NOTES: JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Basbas vs. Sayson

G.R. No. 172660, August 24, 2011

I. The instant case is proper for the rendition of a summary judgment.

Petitioners principally assail the CA’s affirmance of the RTC’s Order

granting respondents’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary
Judgment.

In Tan v. De la Vega,[52] citing Narra Integrated Corporation v. Court of

Appeals,[53] the court distinguished summary judgment from judgment on the
pleadings,viz:

The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the

pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the
other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from
one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on
the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of
the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in
the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist – i.e. facts are
asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission,
disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses
are in truth set out in the answer – but the issues thus arising from the
pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits,
depositions, or admissions. x x x.
Simply stated, what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a
summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the
Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny
the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to
deal with them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.[54] On the other
hand, when the Answer specifically denies the material averments of the
complaint or asserts affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a
summary judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine. “A
‘genuine issue’ means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence,
as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not
constitute a genuine issue for trial.”[55]

a) Judgment on the pleadings is not

proper because petitioners’ Answer
tendered issues.
 In this case, we note that while petitioners’ Answer to respondents’
Complaint practically admitted all the material allegations therein, it nevertheless
asserts the affirmative defenses that the action for revival of judgment is not the
proper action and that petitioners are not the proper parties. As issues obviously
arise from these affirmative defenses, a judgment on the pleadings is clearly
improper in this case.

However, before we consider this case appropriate for the rendition of

summary judgment, an examination of the issues raised, that is, whether they are
genuine issues or not, should first be made.

b) The issues raised are not genuine

issues, hence rendition of summary
judgment is proper.
To resolve the issues of whether a revival of judgment is the proper action
and whether respondents are the proper parties thereto, the RTC merely needed to
examine the following: 1) the RTC Order dated September 13, 1989, to determine
whether same is a judgment or final order contemplated under Section 6, Rule 39
of the Rules of Court; and, 2) the pleadings of the parties and pertinent portions of
the records[56] showing, among others, who among the respondents were
oppositors to the land registration case, the heirs of such oppositors and the present
occupants of the property. Plainly, these issues could be readily resolved based on
the facts established by the pleadings. A full-blown trial on these issues will only
entail waste of time and resources as they are clearly not genuine issues requiring
presentation of evidence.

Petitioners aver that the RTC should not have granted respondents’ Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment because of the
controverted stipulations and the first three issues enumerated in the Pre-trial
Order, which, according to them, require the presentation of evidence. These
stipulations and issues, however, when examined, basically boil down to questions
relating to the propriety of the action resorted to by respondents, which is revival
of judgment, and to the proper parties thereto – the same questions which we have
earlier declared as not constituting genuine issues.

In sum, this Court holds that the instant case is proper for the rendition of a
summary judgment, hence, the CA committed no error in affirming the May 21,
2001 Order of the RTC granting respondents’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment.

Municipality of Tiwi vs. Betito

G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010
A judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer admits all the material
averments of the complaint. But where several issues are properly tendered by
the answer, a trial on the merits must be resorted to in order to afford each party
his day in court.

Where the answer merely reproduces the recitals in the complaint and denies
such recitals without setting forth the matters relied upon in support of such
denials although it is practicable to do so, such answer contains only general
denials and judgment on the pleadings is proper (Sy-Quia, et. al. vs. Marsman, et.
al., L-23426, March 1, 1968)

PROVISIONS:

RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Section 1. In general.

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for
his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere
evidentiary facts.

If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated.

Sec. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.

In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or

mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other
condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.

Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document.

Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or

document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in
the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading
as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy
may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.
Sec. 8. How to contest such documents.

When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or

attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section,
the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted
unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth
what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.

Sec. 9. Official document or act.

In pleading an official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the

document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.

Sec. 10. Specific denial.

A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the
matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires
to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have
the effect of a denial.

Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted.

Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of

unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath.

RULE 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings.

Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that
party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts
alleged in the complaint shall always be proved.

1. In paragraph 16 of Respondent's Answer, she denied the material

allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Petition, but also ratiocinated that
"a wrong citation does not invalidate a valid assessment" thereby admitting that
the BIR based its findings on a wrong revenue memorandum order (RMO).

As Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 3 of Revenue Regulation (RR)

No. 12-99 both require that the taxpayer be informed of the law and the facts
on which the assessment is based, absent which the assessment shall be void,
citing the wrong law as basis for petitioner's assessment makes the assessment
void.

2. No issue was tendered because respondent's general denial

accompanied by a lack of denial in fact amounts to an admission of paragraphs
4, 7, 10, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47
and 48 of the Petition for Review.

3. Respondent is deemed to have admitted that the BIR did not issue a
Letter of Authority in making an assessment in violation of the provisions of
Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) 17-2009 and RMO 32-2007 and did not
serve the warrant of garnishment to petitioner when it indiscriminately
garnished petitioner's funds in the bank.

4. Respondent is deemed to have admitted paragraphs 4 and 32 of the

Petition in failing to comply with the provisions of Section 7, Rule 8, Rules of
Court, on action or defense based on document.

5. In failing to specifically deny under oath and contesting facts claimed

by petitioner in accordance with Section 8, Rule 8, Rules of Court, respondent
is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the
documents attached by petitioner as its Annexes "A" to "AA" and all its sub-
markings.

6. Respondent's general denials of paragraphs 1, 2, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22,

and 33 by claiming that she "lack[ed] knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth thereof" are sham denials and respondent is deemed to have admitted
the mentioned paragraphs.

4.