119.
Aldemita v Heirs of Silva purported signature of Melquiades Silva in Exhibit 1 and that of Porferia Silva
G.R. 166403
November 2, 2006
Topic: Motion to Dismiss
Petitioners:Benzon Aldemita
Respondents: Heirs of Melquiades Silva
Ponente: J. Austria-Martinez
FACTS
1. A Complaint for Quieting of Title was filed with the RTC by the Heirs of
Melquiades Silva, represented by Ramon G. Villordon, Jr., against the Heirs
of Dionisia Vda. De Zabate (represented by Emelia Deiparine and Benzon O.
Aldemita), involving Lot 11330 of Pcs-945.
2. During the pre-trial, the parties made the following stipulations of facts
and/or admissions, to wit:
1) [Petitioner] Aldemita admitted that Lot 11330 has been
registered in the name of Melquiades Silva as shown by Transfer
Certificate No. T-18993 of the Registry of Deeds and has been
covered by Tax Declaration No. 25845-R also in the name of
Melquiades Silva;
2) [Petitioner] Aldemita also admitted that the [respondents] in this
case have been the ones in actual physical possession of the lot,
except a 2,000-square-meter area which said he is claiming to be
possessed by him;
3) [Petitioner] Aldemita admitted, too, that the document "Kalig-
onan sa Palit” (Exhibit 1), purportedly executed on March 15, 1949
by Melquiades Silva in favor of Vda. De Zabate involving the land in
question, is actually a forged document. He contends, however that
another document, the "Kalig-onan sa Panagpalit nga Dayon"
(Exhibit 2) was also executed by Melquiades Silva in favor of Vda.
De Zabate and that the latter was confirmed by Proferia Silva and
Emeliana Zabate Paran in a Deed of Confirmation of Previous Deed
of Sale executed on February 20, 1979.
3. The RTC appointed the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office VII as
commissioner of the court for the purpose of determining whether the
in Exhibit 2.
4. The parties manifested through their respective counsel that they would
submit the case for decision without need of trial especially that the findings
embodied in the commissioner’s report (that the signature of Silva was
indeed forged) have already been considered as the findings of facts in this
case.
5.After Aldemita filed a Position Paper with the Court, his counsel Atty.
Manuel Paradela filed a Motion To Withdraw As Counsel. Immediately
thereafter, the new counsel for petitioner Aldemita, Atty. Rodolfo Ugang,
Sr., entered his appearance and filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause
of action.
 The Motion averred in main that the respondents should first be declared
as heirs of Melquiades Silva in a special proceeding before they can be
considered as real parties-in-interest to institute the action in this case.
6. The RTC denied the Motion for being belatedly filed. The Court also
recognized the heirs of Melquiades Silva as the real parties in interest who
could institute an action for quieting of title. Meanwhile, believing the Silva’s
signature had been forged, the documents denominated as "Kalig-onan Sa
Palit" and "Kalig-onan sa Panagpalit nga Dayon," and the Deed of
Confirmation of Previous Deed of Sale were all declared to be null and void.
7. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto.
8. Hence, the instant Petition.
ISSUE
W/N the MTD was a proper action
HELD
No
RATIO
The Motion to Dismiss should have been filed before the filing of any
responsive pleading. It has appeared that it was in fact filed at the RTC after
the case had been submitted for decision.
The reliance of the Petitioner on the old rules of court had led to this
confusion. In the old law, Sec. 2 provided that

SEC. 2. Defenses and objections not pleaded deemed waived. - Defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived; except the failure to state a cause of action which may be
alleged in a later pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for judgment on
the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits; but in the last instance, the
motion shall be disposed of as provided in Section 5 of Rule 10 in the light of
any evidence which may have been received. Whenever it appears that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it shall dismiss the action

They effectively assumed that where failure to state a cause of action was
not deemed waived even if raised after the answer has been filed. However,
since this case was filed in 1998, the effective rules applicable were now the
Revised Rules of Court of 1997. The applicable Rule now is Sec. 1 Rule 9
which reads;

SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections

not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there
is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim.

As it stands, only the following defenses are not waived even if not raised in
a motion to dismiss or in the answer: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription on the action.
Failure to state a cause of action is not an exception in said Rule. Thus, under
Section 1, Rule 16, petitioner is deemed to have waived this ground and
cannot now raise it after the case in the RTC had been submitted for decision
or on appeal to the CA.

Dispositive : WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed

Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.