Demurrer To Evidence: Rule 33

Demurrer to Evidence Rule 33

Demurrer to Evidence After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.

Demurrer to Evidence If his motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence.

Demurrer to Evidence If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

Motion to Dismiss in Rule 16 distinguished from Demurrer to Evidence in Rule 33

Rule 16 Made before the filing of the answer There are several grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16

Rule 33 Made after the plaintiff rests its case There is only one ground under Rule 33

Motion to Dismiss in Rule 16 distinguished from Demurrer to Evidence in Rule 33

Rule 16

Rule 33

 When Denied: The defendant may file his responsive pleading

 When Denied: The defendant may present his evidence

 When Granted: The complaint may be refilled, depending on the ground for dismissal

 When Granted: The complaint may not be refilled and the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal from the order of dismissal

Question:

When is the stage of the proceedings when demurrer to evidence is availed of? After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence.

Effects of DENIAL of the Demurrer to Evidence

 It does not deprive the defendant to present his evidence.

 An order denying a Demurrer to Evidence is interlocutory and is, therefore, not appealable. It can, however, be the subject of a petition for certiorari in case of grave abuse of discretion.

Effects of GRANTING of the Demurrer to Evidence

 The case shall be dismissed.

 However, if, on appeal, the order of dismissal is reversed, the defendant loses his right to present evidence. The appellate court should render judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.

Demurrer in a Civil Case as distinguished from a Demurrer in a Criminal Case

Civil Case

Criminal Case

 Leave of court is not required in filing a demurrer

 A demurrer is filed with or without leave of court

 The court cannot, on its own, a make a demurrer

 The court may do so

Demurrer in a Civil Case as distinguished from a Demurrer in a Criminal Case

Civil Case

Criminal Case

 When Granted: The order of dismissal is appealable

 When Granted: The order of dismissal is not appealable

 When Denied: The defendant may proceed to present his evidence

 When Denied: The accused may adduce his evidence only if demurrer is filed with leave of court

Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Del Rosario GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000

Plaintiff finance company filed case against defendant. The defendant file a demurrer to evidence. The trial court granted the demurer and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, The Court of Appeals reversed the court’s order granting the demurrer. The Court of Appeals ordered the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings

Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Del Rosario GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeal’s remand was proper.

Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Del Rosario GR No. 138739; July 6, 2000 Held: No. The Supreme Court held that the remand was improper since the Court of Appeals had enough evidence on record to decide the case. To remand the case for the defendant to present evidence before the court a quo would be to circumvent the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 33 which provides that the defendant is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

Question:

May the movant present evidence in support of his motion?

No. What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurer to evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief based on the facts and the law.

Judgment on the Pleadings Rule 34

Judgment on the Pleadings It is a judgment based solely on the relief prayed for in the complaint or submitted pleadings without plaintiff adducing any evidence.

Judgment on the Pleadings It is appropriate when an answer to claim fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. Hence, if the defendant fails to specifically deny the material allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff may move for a judgment on the pleadings.

When does an answer fail to tender an issue?

An answer fails to tender an issue when it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Secs. 8 and 10, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.

When can a court render Judgment to the Pleadings?

1. When an answer fails to tender an issue (Sec. 1, Rule 34) 2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, when the defendant fails to answer the complaint within 10 days from service of summons (Sec. 6, Rule on Summary Procedure)

When can a court render Judgment to the Pleadings?

3. When the defendant is declared in default (Sec. 3, Rule 9) 4. During pre-trial if the court finds a valid ground therefore (Sec. 2 (g), Rule 18) 5. As a penalty for non-compliance or refusal to answer in discovery proceedings (Sec. 3 and 5, Rule 29)

When does Judgment on the Pleadings will not apply?

 When no answer is filed  When an answer is served and filed but it fails to tender and issue  Admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings

Cases where Judgment on the Pleadings will not apply  Actions for declaration of nullity of a marriage  Actions for annulment of marriage  Actions for legal separation

Motion required

Judgment on the pleadings cannot be rendered by the court motu proprio. It can be done only where there is a prior motion to the effect filed by the claiming party.

Motion required

In resolving the motion, when the defendant admits all the ultimate facts in the complaint, such facts will no longer require evidence. Hence, upon motion the court may be asked to render judgment based on the pleadings.

Capitol Motors vs. Yabut 32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970

Capitol Motors filed a complaint for sum of money against Yabut. A copy of the promissory note upon which the action was based was attached to the complaint. The complaint alleges that Yabut defaulted in the payment of the note. Yabut filed an answer in which he admits the paragraph regarding his personal circumstances but “specifically denies” the rest of the allegations for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof. Capitol Motors moved for a judgment on the pleadings in its favor.

Capitol Motors vs. Yabut 32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970

Issue: Whether or not the trial court should grant the motion.

Capitol Motors vs. Yabut 32 SCRA 1; March 19, 1970

Held: Yes. The third mode of specific denial may not be availed of when the fact as to which want of knowledge or information is claimed is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue. The defendant must aver positively or state how it is that he is ignorant of the fact alleged. Since there is an implied admission of the material averments of the complaint, a judgment on the pleadings may be rendered.

Illustration: A promised to sell a parcel of land to B for P1M and B accepted A’s promise. Later on A advised B that he was no longer interested in selling the land to B. B filed a complaint for specific performance against A to compel him to sell the land. A filed an answer in which he admits that he promised to sell the land to B and that B had accepted his promise but alleges that the promise was not supported by any consideration. B and A jointly moved for the judgment on the pleadings. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint stating that the accepted unilateral promise to sell is not binding upon the promissor since it was not supported by a distinct consideration. On appeal, may B contend that the trial court erred in finding that there was no distinct consideration since cause is presumed in a

Illustration: Answer: No. One who prays for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of his own allegations, and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to produce evidence, impliedly admits the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party, and to rest his motion for judgment on those allegations taken together with such of his own as are admitted in the pleadings. (Sanchez vs Rigos, 45 SCRA 368)

Summary Judgment Rule 35

Summary Judgment Also called Accelerated Judgment, is proper where, upon a motion filed after the issues had been joined and on the basis of the pleadings and papers filed, the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact except as to the amount of damages.

Genuine Issue An issue of fact, which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious contrived or false claim. When facts appear uncontested or undisputed, there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and only after then summary judgment is appropriate.

Summary Judgment is proper in:  Actions to recover a debt  Liquidation of sum of money  Declaratory relief  Personal injury cases

Motion required The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that a summary judgment on an action is in order. The defending party or the claimant must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion. The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary judgment and furnished with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted.

Partial Summary Judgment

It is a judgment, which results if in a motion for summary judgment, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all reliefs sought and a trial is necessary.

Partial Summary Judgment The trial court at the hearing of the motion, shall ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy and what are actually and in good faith controverted. The court shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy and the facts specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts

Distinctions between a Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34) and a Summary Judgment (Rule 35)

Rule 34

Rule 35

 There is an absence of a factual issue in the case because the answer tenders no issue at all

 Involves an issue but the issue is not genuine at all. The issue is only as to the amount of damages but not as to any material fact

 Filed by a claiming party

 Filed by either the claiming or the

Distinctions between a Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34) and a Summary Judgment (Rule 35)

Rule 34  Based on the pleadings alone

 Only a 3-day notice to the adverse party is required prior to the date of hearing

Rule 35  Based on the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions  A 10-day notice to the adverse party is required. The adverse party, in turn, may serve opposing affidavits, depositions or

Judgment against an entity without a juridical personality

When 2 or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality, they may be sued under the name, which they are generally or commonly known.

Entry of Judgment Refers to the physical act performed by the clerk of court in entering the dispositive portion of the judgment in the book of entries of judgment after the same has become final and executor, signed by the clerk of court with a certificate by said clerk that the judgment has already become final and executory.

Date of Entry of Judgment Is the date when the judgment becomes final and executory regardless of the date when the physical act of entry was done.

Date of Entry of Judgment Illustration: If the judgment becomes final and executory on March 15, because no appeal, motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration has been filed, the judgment is deemed entered simultaneously on March 15 even if the actual physical act of entry of judgment was done on another date.

Date of Entry of Judgment The relevance of knowing the date of the entry of a judgment is that there are some proceedings the filing of which is reckoned from the date of entry of judgment.

i.e. a. Execution of a judgment by motion is within 5 years from the entry of judgment.

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

On August 17, 1936, President Manuel L. Quezon issued Proclamation No. 80, which declared a 39.3996-hectare landholding located at Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, a military reservation site. The proclamation expressly stated that it was being issued "subject to private rights, if any there be." Accordingly, the respondent obtained an Original Certificate of Title No. over the property.

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

On January 16, 1995, respondent filed before the RTC of Tuguegarao, Cagayan a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners. Petitioners allegedly refused to vacate the subject property despite repeated demands to do so. They maintained that they and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open and continuous possession of the subject property since the early 1900s.

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

On January 16, 1995, respondent filed before the RTC of Tuguegarao, Cagayan a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners. Petitioners allegedly refused to vacate the subject property despite repeated demands to do so. They maintained that they and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open and continuous possession of the subject property since the early 1900s.

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

Petitioners acknowledged the issuance of Proclamation No. 80 on August 17, 1936, but maintained that the subject property (the 5hectare portion allegedly occupied by them since1900s) was excluded from its operation, citing a proviso in the proclamation “private rights, if any there be.”

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

ISSUE:

Is a motu propio rendition of a summary judgment violative of due process?

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

RULING: No. Summary judgments are proper when, upon motion of the plaintiff or the defendant, the court finds that the answer filed by the defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial.

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

"A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact, "as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim."

Calubaquib vs. Republic GR. 170658, June 22, 201

"[A] factual issue raised by a party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway.