruled, the court may simply order the
correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive
strict compliance with17 the rules in order that the ends of
justicemaybeserved. Otherwise,meresuspicionordoubt
onthepartofthetrialcourtastothetruthoftheallegation
that earnest efforts had been made toward a compromise
butthepartieseffortsprovedunsuccessfulisnotaground
forthedismissalofanaction.Onlyifitislatershownthat
sucheffortshadnotreallybeenexertedwouldthecourtbe
justifiedindismissingtheaction.Thus,Art.151provides:
Nosuitbetweenmembersofthesamefamilyshallprosperunlessit
should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest
efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same
havefailed.Itifisshownthatnosucheffortswereinfactmade,the
casemustbedismissed.
Thisruleshallnotapplytocaseswhichmaynotbethesubjectof
compromiseundertheCivilCode.
SCRA104(1970);Mendezv.Eugenia,80SCRA82(1977);Gon
353
VOL.309,JUNE29,1999
353
samefamilydoesnotcomprehendsistersinlaw.Inthatcase,then
Chief Justice Concepcion emphasized that sistersinlaw (hence,
alsobrothersinlaw)arenotlistedunderArt.217oftheNewCivil
Code as members of the same family. Since Art. 150 of the Family
Code repeats essentially the same enumeration of members of the
family, we find no reason to alter existing jurisprudence on the
matter.Consequently,thecourta quoerredinrulingthatpetitioner
Guerrero, being a brotherinlaw of private respondent Hernando,
was required to exert earnest efforts towards a compromise before
filingthepresentsuit.
Code,Art.150.
20229SCRA274,278(1994).
21 1 A.M. Tolentino, Commentaries
354
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
assailableatanystageoftheproceedingsforlackofcauseof
action.(OLaco vs. Co Cho Chit,220SCRA656[1993])
Abrotherinlawisnotamemberofthefamilyofhiswife
andisoutsidethescopeandcoverageofArticle222ofthe
Civil Code requiring that the same members of a family
shouldexerteffortstobringaboutacompromisebeforethe
commencement of a litigation. (Esquivias vs. Court of
Appeals,272SCRA803[1997])
o0o
355