Teofilo Alonso vs.
Fe Alfonso admission a hearing on the merits becomes unnecessary
Rule 34, Section 1
Facts:
Civil Case No. MAN-2683:
In 1996, the sister of Fe Alfonso, Florenica Tudtud and
her husband filed a case for partition with damages
against Fe Alfonso.
Complaint: The complaint alleged that Fe Alfonso
executed a deed of absolute sale of the subject 300
square meter portion of land in favor of Florenica and
her husband. However, Fe Alfonso refused to
partition/subdivide the same even after Florenica and
her husband paid the taxes, fees and expense of the
sale.
Answer: In her answer, Fe Alfonso claims that the
subject property was constituted as a conjugal property
with her marriage to Teofilo Alfonso. Consequently, her
husband Teofilo Alfonso didn’t sign the deed of sale, thus
the sale was void.
Trial Court Decision: The Trial Court rendered a
decision on Civil Case No. Man-2683, declaring such
property to be constituted conjugal property of the
marriage of Teofilo and Fe Alfonso. The trial court
nullified the Deed of Sale in favor of Florenica and her
husband.
Appeal: Florenica and her husband filed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
78971.
Civil Case No. MAN-4821:
On April 14, 2004, Teodoro Alfonso filed a judicial
separation of property against Fe Alfonso. He asked for
the separation of the subject 300 square meter of land,
claiming that such land is part of the conjugal property
of the now estranged couple.
Answer: In her answer Fe Alfonos, contends that she is
the sloe owner of the subject property (300 square meter
of land), the same being her paraphernal property which
she inherited from her mother.
Pre-trial for Civil Case MAN-4821: During the pre-trial
of Civil Case No. MAN-4821, Teodoro Alfonso submitted
as part of his evidence and for marking certified true
copies of the following:
 Complaint of Florenica and her husband (sister
of Fe Alfonso) in Civil case MAN-2683;
 The answer of Fe Alfonso regarding the
complaint, wherein Fe Alfonso stated that such
subject property is part of the conjugal property
Motion for Summary Judgment: Teodoro Alfonso filed
a Motion for Judgment Based on the pleadings that
based on Rule 26, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Fe Alfonso is in effect considered to have
admitted that the subject property is a conjugal asset of
their subsisting marriage and that on account of such
and instead Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules on Judgment on
the pleadings should apply.
RTC: The RTC granted Teodoro Alfonso’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. The RTC held that such
should be treated as a motion to seek a summary
judgment.
CA: Reversed the decision of the RTC, stating that the
said subject property is the paraphernal property of Fe
Alfonso.
In his appeal, Teodoro Alfonso claims that the trial court
didn’t err in treating his motion for Judgment on the
pleadings as one for summary judgment.
Likewise, Teodoro Alfonso contends that because of the
admissions made by Fe Alfonso there is no genuine issue
in this case, such that judgment based on the pleadings
is proper.
ISSUE:
1.) W/N a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is
the same as a Motion for Summary Judgment?
No.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: 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.”
Motion for Summary Judgment: 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.”
The Court has elaborated the basic distinction between a
summary judgment and a judgment on the pleadings:
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 party's
pleading, the court may; on motion of that party, direct
judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved.
Rule 35; Section 1—Section 1. Summary judgment for
claimant. — A party seeking to recover upon a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory
relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer
thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in
his favor upon all or any part thereof.
Motion for Judgment on Motion for Summary
the Pleadings Judgment
The non-existence of There are issues raised in
ostensible issues in the the pleadings. However,
pleadings because of the the issues thus arising
failure of the defending from the pleadings are
party’s answer to raise an sham or fictitious or not
issue. genuine—as shown by
affidavits, depositions, or
An answer would “fail to admissions
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
In a case for judgment on “whether x x x the issues
the pleadings, the Answer raised by the Answer are
is such that no issue is genuine.
raised at all. The essential
question in such a case is “A ‘genuine issue’ is an
whether there are issues issue of fact which
generated by the pleadings requires the presentation
of evidence as
distinguished from a
sham, 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.”

ISSUE: W/N it was proper for the Trial Court to grant

the Motion for Judgment on the pleadings as a summary
judgment of Civil Case No. MAN-4821? NO

In rendering the summary judgment, the trial court

however disregarded the fact that its decision was then
the subject of a pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No.
78791.

It should have known that until the appeal is resolved by

the appellate court, it would be premature to render
judgment on Teodoro Alfonso’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings; that it would be presumptuous to assume
that its own decision would be affirmed on appeal.

One of the issues raised in the appeal is precisely

whether the subject property is conjugal, or a
paraphernal asset of the respondent.

Thus, instead of resolving Teodoro Alfonso’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings, the trial court should have
denied it or held it in abeyance.

End of Digest