BANTILLO vs IAC heirship.

G.R. No. 75311 Questioned the

October 18, 1988 proprietary of Motion
for Bill of Particulars
Facts: M
Case Background atters mentioned in
the motion were not
1. Rosita Zafra Bantillo was alleged to be the surviving essential/needed to
heir of the deceased spouses Candido Zafra and enable Sumcad to file
Maria Pimentel Zafra. She has been in the possession an answer
of Lot No. 63 since 1950 or ever since the death of N
the spouses. She also represents the Zafra spouses ot a proper subject
as a surviving heir. for Bill of Particulars.

2. Elsa Maniquis-Sumcad, by virtue of an Original BUT, in the end, Bantillo

Certificate issued in her name, claims ownership. She agreed to specify the names
sought to remove Bantillo from possession. of the heirs she represents
and submit the Special
Procedural Facts: Power of Attorney executed
by the heirs in her favour.
CFI:
Bantillo (Plaintiff) Sumcad (Defendant) MOTION GRANTED
(July 5, 1982)
COMPLAINT FOR MOTION FOR BILL OF Court Order:
RECONVEYANCE PARTICULARS Bantillo must:
(pleading) Direct Bantillo Specify the names
Allegations: to: Submit SPA
1. under claim of 1. specify Furnish an amended pleading
ownership since 1950 what kind of surviving Sumcad must:
2. as surviving heir, she heir she is File responsive pleading within 15 days from receipt
represents the heirs 2. specify of amended pleading
of the spouses what right or authority
3. had been in open and she represents the so- OPPOSITION to the MOTION TO DISMISS
continuous called heirs of the MOTION TO DISMISS (September 3, 1982)
possession of Lot 63 spouses; the papers Amended complaint is Bantillo did not
showing this authority; attached comply with the order
identify these heirs Theres no presiding No identification of
and the nature of their
 judge so it would be heirs 3. WON Rule 10 should be applied.
useless to file since it No amended
wouldnt be acted complaint yet Held and Ratio:
upon yet
REJOINDER to the REJOINDER w/ MOTION TO 1. YES, Bantillos basis for representation of the
OPPOSITION to the STRIKE OUT/DISMISS heirs can help Sumcad formulate a responsive
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS PLEADINGS pleading which is the purpose of Bill of
It was an excusable Bantillos Particulars.
delay under Sec. 1, delayed for more than
Rule 10 which allows 1 year when ROC Section 1. Motion for bill of particulars.Before
amendment of requires a response for responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is
pleadings without Bill of Particulars to be permitted by these rules, within ten (10) days after
regard for mere within 10 days (Sec. service of the pleading upon him, a party may move
technicalities. 1(c), Rule 12, ROC) for a more definite statement or for a bill of part
MOTION GRANTED of any matter which is not averred with sufficient
Dismiss complaint definiteness or particularity to enable him
Strike out amended complaint properly to prepare his responsive pleading or to
prepare for trial. Such motion shall point out the
CA: defects complained of and the details desired.
DISMISSED
Guilty of unreasonable delay in complying Under this Rule, the remedy available to a
with the July 5, 1982 order. Rule 12, Section 1 party who seeks clarification of any issue or matter
(c) requires 10 days. Bantillo submitted on vaguely or obscurely pleaded by the other party, is to
June 22, 1983. file a motion, either for "a more definite statement" or
Amended complaint should be filed within a for a bill of particulars. An order directing the
seasonable time and in a manner consistent submission of such statement or bill, further, is proper
with the Order. where it enables the party movant intelligently to
The alleged vacancy (judge) lasted only for prepare a responsive pleading, or adequately
over 2 months (January-March) to prepare for trial.

Issues: The title of the (original) Complaint stated

1. WON Sumcads Motion for Bill of Particulars is
proper.
2. WON the period on Section 1, Rule 12 should
be applied when the Court Order states the submission
of an amended complaint and not a bill of particulars.
that Bantillo had then brought suit "for herself and in
representation of the Heirs of Spouses Candido Zafra
and Maria Pimentel Zafra." In paragraphs 2 and 3 of
the Complaint, Bantillo alleged her capacity personally
to maintain the judicial action for reconveyance,
manifesting that she is the "surviving heir" of the Zafra
 spouses, the alleged original owners of the land under
litigation. The Court notes, however, the absolute
lack of allegations in the Complaint regarding
the petitioner's capacity or authority to bring
suit in behalf of her alleged co-heirs and co-
plaintiffs. On this matter, Section 4 of Rule 8 of the
Revised Rules of Court specifically provides:
Section 4. Capacity.Facts showing the
capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the
authority of a party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity or the legal existence
of an organized association of persons that is
made a party, must be averred. A party desiring
to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any
party or the capacity of any party to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by
specific denial, which shall include such
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within
the pleader's knowledge.
Bantillo having failed to allege a factual
matter which, under the Rules, must be alleged or
pleaded, respondent Sumcad was not unjustified in
moving for clarification of such matter. Knowledge
of the identity or identities of petitioner's alleged
co-heirs and co-plaintiffs and, more importantly, of
the basis of petitioner's claimed authority to
represent the latter, would obviously be useful to
respondent in the preparation of a responsive
pleading, respondent Sumcad should be given
sufficient opportunity intelligently to contest these
matters and possibly to raise the same as issues in
her Answer.
2. YES, the 10 days period should be applied.
The trial court did not in its Order of 5 July
1982 expressly direct Bantillo to submit a bill of
particulars. What was in fact required of was an
amended complaint, which would incorporate the
"amendments" mentioned in the first paragraph of the
Order. This singular circumstance, however, does
not preclude application in this case of Rule 12,
Section l(c) of which provides:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Refusal.If an order of the court to make a
pleading more definite and certain or for a bill of
particulars is not obeyed within ten (10) days
after notice of the order or within such other time
as the court may fix, the court may order the
striking out of the pleading to which the motion
was directed or make such other order as it
deems just. It may, upon motion, set aside the
order, or modify it in the interest of justice.
Under the above provision, the court may
upon motion in appropriate cases direct the adverse
party (a) to file a bill of particulars, or (b) to make the
pleading referred to in the motion more definite and
certain, either by amending or supplementing the
same. The trial court's disputed Order of 5 July 1982
falls squarely within the second category. As the
Order itself did not specify the period for
compliance with its terms, Bantillo was bound to
comply therewith within ten (10) days from
notice. (deadline = July 15).
3. NO
Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Courtwhich
allows amendment of pleadings once as a matter of
course at any time before a responsive pleading is
served.
That provision does not apply in situations
where it is the court itself that orders a party litigant to
 amend his or her pleading. Where, as in the case at o Thirdly, the Amended Complaint was
bar, the trial court orders the amendment after a already before the trial court and it could have
motion for a bill of particulars has been filed by the and should have proceeded with the case.
adverse party and heard by the court, the applicable o Alternatively, if it be assumed that
provision is Section 1 of Rule 12 of the Rules of Court: the Amended Complaint was properly dismissed, such
the amended pleading must be filed within the time dismissal should not, for the same reasons of substantial
fixed by the court, or absent such a specification of and expeditious justice, be deemed as having the effect
time, within ten (10) days from notice of the order. of an adjudication upon the merits and hence should be
regarded as without prejudice to Bantillos right to re-file
Ruling: her complaint in its amended form. Under this
alternative hypothesis, to require petitioner to re-file her
(useless discussion on Bill of Particulars and delay in complaint in a new action, would appear little more than
filing etc. kasi pinayagan din naman ma-admit yung compelling her to go through an idle ceremony. Public
amended complaint. Hmp.) policy favors the disposition of claims brought to
court on their merits, rather than on any other basis.
o Court concludes that an unreasonable time
had already elapsed (11months delay) so the amended LOWER COURT REVERSED. RTC is DIRECTED to ADMIT
complaint is filed out of time. BUT, in the interest of the AMENDED COMPLAINT.
substantial and expeditious justice, the Amended
Complaint should not have been dismissed and ordered
stricken from the record.
o The amendment of the original
complaint consisted simply of deletion of any
reference to "other heirs" of the Zafra spouses as
co-plaintiffs in the action for reconveyance;
Bantillo, in other words, clarified that she alone
was plaintiff and heir and therefore was no longer
suing also in a representative capacity.
o In the second place, this amendment
imposed no substantial prejudice upon Sumcad
and was thus formal in character. As a matter of
fact, Sumcad had not yet filed any responsive
pleading at all and had not disclosed the nature
and basis of her own claim of ownership of Lot
No. 63. The issues had not yet been joined.