MUNICIPALITY OF TIWI vs. ANTONIO B.

BETITO
G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010

Facts of the Case:

In a court decision, National Power Corporation is found liable for unpaid real estate taxes on
its properties in Albay. This properties consisted geothermal plants in Tiwi and in Daraga. These
properties were sold in an auction, of which the Province of Albay. Later, NPC and Albay entered
into a MOA where Albay agreed to settle its tax liabilities and NPC will make an initial payment
upon signing of the agreement, and the rest will be paid in a monthly instalment. Then Mayor
Naomi C. Corral of Tiwi formally requested Governor Salalima to remit the rightful tax shares of
Tiwi and its barangays where the NPC’s properties were located relative to the payments
already made by NPC to Albay. On even date, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tiwi passed Resolution
No. 12-92 requesting the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay to hold a joint session for the
purpose of discussing the distribution of the NPC payments. Due to the brewing
misunderstanding between Tiwi and the concerned barangays on the one hand, and Albay on
the other, and so as not to be caught in the middle of the controversy, NPC requested a
clarification from the Office of the President as to the scope and extent of the shares of the local
government units in the real estate tax collections. The Sangguniang Bayan of Tiwi passed
Resolution No. 15-92 authorizing Mayor Corral to hire a lawyer to represent Tiwi and its
barangays in the recovery of their rightful share in the aforesaid realty taxes. Thereafter, Mayor
Corral sought the services of respondent Atty. Antonio B. Betito and Atty. Alberto Lawenko.

Procedural History:

The trial court held that petitioners’ answer to the complaint failed to tender an issue, thus,
partial judgment on the pleadings is proper. It noted that petitioners did not specifically deny
under oath the actionable documents in this case, particularly, the Contract of Legal Services
and Resolution No. 15-92. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Statement of the issue(s):

Whether or not the application of the rule of judgment on the pleadings and/or summary
judgment is baseless, improper and unwarranted in the case at bar.

Holding:

Yes. Judgment on the pleadings is improper when the answer to the complaint tenders several
issues. A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits the truth of all the material and relevant
allegations of the opposing party and the judgment must rest on those allegations taken
together with such other allegations as are admitted in the pleadings. It is proper when an
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleading. However, when it appears that not all the material allegations of the complaint
were admitted in the answer for some of them were either denied or disputed, and the
defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if proven, would have the effect of
nullifying plaintiff’s main cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be rendered. In the
instant case, a review of the records reveal that respondent (as plaintiff) and petitioners (as
defendants) set-up multiple levels of claims and defenses, respectively, with some failing to
tender an issue while others requiring the presentation of evidence for resolution. The
generalized conclusion of both the trial and appellate courts that petitioners’ answer admits all
the material averments of the complaint is, thus, without basis.
TAN vs. BENIGNO DE LA VEGA|||
G.R. No. 168809, March 10, 2006

Facts of the Case:

Respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Free Patent
against defendant heirs. The complaint was later amended to implead herein petitioner
purchasers of the disputed lot and to nullify TCT No. 272191 issued in their name. In the
Amended complaint, the respondents averred that they are the co- owners of a 159,576 square
meter parcel of land. Respondents learned that the defendant heirs are causing the ejectment of
the occupants of portion of Lot 89; and that Macario Mencias was able to obtain Free Patent and
OCT over said portion. Upon Macario's death, OCT no. 711 was canceled and TCT No. 186518
was issued to the defendant heirs. By virtue of a Deed of Sale, TCT No. 186516 was further
cancelled and TCT No. 271604 was issued on the same date in favor of New Atlantis Real Estate
& Development, Inc., .It was later on sold by the corporation to petitioners.

Procedural History:

Respondents contended that Macario’s OCT No. 711 and its derivative titles-TCT No. 186516, in
the name of defendant heirs and petitioners’ TCT NO. 272191, are void because they cover
entirely within the respondents land. Defendant heirs filed an answer contending that Lot 89
was never part of respondents’ TCT No. 257152. Petitioners asserted, that they are purchasers
in good faith and for value and that they have no knowledge of any defect in the title of the
corporation. For failure to file their answer, defendants, were declared in default. Respondents
then filed a motion for judgment on the pleading which was granted by the trial court.
Petitioners then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the assailed order of the
trial court. They filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Statement of the issue(s):

Whether or not a judgment on the pleadings is proper in the instant case.

Holding:

No. A summary judgment is likewise not warranted in this case as there are genuine issues
which call for a full blown trial. A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact which requires the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. In the
instant case, presentation of evidence is necessary to determine the validity of TCT No. 22395
from which respondents’ title (TCT No. 257152) was derived. Respondents failed to prove that
presentation of evidence may be dispensed with in the present controversy. The instant case is
neither a proper case for rendition of judgment on the pleadings nor of summary judgment. A
full blown trial should therefore be conducted to resolve the issues raised by the parties.
TEOFILO B. ADOLFO vs. FE T. ADOLFO||| 
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015

Facts of the Case:

In 2004, Petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed a petition for judicial separation of property against
his wife, Fe Adolfo. During their marriage, they acquired through conjugal funds a property in
Mandaue City, Cebu and when they separated, petitioner suggested a separation of the conjugal
property but respondent refused. In her answer with counterclaim, respondent contended that
while she remained married to petitioner, she is the sole owner of the subject property, the
same being her paraphernal property which she inherited from her mother. Respondent thus
prayed that the petition be dismissed. By way of counterclaim, she sought the payment of moral,
exemplary, and nominal damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. In 1996, Gingoyon
filed a case for partition with damages against respondent. In 1998, respondent executed a deed
of sale in favor of the Gingoyons over a portion of the property, but respondent refused to
partition/subdivide the same even after the Gingoyons paid the taxes, fees and expenses of the
sale. The trial court ruled in favor of Adolfo. The Gingoyons filed an appeal with the CA.

Procedural History:

During the pre-trial conference, petitioner submitted as part of his evidence and for marking
certified true copies of the Gingoyons’ complaint, respondent’s Answer thereto, and that trial
court’s decision in said case. Petitioner filed a Request for Admission of 1) the genuineness of
the duly marked certified true copies of the Complaint, Answer, and Decision; 2) respondent’s
declaration in said Answer that the subject property constituted conjugal property of the
marriage; and 3) the trial court’s pronouncement in said case that the subject property forms
part of the conjugal estate. Respondent failed to file her answer or response to the request for
admission. Petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings, stating that since
respondent failed to answer his request for admission, the matters contained in the request are
deemed admitted; and that on account of said admission, a hearing on the merits becomes
unnecessary and, instead, Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules on judgments on the pleadings should
apply. Petitioner thus prayed that the trial court render judgment in his favor based on the
pleadings. The trial court rendered judgment granting the motion but was reversed by the CA.

Statement of the issue(s):

Whether or not filing of a motion for judgment in the instant case is proper.

Holding:

No. 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." 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." It must be
said that the petitioner could not have validly resorted to a motion for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment. While it may appear that under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997
Rules, he may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment as a result of
the consequent admission by respondent that the subject property is conjugal, this is not
actually the case.
FERNANDEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 131094, May 16, 2005

Facts of the Case:

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by Concepcion Olivares against Jesus Fernandez.
MeTC, Manila dismissed the Complaint for lack of sufficient cause of action.

Procedural History:

Olivares appealed to the RTC, Manila and the latter reversed MeTC. Fernandez received a copy
of the decision. 14 days after receipt, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. He
filed with CA a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review which was granted.
Fernandez filed a Motion for New Trial before the RTC, Manila citing newly discovered evidence
of receipts proving his rental payments. Fernandez, thru counsel, filed on Dec. 29, 1994 in the
CA a Motion to Withdraw his Petition For Review, which the court noted in its resolution dated
Jan. 19, 1995. RTC denied the Motion for New Trial, explaining that when Fernandez went to the
CA and filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition For Review, CA acted on the same by
granting the extension sought, jurisdiction of the CA over the parties and the subject matter had
already attached. Fernandez filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. He then filed
a Motion to Reconsider the Order, while Olivares moved for the execution of the judgment of the
RTC. RTC granted the Motion for Execution and denied the Motion for Reconsideration. A writ of
execution was issued. Fernandez then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
before the CA. CA temporarily restrained the respondents from proceeding with the
enforcement of the writ of execution. Fernandez filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the
CA denied.

Statement of the issue(s):

Whether or not CA has acquired jurisdiction over the case so as to say that the trial court is
without authority to act on a motion for new trial.

Holding:

No. On this point we fully agree in the position taken by Fernandez that when he filed the
motion for extension of time to file petition for review, jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals had
not yet attached, such that his failure to file the petition itself would normally have the effect of
rendering the decision of the lower court final and executory. Assuming that Fernandez filed his
motion for new trial on time, we hold that the trial court still had jurisdiction to rule on the
matter as the jurisdiction it originally acquired had not yet been lost. The appellate jurisdiction
of the trial court is to be juxtaposed with its residual jurisdiction as set forth in Rule 42, Section
8(a), 3rd paragraph of the Rules of Court. Before the Court of Appeals gives due course to a
Petition for Review, the RTC retains jurisdiction for specified instances enumerated therein. The
residual jurisdiction of the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is normally
deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This
stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the
records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal.
Considering that no appeal was perfected in this case and the records of the case have not yet
been transmitted to the Court of Appeals, the case has not as yet attained the residual
jurisdiction stage so as to say that the trial court already lost the jurisdiction it first acquired
and that it is left with only its residual powers.