TOPIC: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS  On July 15, 2004, Iloilo Jar filed its

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

ILOILO JAR CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. arguing that Comglasco admitted all the
COMGLASCO CORPORATION AGUILA material allegations in the complaint. It
GLASS, Respondent insisted that Comglasco's answer failed
January 18, 2017 | G.R. No. 219509 | to tender an issue because its
MENDOZA, J. affirmative defense was unavailing.
Digested by: Balabat, Venica Jaelyle P.
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT
FACTS: RTC granted the motion for judgment on the
 On August 16, 2000, petitioner Iloilo Jar pleadings. It opined that Comglasco's answer
Corporation (Iloilo Jar), as lessor, and admitted the material allegations of the
respondent Comglasco complaint and that its affirmative defense was
Corporation/Aguila Glass (Comglasco), unavailing because Article 1267 was
as lessee, entered into a lease contract inapplicable to lease contracts. Comglasco
over a portion of a warehouse building in moved for reconsideration but its motion was
Barangay Lapuz, La Paz District, Iloilo denied by the RTC.
City. The term of the lease was for a
period of three (3) years or until August Aggrieved, Comglasco appealed before the CA.
15, 2003.
 On December 1, 2001, Comglasco RULING OF COURT OF APPEALS
requested for the pre-termination of the The CA reversed the amended order of the
lease effective on the same date. Iloilo RTC. The appellate court was of the view that
Jar, however, rejected the request on judgment on the pleadings was improper as
the ground that the pre-termination of Comglasco' s answer tendered an issue
the lease contract was not stipulated considering that lloilo Jar's material allegations
therein. Despite the denial of the request were specifically denied therein. Further, the CA
for pre-termination, Comglasco still opined that even if the same were not
removed all its stock, merchandise and specifically denied, the answer raised an
equipment from the leased premises on affirmative issue which was factual in nature.
January 15, 2002. From the time of the
withdrawal of the equipment, and Iloilo Jar moved for reconsideration, but its
notwithstanding several demand letters, motion was denied by the CA. Hence, this
Comglasco no longer paid all rentals petition.
accruing from the said date.
 On September 14, 2003, Iloilo Jar sent a ARGUMENTS:
final demand letter to Comglasco, but it Iloilo Jar argues that Comglasco's answer
was again ignored. Consequently, Iloilo materially admitted the allegations of the
Jar filed a civil action for breach of former's complaint, particularly, that the latter
contract and damages before the RTC had removed its merchandise from the lease
on October 10, 2003. premises and failed to pay subsequent rentals,
 On June 28, 2004, Comglasco filed its after it had received the demand letters sent. It
Answer and raised an affirmative points out that Comglasco brushed aside its
defense, arguing that by virtue of Article obligation by merely claiming that it was no
1267 of the Civil Code (Article 1267), it longer bound by the lease contract because it
was released from its obligation from the was terminated due to the financial difficulties it
lease contract. It explained that the was experiencing in light of the economic crisis.
consideration thereof had become so Iloilo Jar insisted that Comglasco cannot rely on
difficult due to the global and regional Article 1267 because it does not apply to lease
economic crisis that had plagued the contracts, which involves an obligation to give,
economy. and not an obligation to do.
In its Comment, Comglasco countered that its judgment in that the former is appropriate if the
answer raised material defenses which rendered answer failed to tender an issue and the latter
judgment on the pleadings improper. It asserted may be resorted to if there are no genuine
that judgment on the pleadings may be had only issues raised, to wit:
when the answer fails to tender an issue or
otherwise admits the material allegations of the Simply stated, what distinguishes a
adverse party's pleading. Comglasco argued judgment on the pleadings from a
that even if the allegations in the complaint were summary judgment is the presence of
deemed admitted, the affirmative defenses it issues in the Answer to the Complaint.
raised may give rise to factual controversies or When the Answer fails to tender any
issues which should be subject to a trial. issue, that is, if it does not deny the
material allegations in the complaint or
In its Reply, Iloilo Jar reiterated that judgment on admits said material allegations of the
the pleadings was warranted because adverse party's pleadings by admitting
Comglasco's answer failed to specifically deny the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting
the allegation in the complaint, and that the to deal with them at all, a judgment on
affirmative defense alleged therein was improper the pleadings is appropriate. On the
because Article 1267 is inapplicable to a lease other hand, when the Answer
contract. As such, it stressed that Comglasco's specifically denies the material
answer failed to tender an issue. averments of the complaint or asserts
affirmative defenses, or in other words
ISSUE/S: raises an issue, a summary judgment is
Whether or not a judgment on the pleadings is proper provided that the issue raised is
appropriate and valid when the defense not genuine. "A 'genuine issue' means
interposed by the defendant in the answer is not an issue of fact which calls for the
applicable as a defense to the cause of action as presentation of evidence, as
stated in the complaint. – NO. distinguished from an issue which is
fictitious or contrived or which does not
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT: constitute a genuine issue for trial."
Judgment on the pleadings vis-à-vis xxx
Summary Judgment In this case, we note that while petitioners'
Section 1, Rule 34 of the Revised Rules of Court Answer to respondents' Complaint practically
governs motions for judgment on the pleadings. admitted all the material allegations therein, it
It reads: nevertheless asserts the affirmative defenses
SECTION 1. Judgment on the that the action for revival of judgment is not the
pleadings. - Where an answers fails to proper action and that petitioners are not the
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the proper parties. As issues obviously arise from
material allegations of the adverse these affirmative defenses, a judgment on the
party's pleading, the court may, on pleadings is clearly improper in this case.
motion of that party, direct judgment on [Emphases supplied]
such pleading. However, in actions for
declaration of nullity or annulment of In the case at bench, Comglasco interposed an
marriage or for legal separation, the affirmative defense in its answer. While it
material facts alleged in the complaint admitted that it had removed its stocks from the
shall always be proved. [Emphasis leased premises and had received the demand
supplied] letter for rental payments, it argued that the
lease contract had been pre-terminated because
On the other hand, under Rule 35 of the Rules of the consideration thereof had become so difficult
Court, a party may move for summary judgment to comply in light of the economic crisis then
if there are no genuine issues raised. existing. Thus, judgment on the pleadings was
In Basbas v. Sayson, the Court differentiated improper considering that Comglasco's Answer
judgment on the pleadings from summary raised an affirmative defense.
 stopped paying rentals thereafter. Thus, there
Although resort to judgment on the pleadings remains no question of fact which must be
might have been improper, there was still no resolved in trial. What is to be resolved is
need to remand the case to the RTC for further whether Comglasco was justified in treating the
proceedings. In Wood Technology Corporation lease contract terminated due to the economic
v. Equitable Banking Corporation (Wood circumstances then prevalent.
Technology), the Court ruled that summary
judgment may be availed if no genuine issue for Thus, the RTC was correct in ordering
trial is raised, viz: Comglasco to pay the unpaid rentals because
the affirmative defense raised by it was
Summary judgment is a procedure insufficient to free it from its obligations under
aimed at weeding out sham claims or the lease contract. In addition, Iloilo Jar is
defenses at an early stage of the entitled to attorney's fees because it incurred
litigation. The proper inquiry in this expenses to protect its interest. The trial court,
regard would be whether the affirmative however, erred in awarding exemplary damages
defenses offered by petitioners and litigation expenses.
constitute genuine issues of fact
requiring a full-blown trial. In a summary WHEREFORE, the January 30, 2015 Decision
judgment, the crucial question is: are the and June 17, 2015 Resolution of the Court of
issues raised by petitioners not genuine Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
so as to justify a summary judgment? A February 17, 2005 Amended Order of the
"genuine issue" means an issue of fact Regional Trial Court, Branch 3 7, Iloilo City,
which calls for the presentation of is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFCATION in that the
evidence, as distinguished from an issue award of exemplary damages and litigation
which is fictitious or contrived, an issue expenses is DELETED. The monetary award
that does not constitute a genuine issue shall be subject to 12% per annum until June
for trial. [Emphasis supplied] 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013
until fully satisfied. SO ORDERED.
It bears noting that in Wood Technology, the
RTC originally rendered a judgment on the
pleadings but was corrected by the Court to be a
summary judgment because of the issue
presented by the affirmative defense raised
therein. In the said case, the Court, nonetheless,
ruled in favor of the complainant therein because
there was no genuine issue raised.

Similar to Wood Technology, the judgment

rendered by the RTC in this case was a
summary judgment, not a judgment on the
pleadings, because Comglasco' s answer raised
an affirmative defense. Nevertheless, no
genuine issue was raised because there is no
issue of fact which needs presentation of
evidence, and the affirmative defense
Comglasco invoked is inapplicable in the case at
bench.

A full blown trial would needlessly prolong the

proceedings where a summary judgment would
suffice. It is undisputed that Comglasco removed
its merchandise from the leased premises and
 Board of Trustees and for having been
signed by Maglaya whose term of office
TOPIC: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS had expired.

FERNANDO MEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC.  On June 24, 2009, the petitioner sent a
PETITIONER, VS. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY demand letter to the respondent. Due to
PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT the respondent's failure to pay as
G.R. No. 207970 | January 20, 2016 | demanded, the petitioner filed its
BERSAMIN, J. complaint for sum of money in the RTC.
Digested by: Balabat, Venica Jaelyle P.  The respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint upon the following grounds,
DOCTRINE: namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the
The trial court may render a judgment on the person of the defendant; (b) improper
pleadings upon motion of the claiming party venue; (c) litis pendentia; and (d) forum
when the defending party's answer fails to shopping. In support of the ground of
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material litis pendentia, it stated that it had earlier
allegations of the adverse party's pleading. For filed a complaint for the rescission of the
that purpose, only the pleadings of the parties in four contracts and of the February 11,
the action are considered. It is error for the trial 2009 agreement in the RTC in
court to deny the motion for judgment on the Cabanatuan City; and that the resolution
pleadings because the defending party's of that case would be determinative of
pleading in another case supposedly tendered the petitioner's action for collection.
an issue of fact.  After the RTC denied the motion to
dismiss on July 19, 2009, the
FACTS: respondent filed its answer. On
 From January 9, 2006 until February 2, September 28, 2011, the petitioner filed
2007, the petitioner, a domestic its Motion for Judgment Based on the
corporation dealing with medical Pleadings, stating that the respondent
equipment and supplies, delivered to had admitted the material allegations of
and installed medical equipment and its complaint and thus did not tender any
supplies at the respondent's hospital. issue as to such allegations. The
According to the petitioner, the respondent opposed the Motion for
respondent paid only P67,3 57,683.23 of Judgment Based on the Pleadings,
its total obligation of P123,901,650.00, arguing that it had specifically denied
leaving unpaid the sum of the material allegations in the complaint.
P54,654,195.54.
 However, on February 11, 2009, the Judgment of the RTC
petitioner and the respondent entered At the hearing, the court issued an Order
into an agreement whereby the former denying the Motion for Judgment Based on the
agreed to reduce its claim to only Pleadings considering that the allegations stated
P50,400,000.00, and allowed the latter on the Motion are evidentiary in nature. The
to pay the adjusted obligation on Court, instead of acting on the same, sets the
installment basis within 36 months. case for pre-trial, considering that with the
 In the letter dated May 27, 2009, the Answer and the Reply, issues have been joined.
respondent notified the petitioner that its
new administration had reviewed their Judgment of the CA
contracts and had found the contracts Although observing that the respondent had
defective and rescissible due to admitted the contracts as well as the February
economic prejudice or lesion; and that it 11, 2009 agreement, the CA ruled that a
was consequently declining to recognize judgment on the pleadings would be improper
the February 11, 2009 agreement because the outstanding balance due to the
because of the lack of approval by its petitioner remained to be an issue in the face of
the allegations of the respondent in its complaint respondent's averment of payment of the total of
for rescission in the RTC in Cabanatuan City. P78,401,650.00 to the petitioner made in its
complaint for rescission had no relevance to the
ISSUE: resolution of the Motion for Judgment Based on
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in going the Pleadings. The CA thus wrongly held that a
outside of the respondent's answer by relying on factual issue on the total liability of the
the allegations contained in the latter's complaint respondent remained to be settled through trial
for rescission. – YES. on the merits. It should have openly wondered
why the respondent's answer in Civil Case No.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT: 09-122116 did not allege the supposed payment
The appeal is meritorious. of the P78,401,650.00, if the payment was true,
if only to buttress the specific denial of its
The rule on judgment based on the pleadings is alleged liability. The omission exposed the
Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, which respondent's denial of liability as insincere.
provides thus:
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and
Where an answer fails to tender an SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on
issue, or otherwise admits the material July 2, 2013; DIRECTS the Regional Trial
allegations of the adverse party’s Court, Branch 1, in Manila to resume its
pleading, the court may, on motion of proceedings in Civil Case No. 09-122116
that party, direct judgment on such entitled Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. v.
pleading. x x x Wesleyan University-Philippines, and to
forthwith act on and grant the Motion for
The essential query in resolving a motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings by
judgment on the pleadings is whether or not rendering the proper judgment on the
there are issues of fact generated by the pleadings; and ORDERS the respondent to
pleadings. Whether issues of fact exist in a case pay the costs of suit.
or not depends on how the defending party’s
answer has dealt with the ultimate facts alleged
in the complaint. The defending party’s answer
either admits or denies the allegations of
ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading. The allegations of ultimate facts the
answer admit, being undisputed, will not require
evidence to establish the truth of such facts, but
the allegations of ultimate facts the answer
properly denies, being disputed, will require
evidence.

The Court of Appeals erred in going outside of

the respondent's answer by relying on the
allegations contained in the latter's complaint for
rescission. In order to resolve the petitioner's
Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings,
the trial court could rely only on the answer of
the respondent filed in Civil Case No. 09-
122116.

Under Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court,

the answer was the sole basis for ascertaining
whether the complaint's material allegations
were admitted or properly denied. As such, the
 with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per
annum from February 2, 2000 until fully paid.
•Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
against said decision. However, the same was
denied.
TOPIC: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS •Thus, petitioner filed an appeal before the CA in
which the appellate court dismissed the instant
ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND appeal and affirmed the judgment of the lower
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, court.
vs. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD., Respondent. •Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but
G.R. No. 181676 | June 11, 2014 | PERALTA, J. the CA denied it.
Digested by: Balabat, Venica Jaelyle P.
ARGUMENTS:
FACTS: Petitioner contends that the judgment on the
•This case stemmed from a Complaint for Sum pleadings is not proper, because it raised special
of Money filed by respondent against petitioner. and affirmative defenses in its Answer. It asserts
The complaint alleged that petitioner and that with this specific denial, a genuine issue of
respondent executed a Memorandum of fact had been joined to the extent that a
Agreement wherein respondent was engaged to judgment on the pleadings could not be made.
supply and erect insulated panel systems at
various pavilions at the Philippine Centennial Respondent counters that petitioner’s Answer
Exposition Theme Park, specifically for the admitted the material allegations of its complaint
Phase I Project, for an agreed amount of regarding the cause of action, which is collection
US$3,745,287.94. of sum of money. Respondent emphasizes that
•Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, assuming petitioner’s defense of respondent’s
petitioner made various payments amounting to lack of capacity to sue has a leg to stand on,
US$3,129,667.32 leaving a balance of still, the same cannot prevent respondent from
US$615,620.33. Respondent claims that it made seeking the collection of petitioner’s unpaid
several written demands for petitioner to pay the balance.
said balance, but the latter continuously refused
to heed its plea. ISSUE/S:
•Thereafter, petitioner filed its Answer with Whether or not judgment on the pleadings is
Counterclaim. proper. – YES.
•Respondent then moved for judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the Answer RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
admitted all material allegations of the Complaint The Court finds the petition bereft of merit.
and, therefore, failed to tender an issue. Thus,
respondent deems that petitioner’s Answer, in Judgment on the pleadings is governed by
effect, admitted the existence of the Section 1, Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Memorandum of Agreement and its failure to Procedure which reads:
pay the balance despite repeated demands. Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. –
•The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City Where an answer fails to tender an
rendered judgment in favor of respondent. The issue, or otherwise admits the material
Court notes that in the Answer with allegations of the adverse party’s
Counterclaim of the [petitioner], the execution of pleading, the court may, on motion of
the Memorandum of Agreement, Annex B of the that party, direct judgment on such
Complaint was admitted (paragraph 13, pleading. However, in actions for
Answer). Further, it did not deny specifically the declaration of nullity or annulment of
claim of the [respondent] of being entitled to marriage or for legal separation, the
collect the said amount of US$615,620.33. material facts alleged in the complaint
Hence, the trial court ordered the petitioner to shall always be proved.
pay [respondent] the amount of US $615,620.33
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise We note that respondent’s complaint for a sum
admits the material allegations of the adverse of money is based mainly on the alleged failure
party’s pleading. An answer fails to tender an of petitioner to pay the balance of
issue if it does not comply with the requirements US$615,620.33 under the Memorandum of
of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and Agreement. Quoting petitioner’s Answer, it is
10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, obvious that it admitted the foregoing material
resulting in the admission of the material allegations in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. complaint.

This rule is supported by the Court’s ruling in While petitioner allegedly raised affirmative
Mongao v. Pryce Properties Corporation wherein defenses, i.e., defect in the certification of non-
it was held that "judgment on the pleadings is forum shopping, no legal capacity to sue and
governed by Section 1,Rule 34 of the 1997 fortuitous event, the same cannot still bar
Rules of Civil Procedure, essentially a respondent from seeking the collection of the
restatement of Section 1, Rule 19 of the 1964 unpaid balance. Other than these affirmative
Rules of Court then applicable to the defenses, petitioner’s denial neither made a
proceedings before the trial court. Section 1, specific denial that a Memorandum of
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that Agreement was perfected nor did it contest the
where an answer fails to tender an issue, or genuineness and due execution of said
otherwise admits the material allegations of the agreement.
adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on
motion of that party, direct judgment on such We, therefore, sustain the CA and quote with
pleading. The answer would fail to tender an approval the well-reasoned findings and
issue, of course, if it does not comply with the conclusions of the appellate court contained in
requirements for a specific denial set out in its Decision, to wit:
Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8; and it would The [respondent’s] cause of action for
admit the material allegations of the adverse collection of Sum of Money is founded
party’s pleadings not only where it expressly mainly on the Memorandum of
confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it Agreement validly executed by both
omits to deal with them at all." parties.
First, the allegations in the [petitioner’s]
Further, in First Leverage and Services Group, Answer do not make out a specific
Inc. v. Solid Builders, Inc., this Court held that denial that a Memorandum of
where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is Agreement was perfected between the
filed, the essential question is whether there are parties. Second, the [respondent] does
issues generated by the pleadings. In a proper not contest the due execution and/or
case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no genuineness of said Memorandum of
ostensible issue at all because of the failure of Agreement. In fact, paragraph 13 of the
the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. Answer categorically admits paragraphs
The answer would fail to tender an issue, of 4 and 5 of the Complaint.
course, if it does not deny the material
allegations in the complaint or admits said WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
material allegations of the adverse party’s The Decision dated April 25, 2006 and
pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof Resolution dated February 6, 2008 of the
and/or omitting to deal with them at all. Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Here, it is irrefutable that petitioner
acknowledged having entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with respondent
and that it still has an unpaid balance of
US$615,620.33.
 32,180,000 DMCI shares. EIB rejected
petitioners’ demand for the return of the
DMCI shares, as those were already
sold to cover the buy back of the KPP
shares.
 In the complaint, petitioners pray for the
return of the 32,180,000 DMCI shares
by EIB to them. EIB’s answer contained
TOPIC: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS admissions and specific denials.
 On July 19, 2005, petitioners registered
PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
petitioner VS. EIB SECURITIES, INC., asserting that EIB materially admitted
respondent the allegations of their complaint by not
October 13, 2010 | G.R. No. 184036 | tendering any genuine issue in its
VELASCO, JR., J. answer.
Digested by: Balabat, Venica Jaelyle P.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
FACTS: Rendered its judgment on the pleadings
 EIB (defendant) is the stockbroker of directing 1) the defendant to return the
Pacific Rehouse Corporation petitioners 32,180,000 DMCI shares, as of
(petitioners). judicial demand; 2) to reimburse the defendant
 From June 2003 to March 2004, the amount of P10,942,200.00, representing the
petitioners, through their broker, EIB, buy back price of the 60,790,000 KPP shares of
bought 60,790,000 KKP shares of stock stocks at P0.18 per share. The trial court found
at the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). merit in rendering a judgment on the pleadings:
 On various dates in July and August first, the assailed transactions were all
2003, petitioners acquired DMCI shares. documented; second, the transactions were
A total of 32,180,000 DMCI shares of admitted by the parties; and third, the main
stock owned by petitioners were placed issues can be resolved based on the parties
in the custody or control of EIB. documentary evidence appended to the
 On April 1, 2004, petitioners ordered the pleadings.
sale of 60,790,000 KPP shares to any
buyer at the price of 0.14 per share. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
sale was with an obligation to buy back Rendered a decision revoking RTC’s judgment
or reacquire the KPP shares at 0.18 per on the pleadings and remanded the case back to
share within 30 days from date of the RTC for further proceedings. The CA found
transaction. that while some material allegations in
 Petitioners failed to reacquire or buy petitioners complaint were admitted by EIB, the
back the KPP shares, so EIB had no latter’s answer nonetheless raised other genuine
recourse but to sell the DMCI shares of issues which it viewed can only be threshed out
petitioners to reacquire the KPP shares. in a full-blown trial, like the average price of the
 So, on various dates in June 2004, EIB, KPP shares of stock, the scope of the collaterals
without petitioners knowledge and stated in the Notices of Sale and the monetary
consent, sold petitioners 32,180,000 claims of the defendant against the petitioners.
DMCI shares at the controlling market
price. EIB later sent sales confirmation ISSUE/S:
receipts and statement of accounts to Whether or not judgment on the pleadings is
petitioners regarding the sale of their proper. – YES.
DMCI shares.
 On January 12, 2005, petitioners wrote RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
EIB demanding the return of the Based on the admissions in the pleadings and
documents attached, the Court finds that the
issues presented by the complaint and the
answer can be resolved within the four corners
of said pleadings without need to conduct further
hearings.

Judgment on the pleadings is, therefore, based

exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the
pleadings of the parties and the annexes, if any,
without consideration of any evidence aliunde.
When what is left are not genuinely issues
requiring trial but questions concerning the
proper interpretation of the provisions of some
written contract attached to the pleadings,
judgment on the pleadings is proper.

As explained by the Court in Philippine National

Bank v. Utility Assurance & Surety Co., Inc.,
when what remains to be done is the proper
interpretation of the contracts or documents
attached to the pleadings, then judgment on the
pleadings is proper.

In the case at bar, the issue of whether the sale

of DMCI shares to effectuate the buy back of the
KKP shares is valid can be decided by the trial
court based on the SDAA, Notices of Sale, Sales
Confirmation Receipts, the letters of the parties,
and other appendages to the pleadings in
conjunction with the allegations or admissions
contained in the pleadings without need of trial.

Regarding CA’s findings that EIB’s answer

raised other genuine issues: To the mind of the
Court, these matters are not genuinely triable
issues but actually minor issues or mere
incidental questions that can be resolved by
construing the statements embodied in the
appendages to the pleadings. The facts that
gave rise to the side issues are undisputed and
were already presented to the trial court
rendering trial unnecessary.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The

CA Decision dated April 11, 2008 in CA-G.R.
CV No. 87713 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The RTC Resolution dated October 18, 2005
in Civil Case No. 05-178 is
hereby REINSTATED.
 • During the pre-trial, Petitioner Doris
moved for the case to be submitted for judgment
on the pleadings considering that the only
disagreement between the parties was the
correct interpretation of the lease contract.
Aurora did not object to Doris’ motion. The trial
court then directed the parties to submit their
respective memoranda, after which the case
would be considered submitted for decision.
• Trial court held that the case is not
covered by the barangay conciliation process
TOPIC: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS since Aurora is a resident of Hongkong. The trial
court noted that Doris did not controvert Aurora’s
DORIS U. SUNBANUN V. AURORA B. GO allegation that Doris ejected Aurora’s lodgers
G.R. No. 163280 | February 2, 2010 | CARPIO, sometime in March 1996 even if the contract of
J. lease would expire only on 7 July 1996. The trial
Digested by: Balabat, Venica Jaelyle P. court found untenable petitioners contention that
subleasing the rented premises violated the
DOCTRINE: lease contract.
Rule 34, Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. • Court of Appeals rendered its decision in
– Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or favor of respondent and modified the trial court’s
otherwise admits the material allegations of the decision. Aside from actual damages and
adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeals awarded
motion of that party, direct judgment on such moral damages and exemplary damages.
pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal ISSUE/S:
separation, the material facts alleged in the Whether or not the trial court has the discretion
complaint shall always be proved. to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings
filed by a party if there is no controverted matter
FACTS: in the case after the answer is filed. - YES
• Respondent Aurora leased the entire
ground floor of petitioner Doris residential house RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
for one year which was to expire on 7 July 1996. The trial court has the discretion to grant a
As required under the lease contract, Aurora motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a
paid a deposit of P16,000 to answer for party if there is no controverted matter in the
damages and unpaid rent. To earn extra income, case after the answer is filed. A judgment on the
Aurora accepted lodgers, mostly her relatives, pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded,
from whom she received a monthly income of and is based exclusively upon the allegations
P15,000. Aurora paid the monthly rental until appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the
March 1996 when Doris drove away Aurora’s accompanying annexes.
lodgers by telling them that they could stay on
the rented premises only until 15 April 1996 This case is unusual because it was petitioner,
since she was terminating the lease. The and not the claimant respondent, who moved for
lodgers left the rented premises by 15 April a judgment on the pleadings during the pre-trial.
1996, and Doris then padlocked the rooms This is clear from the trial court’s Order dated 7
vacated by Aurora’s lodgers. October 1997 which reads:
• Thereafter, Aurora filed an action for ORDER
damages against Doris. When this case was called for pre-trial, parties
• Petitioner Doris moved to dismiss the appeared together with counsel. Defendant
complaint in the trial court for failure to comply [Doris U. Sunbanun] moved that considering that
with prior barangay conciliation. there is no dispute as far as the contract is
concerned and the only disagreement between
the parties is on the interpretation of the contract
so that the issue boils down on to which of the
parties are correct on their interpretation. With
the conformity of the plaintiff [Aurora B. Go], this
case is therefore considered closed and
submitted for judgment on the pleadings. x x x

Petitioner, in moving for a judgment on the

pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of
her own allegations and without giving
respondent the opportunity to introduce
evidence, is deemed to have admitted the
material and relevant averments of the
complaint, and to rest her motion for judgment
based on the pleadings of the parties.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition.

The Court AFFIRMS the 30 September 2003
Decision and the 18 March 2004 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
67836. SO ORDERED.