Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Aldemita v Heirs of Silva purported signature of Melquiades Silva in Exhibit 1 and that of Porferia Silva
G.R. 166403 in Exhibit 2.
November 2, 2006
4. The parties manifested through their respective counsel that they would
Topic: Motion to Dismiss
Petitioners:Benzon Aldemita submit the case for decision without need of trial especially that the findings
Respondents: Heirs of Melquiades Silva embodied in the commissioner’s report (that the signature of Silva was
Ponente: J. Austria-Martinez indeed forged) have already been considered as the findings of facts in this
case.
FACTS 5.After Aldemita filed a Position Paper with the Court, his counsel Atty.
Manuel Paradela filed a Motion To Withdraw As Counsel. Immediately
1. A Complaint for Quieting of Title was filed with the RTC by the Heirs of thereafter, the new counsel for petitioner Aldemita, Atty. Rodolfo Ugang,
Melquiades Silva, represented by Ramon G. Villordon, Jr., against the Heirs Sr., entered his appearance and filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause
of Dionisia Vda. De Zabate (represented by Emelia Deiparine and Benzon O. of action.
Aldemita), involving Lot 11330 of Pcs-945.
The Motion averred in main that the respondents should first be declared
2. During the pre-trial, the parties made the following stipulations of facts as heirs of Melquiades Silva in a special proceeding before they can be
and/or admissions, to wit: considered as real parties-in-interest to institute the action in this case.
1) [Petitioner] Aldemita admitted that Lot 11330 has been 6. The RTC denied the Motion for being belatedly filed. The Court also
registered in the name of Melquiades Silva as shown by Transfer recognized the heirs of Melquiades Silva as the real parties in interest who
Certificate No. T-18993 of the Registry of Deeds and has been could institute an action for quieting of title. Meanwhile, believing the Silva’s
covered by Tax Declaration No. 25845-R also in the name of signature had been forged, the documents denominated as "Kalig-onan Sa
Melquiades Silva; Palit" and "Kalig-onan sa Panagpalit nga Dayon," and the Deed of
2) [Petitioner] Aldemita also admitted that the [respondents] in this Confirmation of Previous Deed of Sale were all declared to be null and void.
case have been the ones in actual physical possession of the lot, 7. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto.
except a 2,000-square-meter area which said he is claiming to be
possessed by him; 8. Hence, the instant Petition.
SEC. 2. Defenses and objections not pleaded deemed waived. - Defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived; except the failure to state a cause of action which may be
alleged in a later pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for judgment on
the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits; but in the last instance, the
motion shall be disposed of as provided in Section 5 of Rule 10 in the light of
any evidence which may have been received. Whenever it appears that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it shall dismiss the action
They effectively assumed that where failure to state a cause of action was
not deemed waived even if raised after the answer has been filed. However,
since this case was filed in 1998, the effective rules applicable were now the
Revised Rules of Court of 1997. The applicable Rule now is Sec. 1 Rule 9
which reads;
As it stands, only the following defenses are not waived even if not raised in
a motion to dismiss or in the answer: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription on the action.
Failure to state a cause of action is not an exception in said Rule. Thus, under
Section 1, Rule 16, petitioner is deemed to have waived this ground and
cannot now raise it after the case in the RTC had been submitted for decision
or on appeal to the CA.