nature
Petition for
review on certiorari
facts
·
Feb 14, 1990 Mercedes
Javier with the RTC Malolos City, for DAMAGES
AND INJUNCTION.
·
Impleaded as
defendant was PHILVILLE Development and Housing Corporation (PHILVILLE).
complaint
allegations
·
Sps Crisanto (now
deceased) and Mercedes Javier have been tenant-cultivators of a 5.5 hectare parcel of rice land at
Meycauayan, Bulacan, owned by Felimon Emperado, a HOLDER OF A FREE PATENT.
·
1977, PHILVILLE proposed to buy the land for conversion
into a housing subdivision. Spouses Javier, PHILVILLE and Emperado
then entered into a Kasulatan ng Pagsasalin at Kusang Loob na Pagsusuko.
·
Among the terms
agreed upon by the parties was that the Javiers would be given a 2,000 sq m lot
as a disturbance compensation.
·
Instead of giving
them a single lot measuring 2,000 square meters, what they received were 2 separate lots of 1,000 square meters each
located far apart. This prompted Mercedes to sue
PHILVILLE for damages.
philville answer
·
PHILVILLE
specifically denied the allegations in the complaint and raised the following
affirmative and special defenses:
o the complaint fails to state a cause of action;
o it does not allege that the parties resorted to
conciliation proceedings before the barangay;
o
plaintiff is
estopped from filing the complaint.
amended complaint
·
Mercedes filed a
motion for leave of court to amend her complaint.
·
In her attached
amended complaint, she alleged that:
o the Kasulatan did
not express the true agreement of the parties
o
sale is void as it
was executed within the 5-year prohibitive period from the issuance of the free
patent.
order denying the
amendment of complaint
·
The trial court
issued an Order denying Mercedes’ motion, holding that
o the proposed
amendment is inconsistent with the cause of action in the original complaint;
o the proposed amendment is the subject of CC No.
172-M-90 between the same parties pending before another branch of the trial
court.
·
Mercedes filed a MR
of the trial court’s Order but it was denied.
philville’s mtd of
the original complaint
·
On Nov 13, 1991,
PHILVILLE moved to dismiss the original complaint alleging that the plaintiff had filed a protest with the
Land Management Bureau seeking the
revocation of the free patent issued to Felimon Emperado and the reversion of the land to the public domain.
mtd granted
·
Nov 29, 1991: MTD
granted for the reasons stated in the MTD filed by the defendants and it
appearing that plaintiffs have no objection thereto as shown by the latter’s
failure to appear before this Court during the hearing of the said motion on Nov
29, 1991
·
On Dec 27, 1991,
Mercedes filed a MR of the said Order but it was denied.
plaintiff’s appeal
to the CA.
·
Dec 22, 2000, CA reversed
the TC’s orders and remanding the case to the trial court.
instant petition
for review on certiorari.
issue/ruling
whether the CA
erred in reversing the challenged Orders of the trial court dismissing the
complaint in CC No. 122-M-90. no.
·
Section 1, Rule 16
of the Revised Rules of Court then applicable provides:
SEC. 1. Grounds.
– Within the time for pleading a MTD the action may be made on
any of the following grounds:
·
J.M. Tuason
& Co., Inc. v. Rafor: “within the time
for pleading” means within the time to answer.
·
Rule 11.1, the
time to answer is 15 days after service of summons upon the
defendant.
·
PHILVILLE’s MTD
the complaint in CC No. 122-M-90 was filed
after it had filed its answer.
·
In Heirs
of Mariano Lagutan v. Icao where a MTD was
filed 3 months after the defendants had filed their amended answer, the said
motion was filed out of time.
·
In Ruiz,
Jr. v. CA this Court ruled that where
an answer has been filed, the defendant is estopped from filing a MTD.
The only exceptions to the rule, as correctly pointed out by the CA, are:
o (1) where the ground raised is lack of jurisdiction
of the court over the subject matter;
o (2) where the complaint does not state a cause of
action;
o (3) prescription; and
o (4) where the evidence that would constitute a
ground for the dismissal of the complaint was discovered only during the
trial.
·
None of the
foregoing grounds is present in PHILVILLE’s MTD.
·
Petition denied.
CA affirmed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment