Case/ Facts Complaint/ Ruling/ Doctrine and principles

issue

Aquino vs Aure Complaint for We do not agree. It is true that the precise technical
ejectment effect of failure to comply with the requirement of
Aure and E.S. Aure Lending Section 412 of the Local Government Code on barangay
Investors, Inc. (Aure Lending) filed a conciliation is much the same effect produced by non-
Complaint for ejectment against The only issue to be exhaustion of administrative remedies -- the complaint
Aquino. Aure and Aure Lending resolved is whether becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the
alleged that they acquired the subject non-recourse to the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial
property from spouses Aquino. Aure barangay determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a
claimed that after the spouses Aquino conciliation process motion to dismiss.
received substantial consideration for is a jurisdictional
the sale of the subject property, they flaw that warrants in the landmark case of Royales v. Intermediate
refused to vacate the same. the dismissal of the Appellate Court: Ordinarily, non-compliance with the
In her Answer, Aquino countered that ejectment suit filed condition precedent prescribed by P.D. 1508 could affect
the Complaint, Aure and Aure with the MeTC. the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make
Lending do not have any legal right his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack
over the subject property. of cause of action or prematurity; but the same would
MeTC rendered a Decision in favor of not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction
Aquino and dismissed the Complaint from exercising its power of adjudication over
for ejectment of Aure and Aure the case before it, where the defendants, as in
Lending for non-compliance with the this case, failed to object to such exercise of
barangay conciliation process, among jurisdiction in their answer and even during the
other grounds. entire proceedings a quo.
RTC - RTC affirmed the dismissal of
the Complaint on the same ground In the case at bar, we similarly find that Aquino cannot
CA- Court of Appeals rendered a be allowed to attack the jurisdiction of the MeTC over
Decision, reversing the MeTC and Civil Case No. 17450 after having submitted herself
RTC Decisions and remanding the voluntarily thereto. We have scrupulously examined
case to the MeTC for further Aquino’s Answer before the MeTC in Civil Case No.
proceedings and final determination 17450 and there is utter lack of any objection on her part
of the substantive rights of the to any deficiency in the complaint which could oust the
parties. MeTC of its jurisdiction

By Aquino’s failure to seasonably object to the deficiency

in the Complaint, she is deemed to have already
acquiesced or waived any defect attendant thereto

It is clear and categorical in Section 1, Rule 9 of the

Revised Rules of Court that failure to raise defenses and
objections in a motion to dismiss or in an answer is
deemed a waiver thereof; and basic is the rule in
statutory construction that when the law is clear and
free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for
construction or interpretation

Thus, although Aquino’s defense of noncompliance with

Presidential Decree No. 1508 is meritorious,
procedurally, such defense is no longer available for
failure to plead the same in the Answer as required by
the omnibus motion rule.

three instances when the court may motu

proprio dismiss the claim

(1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(2) there is another cause of action pending between the
same parties for the same cause; or
(3) where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
a statute of limitations.
Anuncacion vs Bocanegra
petitioners filed before the RTC, It was only in respondents’ Second Supplemental
Manila, a complaint for Quieting of complaint for Motion to Dismiss dated November 27, 2000 that
Title and Cancellation of TCTs. The Quieting of Title respondents for the first time raised the court’s lack of
complaint averred that defendants and Cancellation of jurisdiction over their person as defendants on the
(respondents) may be served with TCT ground that summons were allegedly not properly
summons and legal processes through served upon them. The filing of the said Second
Atty. Rogelio G. Pizarro, Jr. Supplemental Motion to Dismiss did not divest the court
The summons, together with the of its jurisdiction over the person of the respondents
copies of the complaint, were then who had earlier voluntarily appeared before the trial
served on Atty. Pizarro. The record court by filing their motion to dismiss and the
shows that before the filing of the said supplemental motion to dismiss. The dismissal of the
complaint, Atty. Pizarro wrote a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
demand letter on behalf of person of the respondents after they had voluntarily
respondents and addressed to appeared before the trial court clearly constitutes grave
petitioner German Anunciacion, abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or
among others, demanding that they in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
vacate the land owned by his clients
(respondents), who needed the same
for their own use. respondents’ failure to raise the alleged lack of
respondents, through their counsel, jurisdiction over their persons in their very first motion
Atty. Norby C. Caparas, Jr., filed a to dismiss was fatal to their cause. They are already
Motion to Dismiss8 on the ground deemed to have waived that particular ground for
that the complaint stated no cause of dismissal of the complaint. The trial court plainly
action. abused its discretion when it dismissed the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
A Supplemental Motion to Dismiss defendants. Under the Rules, the only grounds the court
and Reply to the Comment on the could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in the
Motion to was filed by respondents, motion to dismiss or answer, are: (a) lack of jurisdiction
alleging an additional ground that over the subject matter; (b) existence of another action
petitioners failed to pay the required pending between the same parties for the same cause;
filing fee. and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations

respondents filed a Second We likewise cannot approve the trial court’s act of
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss entertaining supplemental motions to dismiss which
raise grounds that are already deemed waived. To do so
In all of these petitioners filed their would encourage lawyers and litigants to file piecemeal
answer and comments to MTD and objections to a complaint in order to delay or frustrate
Supplemental MTD the prosecution of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Although the CA correctly observed that Atty. Pizarro, as

the trial court sustained the the lawyer of the respondents in the demand letters,
respondents and dismissed the does not per se make him their representative for
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over purposes of the present action, a scrutiny of the record
the persons of respondents as shows that the address of Atty. Pizarro and Atty. Norby
defendants. Caparas, Jr., (the counsel who eventually entered his
appearance for respondents) is the same. This
Aggrieved, petitioners filed before the circumstance leads us to believe that respondents’
CA seeking the nullification of the belated reliance on the purported improper service of
RTC Orders, on the ground that the summons is a mere afterthought, if not a bad faith ploy
said orders were issued with grave to avoid answering the complaint.1avvphi1
abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed
the petition upon finding that there
was no waiver of the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of
respondents in the form of voluntary
appearance.

Dico vs Vizcaya Management action for the We find and hold that the action of the Dicos for
Corporation annulment and reconveyance was properly dismissed.
cancellation of the
Dicos commenced an action for the titles of VMC. Although defenses and objections not pleaded in a
annulment and cancellation of the motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived, it
titles of VMC. was really incorrect for the Dicos to insist that
 whether prescription could not be appreciated against them for
They averred, among others, that they prescription that reason. Their insistence was contrary to Section l,
were the registered owners of Lot No. already barred Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, which provides as follows:
486 and the possessors-by-succession petitioners’ cause of
of Lot No. 1412 (formerly Lot No. action Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.-
1118) and Lot No. 489; that VMC had Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion
land-grabbed a portion of their Lot to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
No. 486 totaling 111,966 square However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
meters evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter, that there is another action
Ruling of the RTC - rendered in favor pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
of the plaintiffs and against the that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
defendants statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
(2a) Under the rule, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction
Ruling of the CA - the CA reversed the over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and
RTC prescription of action may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, except
that the objection to the lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter may be barred by laches.

Heirs of Medrano vs Estanislao We sustain the CA’s ruling that the trial court gravely
De Vera Complaint for abused its discretion in refusing to allow De Vera to
quieting of title, participate in the case and requiring him to file a motion
Flaviana died intestate, leaving her reconveyance, to intervene.
half-sisters (Hilaria) and (Elena) as reformation of
her compulsory heirs. Hilaria and instrument, and/or The trial court’s approach is seriously flawed because De
Elena, by virtue of a private document partition with Vera’s interest is not independent of or severable from
waived all their hereditary rights to damages the interest of the named defendants. De Vera is a
Flaviana’s land in favor of Francisca transferee pendente lite of the named defendants His
Medrano (Medrano). In the same rights were derived from the named defendants and, as
year, Medrano built her concrete transferee pendente lite, he would be bound by any
bungalow on the land in question judgment against his transferors under the rules of res
without any objection from Hilaria judicata. Thus, De Vera’s interest cannot be considered
and Elena or from their children. and tried separately from the interest of the named
Hilaria and Elena died. Due to the defendants.
refusal of the other children to sign a
similar renunciation, Medrano filed a It will be remembered that the trial court had already
Complaint. De Vera presented himself admitted De Vera’s answer when it declared the original
as the real party-in-interest on the defendants in default. As there was a transferee
ground that some of the named pendente lite whose answer had already been admitted,
defendants had executed a Deed of the trial court should have tried the case on the basis of
Renunciation of Rights in his favor. that answer, based on Rule 9, Section 3(c):
The trial court admitted De Vera’s
Answer with Counterclaim. In the Effect of partial default. – When a pleading asserting
same Order, the court declared the a claim states a common cause of action against several
named defendants in default for not defending parties, some of whom answer and the others
answering the complaint despite valid fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon
service of summons. Thus, it appears the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
that the court a quo treated the evidence presented.
named defendants and De Vera as
distinct and separate parties. Thus, the default of the original defendants
Medrano asked the court to order De should not result in the ex parte presentation of
Vera to file a pleading in-intervention evidence because De Vera filed an answer. The
so that he could be properly named as trial court should have tried the case based on
a defendant in the case. De Vera did De Vera’s answer, which answer is deemed to
not comply with the court’s order have been adopted by the non-answering
despite service upon his lawyer defendants

RTC – render decision in favor of

medrano, Motion was denied. The
trial court explained it would have
allowed De Vera to present his
evidence in the case had he complied
with the court’s order to file a
pleading-in-intervention

CA- The appellate court then ordered

the case remanded to the trial court to
afford De Vera an opportunity to
present his evidence.
There should be no inexplicable delay in the filing of a
Lui Enterprises vs Zuellig motion to set aside order of default. Even when a motion
Pharma is filed within the required period, excusable negligence
must be properly alleged and proven.
Lui Enterprises, Inc. and Zuellig
Pharma Corporation entered into a Whether the a defendant who fails to answer within 15 days from
10-year contract of lease in Davao Regional Trial service of summons either presents no defenses against
City. Zuellig Pharma received a letter Court of Makati the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint or was
from the Philippine Bank of erred in denying prevented from filing his or her answer within the
Communications (PBC). Claiming to Lui Enterprises’ required period due to fraud, accident, mistake or
be the new owner of the leased motion to set aside excusable negligence.
property, the bank asked Zuellig order of default;
Pharma to pay rent directly to it. In either case, the court may declare the defendant in
Zuellig Pharma promptly informed default on plaintiff’s motion and notice to defendant.
Lui Enterprises of the PBCs’ claim. The court shall then try the case until judgment without
Lui Enterprises wrote to Zuellig defendant’s participation and grant the plaintiff such
Pharma and insisted on its right to relief as his or her complaint may warrant.
collect the leased property’s rent. Due
to the conflicting claims of Lui A defendant declared in default loses his or her standing
Enterprises and the PBC over the in court. He or she is "deprived of the right to take part
rental payments, Zuellig Pharma filed in the trial and forfeits his [or her] rights as a party
a complaint for interpleader with the litigant, "has no right "to present evidence [supporting
RTC of Makati. Zuellig Pharma his or her] allegations," and has no right to "control the
alleged that it already consigned in proceedings [or] cross-examine witnesses."
court P604,024.35 as rental payments
that Lui Enterprises and the Moreover, he or she "has no right to expect that [the
Philippine Bank of Communications court] would [act] upon [his or her pleadings]"or that he
be ordered to litigate their conflicting or she "may [oppose]motions filed against him [or
claims. Lui Enterprises filed a motion her]."106 However, the defendant declared in default
to dismiss. Zuellig Pharma filed its "does not [waive] all of [his or her] rights."
opposition to the motion to dismiss. He or she still has the right to "receive notice of
It argued that the motion to subsequent proceedings." Also, the plaintiff must still
dismiss should be denied for present evidence supporting his or her allegations
having been filed late. Considering "despite the default of [the defendant]."
that Lui Enterprises filed its motion
to dismiss beyond the 15-day period After notice of the declaration of default but before the
to file an answer, Zuellig Pharma court renders the default judgment, the defendant may
moved that Lui Enterprises be file, under oath, a motion to set aside order of default.
declared in default. The defendant must properly show that his or her failure
RTC – declared Lui Enterprises in to answer was due to fraud, accident,115 mistake116 or
default, It was only one year after the excusable negligence
issuance of the order of default, that
Lui Enterprises filed a motion to set If the defendant discovers his or her default
aside order of default in the Makati after judgment but prior to the judgment
trial court on the ground of excusable becoming final and executory, he or she may file a
negligence. Appealed to CA motion for new trial under Rule 37, Section 1, paragraph
CA- motion to set aside order denied, (a) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
affirmed in toto RTC decision If he or she discovers his or her default after the
Hence, this petition. judgment has become final and executory, a
petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Section
1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may be filed
A petition for certiorari may also be filed if the trial
court declared the defendant in default with grave abuse
of discretion

The remedies of the motion to set aside order of default,

 motion for new trial, and petition for relief from
judgment are mutually exclusive, not alternative or
cumulative a defendant declared in default may avail of
only one of the three remedies

With a motion for new trial, the defendant must file the
motion within the period for taking an appeal123 or
within 15 days from notice of the default judgment.
Although a default judgment has already been rendered,
the filing of the motion for new trial tolls the
reglementary period of appeal, and the default judgment
cannot be executed against the defendant.

In this case, Lui Enterprises had discovered its default

before the Regional Trial Court of Makati rendered
judgment. Thus, it timely filed a motion to set aside
order of default, raising the ground of excusable
negligence.
Excusable negligence is "one which ordinary
diligence and prudence could not have guarded
against."125 The circumstances should be properly
alleged and proved. In this case, we find that Lui
Enterprises’ failure to answer within the required period
is inexcusable.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati declared Lui

Enterprises in default when it failed to answer the
complaint within the required period. Lui Enterprises
filed a motion to set aside order of default without an
acceptable excuse why its counsel failed to answer the
complaint. It failed to prove the excusable negligence.
Thus, the Makati trial court did not err in refusing to set
aside the order of default

Otero vs Tan A party in default loses his right to present his defense,
Complaint for control the proceedings, and examine or crossexamine
Complaint for collection of sum of collection of sum of witnesses. He has no right to expect that his pleadings
money and damages was filed by money and would be acted upon by the court nor may be object to
Roger Tan in MTCC for the reason damages or refute evidence or motions filed against him.
that Otero purchased on credit
petroleum products from his Petron In Lina v. CA, et al.,this Court enumerated the
outlet. Despite receipt of the whether Otero, remedies available to party who has been declared in
summons and a copy of the said having been default, to wit:
complaint Otero failed to file his declared in default a) The defendant in default may, at any time after
answer with the MTCC. by the MTCC, may, discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion,
Tan filed a motion with the MTCC to in the appellate under oath, to set aside the order of default on the
declare Otero in default for his failure proceedings, still ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud,
to file his answer. Otero opposed raise the failure of accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has
Tan’s motion, claiming that he did not Tan to authenticate meritorious defenses; (Sec 3, Rule 18)
receive a copy of the summons and a the statements of b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the
copy of Tan’s complaint. Otero failed account which he defendant discovered the default, but before the same
to appear at the next scheduled adduced in has become final and executory, he may file a motion for
hearing, and the MTCC issued an evidence new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;
order declaring him in default. A copy c) If the defendant discovered the default after the
of the said order was sent to Otero on judgment has become final and executory, he may file a
May 9, 2006. Tan was then allowed to petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and
present his evidence ex parte. d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered
against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law,
MTCC - rendered a Decision directing even if no petition to set aside the order of default has
Otero to pay Tan his outstanding been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)
obligation
RTC - rendered a Judgment affirming a defending party declared in default retains the right to
the MTCC Decision appeal from the judgment by default. However, the
grounds that may be raised in such an appeal are
CA - denied the petition for review restricted to any of the following: first, the failure of the
filed by Otero plaintiff to prove the material allegations of the
complaint; second, the decision is contrary to law; and
third, the amount of judgment is excessive or different
in kind from that prayed for.

In this case, the petitioner sought the modification of

the decision of the trial court based on the evidence
submitted by it only in the Court of Appeals

The CA erred in brushing aside Otero’s arguments with

respect to the admissibility of the said statements of
account on the ground that the latter had already waived
any defense or objection which he may have against
Tan’s claim

The evidence of the plaintiff, presented in the

defendant’s absence, cannot be admitted if it is basically
incompetent.

In SSS v. Hon. Chaves

We must stress, however, that a judgment of default
against the petitioner who failed to appear during pre-
trial or, for that matter, any defendant who failed to file
an answer, does not imply a waiver of all of their rights,
except their right to be heard and to present evidence to
support their allegations.
The law also gives the defaulting parties some measure
of protection because plaintiffs, despite the default of
defendants, are still required to substantiate their
allegations in the complaint