Remedial Law Review I - Atty.

Custodio
AY 2019 - 2020 (1st sem) ASUNCION, BONIFACIO, CAPILA, CHUA, CRUZ, GAON, GARCIA, INTIA, LAGO, MARTINEZ, OBNAMIA, PERNES, REPOSAR, STA. ANA, TABALINGCOS, TEMPORAL
RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS 4. It may be argued that the original complaints had been dismissed through the June
29, 2000 RTC order.
1. Marcos-Araneta vs. CA (GR. No. 154096) a. However, the finality of such dismissal order had not set in when Irene filed
[amendment of complaint and responsive pleading were discussed together] the amended complaint on July 17, 2000, she having meanwhile
Facts: seasonably sought reconsideration thereof.
1. Irene Marcos-Araneta alleged Benedicto and his associates held 65% shares of b. Irene's MR was only resolved on August 25, 2000. Thus, when Irene filed
stocks of FEMII and UEC for her benefit. Benedicto Group refused to oblige to her the amended complaint on July 17, 2000, the order of dismissal was not yet
demand of reconveyance. final, implying that there was strictly no legal impediment to her amending
2. Irene instituted before the RTC two similar complaints for conveyance of shares of her original complaints.
stock, accounting and receivership against the Benedicto Group.
a. The first, covered the UEC shares… The second, 65% of FEMII shares…
3. Benedicto filed a MTD. - RTC Granted. Both complaints were dismissed, stating that 2. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. vs. Dow Chemical Co. (GR. No. 179232) | August 23, 2012|
these partly constituted "real action", and that Irene did not actually reside in Ilocos
Norte, thus, venue was improperly laid. DOCTRINE:​two requisites for a court to allow an omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by
4. Irene filed a MR. While MR was pending, Irene filed a Motion (to Admit Amended amendment: (1) there was oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
Complaint), attaching therewith a copy of the Amended Complaint, in which the names requires; and (2) the amendment is made before judgment
of Daniel Rubio, Orlando G. Reslin, and Jose G. Reslin made additional plaintiffs.
a. The added plaintiffs, all from Ilocos Norte, were Irene's new trustees. (she FACTS:
wanted to cure venue defect) The amended complaint stated the same · August 11, 1995, a joint complaint for damages based on quasi-delict was filed before the
cause of action but sought the reconveyance of the FEMII shares only. RTC of Panabo City, Davao by 1,185 individuals against Del Monte, Dow Chemical Corporations
b. Motion for Reconsideration - RTC Denied. and other companies alleging that the companies were negligent in the manufacture, distribution
Motion to Admit Amended Complaint- RTC Granted. and sale or in not informing the users of the hazardous effects of the chemical they used. It was
5. Benedicto filed a MTD the amended complaint - RTC Denied. amended to implead other plaintiffs and dropped 4 defendants. The remaining defendants filed
a. Benedicto alleged there was no complaint to amend in the first place as the their Answer with Counterclaim.
original complaints were dismissed with finality earlier when the court · On September 2, 1997, the Dow/Occidental defendants jointly moved for the dismissal of
denied Irene's MR dismissing the original complaints. the complaint against them, as well as their counterclaim against the plaintiffs. They alleged that
b. RTC: there was actually no need to act on Irene's motion to admit, it being they have already entered into a compromise agreement.
her right as plaintiff to amend her complaints absent any responsive · The Chiquita defendants, on even date, filed their Motion for Leave to Admit Amended
pleading thereto. And, filing of the amended complaint ipso facto Answer with Counterclaims and Cross-claims, citing inadvertence, oversight, and excusable
superseded the original complaints, the dismissal of which, had not yet neglect as grounds for amendment. DOLE also filed a Motion to Admit Amended Answer with
become final at the time of the filing of the amended complaint. Cross Claim.
6. Benedicto went CA to nullify the following RTC orders: the first, admitting the · The parties thereafter filed numerous oppositions/motions to the pleadings filed by each.
amended complaint; the second, denying their motion to dismiss the amended Replies and comments were likewise filed in response thereto.
complaint; and the third, denying their MR of the second issuance. - CA Granted. · Del Monte filed motion to dismiss alleging the Amended Joint Complaint be dismissed
entirely with prejudice because the claimants had been paid, waived, abandoned and extinguish
Issue: W/N the amended complaint in the RTC should be dismissed because (of the argument their rights in effect of their compromise agreement with the claimants.
that) at the time it was filed, there was no more original complaint to amend - NO. · RTC granted and left to the cognizance of the court the case for cross claim among
Held: defendants filed by DOLE, Del Monte and Chiquita
1. CA held the flaw in the RTC's act of admitting the amended complaint lies in the fact · The Dow/Occidental defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA ruled that
that the filing of the amended complaint on July 17, 2000 came after the RTC had the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it admitted the cross-claims against the
ordered with finality the dismissal of the original complaints. Dow/Occidental defendants without any qualificationThe CA also held that the dismissal of the
2. Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right, i.e., without leave of court, complaint as regards the Dow/Occidental defendants in the civil case did not carry with it the
before any responsive pleading is filed or served. dismissal of the cross-claims filed against said defendants.
a. Responsive pleadings are those which seek affirmative relief and/or set up · Hence, consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45
defenses, like an answer. ISSUES:
b. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.
3. RTC did not err in admitting Irene’s amended complaint, Benedicta not having yet 1. WON THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL CASE CASE AGAINST THE DOW/OCCIDENTAL
answered the original complaints when the amended complaint was filed. DEFENDANTS CARRY WITH IT THE DISMISSAL OF CROSS CLAIMS AGAINST THEM
a. At that moment, Irene, by force of said Sec. 2 of Rule 10, had, as a matter
of right, the option of amending her underlying reconveyance complaints. 2. WON THE REQUEST FORADMISSION BY DOW/CCIDENTAL IS PROPER?
b. RTC’s duty to admit the amended complaint was purely ministerial. She
should not have even filed a motion to admit her amended complaint.

1
Remedial Law Review I - Atty. Custodio
AY 2019 - 2020 (1st sem) ASUNCION, BONIFACIO, CAPILA, CHUA, CRUZ, GAON, GARCIA, INTIA, LAGO, MARTINEZ, OBNAMIA, PERNES, REPOSAR, STA. ANA, TABALINGCOS, TEMPORAL
· Section 10, Rule 11 of the ​1997 Rules of Civil Procedure​, as amended, provides: defendants. Simply put, as the compromising plaintiffs can no longer hold the Del Monte and
Chiquita defendants liable, there is no more reason for the latter to sue the Dow/Occidental
o SEC. 10. ​Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. — When a pleader fails to set up a defendants as far as the compromising plaintiffs are concerned under the cross-claim.
counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when
justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment o With respect to the Dole defendants, however, as the Dole defendants did not enter into a
before judgment. compromise agreement with any of the plaintiffs, their cross-claims against the Dow/Occidental,
· Based on the above-quoted provision, there are two requisites for a court to allow an Del Monte and Chiquita defendants should be admitted in its totality.
omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment: (1) there was oversight, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect, or when justice requires; and (2) the amendment is made before judgment. o As to the Request for Admission served by the Dow/Occidental defendants, this Court finds
that the issue on its propriety has been rendered moot by the compromising plaintiffs' motion for
· The CA correctly held that there is basis for allowing the cross-claims of the Dole, Del execution and the subsequent issuance of the writ of execution by the RTC on April 23, 2003.
Monte and Chiquita defendants against the Dow/Occidental defendants as they complied with The Request for Admission was seeking the compromising plaintiffs' admission that they have
the rules. It is undisputed that the Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants sought to amend received the payments as agreed upon in the compromise agreement. However, in the plaintiffs'
their answers to include their cross-claims before judgment. More importantly, justice requires Motion for Execution dated December 26, 2002, they alleged that the compromising defendants
that they be allowed to do so in consonance with the policy against multiplicity of suits. still have not complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreements, thereby
forcing said plaintiffs to file the motion. Thus, the admission sought by the Dow/Occidental
· We further agree with the appellate court when it ruled that the dismissal of the complaint defendants has already been impliedly responded to by a denial of receipt of payment under the
against the Dow/Occidental defendants does not carry with it the dismissal of the cross-claims compromise agreement. With said denial, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
against them. The ruling in ​Ruiz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals ​26 that the dismissal of the complaint not resolving the Request for Admission. It is incumbent upon the Dow/Occidental defendants to
divested the cross-claimants of whatever appealable interest they might have had before, and prove that payments have been made to the compromising plaintiffs.
made the cross-claim itself no longer viable, is not applicable in the instant case because in
Ruiz​, the dismissal of the complaint was based on the ground that it lacked merit. In the case at
bar, the dismissal of the complaint against the Dow/Occidental defendants resulted from the 3. ​[G.R. No. L-15808. April 23, 1963.]
settlement with the plaintiffs, which is in effect an admission of liability on the part of the FAUSTA AGCANAS, JUAN MIGUEL, JUANITA MIGUEL, assisted by her husband ULPIANO
Dow/Occidental defendants. As held in ​Bañez v. Court of Appeals:​ PASION, assisted by her husband JUAN PASCUAL, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. BRUNO
MERCADO, and ANTONIO DASALLA, defendants-appellants.
§ A third-party complaint is indeed similar to a cross-claim, except only with respect to the
persons against whom they are directed. However, the ruling in ​Ruiz cannot be successfully DOCTRINE: A responsive pleading having been filed, amendments to the complaint may,
invoked by petitioners. In ​Ruiz we declared that the dismissal of the main action rendered the therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of right.
cross-claim no longer viable only because the main action was categorically dismissed for lack
of cause of action. Hence, since defendants could no longer be held liable under the main FALLO: “​The order of default issued and the decision rendered by the trial court are set aside
complaint, no reason existed for them anymore to sue their co-party under the cross-claim. and the case is remanded for further proceedings, pursuant to the Rules. Costs against
§ In sharp contrast thereto, the termination of the main action between PESALA and PNB-RB plaintiffs- appellees.”
was not due to any finding that it was bereft of any basis. On the contrary, further proceedings
were rendered unnecessary only because defendant (third-party plaintiff) PNB-RB, to avoid a FACTS:
protracted litigation, voluntarily admitted liability in the amount of P20,226,685.00. Hence, the
termination of the main action between PESALA and PNB-RB could not have rendered lifeless November 25, 1956: ​plaintiffs filed this action to recover portions of a parcel of land ​in Isabela,
the third-party complaint filed against petitioners, as it did the cross-claim in ​Ruiz, Jr. v. Court of and damages.
Appeals​, since it involved a finding of liability on the part of PNB-RB even if it be by compromise.
o And as correctly observed by the CA, the plaintiffs are seeking to hold all defendant December 4, 1956: ​defendants filed a motion for a bill of particulars, with notice of hearing on
companies solidarily liable. Thus, even with the compromise agreements entered into by the December 8, but since the motion was actually received in court only on December 12 the court
Dow/Occidental, Del Monte and Chiquita defendants with majority of the plaintiffs below, the civil set it for hearing on December 22.
case was not dismissed nor the amount of damages sought by plaintiffs therein reduced.
Therefore, the remaining defendants can still be made liable by plaintiffs for the full amount. If December 17: however, ​defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, with a prayer that
that happens, the remaining defendants can still proceed with their cross-claims against the consideration of their motion for a bill of particulars be held in abeyance pending resolution of
compromising defendants, including the Dow/Occidental defendants, for their respective shares. their motion to dismiss.
ICHcTD
December 22, 1956: the date set by the court for the hearing of the motion for a bill of particulars
o We also uphold the appellate court's ruling that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it and by defendants for the hearing of their motion to dismiss, the court issued an order
admitted the cross-claims against the Dow/Occidental defendants without any qualification. The postponing "consideration" of both motions to December 29.
Del Monte and Chiquita defendants' cross-claims against the Dow/Occidental defendants cannot
March 7, 1957: the court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered defendants "to answer the
extend to the plaintiffs with whom they had settled, but only with respect to those plaintiffs who
complaint within the reglementary period provided for by the Rules of Court."
refused to enter into a compromise agreement with them, that is, with respect only to James
Bagas and Dante Bautista for the Chiquita defendants and the 16 plaintiffs for the Del Monte
2
Remedial Law Review I - Atty. Custodio
AY 2019 - 2020 (1st sem) ASUNCION, BONIFACIO, CAPILA, CHUA, CRUZ, GAON, GARCIA, INTIA, LAGO, MARTINEZ, OBNAMIA, PERNES, REPOSAR, STA. ANA, TABALINGCOS, TEMPORAL
October 29, 1957: Hearing of the case on the merits was set and notice of which was duly until the motion for a bill of particulars is denied or, it is granted, until the bill is served on the
received by defendants. moving party.

October 17, 1957: Defendants not having filed their answer, plaintiffs, moved to have them The lower court deemed appellants to have "tacitly waived their right to push through the hearing
declared in default. On the same day the court issued the order of default, together with another of the motion for bill of particulars," because of their failure to set it for hearing or to ask the clerk
order commissioning the clerk of court to receive plaintiffs' evidence. of court to calendar it after denial of the motion to dismiss.

October 21, 1957: defendants moved to cancel the hearing scheduled for October 29, on two Appellants did set the motion for hearing on December 8, 1956, although it was not heard on
grounds, one of which was that their motion for a bill of particulars had not yet been resolved. that day because it arrived in court only on December 12.

October 26, 1957: When defendants arrived in court they learned that an order of default had Thereafter they did not have to reset it, as the clerk of court scheduled it for hearing on
been issued, so they immediately filed a motion asking that the same be set aside, that their December 22, 1956. And on that day the court issued an order that "the consideration of the
pending motion for a bill of particulars be resolved and that they be given a reasonable period motion to dismiss, as well as the bill of particulars, is hereby postponed to December 29, 1956."
thereafter within which to file their answer to the complaint.
As to whether or not both motions were actually heard on December 29 does not appear of
December 13, 1957: the court denied the motion and rendered its decision in favor of plaintiffs record. But heard or not, the motions should be considered submitted, and it was the clear duty
of the court to resolve the motion for a bill of particulars, as it did the motion to dismiss.
January 4, 1958: it denied defendants' motion for reconsideration
No action having been taken thereon until the present, the period to answer has not yet expired.
January 24: defendants filed their record on appeal (to this Court from the order of December
13, 1957), but as they subsequently filed a petition for relief from the judgment by default, they The lower court, therefore, erred in declaring appellants in default and in taking all the
asked that consideration and approval of their record on appeal be held in abeyance until said subsequent actions it did in the case.
petition had been resolved. The request was granted.

Defendant's petition for relief, which was filed on January 28, 1958, was denied on March 21, as G.R. No. 143264, April 23, 2012
was also, on September 20, 1958, their motion for reconsideration of the order of denial.
LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. represented by LOLITA A. SORIANO, and LOLITA A. SORIANO,
October 4, 1958: the court denied likewise their motion for a writ of preliminary injunction to Petitioners, vs. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. (formerly PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
restrain execution of the judgment by default. Hence this appeal. INTERNATIONAL BANK),* LILIAN S. SORIANO, ESTATE OF LEANDRO A. SORIANO, JR.,
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEGASPI CITY, and JESUS L. SARTE, Respondents.
ISSUE: W/N upon denial of a defendants' motion to dismiss the reglementary period within
which to file an answer resumes running even though the motion for a bill of particulars of the DOCTRINE: A responsive pleading having been filed, amendments to the complaint may,
same defendants is still pending and unresolved. therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of right.

RULING: NO. FACTS: On August 13, 1999, petitioners filed a Complaint against respondents for Annulment of
Mortgage with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction with Damages
Both a motion to dismiss and a motion for a bill of particulars interrupt the time to file a with the RTC of Legaspi City. Petitioner Lolita A. Soriano alleged that she is a stockholder of
responsive pleading. petitioner Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LEI) and a member of its Board of Directors, designated as its
Corporate Secretary.
In the case of a motion to dismiss, the period starts running again as soon as the movant
receives a copy of the order of denial. LEI acquired a lot in Legaspi. Sorianos acquired a loan from PCIB in their personal capacity for
P20m and as security, the Sorianos as president and treasurer but without authority, falsified a
In the case of a motion for a bill of particulars, the suspended period shall continue to run upon
Board Resolution and executed a Real Estate Mortgage.
service on the movant of the bill of particulars, if the motion is granted, or of the notice of its
denial, but in any event he shall have not less than five days within which to file his responsive After service of summons, TRO and Injunction were issued by the RTC.
pleading.
On September 25, 1999, Sorianos filed an Answer. On September 28, PCIB filed a Motion to
When appellants filed a motion to dismiss, they requested that resolution of their previous Dismiss the Complaint on grounds of lack of legal capacity to sue, failure to state a cause of
motion for a bill of particulars be held in abeyance. action, and litis pendencia.
This was but practical, because if the court had granted the motion to dismiss there would have On November 11, 1999, the RTC issued the first assailed Resolution dismissing petitioners'
been no need for a bill of particulars. Complaint. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution. While awaiting
resolution of the motion for reconsideration, petitioners also filed, on January 4, 2000, a Motion
Resolution of the motion for the purpose was necessary only in the event that court should deny,
to Admit Amended Complaint. RTC denied both.
as it did, the motion to dismiss, in which case the period to file an answer remained suspended

3
Remedial Law Review I - Atty. Custodio
AY 2019 - 2020 (1st sem) ASUNCION, BONIFACIO, CAPILA, CHUA, CRUZ, GAON, GARCIA, INTIA, LAGO, MARTINEZ, OBNAMIA, PERNES, REPOSAR, STA. ANA, TABALINGCOS, TEMPORAL
Hence, Petition for Review under Rule 45. 11. MTCC then declared Van der Kolk in default giving the reason that her non-filing of an
answer within the fresh 10-day period was deliberately calculated to delay the early
ISSUE:Whether or not an amendment to the complaint may still be filed after a responsive termination of the case and resolving the case on the merits taking into account ​only
pleading is filed the allegations of the complaint. MTCC declared the heirs of Yabao as the owners of
the lot
HELD: YES. that respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. already
12. Van der Kolk filed an appeal before the RTC
filed their Answer, to petitioners' complaint, and the claims being asserted were made against
13. Counsel for Van der Kolk received the notice of the RTC Clerk of Court requiring her
said parties. A responsive pleading (Answer) having been filed, amendments to the complaint
to file a memorandum on appeal within 15 days from such receipt or until November 6,
may, therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of right.
2007
PETITION IS DISMISSED. 14. On November 5, 2007, Atty. Tibo moved for additional time of 30 days from November
6, 2007 alleging that he could not seasonably file the said pleading due to heavy
pressures of work. The memorandum was filed on November 21, 2007.
4. Heirs of Paciano Yabao vs. Van Der Kolk (GR. No. 207266) 15. The Heirs of Yabao filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal, citing the failure of Van der
FACTS: Kolk to file the appeal memorandum.
1. Sometime in 1996, Paz Lentejas Van Der Kolk asserted claim of ownership and 16. RTC issued the Order dismissing the appeal for failure of Van der Kolk to file the
allowed a person to possess the property originally belonging to the Heirs of Pacianao memorandum on appeal
Yabao. 17. MR was also denied, which prompted Van der Kolk to file an appeal before the CA
2. Despite repeated demands of the heirs of Yabao for the defendant to vacate the 18. CA granted the petition "on grounds not raised herein but disclosed by the records”. It
premises usurped and occupied by her, she refused and still continue to refuse, to declared that the MTCC should have required the Heirs of Yabao to present evidence
leave the said premises ex parte, after it had declared Van der Kolk in default, to prove the allegations in the
3. The Heirs of Paciano Yabao, represented by Remedios Chan, filed a complaint for complaint.
ownership and possession against Paz Lentejas Van der Kolk (filed March 8,2001)
4. Copies of the summons and the complaint were served upon the attorney-in-fact of ISSUE: WON MTCC correctly held Van der Kolk in default and ruled the case based only on the
Van der Kolk, ​Ma. Narcisa Fabregaras-Ventures​, whom she authorized to institute and allegations in the complaint? NO FOR BOTH
defend all actions for the protection of her rights and interests over her properties,
including the subject lot, ​by virtue of a special power of attorney​ executed in 1999 FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
5. It was noted in the Sheriff's Return of Service that Van der Kolk was in the
Netherlands at the time of the service HELD:
6. Van der Kolk filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint anchored on the following 1. The MTCC erred when it granted the reliefs prayed by the Heirs of Yabao because
grounds (filed April 2,2001): the same were not warranted by the allegations in the complaint.
a. lack of jurisdiction by the MTCC over her person due to defective service of 2. The Court notes that the allegations pertinent to the petitioners' cause of action,
summons - alleged that the service of summons should have been made in particularly on their claim of ownership and right to possession over the property, were
accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 (Extraterritorial Service) because she not supported by any document annexed to the complaint. Mere assertions, as what
was not actually residing in the Philippines; the petitioners proffered, do not suffice
b. lack of cause of action. 3. Accordingly, the petitioners' entitlement to their claims was not proven by
c. Shecontended that the predecessors-in-interest of the Heirs of Yabao had preponderance of evidence. As correctly pointed out by the CA​, the MTCC should
executed a joint affidavit wherein they renounced their hereditary rights over have, after it declared Van der Kolk in default, directed the Heirs of Yabao to adduce
the subject lot and declared that Faustina Yabao, mother of Van der Kolk, evidence to substantiate the allegations in their complaint
as its true owner 4. The MTCC should have admitted Van der Kolk's answer, which was appended to her
7. The Heirs of Yabao filed their opposition to the said motion and moved to declare Van motion for allowance to belatedly file answer of declaring her in default. Record shows
der Kolk in default contending that the motion to dismiss was filed beyond the 15-day that the MTCC rendered the judgment of default only on December 4, 2006 and thus,
reglementary period and no answer had been filed. it slept on Van der Kolk's said motion for 1 year and nine months, just as it also slept
8. MTCC denied the motion to dismiss, holding that there was proper service of on the petitioners' motion to declare her in default for almost two years.
summons. It also denied the motion to declare defendant in default, stating that the 5. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file his
motion to dismiss was seasonably filed. answer and to be heard on the merits even after the reglementary period for filing the
9. Atty. Felidito Dacut, filed a Manifestation with Motion praying that he be relieved as answer expires. ​The rule is that the defendant's answer should be admitted where it is
her counsel because she never contacted him about the case. The Heirs of Yabao still filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff​. In this
reiterated their motion to declare Van der Kolk in default during the hearing because case, Van der Kolk filed the answer beyond the reglementary period but before she
no answer had yet been filed. was declared in default, and there was no showing that she intended to delay the
10. In 2005, Van der Kolk, through her new counsel, Atty. Tibo filed her Answer to the prompt disposition of the case. Consequently, her Answer should have been admitted.
complaint which was appended to the Motion for Allowance to Belatedly File
Defendant's Answer
4
Remedial Law Review I - Atty. Custodio
AY 2019 - 2020 (1st sem) ASUNCION, BONIFACIO, CAPILA, CHUA, CRUZ, GAON, GARCIA, INTIA, LAGO, MARTINEZ, OBNAMIA, PERNES, REPOSAR, STA. ANA, TABALINGCOS, TEMPORAL
5. Guyamin vs. Flores (GR. No. 202189) ● RULE: Responsive Answer should be filed within 15 days from receipt of Complaint or
initiatory pleading
PARTIES INVOLVED: ● ​IN THIS CASE: The filing of Guyanin’s Answer prior to Flores’ Motion to declare them
in default and reply, do not erase the fact that Guyanin’s Answer is late
● JACINTO FLORES AND MAXIMO FLORES: Party who instituted a Complaint for - Flores’ reply filed thereafter is, like the belated answer, a mere scrap of
Recovery of Possession of Property paper, as it proceeds from a belatedly filed Answer.
● RODANTE GUYANIN: Relative of Flores who occupies the subject lot by tolerance - As to rendition of decision before presentation of evidence, the Supreme
Court ruled that it was proper for the RTC to admit the evidence presented
by Flores even if there was no formal offer of evidence since the pieces of
HOW THE CASE STARTED
evidence were identified during the ex parte hearing and marked as Exhibits
A to F.
● Flores instituted a ​Complaint for Recovery of Possession against Guyanin before - In addition, SC pointed out the Guyanin’s act of failure to attach a copy of
RTC Trece Martires. They alleged that: their Answer to the Complaint to show the he has a substantial defense
- They are the registered owner of a parcel of land against Flores is an ingenious scheme that the Court censures.
- Guyanin is their relative who for many years have been occupying the
subject property by mere tolerance of Flores’ parents (the original owner
- Guyanin has been reminded to vacate the premises because Flores
decided to sell the property
- Flores made several attempts to settle the matter through conciliation but it
all failed
● Summons and copy of Complaint were served upon Guyanin through Eileen, who
refused to sign and acknowledge receipt.
● Later on, Flores filed ​Motion the Declare Defendants in Default for failure of Guyanin
to file his answer despite service of summons
● It took almost 8 months before Guyanin filed their ​Answer with Motion to Dismiss
● In response, Flores filed their ​Reply to Answer​, arguing that:
- Guyanin’s Answer was belatedly filed, so they should be declared in default
- For this reason, Flores prayed that the Answer be stricken off the record
● RULING OF RTC ON MOTION TO DECLARE GUYANIN IN DEFAULT: Guyanin was
declared in default so Flores was allowed to present evidence ex parte
- GROUND: For failure to file their responsive answer within the reglementary
period of 15 days
● RULING OF RTC ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE: ​Guyanin is ordered to vacate the
property and deliver its possession to Flores
● ARGUMENTS OF GUYANIN WHEN HE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE CA:
- Case should be dismissed for failure of Flores to give notice or demand to
vacate and observe conciliation process
- Based on the complaint, Flores merely reminded them to vacate but no
actual demand to vacate has been given
● RULING OF CA:​ Affirmed RTC Ruling. Guyanin is ordered to vacate the property
- There was a demand to vacate given. Although the complaint used
“reminding” instead of “demanding”, it shall still be construed as demand to
vacate.
- The Order of Default issued by RTC is proper since it took more than 8
months after receiving the summons that Guyanin filed his Answer

​ISSUE: WON it is proper to declare Guyanin in default for failure to file an Answer (responsive
pleading) within the reglementary period. [YES]

​HELD:​ It is proper to declare Guyanin in default.