Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 644 views

    Adolfo v. Adolfo

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Tan
    The Supreme Court ruled that summary judgment was not proper in this case. While the respondent failed to answer the request for admission, her answer to the petition disputed that the subject property was conjugal property. A judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate when no issue is tendered in the answer, but in this case the answer did dispute a material issue. The status of the property - whether conjugal or paraphernal - was still being litigated in another case and was not yet resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adolfo v. Adolfo

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Tan
    644 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that summary judgment was not proper in this case. While the respondent failed to answer the request for admission, her answer to the petition disputed that the subject property was conjugal property. A judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate when no issue is tendered in the answer, but in this case the answer did dispute a material issue. The status of the property - whether conjugal or paraphernal - was still being litigated in another case and was not yet resolved.

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that summary judgment was not proper in this case. While the respondent failed to answer the request for admission, her answer to the petition disputed that the subject property was conjugal property. A judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate when no issue is tendered in the answer, but in this case the answer did dispute a material issue. The status of the property - whether conjugal or paraphernal - was still being litigated in another case and was not yet resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    644 views3 pages

    Adolfo v. Adolfo

    Uploaded by

    Clyde Tan
    The Supreme Court ruled that summary judgment was not proper in this case. While the respondent failed to answer the request for admission, her answer to the petition disputed that the subject property was conjugal property. A judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate when no issue is tendered in the answer, but in this case the answer did dispute a material issue. The status of the property - whether conjugal or paraphernal - was still being litigated in another case and was not yet resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    ADOLFOv.

    ADOLFO
    March18,2015|DelCastillo,J.|MotionforJudgmentonthePleadings|ClydeTan

    PETITIONERS:TEOFILOB.ADOLFO
    RESPONDENTS:FE.T.ADOLFO

    SUMMARY:

    DOCTRINE:
    FACTS:

    CIVILCASEMAN8241
    TeofiloAdolfofiledapetitionforjudicialseparationofpropertyagainsthiswife,Fe,allegingthattheyboughtwithconjugalfunds
    becausetheyhavebeenseparatedinfactandreunionisnowanimpossibilityduetoirreconcilabledifferences.

    Inheranswer,Feallegedthatthepropertyisnotconjugal,butparaphernalpropertybelongingtoher.

    CIVILCASEMAN2683
    FessisterFlorenciaandherhusbandJuanito(Gingoyons)filedacivilcaseforpartitionwithdamages,allegingthatin1988,Fesolda
    300squaremeterlotportionofthelottothespousesGingoyon,butthattheformerrefusedtosubdivideit.Thistime,Feallegedthat
    thepropertywasconjugal,andthesalewasmadewithoutthesignatureofTeofilo,henceitwasnullandvoid.TheRTCruledin
    favourofFeanddeclareditconjugalproperty,hence,theGingoyonsappealedtotheCA.

    GoingbacktoCivilCaseNo.MAN4821
    TeofilofiledaRequestforAdmissionof(amongothers)

    respondentsdeclarationinsaidAnswerthatthesubjectpropertyconstitutedconjugalpropertyofthemarriage;and

    thetrialcourtspronouncementinsaidcasethatthesubjectpropertyformspartoftheconjugalestate.

    FefailedtoanswertheRequestforAdmission,hence,Teofliofiledamotiontorenderjudgmentonthepleadings,allegingthatsince
    Fefailedtoanswertherequestforadmission,themattersincludedintherequestaredeemedadmittedpursuanttoRule26,Section2
    oftheRulesofCourt,heisnowentitledtojudgmentonthepleadingbasedonRule34.

    Feopposedthemotion,arguingthatthedecision,wasthesubjectofanappeal,hadnotyetbecomefinal.

    TheRTCgrantedthemotionbyTeofilo,treatingitasamotionforsummaryjudgment.Itruledthatjudicialseparationwasproper,
    takingjudicialnoticeofitsdecisioninCivilCaseNo.MAN2683thatthepropertyisconjugalproperty.WithFesfailuretoprovidea
    verifiedanswerordenialunderoathtotherequestforadmissionofthedocuments,sheisdeemedtohaveadmittedthegenuinenessof
    thesame.

    GoingbacktoCivilCaseNo.MAN2683

    TheGingoyonsappealtotheCA,wasresolvedintheirfavour,theCArulingthatthepropertyisparaphernalpropertyasestablished
    bytherecordsandtheevidence.

    Itbecamefinalandexecutory.

    GoingbacktoCivilCaseMAN4821

    FeappealedtotheCAsayingthattheTCwaswrongintreatinghismotionforjudgmentonthepleadingsasoneforsummary
    judgment.ShealsoasksthecourttosubmittothefindingsoftheCAinCivilCase2683findingthepropertytobeparaphernal.

    HerappealwasfavourablyacteduponbytheCA.TheCAheldthatthetrialcourtcannottreatAdolfosmotionforjudgmentonthe
    pleadingsasoneforsummaryjudgment.Itstatedthatinapropercaseforjudgmentonthepleadings,therearenoostensibleissuesat
    allonaccountofthedefendingpartysfailuretoraiseanissueinhisanswer,whileinapropercaseforsummaryjudgment,such
    issuesexist,althoughtheyaresham,fictitious,ornotgenuineasshownbyaffidavits,depositionsoradmissions.Inotherwords,a
    judgmentonthepleadingsisajudgmentonthefactsaspleaded,whileasummaryjudgmentisajudgmentonthefactsassummarily
    provedbyaffidavits,depositions,oradmissions.ItaddedthatFesAnswerappearedonitsfacetotenderanissue;itdisputed
    petitionersclaimthatthesubjectpropertyistheirconjugalproperty.Thenextthingtobedeterminediswhetherthisissueisfictitious
    orshamastojustifyasummaryjudgment.TheCAaddedthatalthoughrespondentwasboundbytheresultingadmissionprompted
    byherfailuretoreplytopetitionersrequestforadmission,herclaimsanddocumentaryexhibitsclearlycontradictwhatpetitioner
    soughttobeadmittedinhisrequest;thatthetrialcourtdisregardedthefactthattheissueofwhetherthesubjectpropertyisconjugal
    wasstillunresolvedasCAG.R.CVNo.78971wasstillpending;andthatfinally,thetrialcourtshouldhavebeenguidedbythe
    principlesthattrialcourtshavebutlimitedauthoritytorendersummaryjudgmentsandthatsummaryjudgmentsshouldnotbe
    renderedhastily.
    TeofiloassailedtheCAdecisiontotheSupremeCourtviapetition

    ISSUES/HELD: W/Nsummaryjudgmentisproperinthecase,consideringthefailureofFetoanswerordenyunderoaththe
    RequestforAdmissioninCivilCaseNo.MAN4821.

    RATIO:
    Judgmentonthepleadingsisproperwhereananswerfailstotenderanissue,orotherwiseadmitsthematerialallegationsofthe
    adversepartyspleading.
    Summaryjudgment,ontheotherhand,willbegrantedifthepleadings,supportingaffidavits,depositions,andadmissionsonfile,
    showthat,exceptastotheamountofdamages,thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledto
    ajudgmentasamatteroflaw.

    Ananswerwouldfailtotenderanissueifitdoesnotdenythematerialallegationsinthecomplaintoradmitssaidmaterial
    allegationsoftheadversepartyspleadingsbyconfessingthetruthfulnessthereofand/oromittingtodealwiththematall.Now,ifan
    answerdoesinfactspecificallydenythematerialavermentsofthecomplaintand/orassertsaffirmativedefenses(allegationsofnew
    matterwhich,whileadmittingthematerialallegationsofthecomplaintexpresslyorimpliedly,wouldneverthelesspreventorbar
    recoverybytheplaintiff),ajudgmentonthepleadingswouldnaturallybeimproper.

    You might also like