Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-78343. May 21, 1988.]

HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS, represented by POMPEYO F. OLIVAS, Petitioners, v. THE HON. FLORENTINO A. FLOR (Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 79, Morong, Rizal), JOSE A. MATAWARAN, Respondents.

Belo, Abiera & Associates, for Petitioners.

Domingo Z. Legaspi for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE; MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BEFORE AN ANSWER, PROHIBITED PLEADING. — In the guise of a position paper, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. While this is, indeed, a prohibited pleading (Sec. 15[a], Rule on Summary Procedure) it should be noted that the Motion was filed after an Answer had already been submitted within the reglementary period. In essence, therefore, it is not the pleading prohibited by the Rule on Summary Procedure. What the Rule proscribes is a Motion to Dismiss, which would stop the running of the period to file an Answer and cause undue delay.

2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; NOT WARRANTED. — Be that as it may, dismissal of the case by the MTC, as affirmed by Respondent RTC, for failure to state a cause of action, is not in order. The description of the land in the Complaint, quoted hereunder, may, indeed, have been wanting. Nonetheless, private respondent’s Answer (paragraph 3, supra) left no room for doubt that the parties were acquainted with the identity of the disputed property. It would be sheer technicality, destructive of the ends of substantial justice, were the case to be dismissed on the ground of lack of particularity of the disputed property. In fact, if the Rule on Summary Procedure had been followed, such additional data as were needed to define the issues of the case could have been threshed out in the preliminary conference.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; WHEN PERMISSIBLE. — It is true that the Rule on Summary Procedure allows the dismissal of a case outright due to failure to state a cause of action. However, such dismissal is a permissible upon the filing of the complaint from a consideration by the Court of the allegations thereof. In this case, the proceedings had gone far afield. The outright dismissal was not ordered upon the filing of the complaint. On the contrary, the MTC made a determination that the case falls under summary procedure, issued summons stating that fact, and subsequently even issued a Temporary Restraining Order.


R E S O L U T I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to set aside the Decision of the respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Morong, Rizal, in the ejectment case entitled "Heirs of Ricardo Olivas v. Jose Matawaran" (Civil Case No. 227-M), which affirmed the Order of the Municipal Trial Court of Morong, Rizal ordering the dismissal of said case.

The background facts disclose that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On 16 May 1986, petitioners filed a complaint for Forcible Entry before the Municipal Trial Court of Morong, Rizal (MTC, for short), alleging that private respondent, through stealth and strategy, unlawfully took possession of the disputed property and ousted petitioners from their possession thereof.

The MTC issued summons stating that the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases shall apply.

On 29 May 1986, private respondent filed an Answer with Counterclaim stating, inter alia:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. Paragraph 4 of the complaint is admitted insofar as the fact that defendant did complain to the Barangay Chairman regarding the repeated attempts of plaintiff to unlawfully grab possession of the property owned by defendant and his other brothers and sisters."cralaw virtua1aw library

On 30 June 1986, the MTC granted the Temporary Restraining Order petitioners prayed for.

On 15 August 1986, the MTC required the parties to submit position papers within ten (10) days.

On 19 September 1986, or approximately four (4) months after the filing of the Answer, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the case should be dismissed outright for failure to state a cause of action. Petitioners submitted an Opposition contending that a Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

On 29 December 1986, the MTC dismissed the case for failure of petitioners’ Complaint to state a cause of action in that it failed to identify sufficiently the land subject matter of this case.

An appeal was seasonably interposed by petitioners to respondent Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 79, Morong, Rizal.

On 28 April 1987, Respondent RTC rendered a Decision affirming in toto the dismissal of the case by the MTC.

Before us now, petitioners maintain that the MTC Decision is violative of the Rule on Summary Procedure, and that Respondent RTC erred in affirming the MTC’s dismissal of the case.cralawnad

We resolved to give due course to the Petition finding, as we do, merit in the foregoing submissions.

Compliance by the MTC with the Rules on Summary Procedure in Special Cases was wanting. For example, "a preliminary conference during which the Court must clarify and define the issues of the case, which must be clearly and distinctly set forth in the Order to be issued immediately after such preliminary conference" (Section 6), was not followed. Neither was Section 7 thereof which further requires that within ten (10) days from receipt of the said order, "the parties shall submit the affidavits of witnesses and other evidences on the factual issues defined therein, together with a brief statement of their positions setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the guise of a position paper, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. While this is, indeed, a prohibited pleading (Sec. 15[a], Rule on Summary Procedure) it should be noted that the Motion was filed after an Answer had already been submitted within the reglementary period. In essence, therefore, it is not the pleading prohibited by the Rule on Summary Procedure. What the Rule proscribes is a Motion to Dismiss, which would stop the running of the period to file an Answer and cause undue delay.

Be that as it may, dismissal of the case by the MTC, as affirmed by Respondent RTC, for failure to state a cause of action, is not in order. The description of the land in the Complaint, quoted hereunder, may, indeed, have been wanting:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Bounded on the North, by Francisco Ramos; on the East by Ramon Aquino & Cipriano Aquino; on the South by Felisa Aquino; on the West by Casimiro, Francisco & Benito Ramos."cralaw virtua1aw library

Nonetheless, private respondent’s Answer (paragraph 3, supra) left no room for doubt that the parties were acquainted with the identity of the disputed property. It would be sheer technicality, destructive of the ends of substantial justice, were the case to be dismissed on the ground of lack of particularity of the disputed property. In fact, if the Rule on Summary Procedure had been followed, such additional data as were needed to define the issues of the case could have been threshed out in the preliminary conference. 1

It is true that the Rule on Summary Procedure allows the dismissal of a case outright due to failure to state a cause of action. 2 However, such dismissal is a permissible upon the filing of the complaint from a consideration by the Court of the allegations thereof. In this case, the proceedings had gone far afield. The outright dismissal was not ordered upon the filing of the complaint. On the contrary, the MTC made a determination that the case falls under summary procedure, issued summons stating that fact, and subsequently even issued a Temporary Restraining Order.

ACCORDINGLY, the Decision under review is hereby SET ASIDE and this case is hereby ordered remanded to the Municipal Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, for further proceedings on the merits. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (C.J.), Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. "Section 6. Preliminary conference. — Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, the case shall be calendared for a preliminary conference. Among other matters, should the parties fail to arrive at an amicable settlement, the court must clarify and define the issues of the case, which must be clearly and distinctly set forth in the order to be issued immediately after such preliminary conference, together with the other matters taken up during the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. "Section 3. Duty of court upon filing of complaint. — Upon the filing of the complaint, the court, from a consideration of the allegations thereof

A. may dismiss the case outright due to lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a cause of action, or for any other valid ground for the dismissal of a civil action; or

B. if a dismissal is not ordered, shall make a determination whether the case falls under summary procedure. In the affirmative case, the summons must state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall apply."




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.