BANTILLO V.

IAC (1988)
G.R. No. 75311
October 18, 1988
Feliciano, J.

BEFORE THE SC: Petition for Review

PETITIONER: ROSITA ZAFRA BANTILLO
RESPONDENT: IAC and SUMCAD

SUMMARY:
Bantillo filed a Complaint for Reconveyance against respondent Elsa Maniquis-Sumicad
involving a parcel of land in North Cotabato. - Sumicad filed a “Motion of Bill of
Particulars” requesting that Bantillo be directed by the court: To specify what kind of surviving
heir she is and To specify what right or authority she represents the so-called “heirs of the
spouses Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel Zafra” and to show the paper under which she is
authorized to represent them in court. WN the Motion for Bill of Particulars, under Sec 1 Rule
12, was proper (YES) Bantillo alleged her capacity personally to maintain the judicial action for
reconveyance, manifesting that she is the "surviving heir" of the Zafra spouses. However, there
was absolute lack of allegations in the Complaint regarding the Bantillo’s capacity or authority to
bring suit in behalf of her alleged co-heirs and co-plaintiffs. Bantillo having failed to allege in
her Complaint a factual matter, which must be alleged or pleaded, Sumcad was not unjustified in
moving for clarification of such matter. Knowledge of the identities of Bantillo’s alleged co-heirs
and of the basis of her claimed authority to represent the latter, would obviously be useful to
Sumicad in the preparation of a responsive pleading

FACTS:
The subject of the present Petition for Review is the Decision of the then Intermediate Appellate
Court in (entitled "Rosita Zafra Bantillo, for herself and in representation of the Heirs of Spouses
Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel Zafra, plaintiffs-appellants, versus Elsa Maniquis-Sumcad,
defendant-appellee"). The appellate court affirmed an Order of then Court of First Instance of
North Cotabato, ordering: (a) the dismissal of the Complaint =; and (b) the striking out of the
Amended Complaint filed in the same case.

- Rosita Zafra Bantillo filed a Complaint for Reconveyance against respondent Elsa
Maniquis-Sumicad involving a parcel of land in North Cotabato
- In the Complaint, Bantillo alleged that: (1) she is “the surviving heir” of the deceased
spouses Candido Zafra and Maira Pimentel Zafra; (2) the Zafra spouses had occupied and
possessed the lot “under claim of ownership since 1950”; (3) As surviving heir and in
representation of the heirs of the Zafra spouses, she had been in open and continuous
possession and occupation of the land; (4) By virtue of OCT issued in the name of
Sumicad, the latter claimed ownership and rejected demands to reconvey the land to her
PROCEDURE:
- Sumicad filed a “Motion of Bill of Particulars” requesting that Bantillo be directed by the
court:
o To specify what kind of surviving heir she is
o To specify what right or authority she represents the so-called “heirs of the
spouses Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel Zafra” and to show the paper under
which she is authorized to represent them in court
- Bantillo questioned the propriety of Sumicad’s motion, alleging that the matters
mentioned in the motion were not proper subjects of a Motion for Bill of Particulars and
were not essential to enable Sumicad to file an answer to the complaint
- In response to a Motion for Bill of Particulars, Bantillo’s counsel manifested that Bantillo
was willing to specify the names of the heirs allegedly being represented by her as well as
to submit SPA executed by the heirs in her favor
- Sumicad then filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that Bantillo had not submitted her
amended complaint and had not complied with the court order directing her to specify the
other heirs and their SPAs
- Bantillo filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss stating that the delay was due to the
fact that there was no presiding judge who could act upon on its case
- Sumicad interposed a Rejoinder with Motion to Strike Out/Dismiss Plaintiff's Pleadings,
contending that Bantillo’s compliance with the court's Order was made more than 1 year
from the issuance of the said Order, invoking Section 1 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court
which grants a party only a ten-day period within which to respond to a bill of particulars
RULING OF TRIAL COURT AND IAC: Motion to Strike Out/Dismiss Plaintiff's Pleadings as
meritorious, grants the same and orders the dismissal of the complaint and the striking out of the
amended complaint
ISSUE:
WN the Motion for Bill of Particulars, under Sec 1 Rule 12, was proper (YES)
HELD:
The Appellate Court's Decision appealed from is REVERSED and RTC is DIRECTED to admit
Bantillo’s Amended Complaint and promptly to resume proceedings.
RULING:
Under this rule, the remedy available to a party who seeks clarification of any issue or matter
vaguely or obscurely pleaded by the other party, is to file a motion, either for "a more definite
statement" or for a bill of particulars. An order directing the submission of such statement or bill,
further, is proper where it enables the party movant intelligently to prepare a responsive
pleading, or adequately to prepare for trial.
- The title of the Complaint expressly stated that Bantillo had brought suit " for herself and
in representation of the Heirs of Spouses Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel Zafra."
- Bantillo alleged her capacity personally to maintain the judicial action for reconveyance,
manifesting that she is the "surviving heir" of the Zafra spouses.
- However, there was absolute lack of allegations in the Complaint regarding the Bantillo’s
capacity or authority to bring suit in behalf of her alleged co-heirs and co-plaintiffs.
- Petitioner Bantillo having failed to allege in her Complaint a factual matter, which must
be alleged or pleaded, Sumcad was not unjustified in moving for clarification of such
matter.
- Knowledge of the identities of Bantillo’s alleged co-heirs and of the basis of her claimed
authority to represent the latter, would obviously be useful to Sumicad in the preparation
of a responsive pleading
- Therefore, the “Motion for Bill of Particulars” filed by Sumicad was not improper.
- The Court however believes that although Bantillo’s Amended Complaint was filed out
of time, it should not have been dismissed and ordered stricken from the record.
- 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
- The amendment imposed no substantial prejudice upon Sumicad and was thus formal in
character.
- The Amended Complaint was already before the trial court and it could have and should
have proceeded with the case.