Demurrer to Evidence

Rule 33
Demurrer to Evidence

After the plaintiff has completed

the presentation of his evidence,
the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon
the facts and the law the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief.
Demurrer to Evidence

If his motion is denied he shall

have the right to present evidence.
Demurrer to Evidence

If the motion is granted but on

appeal the order of dismissal is
reversed he shall be deemed to
have waived the right to present
evidence.
Motion to Dismiss in Rule 16 distinguished from Demurrer
to Evidence in Rule 33

Rule 16 Rule 33
Made before the Made after the
filing of the answer plaintiff rests its
case
There are several
grounds for a There is only one
motion to dismiss ground under Rule
under Rule 16 33
Motion to Dismiss in Rule 16 distinguished from Demurrer
to Evidence in Rule 33

Rule 16 Rule 33
 When Denied: The  When Denied: The
defendant may file his defendant may
responsive pleading present his evidence

 When Granted: The  When Granted: The

complaint may be
refilled, depending on
the ground for
dismissal
complaint may not be
refilled and the
remedy of the plaintiff
is to appeal from the
order of dismissal
Question:

When is the stage of the

proceedings when demurrer to
evidence is availed of?

After the plaintiff has completed the

presentation of his evidence.
Effects of DENIAL
of the Demurrer to Evidence

 It does not deprive the defendant to

present his evidence.
 An order denying a Demurrer to
Evidence is interlocutory and is,
therefore, not appealable. It can,
however, be the subject of a petition for
certiorari in case of grave abuse of
discretion.
Effects of GRANTING
of the Demurrer to Evidence

 The case shall be dismissed.

 However, if, on appeal, the order of
dismissal is reversed, the defendant
loses his right to present evidence. The
appellate court should render judgment
on the basis of the evidence submitted
by the plaintiff.
Demurrer in a Civil Case as distinguished from a
Demurrer in a Criminal Case

Civil Case Criminal Case

 Leave of court is not  A demurrer is filed
required in filing a with or without leave
demurrer of court

 The court cannot, on  The court may do so

its own, a make a
demurrer
Demurrer in a Civil Case as distinguished from a
Demurrer in a Criminal Case

Civil Case Criminal Case

 When Granted: The  When Granted: The
order of dismissal is order of dismissal is
appealable not appealable

 When Denied: The  When Denied: The

defendant may accused may adduce
proceed to present his his evidence only if
evidence demurrer is filed with
leave of court
Radiowealth Finance Company
vs. Del Rosario GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000
Plaintiff finance company filed case
against defendant. The defendant file a
demurrer to evidence. The trial court
granted the demurer and dismissed the
complaint. On appeal, The Court of
Appeals reversed the court’s order
granting the demurrer. The Court of
Appeals ordered the remand of the case
to the trial court for further proceedings
Radiowealth Finance Company
vs. Del Rosario GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000

Issue: Whether or not the Court of

Appeal’s remand was proper.
Radiowealth Finance Company
vs. Del Rosario GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000
Held: No.
The Supreme Court held that the remand
was improper since the Court of Appeals had
enough evidence on record to decide the case.
To remand the case for the defendant to
present evidence before the court a quo would
be to circumvent the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule
33 which provides that the defendant is
deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence.
Question:

May the movant present evidence

in support of his motion?

No. What should be resolved in a

motion to dismiss based on a demurer
to evidence is whether the plaintiff is
entitled to the relief based on the facts
and the law.
Judgment on the Pleadings
Rule 34
Judgment on the Pleadings

It is a judgment based solely on

the relief prayed for in the
complaint or submitted pleadings
without plaintiff adducing any
evidence.
Judgment on the Pleadings

It is appropriate when an answer to

claim fails to tender an issue, or
otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading. Hence, if the defendant fails
to specifically deny the material
allegations of the complaint, the
plaintiff may move for a judgment on
the pleadings.
When does an answer fail to tender an issue?

An answer fails to tender an issue

when it does not comply with the
requirements of a specific denial as set
out in Secs. 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the
Rules of Court, resulting in the
admission of the material allegations of
the adverse party’s pleadings.
When can a court render Judgment to the
Pleadings?

1. When an answer fails to tender an

issue (Sec. 1, Rule 34)
2. Under the Rule on Summary
Procedure, when the defendant fails
to answer the complaint within 10
days from service of summons (Sec.
6, Rule on Summary Procedure)
When can a court render Judgment to the
Pleadings?

3. When the defendant is declared in

default (Sec. 3, Rule 9)
4. During pre-trial if the court finds a
valid ground therefore (Sec. 2 (g),
Rule 18)
5. As a penalty for non-compliance or
refusal to answer in discovery
proceedings (Sec. 3 and 5, Rule 29)
When does Judgment on the Pleadings will
not apply?

 When no answer is filed

 When an answer is served and filed
but it fails to tender and issue
 Admission of the material allegations
of the adverse party’s pleadings
Cases where Judgment on the Pleadings
will not apply

 Actions for declaration of nullity of a

marriage
 Actions for annulment of marriage
 Actions for legal separation
Motion required

Judgment on the pleadings cannot

be rendered by the court motu proprio.

It can be done only where there is a

prior motion to the effect filed by the
claiming party.
Motion required

In resolving the motion, when the

defendant admits all the ultimate facts
in the complaint, such facts will no
longer require evidence.

Hence, upon motion the court may

be asked to render judgment based on
the pleadings.
Capitol Motors vs. Yabut
32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970

Capitol Motors filed a complaint for sum of

money against Yabut. A copy of the promissory
note upon which the action was based was
attached to the complaint. The complaint alleges
that Yabut defaulted in the payment of the note.
Yabut filed an answer in which he admits the
paragraph regarding his personal circumstances
but “specifically denies” the rest of the allegations
for want of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof. Capitol Motors
moved for a judgment on the pleadings in its favor.
Capitol Motors vs. Yabut
32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court should
grant the motion.
Capitol Motors vs. Yabut
32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970
Held: Yes.
The third mode of specific denial may not be
availed of when the fact as to which want of
knowledge or information is claimed is so plainly
and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge
that his averment of ignorance must be palpably
untrue. The defendant must aver positively or
state how it is that he is ignorant of the fact
alleged. Since there is an implied admission of the
material averments of the complaint, a judgment
on the pleadings may be rendered.
Illustration:
A promised to sell a parcel of land to B for P1M and B
accepted A’s promise. Later on A advised B that he was no
longer interested in selling the land to B. B filed a complaint
for specific performance against A to compel him to sell the
land. A filed an answer in which he admits that he promised
to sell the land to B and that B had accepted his promise
but alleges that the promise was not supported by any
consideration. B and A jointly moved for the judgment on
the pleadings. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing
the complaint stating that the accepted unilateral promise to
sell is not binding upon the promissor since it was not
supported by a distinct consideration. On appeal, may B
contend that the trial court erred in finding that there was no
distinct consideration since cause is presumed in a
Illustration:
Answer:

No.

One who prays for judgment on the pleadings

without offering proof as to the truth of his own
allegations, and without giving the opposing party an
opportunity to produce evidence, impliedly admits the
truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the
opposing party, and to rest his motion for judgment on
those allegations taken together with such of his own
as are admitted in the pleadings. (Sanchez vs Rigos,
45 SCRA 368)
Summary Judgment
Rule 35
Summary Judgment

Also called Accelerated Judgment, is

proper where, upon a motion filed after the
issues had been joined and on the basis of
the pleadings and papers filed, the court
finds that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact except as to the amount
of damages.
Genuine Issue

An issue of fact, which requires the

presentation of evidence as distinguished
from a sham, fictitious contrived or false
claim.

When facts appear uncontested or

undisputed, there is no real or genuine
issue or question as to the facts, and only
after then summary judgment is
appropriate.
Summary Judgment is proper in:

 Actions to recover a debt

 Liquidation of sum of money
 Declaratory relief
 Personal injury cases
Motion required

The trial court cannot motu proprio

decide that a summary judgment on an
action is in order.
The defending party or the claimant
must invoke the rule on summary judgment
by filing a motion.
The adverse party must be notified of
the motion for summary judgment and
furnished with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions before hearing
is conducted.
Partial Summary Judgment

It is a judgment, which results if

in a motion for summary judgment,
judgment is not rendered upon the
whole case or for all reliefs sought
and a trial is necessary.
Partial Summary Judgment
The trial court at the hearing of the
motion, shall ascertain what material facts
exist without substantial controversy and
what are actually and in good faith
controverted.
The court shall thereupon make an
order specifying the facts that appear
without substantial controversy and the
facts specified shall be deemed
established, and the trial shall be
conducted on the controverted facts
Distinctions between a Judgment on the Pleadings
(Rule 34) and a Summary Judgment (Rule 35)

Rule 34 Rule 35
 There is an absence  Involves an issue but
of a factual issue in the issue is not
the case because the genuine at all. The
answer tenders no issue is only as to the
issue at all amount of damages
but not as to any
 Filed by a claiming material fact
party
 Filed by either the
claiming or the
Distinctions between a Judgment on the Pleadings
(Rule 34) and a Summary Judgment (Rule 35)

Rule 34 Rule 35
 Based on the  Based on the
pleadings alone pleadings, affidavits,
depositions and
 Only a 3-day notice to admissions
the adverse party is
required prior to the  A 10-day notice to the
date of hearing adverse party is
required. The adverse
party, in turn, may serve
opposing affidavits,
depositions or
Judgment against an entity without a
juridical personality

When 2 or more persons not

organized as an entity with juridical
personality, they may be sued under the
name, which they are generally or
commonly known.
Entry of Judgment

Refers to the physical act performed

by the clerk of court in entering the
dispositive portion of the judgment in the
book of entries of judgment after the
same has become final and executor,
signed by the clerk of court with a
certificate by said clerk that the judgment
has already become final and executory.
Date of Entry of Judgment

Is the date when the judgment

becomes final and executory regardless
of the date when the physical act of entry
was done.
Date of Entry of Judgment

Illustration:
If the judgment becomes final and
executory on March 15, because no appeal,
motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration has been filed, the judgment
is deemed entered simultaneously on March
15 even if the actual physical act of entry of
judgment was done on another date.
Date of Entry of Judgment

The relevance of knowing the date of

the entry of a judgment is that there are
some proceedings the filing of which is
reckoned from the date of entry of
judgment.
i.e. a. Execution of a judgment by
motion is within 5 years from the entry of
judgment.
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

On August 17, 1936, President Manuel L.

Quezon issued Proclamation No. 80, which
declared a 39.3996-hectare landholding located at
Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, a
military reservation site. The proclamation
expressly stated that it was being issued "subject
to private rights, if any there be." Accordingly, the
respondent obtained an Original Certificate of Title
No. over the property.
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

On January 16, 1995, respondent filed before

the RTC of Tuguegarao, Cagayan a complaint for
recovery of possession against petitioners. Petitioners
allegedly refused to vacate the subject property
despite repeated demands to do so. They maintained
that they and their predecessor-in-interest have been
in open and continuous possession of the subject
property since the early 1900s.
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

On January 16, 1995, respondent filed

before the RTC of Tuguegarao, Cagayan a
complaint for recovery of possession against
petitioners. Petitioners allegedly refused to vacate
the subject property despite repeated demands to
do so. They maintained that they and their
predecessor-in-interest have been in open and
continuous possession of the subject property
since the early 1900s.
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

Petitioners acknowledged the issuance

of Proclamation No. 80 on August 17, 1936,
but maintained that the subject property (the 5-
hectare portion allegedly occupied by them
since1900s) was excluded from its operation,
citing a proviso in the proclamation “private
rights, if any there be.”
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

ISSUE:
Is a motu propio rendition of a summary
judgment violative of due process?
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

RULING:
No.
Summary judgments are proper when, upon
motion of the plaintiff or the defendant, the court
finds that the answer filed by the defendant does
not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact
and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

Relief by summary judgment is intended to

expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the
facts appear undisputed and certain from the
pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits.
But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there
be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties,
neither one of them can pray for a summary
judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties
are disputed or contested, proceedings for a
summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial.
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

"A summary judgment is permitted only if there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the]
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law." The test of the propriety of rendering
summary judgments is the existence of a genuine
issue of fact, "as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim."
Calubaquib vs. Republic
GR. 170658, June 22, 201

"[A] factual issue raised by a party is considered

as sham when by its nature it is evident that it
cannot be proven or it is such that the party
tendering the same has neither any sincere
intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This
usually happens in denials made by defendants
merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby
gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that
their answers are not under oath anyway.