7/26/2019 rule 26

1/19

Today is Monday, January 20, 2014

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST I!ISI"#

G.R. No. 117574 January 2, 1997

CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION, petitioner,$s%THE HONORABE COURT O! APPEAS, HON. PRISCIA S. AGANA, R"#$ona% Tr$a% Cour& o' C"(u C$&y,Bran)* 24, an+ IIEN S. SORIGUE-, respondents%

BEOSIO, J.:

oes Rule 2& of the Re$ised Rules of 'ourt re(uire a party to respond to a Re(uest for )d*ission of *atters raisedin his pleadin+s -ill his failure to place under oath his denials in his response to the re(uest be dee*ed anad*ission of the *atters sou+ht to be ad*itted

Petitioner is a do*estic corporation en+a+ed in the business of *anufacturin+ and sellin+ .itu*inous 'oncrete Mi/,Ready Mi/ 'oncrete and other construction *aterials% It has se$eral plant sites in the country one of hich is the'ebu plant site situated in Tuyan, #a+a, 'ebu% Pri$ate respondent on the other hand is en+a+ed in the business ofpro$idin+ security ser$ices to $arious establish*ents under the na*e and style 101 Security and etecti$e Ser$ices%

So*eti*e in "ctober 10 petitioner retained the ser$ices of pri$ate respondent for its 'ebu plant site% "n #o$e*ber 11 it ter*inated the ser$ices of pri$ate respondent alle+in+ that it as dissatisfied ith the latter3sser$ices because she failed to pre$ent and pro*ptly in$esti+ate a theft case hich occurred in its 'ebu plant site%

"n & "ctober 12 pri$ate respondent !i$ien S% Sori+ue instituted an action ith the Re+ional Trial 'ourt of'ebu1for collection of unpaid fees for her security ser$ices rendered to petitioner% She also clai*ed that the ter*inationof her ser$ices as unlaful so that she should be aarded *oral da*a+es%

Petitioner contended that its refusal to pay as 5ustified because pri$ate respondent as anserable for the losses itincurred arisin+ fro* the theft attributable to her fault% Petitioner thus clai*ed that there as le+al set6off orco*pensation re+ardin+ the unpaid fees due pri$ate respondent and the a*ount of the stolen articles oned bypetitioner%

"n 70 )u+ust 17 petitioner sent pri$ate respondent a Re(uest for )d*ission by the latter of her responsibility ofthe theft that occurred on 8 June 11 at the 'ebu plant site% 2Thereafter pri$ate respondent throu+h counsel filed a

Manifestation and Reply to the Re(uest for )d*ission%It as not under oath%

"n "ctober 17 petitioner filed a Motion for Su**ary Jud+*ent positin+ that pri$ate respondent i*pliedlyad*itted the *atters set forth in the Re(uest for )d*ission by failin+ to respond under oath as re(uired under Sec%

7/26/2019 rule 26

2/19

2, Rule 2&, of the Rules of 'ourt%4Petitioner contended that the *anifestation and reply not bein+ $erified asineffectual and thus should be stric9en off the records% Pri$ate respondent countered that her reply althou+h not under oatheffecti$ely denied the *atters set forth in the re(uest%

Public respondents ruled in fa$or of pri$ate respondent holdin+ that the circu*stances arranted a rela/ation of therules in the interest of 5ustice%5The trial court rationalied that :

-hile it is desirable that the Rules of 'ourt be faithfully and e$en *eticulously obser$ed, courts should notbe so strict about procedural lapses as in this case hich do not really i*pair the proper ad*inistration of5ustice% 'onsiderin+ that the protection of the substanti$e ri+hts of the parties is para*ount o$er *eretechnicalities, the court elects to deny defendant3s *otion for su**ary 5ud+*ent%/

Respondent courts further ruled that a su**ary 5ud+*ent as i*proper because the dispute in$ol$ed factual issueshich could only be resol$ed in a full6blon hearin+%7

)fter the trial court denied its *otion for reconsideration petitioner ele$ated the *atter to the 'ourt of )ppeals in aspecial ci$il action for certioraribut the latter li9eise denied the petition for lac9 of *erit; hence, the instant petition%

The pi$otal issue in this case is the effect of the Re(uest for )d*ission filed by petitioner and, conse(uently, hetherpri$ate respondent *ay be considered to ha$e i*pliedly ad*itted the *atters referred to in the re(uest hen shefiled a *anifestation and reply that as not under oath%0

-e deny the petition%

The Re(uest for )d*ission of petitioner does not fall under Rule 2& of the Rules of 'ourt% )s e held in Po v%Courtof Appeals9and Briboneria v% Court of Appeals, 1Rule 2& as a *ode of disco$ery conte*plates of interro+atories thatould clarify and tend to shed li+ht on the truth or falsity of the alle+ations in a pleadin+% That is its pri*ary function% It doesnot refer to a *ere reiteration of hat has already been alle+ed in the pleadin+s%

) cursory readin+ of petitioner3s Re(uest for )d*ission clearly shos that it contains the sa*e *aterial a$er*ents in

his )nser to respondent3s 'o*plaint in the trial court% Petitioner *erely recopied or reproduced in its Re(uest for)d*ission its affir*ati$e defenses and counterclai*s alle+ed in its )nser% )s e held in Bo v% CA,11petitioner3sre(uest constitutes an utter redundancy and a useless, pointless process hich the respondent should not be sub5ected to%In the first place, hat the petitioner see9s to be ad*itted by pri$ate respondent is the $ery sub5ect *atter of the co*plaint%In effect, petitioner ould ant pri$ate respondent to deny her alle+ations in her $erified 'o*plaint and ad*it thealle+ations in the )nser of petitioner

7/26/2019 rule 26

3/19

anser to the co*plaint% 14

To this e add that a party should not be *ade to deny *atters already a$erred in his co*plaint% )t this point, it isnecessary to e*phasie hat this 'ourt laid don in the sa*e Po and .riboneria cases :

) re(uest for ad*ission is not intended to *erely reproduce or reiterate the alle+ations of the re(uestin+party3s pleadin+ but should set forth rele$ant e$identiary *atters of fact, or docu*ents described in and

e/hibited ith the re(uest, hose purpose is to establish said party3s cause of action or defense% 15

Since the anser of pri$ate respondent to the re(uest is no lon+er re(uired in the instant case, it therefore beco*esunnecessary to dell on the issue of the propriety of an anser that is not under oath% @$en assu*in+ that aresponse to the re(uest is needed, pri$ate respondent had already substantially co*plied ith the re(uire*ent of thela hen she specifically denied the *aterial alle+ations of the petitioner in her Manifestation and Reply to theRe(uest for )d*ission% )lthou+h not under oath the reply to the re(uest readily shoed that the intent of pri$aterespondent as to deny the *atters set forth in the Re(uest for )d*ission% That the reply is not under oath is *erelya for*al and not a substanti$e defect% This procedural lapse *ay be dispensed ith if the circu*stances call for thedispensin+ of the rule in the interest of 5ustice% -hile e co**end petitioner3s eal in pro*otin+ faithful adherence tothe rules of procedure e cannot i+nore the ell6entrenched doctrine that all pleadin+s should be liberally construedas to do substantial 5ustice%1/

There bein+ +enuine issues of fact beteen the pri$ate parties, public respondents correctly denied the *otion ofpetitioner for su**ary 5ud+*ent% -here facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested proceedin+s forsu**ary 5ud+*ent cannot ta9e the place of trial% 17Trial courts ha$e li*ited authority to render su**ary 5ud+*entsand *ay do so only hen there is clearly no +enuine issue as to any *aterial fact% 10!erily, there is a need to deter*ineby presentation of e$idence if respondent is really liable for the stolen articles and for $iolatin+ its contract for securityser$ices ith petitioner% Antil these issues are deter*ined no le+al co*pensation can ta9e place beteen the parties% Thisfactual dispute can only be resol$ed by tryin+ the case on the *erits, a process hich need not ta9e lon+ to conclude% 19

-B@R@F"R@, findin+ no re$ersible error co**itted by the respondent 'ourt of )ppeals, as ell as by the Re+ionalTrial 'ourt of 'ebu, the instant petition is @#I@ and the records of this case are re*anded to the court of ori+infor further proceedin+s%

'osts a+ainst petitioner%

S" "R@R@%

Padilla, Vitug, apunan and !ermosisima, "r#, ""#, concur#

!oo&no&"

1 Presided o$er by Jud+e Priscila S% )+ana, RT'6.r% 24, 'ebu 'ity%

2 $d%, p% &C%

7 $d%, p% C0%

4 $d%, p% C7%

8 ') ecision penned by Justice @u+enio S% ?abitoria ith Justices @*eterio '% 'ui and Fer*in )%Martin Jr% concurrin+%

& $d%, p% 47%

C $d%, pp% , 47%

Manifestation and Reply to Re(uest for )d*ission, Rollo, p% C0%

7/26/2019 rule 26

4/19

#o% ?674741, )u+ust 22, 1%

10 D%R% #o% 101&2, ece*ber 14, 12%

11 See#ote %

12 Rollo, p% 4C%

17 #o% ?61448, 2 Septe*ber 1&2%

14 See#otes and 10%

18 $bid%

1& Sec% &, Rule C, Rules of 'ourt%

1C )rchipela+o .uilders $% Inter*ediate )ppellate 'ourt, D%R% #o% C822, February 1, 11, 14S'R) 20C, 212, citingthe cases of )u*an $% @steno%, #o% ?640800, 2C February 1C&, & S'R)

824; ?oreno $% @steno, #o% ?6770&, 2 "ctober 1C&, C7 S'R) &70; !ia5ar $% @steno, #o% ?648721, 70 )pril 1C, S'R) &4%

1 $bid%

1 $bid%

The ?aphil Pro5ect 6 )rellano ?a Foundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/jan1997/gr_117574_1997.html#tophttp://history.back%281%29/

7/26/2019 rule 26

5/19

Today is Monday, January 20, 2014

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST I!ISI"#

G.R. No. 3441 Au#u& 22, 1900

PRISCIA SUSAN PO, petitioner,$s%HON. COURT O! APPEAS, HON. JUGE JUIAN USTRE, AN JOSE P. MANAN-AN, respondents%

Panganiban, %insangan & Associates for petitioner#

Antonio '# Chave( and Ben)amin C# Santos & *ortunato +upit, "r# for respondents#

GRIO3A6UINO, J.:

This case de*onstrates the ada+e that so*eti*es Ehaste *a9es aste%E Se$enteen

7/26/2019 rule 26

6/19

as9ed in the for* of interro+atories%E

%%% -ith the absolute denial of pri$ate respondent in his anser to the co*plaint, petitioner3ssubse(uent re(uest for ad*ission of the sa*e facts already denied does not ser$e the purpose ofRule 2& as a *ode of disco$ery% )s aptly stated by respondent Jud+e, Rule 2& conte*platesinterro+atories that ould clarify and tend to sho li+ht on the truth or falsity of the alle+ations of theco*plaint, and does not refer to a *ere reiteration of hat has been alle+ed in the co*plaint andunconditionally denied in the anser% Petitioner3s re(uest constitutes an utter redundancy and auseless, pointless process hich pri$ate respondent should not be sub5ected to and hich the loercourt should not countenance as the respondent Jud+e ri+htfully did% Respondent Jud+e did notco**it any +ra$e abuse of discretion a*ountin+ to lac9 of 5urisdiction nor has he unlafully depri$edpetitioner of any ri+ht in concludin+ that petitioner3s re(uest for ad*ission does not fall under Rule 2&and that therefore the sa*e need not be ansered by pri$ate respondent% The alle+ations of facts inthe co*plaint re*ain to ha$e been contro$erted by the anser of pri$ate respondent to the co*plaint%

There bein+ +enuine issues beteen the parties, respondent Jud+e correctly denied petitioner3sMotion for Su**ary Jud+*ent% Anless it is shon that respondent Jud+e has co**itted a palpable+ra$e abuse of discretion, a*ountin+ to lac9 of 5urisdiction, this 'ourt ill not issue the rits prayedfor%

7/26/2019 rule 26

7/19

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

SOCORRO LIMOS, ROSA DELOS

REYES and SPOUSES ROLANDO DELOS

REYES and EUGENE DELOS REYES

Petitioners,

- versus -

SPOUSES FRANCISCO P. ODONES and

ARWENIA R. ODONES,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 186979

Present:

CARPIO,J.,

Chairperson,AC!"RA,

P#RA$%A,

A&A', and

M#'O(A,JJ.

Promul)ated:

Au)ust **, +*x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J.

%his is a Petition for Revie on Certiorari under Rule / of the Rules of Court

assailin) the Au)ust *, +0 'ecision1*2of the Court of Appeals 3CA4 in C.A. 5R.SP o. 67880 and its Resolution1+2dated March 6, +6 den9in) petitioners motion

for reconsideration.

%he impu)ned 'ecision affirmed the resolution dated ovember *8,

+81;2and Order dated

7/26/2019 rule 26

8/19

On

7/26/2019 rule 26

9/19

In response, petitioners filed a Motion for &ill of Particulars102claimin)

ambi)uit9 in respondents claim that their vendors are the onl9 heirs of 'onata

$ardiBabal. =indin) no merit in the motion, the trial court denied the same and

ordered petitioners to file their anser to the complaint.162

In their anser,1*2petitioners pleaded affirmative defenses, hich also

constitute )rounds for dismissal of the complaint. %hese )rounds ere: 3*4 failure to

state a cause of action inasmuch as the basis of respondents alle)ed title is void,

since the #@traudicial Succession of #state and Sale as not published and it

contained formal defects, the vendors are not the le)al heirs of 'onata $ardiBabal,

and respondents are not the real parties-in-interest to ?uestion the title of petitioners,

because no transaction ever occurred beteen them 3+4 non-oinder of the other heirs

of 'onata $ardiBabal as indispensable parties and 3;4 respondents claim is barred b9

laches.

In their Repl9, respondents denied the fore)oin) affirmative defenses, and

insisted that the #@traudicial Succession of #state and Sale as valid. %he9

maintained their standin) as oners of the subect parcel of land and the nullit9 of the

*67+ Absolute 'eed of Sale, upon hich respondents anchor their purported title.

1**2%he9 appended the sorn statement of Amadeo RaBalan declarin), amon) other

thin)s that:

3+4Na hindi ko minana at ibinenta ang nasabing lupa kay Socorro Limos at

Rosa delos Reyes at hindi totoo na ako lang ang tagapagmana ni Donata

Lardizabal;

@ @ @ @

34ng aming lola na si Donata Lardizabal ay may tatlong !"# anak na

patay na sina $omas Razalan, Clemente Razalan at $omasa Razalan;

3/4ng mga buhay na anak ni $omas Razalan ay sina; %. Soledad Razalan;

&. Ce'erina Razalan; ". Dominador Razalan; at (. madeo Razalan. ng mga buhay

na anak ni Clemente Razalan ay sina %. Rogelio Lagasca !isang abnormal#. ng

mga buhay na anak ni $omasa Razalan ay sina %. Sotera Razalan at & pang kapatid;

@ @ @ @1*+2

%hereafter, petitioners served upon respondents a Re?uest for Admission of the

folloin) matters:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn12

7/26/2019 rule 26

10/19

*. %hat the husband of the deceased 'onata $ardiBabal is =rancisco RaBalan

+. %hat the children of the deceased Sps. 'onata $ardiBabal and =rancisco RaBalan

are Mercedes RaBalan, %omasa RaBalan and %omas RaBalan

;. %hat this %omasa RaBalan died on April +7, *667, if not henD 1A2nd her heirs are3a4 Melecio Partido survivin) husband, and her survivin) children are 3b4 #duardo

Partido married to #lisa =iliana, 3c4 #nri?ue RaBalan Partido married to $orlita

$oriana, 3d4 #duardo RaBalan Partido, 3e4 Sotera RaBalan Partido married to

7/26/2019 rule 26

11/19

In its Resolution dated ovember *8, +8, the R%C denied the Motion and

held that item nos. * to in the Re?uest for Admission ere earlier pleaded as

affirmative defenses in petitioners Anser, to hich respondents alread9 replied on

e another denial.

%he trial court further observed that item nos. /, 8, and 7 in the Re?uest for

Admission ere alread9 effectivel9 denied b9 the #@traudicial Succession of #state

and Sale appended to the complaint and b9 the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Amadeo

RaBalan attached to respondents Repl9.1*82 Petitioners moved for

reconsideration1*72but the same as denied in an Order dated in) a revie of the CAs pronouncements.

In essence, petitioners contend that the affirmative defenses raised in their

Motion are indubitable, as the9 ere impliedl9 admitted b9 respondents hen the9

failed to respond to the Re?uest for Admission. As such, a preliminar9 hearin) on the

said affirmative defenses must be conducted pursuant to our rulin) in )ochan *.

)ochan.1++2

Ge den9 the petition.

Pertinent to the present controvers9 are the rules on modes of discover9 set forth

in Sections * and + of Rule +8 of the Rules of Court, *iz:

Section *. Re+uest 'or admission.H At an9 time after issues have been

oined, a part9 ma9 file and serve upon an9 other part9 a ritten re?uest for theadmission b9 the latter of the )enuineness of an9 material and relevant document

described in and e@hibited ith the re?uest or of the truth of an9 material and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn22

7/26/2019 rule 26

12/19

relevant matter of fact set forth in the re?uest. Copies of the documents shall be

delivered ith the re?uest unless copies have alread9 been furnished.

S#C. +mplied admission.H #ach of the matters of hich an admission is

re?uested shall be deemed admitted unless, ithin a period desi)nated in the re?uest,

hich shall be not less than fifteen 3*/4 da9s after service thereof, or ithin such

further time as the court ma9 allo on motion, the part9 to hom the re?uest isdirected files and serves upon the part9 re?uestin) the admission a sorn statement

either den9in) specificall9 the matters for hich an admission is re?uested or settin)

forth in detail the reasons h9 he cannot truthfull9 either admit or den9 those

matters.

@ @ @ @

"nder these rules, a part9 ho fails to respond to a Re?uest for Admission

shall be deemed to have impliedl9 admitted all the matters contained therein. It must

be emphasiBed, hoever, thatthe application of the rules on modes of discover9 rests

upon the sound discretion of the court.

As such, it is the dut9 of the courts to e@amine thorou)hl9 the circumstances of each

case and to determine the applicabilit9 of the modes of discover9, bearin) ala9s in

mind the aim to attain an e@peditious administration of ustice.1+;2

%he determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a part9 ho fails to

compl9 ith the modes of discover9 also rests on sound udicial discretion.

1+2 Corollaril9, this discretion carries ith it the determination of hether or not to

impose the sanctions attributable to such fault.

As correctl9 observed b9 the trial court, the matters set forth in petitioners

Re?uest for Admission ere the same affirmative defenses pleaded in their Anser

hich respondents alread9 traversed in their Repl9. %he said defenses ere li>eise

sufficientl9 controverted in the complaint and its anne@es. In effect, petitioners

sou)ht to compel respondents to den9 once a)ain the ver9 matters the9 had alread9

denied, a redundanc9, hich if abetted, ill serve no purpose but to dela9 the

proceedin)s and thus defeat the purpose of the rule on admission as a mode of

discover9 hich is to e@pedite trial and relieve parties of the costs of provin) facts

hich ill not be disputed on trial and the truth of hich can be ascertained b9

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn24

7/26/2019 rule 26

13/19

reasonable in?uir9.J1+/2

A re?uest for admission is not intended to merel9 reproduce or reiterate the

alle)ations of the re?uestin) part9s pleadin) but should set

forth relevant evidentiar9 matters of fact described in the re?uest, hose

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn25

7/26/2019 rule 26

14/19

purpose is to establish said part9s cause of action or defense. "nless it serves that

purpose, it is pointless, useless, and a mere redundanc9.1+82

Eeril9 then, if the trial court finds that the matters in a Re?uest for Admission

ere alread9 admitted or denied in previous pleadin)s b9 the re?uested part9, the

latter cannot be compelled to admit or den9 them ane. In turn, the re?uestin) part9

cannot reasonabl9 e@pect a response to the re?uest and thereafter, assume or even

demand the application of the implied admission rule in Section +, Rule +8.

In this case, the redundant and unnecessaril9 ve@atious nature of petitioners

Re?uest for Admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and irrelevant so as to proscribe

the operation of the implied admission rule in Section +, Rule +8 of the Rules of

Court. %here bein) no implied admission attributable to respondents failure to

respond, the ar)ument that a preliminar9 hearin) is imperative loses its point.

Moreover, urisprudence1+72has ala9s been firm and constant in declarin)

that hen the affirmative defense raised is failure to state a cause of action, a

preliminar9 hearin) thereon is unnecessar9, erroneous, and improvident.

In an9 event, a perusal of respondents complaint shos that it as sufficientl9

clothed ith a cause of action and the9 ere suited to file the same.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn27

7/26/2019 rule 26

15/19

In an action for annulment of title, the complaint must contain the folloin)

alle)ations: 3*4 that the contested land as privatel9 oned b9 the plaintiff prior to

the issuance of the assailed certificate of title to the defendant and 3+4 that the

defendantperpetuated a 'raudor committed a mista>e in obtainin) a document of

title over the parcel of land claimed b9 the plaintiff.1+02

Such action )oes into the issue of onership of the land covered b9 a %orrens

title, hence, the relief )enerall9 pra9ed for b9 the plaintiff is to be declared as the

lands true oner.1+62%hus, the real part9-in-interest is the person claimin) title or

onership adverse to that of the re)istered oner.1;2

%he herein complaint alle)ed: 3*4 that respondents are the oners and occupants

of a parcel of land located at Pao *stCamilin), %arlac, covered b9 OC% o. **/8 in

the name of 'onata $ardiBabal b9 virtue of an #@traudicial Succession of #state and

Sale and 3+4 that petitioners fraudulentl9 caused the cancellation of OC% o. **/8

and the issuance of ne %C%s in their names b9 presentin) a 'eed of Absolute Sale

ith the for)ed si)natures of 'onata $ardiBabal and her husband, =rancisco RaBalan.

%he absence of an9 transaction beteen petitioners and respondents over the

land is of no moment, as the thrust of the controvers9 is the respondents adverse

claims of ri)htful title and onership over the same propert9, hich arose precisel9

because of the conflictin) sources of their respective claims.

As to the validit9 of the #@traudicial Succession of #state and Sale and the

status of petitioners predecessors-in-interest as the onl9 heirs of 'onata $ardiBabal,

these issues )o into the merits of the parties respective claims and defenses that can

be best determined on the basis of preponderance of the evidence the9 ill adduce in

a full-blon trial. A preliminar9 hearin), the obective of hich is for the court to

determine hether or not the case should proceed to trial, ill not sufficientl9 address

such issues.

Anent the alle)ed non-oinder of indispensable parties, it is settled that the non-

oinder of indispensable parties is not a )round for the dismissal of an action. %heremed9 is to implead the non-part9 claimed to be indispensable. Parties ma9 be added

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftn30

7/26/2019 rule 26

16/19

b9 order of the court on motion of the part9 or on its on initiative at an9 sta)e of the

action andFor such times as are ust. It is onl9 hen the plaintiff refuses to implead an

indispensable part9 despite the order of the court, that the latter ma9 dismiss the

complaint.1;*2 In this case, no such order as issued b9 the trial court.

#?uall9 settled is the fact that laches is evidentiar9 in nature and it ma9 not be

established b9 mere alle)ations in the pleadin)s and can not be resolved in a motion

to dismiss.1;+2

=inall9, e cannot subscribe to petitioners contention that the status of the heirs

of 'onata $ardiBabal ho sold the propert9 to the respondents must first be

established in a special proceedin). %he pronouncements in-eirs o' aptinchay *.

-on. Del Rosario1;;2 and inReyes *. /nri+uez1;2that the petitioners invo>e do not

find application in the present controvers9.

In both cases, this Court held that the declaration of heirship can be made onl9

in a special proceedin) and not in a civil action. It must be noted that

in aptinchay and/nri+uez, plaintiffs action for annulment of title as anchored on

their alle)ed status as heirs of the ori)inal oner hereas in this case, the

respondents claim is rooted on a sale transaction. Respondents herein are enforcin)

their ri)hts as bu9ers in )ood faith and for value of the subect land and not as heirs

of the ori)inal oner. "nli>e in aptinchay and/nri+uez, the filiation of

herein respondents to the ori)inal oner is not determinative of their ri)ht to claim

title to and onership of the propert9.

WHEREFORE, fore)oin) considered, the instant Petition

is DENIED. %heDecisionof the Court of Appeals dated Au)ust *, +0 and

itsResolutiondated March 6, +6 are hereb9 AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

AN!ONIO EDUARDO ". NACHURA Associate

7/26/2019 rule 26

17/19

WE CONCUR

AN!ONIO !. CARPIOAssociate

7/26/2019 rule 26

18/19

1*2 Rollo, pp. -0 penned b9 Associate

7/26/2019 rule 26

19/19

*, +7, /; SCRA /0, 87.

1;+2 )ochan 5 Sons Realty Corp. *. -eirs o' Raymundo 6aba , /8 Phil. /86,

/7* 3+;4, citin) Santos *. Santos, *0 Phil. 80*, 86+ 3+*4.

1;;2 ;8; Phil. ;6;, ;6-;6/ 3*6664.

1;2 5.R. o. *8+6/8, April *, +0, //* SCRA 08.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/186979.htm#_ftnref34