G.R.No.201427.March18,2015.

TEOFILOB.ADOLFO,petitioner,vs.FET.ADOLFO,respondent.

RemedialLawCivilProcedureJudgmentonthePleadingsSummary
JudgmentsJudgmentonthepleadingsisproperwhereananswerfailsto
tenderanissue,orotherwiseadmitsthematerialallegationsoftheadverse
partyspleading.Summaryjudgment,ontheotherhand,willbegrantedif
the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file,
showthat,exceptastotheamountofdamages,thereisnogenuineissueas
toanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasa
matter of law.Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an answer
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse partys pleading. Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be
grantedifthepleadings,supportingaffidavits,deposi

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

581

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 581
Adolfovs.Adolfo

tions, 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
movingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.
Same Same Same An answer would fail to tender an issue if it
does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said
material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by confessing the
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.An answer
wouldfailtotenderanissueifitdoesnotdenythematerialallegationsin
the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse partys
pleadingsbyconfessingthetruthfulnessthereofand/oromittingtodealwith
them at all. Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material
averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations
of new matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the
complaintexpresslyorimpliedly,wouldneverthelesspreventorbarrecovery
bytheplaintiff),ajudgmentonthepleadingswouldnaturallybeimproper.
Same Same Summary Judgments Genuine Issues Words and
Phrases A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived
orfalseclaim.Whenthefactsaspleadedappearuncontestedorundisputed,
then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and
summaryjudgmentiscalledfor.Whetherxxxtheissuesraisedbythe
Answer are genuine is not the crux of inquiry in a motion for judgment on
thepleadings.Itissoonlyinamotionforsummaryjudgment.Inacasefor
judgmentonthepleadings,theAnswerissuchthatnoissueisraisedatall.
Theessentialquestioninsuchacaseiswhetherthereareissuesgeneratedby
the pleadings. A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived
orfalseclaim.Whenthefactsaspleadedappearuncontestedorundisputed,
then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and
summaryjudgmentiscalledfor.
Estoppel In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has
induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an
inconsistentposition,attitudeorcourseofconductthattherebycausesloss
orinjurytoanother.While it is true that a judgment cannot bind persons
whoarenotpartiestotheaction,petitioner

582

582 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

cannot,afterinvokingtheproceedingsinCivilCaseNo.MAN2683to
secure affirmative relief against respondent and thereafter failing to obtain
suchrelief,beallowedtorepudiateorquestiontheCAsrulinginC.A.G.R.
CV No. 78971. The principle of estoppel bars him from denying the
resultant pronouncement by the appellate court, which became final and
executory,thatthesubjectpropertyisrespondentsparaphernalproperty.In
estoppel,aperson,whobyhisdeedorconducthasinducedanothertoactin
aparticularmanner,isbarredfromadoptinganinconsistentposition,attitude
orcourseofconductthattherebycauseslossorinjurytoanother.Itfurther
barshimfromdenyingthetruthofafactwhichhas,inthecontemplationof
law, become settled by the acts and proceeding of judicial or legislative
officersorbytheactofthepartyhimself,eitherbyconventionalwritingor
byrepresentations,expressorimpliedorinpais.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Redula, Sanchez, Boholst, Borbajo, Ceniza, Montealegre and
BauzonLawOfficesforpetitioner.
 PatduAguilarLawFirmforrespondent.

DELCASTILLO,J.:

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1seekstosetaside:1)the
October 6, 2009 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.
G.R. CV No. 01783 reversing the October 2, 2006 Order3 of the
Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Mandaue City (RTC
Mandaue),Branch55inCivilCaseNo.MAN4821as

_______________

1Rollo,pp.326.
2 Id., at pp. 182192 penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesManuelM.BarriosandSamuelH.Gaerlan.
3Id.,atpp.151159pennedbyJudgeUlricR.Caete.

583

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 583
Adolfovs.Adolfo

well as 2) the CAs March 2, 2012 Resolution4 denying

petitionersMotionforReconsideration5andSupplement6thereto.

CivilCaseNo.MAN4821

On April 14, 2004, petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed with the
RTCMandaueaPetition7forjudicialseparationofpropertyagainst
hisestrangedwife,respondentFeAdolfo,neeTudtud.Docketedas
CivilCaseNo.MAN4821andassignedtoBranch55,thepetition
allegedthatthepartiesweremarriedonNovember26,1966thatthe
union bore one child that during the marriage, they acquired
through conjugal funds Lot 1087A2E, a 3,652squaremeter
property in Brgy. Cabancalan, Mandaue City, Cebu (the subject
property)coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(TCT)18368
thatlateron,thepartiesseparatedduetoirreconcilabledifferences
that since reunion was no longer feasible, petitioner suggested a
separation of the conjugal property, but respondent adamantly
refused that respondent denied petitioners coownership of the
subjectproperty,claimingthesameasherparaphernalpropertythat
several earnest efforts to amicably settle the matter between them
proved unavailing and that a judicial separation of property is
properunderthecircumstancesandpursuanttoArticle135(6)ofthe
FamilyCode.8Petitionerthusprayedthatjudgmentberendered
_______________

4Id.,atpp.239241pennedbyAssociateJusticeMyraV.GarciaFernandezand
concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. AntonioValenzuela and Abraham B.
Borreta.
5Id.,atpp.193202.
6Id.,atpp.229238.
7Id.,atpp.2731.
8Art.135.Anyofthefollowingshallbeconsideredsufficientcauseforjudicial
separationofproperty:
(1)That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty which
carrieswithitcivilinterdiction
(2)Thatthespouseofthepetitionerhasbeenjudiciallydeclaredanabsentee

584

584 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

decreeing a separation of the conjugal property and the

subdivision or sale thereof, to the end of dividing the same or the
proceeds thereof and ordering respondent to pay petitioner
P50,000.00 as attorneys fees, appearance fees (P2,000.00 per
hearing),andP20,000.00litigationcosts.
In her Answer9 with counterclaim, respondent contended that
whilesheremainedmarriedtopetitioner,sheisthesoleownerofthe
subjectproperty,thesamebeingherparaphernalpropertywhichshe
inherited from her mother that petitioner is a lazy bum, gambler,
drunkard, wife abuser, and neglectful father that respondent found
allmeanstosupportthefamilyevenaspetitionerneglecteditthat
respondentboughtoninstallmentatricycleforthepetitionersusein
business, but he kept the proceeds thereof to himself and used the
same in his gambling and drinking sprees that respondent alone
tooktheinitiativetosupportthefamilyandfoundwaystotakecare
of the daily needs of her child that she caused to be built on a
portion of her mothers land a house even while petitioner was
bummingaroundthat one day, petitioner destroyed the roof of the
house that was then being built that petitioner subsequently
abandonedherandtheirchildin1968,andtransferredtoDavaoCity
wherehetooka

_______________

(3)Thatlossofparentalauthorityofthespouseofpetitionerhasbeendecreedby
thecourt
(4)Thatthespouseofthepetitionerhasabandonedthelatterorfailedtocomply
withhisorherobligationstothefamilyasprovidedforinArticle101
 (5)That the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage
settlementshasabusedthatpowerand
(6)Thatatthetimeofthepetition,thespouseshavebeenseparatedinfactforat
leastoneyearandreconciliationishighlyimprobable.
Inthecasesprovidedforinnumbers(1),(2)and(3),thepresentationofthefinal
judgmentagainsttheguiltyorabsentspouseshallbeenoughbasisforthegrantofthe
decreeofjudicialseparationofproperty.
9Rollo,pp.3844.

585

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 585
Adolfovs.Adolfo

mistressandbegotfour children by her that in 1986, petitioner

returned to Cebu City seeking reconciliation with respondent that
respondent took petitioner back, but in 1987 they once more
separatedthatthereafter,respondentneveragainsaworheardfrom
petitioner.
RespondentclaimedinherAnswerthatthesubjectpropertywas
aportionofabiggerlot(motherlot)ownedbyhermotherPetronila
TudtudwhichwascoveredbyTCTT15941.OnOctober11,1967,
her mother executed a quitclaim deed transferring a portion of the
motherlotthesubjectpropertytorespondent.Themothertitle
TCT T15941 was then cancelled and a new one, TCT
(17216)5415, was issued in respondents name. Respondent then
soldthesubjectpropertytoherbrotheronJanuary19,1968,anda
new TCT (17833)5515 was issued in her brothers name. Her
brother then mortgaged the property to Development Bank of the
Philippines(DBP),whichforeclosedonthesame.TCT18231was
issued in DBPs name. DBP then sold the property to the spouses
AntonioandLucyGarcia(theGarcias),andTCT18266wasinturn
issued in their name. Finally, on May 25, 1983, the Garcias sold
back the subject property to respondent, and a new title TCT
1836810 was then issued in the name of respondent FE M.
TUDTUD,xxxmarriedtoTeofiloAdolfo.
Respondent argued that she is the sole owner of the subject
property, the same being her paraphernal property which she alone
redeemedfromtheGarciasthattheinclusionofpetitionersnamein
TCT18368doesnotmakehimacoowneroftheproperty,butwas
merely necessary to describe respondents civil status and that
under Article 13511 of the Civil Code, all property brought by the
wifetothemarriageaswell

_______________

10Id.,atpp.3334.
 11 Art.135.All property brought by the wife to the marriage, as well as all
property she acquires during the marriage, in accordance with Article 148, is
paraphernal.

586

586 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

as all property she acquires during the marriage in accordance

with Article 14812 of the same Code constitutes paraphernal
property.
Respondentthusprayedthatthepetitionbedismissed.Bywayof
counterclaim, she sought the payment of moral, exemplary, and
nominaldamages,attorneysfees,andlitigationexpenses.

CivilCaseNo.MAN2683

In 1996, respondents sister Florencia Tudtud and her husband
Juanito Gingoyon (the Gingoyons) filed a case for partition with
damages against respondent. The case was docketed as Civil Case
No.MAN2683andraffledtoBranch55oftheRTCMandaue.The
Complaint13 therein alleged that in 1988, respondent executed a
deed of sale in favor of the Gingoyons over a 300squaremeter
portion of the subject property, but that respondent refused to
partition/subdivide the same even after the Gingoyons paid the
taxes, fees and expenses of the sale. For her defense, respondent
claimed in her Answer14 that when the sale to the Gingoyons was
made, the subject property constituted conjugal property of her
marriagewithpetitionerthatasearlyas1983,orwhentheGarcias
executedthedeedofsaleinherfavor,thesubjectpropertybecamea
conjugalassetsincepetitionerdidnotsignthedeedofsalein

_______________

12Art.148.Thefollowingshallbetheexclusivepropertyofeachspouse:
(1)Thatwhichisbroughttothemarriageashisorherown
(2)Thatwhicheachacquires,duringthemarriage,bylucrativetitle
(3)That which is acquired by right of redemption or by exchange with other
propertybelongingtoonlyoneofthespouses
(4)Thatwhichispurchasedwithexclusivemoneyofthewifeorofthehusband.
13Rollo,pp.5760.
14Id.,atpp.6165.

587

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 587
 Adolfovs.Adolfo

favoroftheGingoyonsashewasinDavaoatthetimeandknew
nothingaboutthesale,thesalewasnullandvoid.
OnMay15,2002,thetrialcourtrendereditsDecision15inCivil
CaseNo.MAN2683,declaringthatthesubjectpropertyconstituted
conjugalpropertyofthemarriage.Itthusnullifiedthe1988deedof
sale executed by respondent in favor of the Gingoyons for lack of
consent on the part of petitioner, citing Article 124 of the Family
Code.16 The trial court likewise awarded moral and exemplary
damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses in favor of the
respondentinthetotalamountofP107,000.00.
TheGingoyonsfiledanappealwiththeCA,whichwasdocketed
asC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971.

Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings in Civil Case No.
MAN4821

Meanwhile, during the pretrial conference in Civil Case No.
MAN4821,petitionersubmittedaspartofhisevidence

_______________

15Id.,atpp.6679pennedbyJudgeUlricR.Caete.
16 Art.124.The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership
propertyshallbelongtobothspousesjointly.Incaseofdisagreement,thehusbands
decisionshallprevail,subjecttorecoursetothecourtbythewifeforproperremedy,
whichmustbeavailedofwithinfiveyearsfromthedateofthecontractimplementing
suchdecision.
Intheeventthatonespouseisincapacitatedorotherwiseunabletoparticipatein
the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole
powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance
withoutauthorityofthecourtorthewrittenconsentoftheotherspouse.Intheabsence
ofsuchauthorityorconsent,thedispositionorencumbranceshallbevoid.However,
thetransactionshallbeconstruedasacontinuingofferonthepartoftheconsenting
spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the
acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is
withdrawnbyeitherorbothofferors.

588

588 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

and for marking certified true copies of the Gingoyons

Complaint in Civil Case No. MAN2683, respondents Answer
thereto,andthetrialcourtsMay15,2002Decisioninsaidcase.

OnAugust1,2005,petitionerfiledaRequestforAdmission17of
 OnAugust1,2005,petitionerfiledaRequestforAdmission17of
1) the genuineness of the duly marked certified true copies of the
Complaint, Answer, and Decision in Civil Case No. MAN2683
(Exhibits F, G and H, respectively) 2) respondents
declaration in said Answer that the subject property constituted
conjugal property of the marriage and 3) the trial courts
pronouncement in said case that the subject property forms part of
theconjugalestate.
Respondent failed to file her answer or response to the request
foradmission.
On September 5, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment
Based on the Pleadings,18 stating that since respondent failed to
answer his request for admission, the matters contained in the
request are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 of the
1997RulesofCivilProcedure19(1997

_______________

17Rollo,pp.5556.
18Id.,atpp.8082.
19RULE26.ADMISSIONBYADVERSEPARTY
xxxx
Sec.2.Implied admission.Each of the matters of which an admission is
requestedshallbedeemedadmittedunless,withinaperioddesignatedintherequest,
which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such
further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is
directedfilesandservesuponthepartyrequestingtheadmissionaswornstatement
eitherdenyingspecificallythemattersofwhichanadmissionisrequestedorsetting
forthindetailthereasonswhyhecannottruthfullyeitheradmitordenythosematters.
Objectionstoanyrequestforadmissionshallbesubmittedtothecourtbytheparty
requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as
contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be
deferreduntilsuch

589

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 589
Adolfovs.Adolfo

Rules) that as a consequence of the application of the rule,

respondentisineffectconsideredtohaveadmittedthatthesubject
propertyisaconjugalassetoftheirsubsistingmarriagewhichmay
thusbethesubjectofhispetitionforjudicialseparationofproperty
and that on account of said admission, a hearing on the merits
becomesunnecessaryand,instead,Rule3420of the1997Ruleson
judgmentsonthepleadingsshouldapply.Petitionerthusprayedthat
thetrialcourtrenderjudgmentinhisfavorbasedonthepleadings.

RespondentfiledanOpposition.21InherOppositiontoPlaintiffs
 RespondentfiledanOpposition.21InherOppositiontoPlaintiffs
Memorandum,22 respondent argued among others that the request
for admission was premature considering that the decision in Civil
CaseNo.MAN2683wasthesubjectofanappeal,andthusnotyet
final.
In an October 11, 2005 Order,23 the trial court directed the
transfer of Civil Case No. MAN4821 to Branch 55 of the RTC
Mandaue, since it is said court which decided the closely related
CivilCaseNo.MAN2683.
On October 2, 2006, Branch 55 issued an Order24 granting
petitionersmotionforjudgmentonthepleadings.Itheldasfollows:

_______________

objectionsareresolved,whichresolutionshallbemadeasearlyaspracticable.
20RULE34.JUDGMENTONTHEPLEADINGS
Section1.Judgment on the pleadings.Where an answer fails to tender an
issue,orotherwiseadmitsthematerialallegationsoftheadversepartyspleading,the
court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in
actionsfordeclarationofnullityorannulmentofmarriageorforlegalseparation,the
materialfactsallegedinthecomplaintshallalwaysbeproved.
21Rollo,pp.8486.
22Id.,atpp.97105.
23Id.,atp.87.
24Id.,atpp.151159pennedbyJudgeUlricR.Caete.

590

590 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

This court has painstakingly exerted effort in going over the record and
took serious note of all the pleadings, documents and others on file. After
serious consideration, the court believes and so holds that there is basis in
rendering judgment. The Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings
though denominated as such but [sic] shall be treated as a move to seek
summaryjudgment.xxx
xxxx
The court in arriving at this resolution was guided by the following
pronouncements by the Supreme Court in the case of Diman v. Alumbres,
G.R.No.131466,November27,1998,299SCRA459xxx:
xxxx
Inthesamecase,itwasheld
Itisalsothelawwhichdetermineswhenasummaryjudgmentisproper.
Itdeclaresthatalthoughthepleadingsontheirfaceappeartoraiseissuesof
facte.g.,therearedenialsof,oraconflictin,factualallegationsifitis
shownbyadmissions, depositions or affidavits, that those issues are sham,
fictitious,ornotgenuine,or,inthelanguageoftheRules,thatexceptasto
theamountofdamages,thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactand
thatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,theCourt
shall render a summary judgment for the plaintiff or the defendant, as the
casemaybe.(Italicsandunderscoringsupplied)
On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment[,] issues
apparentlyexisti.e., facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which
there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification or specific denials
or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer but the issues
thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown
by[affidavits],depositions

591

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 591
Adolfovs.Adolfo

oradmissions.Inotherwords,asanotedauthorityremarks,ajudgment
on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summary
judgment is a judgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits,
depositionsoradmissions.(Italicsandunderscoringsupplied)
xxxx
Defendant25didnotfileanyverifiedanswerorapleadingdenyingunder
oath the genuineness and authenticity of the documents attached to the
Request for Admission and of the other matters therein set forth. This
failure has far reaching implications in that the following are deemed
admitted: a) the genuineness of Exhibits F, G and H, all attached to the
RequestforAdmissionb)thatsheadmittedinparagraph10inherAnswer
to Civil Case No. MAN2683 that Lot 1087A2E was no longer
paraphernal property but rather a conjugal property of Spouses Teofilo and
Fe Adolfo and c) that RTC, Branch 55, Mandaue City, sustained and/or
held the view of defendant (Fe Tudtud) that Lot 1087A2E is a conjugal
propertyofSpousesTeofiloandFeAdolfo,thus,dismissedCivilCaseNo.
MAN2683andawardeddamagestothedefendant.
Judicialadmissionsmaybemadein(a)thepleadingsfiledbytheparties,
(b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding, as in the
pretrial of the case. Admissions obtained through depositions, written
interrogatories or requests for admission are also considered judicial
admissions. Page 686, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 9th Rev. Ed.,
Regalado.
With the admission that Lot 1087A2E is a conjugal property, it
followsasitsnecessaryandlogicalconsequence,thatplaintiff26isentitledto
thereliefdemanded.
xxxx

_______________
 25Hereinrespondent.
26Hereinpetitioner.

592

592 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

A DECISION in Civil Case No. MAN2683 had already been rendered

byRTC,Branch55,onthe15th dayofMay2002withthecourtfindingthat
Lot1087A2Eisaconjugalpropertyxxx
xxxx
For reason[s] of expediency and convenience, the court may even take
judicial notice of its earlier decision finding Lot 1087A2E as a conjugal
property.27
xxxx
Underthecircumstances,judicialseparationofpropertyisproper.Aware
thattheseparationhastheeffectofadissolutionoftheconjugalpartnership
propertyregime,thepresumptivelegitimeofNiloAdolfo(theonlycommon
child of the spouses) has to be delivered in accordance with Article 51 in
relationtoparagraph(8)Article127andArticle137oftheFamilyCodeof
thePhilippines.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
directing the partition of Lot 1087A2E between the plaintiff and the
defendant in equal share of what remains after allocating to Nilo Adolfo a
portion of Nine hundred thirteen (913) square meters representing his
presumptivelegitime.
Theplaintiffisdirectedtosubmittothiscourttheproposedsubdivision
plan for its consideration before submitting the same for approval to the
BureauofLands.
Incaseofdisagreementastotheirrespectivelocation,thesameshallbe
done through raffle to be conducted by the sheriff who shall see to it that
judgmentinthiscaseshallbefullyimplemented.
SOORDERED.28

Respondent instituted an appeal with the CA, which was

docketedasC.A.G.R.CVNo.01783.

_______________

27InCivilCaseNo.MAN2683.
28Rollo,pp.153159.

593

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 593
 Adolfovs.Adolfo

CourtofAppealsDecision
inC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971

Meanwhile,onMay30,2007,theCArendereditsDecision29in
C.A.G.R.CVNo.78971.ItreversedtheMay15,2002Decisionof
the trial court in Civil Case No. MAN2683. It declared, among
others, that the subject property was respondents paraphernal
property.Thus,itheld:

Proceeding from the foregoing consideration, the finding that Lot No.
1087A2Eisaconjugalpropertydoesnothaveanybasis,hence,doesnot
have any merit at all. On the contrary, plaintiffsappellants30 sufficiently
provedthattheaforesaidlotwasdefendantappellees31paraphernalproperty
as the latter even admitted that she inherited the same from her mother
althoughsheclaimeditasaconjugalpropertybasedontheTCTsattached
to her answer. Another strong indication that Lot No. 1087A2E is solely
ownedbydefendantappelleeisthefactthatinanothercase(CivilCaseNo.
MAN2008) involving the same property and the same parties but for a
different issue (road right of way), defendantappellee alone signed the
compromise agreement ceding a portion of the subject lot as a right of way
perpetually open and unobstructed for the benefit of plaintiffsappellants,
defendantappellee,theirrespectiveheirs,assignsandtransfereesandguests.
The same compromise agreement which became the decision of the case
attained finality without defendantappellee questioning the absence of her
husbandssignature.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing premises, the appeal is
herebyGRANTEDandtheDeci

_______________

29 Id., at pp. 135150 penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. BaltazarPadilla

andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesPampioA.AbarintosandStephenC.Cruz.
30TheGingoyons.
31Hereinrespondent.

594

594 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

sion of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 55, dated 15
May2002,inCivilCaseNo.MAN2683isREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
LetthepartitionofLotNo.1087A2Econsistingof300squaremeters
bought by plaintiffsappellants from defendantappellee be done in
accordanceto[sic]thesketchplanexecutedforthatpurpose.
 SOORDERED.32

On June 23, 2007, the above CA decision became final and
executory.33

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
inC.A.G.R.CVNo.01783

In C.A.G.R. CV No. 01783, respondent filed her Appellants
Brief,34 where she argued that the trial court erred in issuing its
October 2, 2006 Order directing the partition or sale of the subject
propertythatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttotakejudicialnoticeof
itsownjudgmentinCivilCaseNo.MAN2683andthusdeclarethat
the subject property is conjugal, since the issue of whether it
constitutesconjugalorparaphernalpropertywasstillpendinginthe
appeal in C.A.G.R. CV No. 78971 that since the proceedings in
CivilCaseNo.MAN2683 have not been terminated and the issue
regardingthecharacterofthesubjectpropertyhasnotbeenresolved
withfinality,thenpetitionersresorttoarequestforadmissionand
motionforjudgmentonthepleadingswasprematureandthatwith
theMay30,2007DecisioninC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971,petitioner
and the trial court should submit to the finding therein that the
subjectpropertyisherparaphernalproperty.

_______________

32Rollo,pp.144149.
33Id.,atp.270EntryofJudgmentinC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971.
34Id.,atpp.116133.

595

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 595
Adolfovs.Adolfo

In his Appellees Brief,35 petitioner insisted that the trial court

did not err in treating his motion for judgment on the pleadings as
oneforsummaryjudgmentthatrespondentsAnswerinCivilCase
No. MAN2683 constituted a judicial admission that the subject
propertywasaconjugalasset,whichrequirednofurtherproofthat
respondentsfailuretoreplytohiswrittenrequestforadmissionalso
resulted in the acknowledgment that the subject property is a
conjugal asset that the trial court correctly took judicial notice of
theproceedingsinCivilCaseNo.MAN2683,astheywererelevant
and material to the resolution of Civil Case No. MAN4821 that
sinceitwasnotrespondentwhoappealedtheMay15,2002decision
in Civil Case No. MAN2683, then the finding therein that the
subject property is conjugal should bind her and that the CAs
eventualfindinginC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971thatthesubjectlotwas
respondentsparaphernalpropertycannotbindhimbecausehewas
notapartytoCivilCaseNo.MAN2683.
On October 6, 2009, the CA issued the assailed Decision
containingthefollowingdecretalportion:

WHEREFORE, based from the foregoing premises, the Order of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City, in Civil Case No. MAN
4821, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the records of this case
areremandedtoRTC(Branch55),MandaueCity,forfurtherproceedings.
SOORDERED.36

In arriving at the above conclusion, the CA held that the trial
courtcannottreatpetitionersmotionforjudgmentonthepleadings
as one for summary judgment. It stated that in a proper case for
judgment on the pleadings, there are no ostensible issues at all on
accountofthedefendingpartys

_______________

35Id.,atpp.160181.
36Id.,atp.192.

596

596 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

failuretoraiseanissueinhisanswer,whileinapropercasefor
summary judgment, such issues exist, although they are sham,
fictitious, or not genuine as shown by affidavits, depositions or
admissions. In other words, a judgment on the pleadings is a
judgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summary judgment is a
judgment on the facts as summarily proved by affidavits,
depositions, or admissions.37 It added that respondents Answer
appearedonitsfacetotenderanissueitdisputedpetitionersclaim
thatthesubjectpropertyistheirconjugalproperty.Thenextthingto
bedeterminediswhetherthisissueisfictitiousorshamastojustify
asummaryjudgment.
The CA added that although respondent was bound by the
resulting admission prompted by her failure to reply to petitioners
request for admission, her claims and documentary exhibits clearly
contradictwhatpetitionersoughttobeadmittedinhisrequestthat
the trial court disregarded the fact that the issue of whether the
subject property is conjugal was still unresolved as C.A.G.R. CV
No.78971wasstillpendingandthatfinally,thetrialcourtshould
havebeenguidedbytheprinciplesthattrialcourtshavebutlimited
authority to render summary judgments and that summary
judgmentsshouldnotberenderedhastily.38
Petitioner moved to reconsider, but in a March 2, 2012
Resolution,hewasrebuffed.Hence,thepresentPetitionwasfiledon
April30,2012.
InaMarch20,2013Resolution,39theCourtresolvedtogivedue
coursetotheinstantPetition.

_______________

37 Citing Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 492

Phil.106451SCRA724(2005).
38CitingExcelsaIndustries,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,317Phil.664247SCRA
560(1995).
39Rollo,pp.287288.

597

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 597
Adolfovs.Adolfo

Issue

PetitionernowclaimsthattheCourtofAppealserredindeciding
thecaseonaquestionofsubstancenotinaccordwithlaw,Rule26
ofthe1997Rules,andapplicablejurisprudence.40

PetitionersArguments

In his Petition seeking to reverse and set aside the assailed CA
dispositionsandthusreinstatetheOctober2,2006Orderofthetrial
court, petitioner insists that respondents failure to reply to his
written request for admission resulted in her admitting that the
subjectpropertyisaconjugalasset,applyingRule26,Section2of
the 1997 Rules that the CA grossly erred in disregarding the rule
thatwiththeresultingadmission,thereremainsnogenuineissueto
beresolvedinCivilCaseNo.MAN4821,suchthatjudgmentbased
onthepleadingsisproper.Finally,petitioneraddsthatrespondents
trifling with the law and rules of procedure by conveniently
claiminginonecasethatthesubjectpropertyisconjugal,andthen
inanotherthatitisparaphernalshouldnotbecountenancedshe
shouldbeheldtoheroriginaldeclarationthatthesubjectpropertyis
conjugal.

RespondentsArguments

InherComment,41respondentcountersthat,ascorrectlyruledby
 InherComment,41respondentcountersthat,ascorrectlyruledby
the CA, petitioner elected the wrong remedy in filing a motion for
judgmentonthepleadingswhenheshouldhavemovedforsummary
judgment that in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the
movant is deemed to admit the truth of all of the opposing partys
material and relevant allegations, and rest his motion on those
allegationstakentogetherwith

_______________

40Id.,atp.12.
41Id.,atpp.245253.

598

598 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

thatofhisownasareadmittedinthepleadings42thattheeffect
ofthisisthatpetitionerisdeemedtohaveadmittedthatthesubject
propertyisparaphernal,asclaimedinherAnswerthatwiththefinal
and executory May 30, 2007 Decision of the CA in C.A.G.R. CV
No. 78971, the subject property should now be considered as her
paraphernalproperty,andpetitionerscaseforpartitionontheclaim
that the subject property is conjugal should be dismissed for being
mootandacademic.

OurRuling

TheCourtdeniesthePetition.
Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an answer fails to
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adversepartyspleading.43Summaryjudgment,ontheotherhand,
willbegrantedifthepleadings,supportingaffidavits,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
themovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.44
We have elaborated on the basic distinction between summary
judgmentandjudgmentonthepleadings,thus:

Theexistenceorappearanceofostensibleissuesinthepleadings,onthe
one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what
distinguishapropercaseforsummaryjudgmentfromoneforajudgmenton
the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no
ostensibleissueatallbecauseofthefailureofthedefendingpartysanswer
toraisean

_______________
 42CitingBauermannv.Casas,10Phil.386(1908)Evangelistav.DelaRosa,76
Phil.115(1946)andAquinov.Blanco,79Phil.647(1947).
43RulesofCourt,Rule34,Section1.
44Id.,Rule35,Section3.

599

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 599
Adolfovs.Adolfo

issue. On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues

apparentlyexisti.e., facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which
there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification or specific denials
or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer but the issues
thusarisingfromthepleadingsaresham,fictitiousornotgenuine,asshown
byaffidavits,depositions,oradmissions.45

Ananswerwouldfailtotenderanissueifitdoesnotdenythe
material allegations in the complaint or admits said material
allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by confessing the
truthfulnessthereofand/oromittingtodealwiththematall.Now,if
an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of
thecomplaintand/orassertsaffirmativedefenses(allegationsofnew
matter which, while admitting the material allegations of the
complaintexpresslyorimpliedly,wouldneverthelesspreventorbar
recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would
naturallybeimproper.46
On the other hand, whether x x x the issues raised by the
Answer are genuine is not the crux of inquiry in a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a motion for summary
judgment. In a case for judgment on the pleadings, the Answer is
such that no issue is raised at all. The essential question in such a
case is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.47 A
genuineissueisanissueoffactwhichrequiresthepresentationof
evidenceasdistinguishedfromasham,fictitious,contrivedorfalse
claim.Whenthefactsaspleadedappearuncontestedorundisputed,
thenthereisnorealorgenuineissueorquestionastothefacts,and
summaryjudgmentiscalledfor.48

_______________

45 Tan v. De la Vega, 519 Phil. 515, 527 484 SCRA 538, 551 (2006). Citation
omitted.
46Id.,atp.522p.545.
47Supranote37atp.114p.731.
 48Tanv.DelaVega,supraatp.528p.551.

600

600 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

In rendering summary judgment, the trial court relied on

respondents failure to reply to petitioners request for admission,
heradmissioninCivilCaseNo.MAN2683,aswellasitsMay15,
2002Decisiondeclaringthatthesubjectpropertyisaconjugalasset.
Ittookjudicialnoticeoftheproceedingsinsaidcase.Whilethereis
nothingirregularwiththisascourtsmaytakejudicialnoticeofa
decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same
court if (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any
opposition from the other party or (2) the court, in its discretion,
resolvestodoso49thetrialcourthoweverdisregardedthefact
that its decision was then the subject of a pending appeal in C.A.
G.R. CV No. 78971. It should have known that until the appeal is
resolved by the appellate court, it would be premature to render
judgmentonpetitionersmotionforjudgmentonthepleadingsthat
itwouldbepresumptuoustoassumethatitsowndecisionwouldbe
affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the appeal is
preciselywhetherthesubjectpropertyisconjugal,oraparaphernal
asset of the respondent. Thus, instead of resolving petitioners
motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court should have
denieditorhelditinabeyance.Itshouldhaveguidedpetitionerto
thisend,insteadofaidinginthehastyresolutionofhiscase.Inthe
first place, Civil Case No. MAN4821 was transferred to it from
Branch56preciselyforthereasonthatitwasthecourtwhichtried
thecloselyrelatedCivilCaseNo.MAN2683.
Even if respondent is deemed to have admitted the matters
containedinpetitionersrequestforadmissionbyherfailuretoreply
thereto,thetrialcourtshouldhaveconsideredthependingappealin
C.A.G.R.CVNo.78971.Itcannottakejudicialnoticesolelyofthe
proceedingsinCivilCaseNo.MAN2683,andignoretheappealin
C.A.G.R. CV No. 78971. After all, C.A.G.R. CV No. 78971 is
merelyacontinuationof

_______________

49 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No.

172551,January15,2014,713SCRA370,384.

601

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 601
 Adolfovs.Adolfo

Civil Case No. MAN2683 an appeal is deemed a continuation

ofthesamecasecommencedinthelowercourt.50
On the part of petitioner, it must be said that he could not have
validly resorted to a motion for judgment on the pleadings or
summaryjudgment.WhileitmayappearthatunderRules34and35
of the 1997 Rules, he may file a motion for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment as a result of the consequent
admissionbyrespondentthatthesubjectpropertyisconjugal,thisis
not actually the case. Quite the contrary, by invoking the
proceedingsanddecisioninCivilCaseNo.MAN2683,petitioneris
precludedfromobtainingjudgmentwhiletheappealinsaidcaseis
pending, because the result thereof determines whether the subject
propertyisindeedconjugalorparaphernal.Hemaynotpreemptthe
appealinC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971.
Whileitistruethatajudgmentcannotbindpersonswhoarenot
parties to the action,51 petitioner cannot, after invoking the
proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN2683 to secure affirmative
reliefagainstrespondentandthereafterfailingtoobtainsuchrelief,
beallowedtorepudiateorquestiontheCAsrulinginC.A.G.R.CV
No. 78971. The principle of estoppel bars him from denying the
resultantpronouncementbytheappellatecourt,whichbecamefinal
andexecutory,thatthesubjectpropertyisrespondentsparaphernal
property. In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has
induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from
adoptinganinconsistentposition,attitudeorcourseofconductthat
thereby causes loss or injury to another. It further bars him from
denyingthetruthofafactwhichhas,inthecontempla

_______________

50 Guanzon v. Montesclaros, 208 Phil. 171, 177 123 SCRA 185, 190 (1983)
Strachan&Macmurray,Ltd.v.CourtofAppeals,159Phil.126,13162SCRA109,
113 (1975) Luzon Rubber & Manufacturing Co. v. Estaris, 152 Phil. 341, 349 52
SCRA391,398(1973).

602

602 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Adolfovs.Adolfo

tionoflaw,becomesettledbytheactsandproceedingofjudicial
or legislative officers or by the act of the party himself, either by
conventionalwritingorbyrepresentations,expressorimpliedorin
pais.52
Finally, the Court notes that the appellate court overlooked the
May30,2007DecisioninC.A.G.R.CVNo.78971,whichbecame
finalandexecutoryonJune23,2007.Therespondentincludedthis
developmentinherappelleesbrief,buttheCAdidnottakeitinto
account. As an unfortunate consequence, the case was not
appreciatedandresolvedcompletely.
Thus, with the development in Civil Case No. MAN2683
broughtuponbythefinalandexecutorydecisioninC.A.G.R.CV
No. 78971, petitioners case is left with no leg to stand on. There
beingnoconjugalpropertytobedividedbetweentheparties,Civil
CaseNo.MAN4821mustbedismissed.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheOctober6,2009
DecisionandMarch2,2012ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsin
C.A.G.R. CV No. 01783 are AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION in that Civil Case No. MAN4821 is ordered
DISMISSED.
SOORDERED.

Carpio**(ActingCJ.,Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,*** Mendoza

andLeonen,JJ.,concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.

_______________

51BankofCommercev.RadioPhilippinesNetwork,Inc.,G.R.No.195615,April
21,2014,722SCRA520.
52Cruzv.CourtofAppeals,354Phil.1036,1054293SCRA239,256(1998)
**PerSpecialOrderNo.1945datedMarch12,2015.
***DesignatedactingmemberperSpecialOrderNo.1951datedMarch18,2015.

603

VOL.753,MARCH18,2015 603
Adolfovs.Adolfo

Notes.A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no

genuineissueastoanymaterialfactandmovingpartyisentitledto
a judgment as a matter of law A genuine issue, as opposed to a
fictitious or contrived one, is an issue of fact that requires the
presentationofevidence.(Ongvs.RobanLendingCorporation,557
SCRA516[2008])
In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no
ostensibleissueatallbecauseofthefailureofthedefendingpartys
answer to raise an issue. (First Leverage and Services Group, Inc.
vs.SolidBuilders,Inc.,675SCRA407[2012])
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.