ALDEMITA V.

HEIRS OF SILVA Aldemita, through his counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause
November 2, 2006 | Austria-Martinez, J.| Rule 15: Motions of action. The Motion averred in main that the respondents should first
DIGEST MADE BY: Sienna be declared as heirs of Melquiades Silva in a special proceeding before
CLUE: ancient documents; motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action they can be considered as real parties-in-interest to institute the action
in this case. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the
PETITIONER: BENZON O. ALDEMITA case was already considered as submitted to the Court for decision and
that said motion was not filed within the proper time for filing the
RESPONDENTS: HEIRS OF MELQUIADES SILVA, represented by
RAMON G. VILLORDON, JR. answer as provided in Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

The RTC ruled that a motion to dismiss cannot be filed anytime except
DOCTRINE:
if the grounds therefor are lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
Only the following defenses are not waived even if not raised in a motion pendency of another action between the same parties for the same
cause and bar by prior judgment or statute of limitations. The 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 filed in this case is not on account of any of the said exceptional three
action. Failure to state a cause of action is not an exception in said Rule. grounds. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

(The case did not cite Rule 15 mismo but this is found under Rule 15, The issue in this case is W/N the defense of lack of cause of action in a
Sec. 12a [prohibited motions] of the ROC) motion to dismiss can be raised even after the answer is filed.

RECIT- READY SUMMARY: The Supreme Court held that only the following defenses are not waived
even if not raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer: (a) lack of
The Heirs of Melquiadas Silva (respondents) filed a complaint for jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata;
Quieting of Title with the RTC of Cebu City against Aldemita (petitioner). and (d) prescription on the action. Failure to state a cause of action is
During the pre-trial, Aldemita admitted that respondents have been the not an exception in said Rule. Thus, under Section 1, Rule 16, petitioner
ones in actual physical possession of Lot 11330 except a portion thereof 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.
with an area of 2,000 square meters which he is claiming to be
possessed by him. Adelmita claims that several ancient documents
proved that there exists a Deed of Absolute Sale on the questioned lot In the present case, the Motion to Dismiss was filed only after the case
was submitted for decision. Petitioner did not raise said issue when he
executed by Silva in 1979.
filed his Answer. Moreover, during the pre-trial, petitioner did not
The PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office, in its Questioned Document question the capacity of the respondents to sue. Moreover, the parties
manifested to the RTC that they were submitting the case without the
Report, determined that such ancients documents were forged.
Thereafter, an order was issued by the trial court wherein it considered need of trial. Petitioner did not complain in the RTC about the capability
the Questioned Document Report as the findings of fact duly established of the respondents in his Position Paper. It is only after the case had
in the case. The parties manifested to the RTC that they were already been submitted for decision of the RTC that the issue on the
submitting the case without the need of trial. The case was then capacity of the Heirs was raised through a new counsel. As
submitted for decision. appropriately denied by the RTC in its Orders, petitioner's motion is
without merit, as said ground was raised belatedly.
FACTS: 9. On February 8, 2001, Aldemita filed a Position Paper with the
RTC. On March 24, 2001, Atty. Manuel S. Paradela, then
1. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the counsel of petitioner Aldemita, filed a Motion To Withdraw As
Rules of Court questioning the Decision of the Court of Appeals Counsel. Immediately thereafter, or on April 2, 2001, the new
affirming the RTC decision, denying the petitioners motion to counsel for petitioner Aldemita, Atty. Rodolfo A. Ugang, Sr.,
dismiss for lack of cause of action. entered his appearance.
2. This case originated from a Complaint for Quieting of Title filed 10. [Important] On April 6, 2001, petitioner Aldemita, through his
with the RTC by the Heirs of Melquiades Silva against benzon newly retained counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
Adelmita (petitioner). cause of action. The Motion averred in main that the
3. During the pre-trial, Aldemita admitted that respondents have respondents should first be declared as heirs of Melquiades
been the ones in actual physical possession of Lot 11330 except Silva in a special proceeding before they can be considered as
a portion thereof with an area of 2,000 square meters which he real parties-in-interest to institute the action in this case. In an
is claiming to be possessed by him. Order dated April 20, 2001, the RTC denied the Motion.
4. Aldemita also admits that a "Kalig-onan sa Palit" which was 11. The RTC ruled that the case was already considered as
purportedly executed in 1949 by Melquiades Silva in favor of submitted to the Court for decision way back on February 8,
Dionisia Vda. De Zabate involving the land in question is 2001 pursuant to the order issued in this case on January 23,
actually a forged document. 2001. The aforementioned motion to dismiss was filed only on
5. However, Aldemita claims that another document denominated April 6, 2001. Apparently, the said motion was not filed within
as "Kalig-onan sa Panagpalit nga Dayon" was executed by Silva the proper time, i.e., within the time for filing the answer to the
in favor of De Zabate and that thereafter this was confirmed by complaint as provided under Section 1 of Rule 16 of the 1997
Proferia Silva and Emeliana Zabate Paran in a Deed of Rules on Civil Procedure.
Confirmation of Previous Deed of Sale in 1979. 12. The RTC ruled that a motion to dismiss cannot be filed anytime
6. The PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office, in its Questioned except if the grounds therefor are lack of jurisdiction over the
Document Report, determined that such ancients documents subject matter, pendency of another action between the same
were forged. The trial court gave Aldemita 15 days to submit parties for the same cause and bar by prior judgment or statute
his comment on the Questioned Document he did by submitting of limitations. The motion filed in this case is not on account of
to the court his Comment. any of the said exceptional three grounds. The CA affirmed the
7. An order was issued by the trial court wherein it considered the decision of the trial court.
Questioned Document Report as the findings of fact duly
established in the case. PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
8. Per manifestation of the parties through their respective
counsel that they would submit the case for decision without 1. RTC - in favor of respondent
need of trial especially that the findings embodied in the a. Gave due course to the findings of the PNP that the
commissioner's report have already been considered as the ancient documents were forged.
findings of facts in this case. Nonetheless, the trial court gives 2. RTC (MR) - in favor of respondent
the parties 15 days within which to file their respective a. Dismissed the Motion to dimiss filed by Aldemita
memorandum if they so desire and thereafter the case was because such was not filed within the proper time
considered as submitted for decision on January 23, 2001. and the grounds of such motion was not among the
 exceptions where motion to dismiss can be filed RATIO:
anytime. 1. NO

3. CA- affirmed RTC’s decision ● Only the following defenses are not waived even if not raised in
The CA held that the question of whether the respondents are real a motion to dismiss or in the answer: (a) lack of jurisdiction
parties-in-interest was raised for the first time on appeal considering over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata;
that this issue was never raised in the RTC before the case was and (d) prescription on the action. 16 Failure to state a cause
submitted for decision and, hence, it cannot be resolved without of action is not an exception in said Rule. Thus, under Section
offending basic rules of fair play, justice and due process; that the only 1, Rule 16, petitioner is deemed to have waived this ground and
issues raised before the RTC were confined to (a) whether the ancient cannot now raise it after the case in the RTC had been
documents are valid, and (b) whether the various transactions are valid. submitted for decision or on appeal to the CA.
● Petitioner must have relied on the former Section 2, Rule 9 of
POC OF [PETITIONER] POC OF [RESPONDENT] the Rules of Court 15 where failure to state a cause of action
● RTC erred in declaring was not deemed waived even if raised after the answer has
the [respondents] as been filed. To wit,
the rightful and SEC. 2. Defenses and objections not pleaded deemed waived. —
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss
absolute owners of
or in the answer are deemed waived; except the failure to state a
questioned lot cause of action which may be alleged in a later pleading, if one is
● RTC erred in declaring permitted, or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the
as null and void and trial on the merits; but in the last instance, the motion shall be
without force and effect 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 documents
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it shall
denominated as "Kalig- dismiss the action.
onan sa Panag-palit ● However, the Complaint against petitioner was filed on
nga Dayon" (Deed of November 25, 1998, after the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of
Absolute Sale) Civil Procedure, amending the Rules of Court. Section 1, Rule 9
of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses
ISSUE/S: and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or
in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears
from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court
1. WON a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action can
has (1) no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that (2)
be raised even after the answer is filed — NO there is another action pending between the same parties
2. WON the respondents had cause of action — YES for the same cause, or (3) that the action is barred by a
prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall
RULING: dismiss the claim.
● In the present case, the Motion to Dismiss was filed only after
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision the case was submitted for decision.
of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. ● As earlier pointed out, petitioner did not raise said issue when
he filed his Answer. Moreover, during the pre-trial, petitioner
 did not question the capacity of the Heirs of Melquiades
Silva to sue; nor did he question the representation of Ramon
G. Villordon, Jr. as administrator of the estate of the deceased.
● It is not disputed that the parties manifested to the RTC that
they were submitting the case without the need of trial.
Petitioner did not complain in the RTC about the capability of
the Heirs of Melquiades Silva in his Position Paper.
● It is only after the case had already been submitted for decision
of the RTC that the issue on the capacity of the Heirs was raised
through a new counsel. As appropriately denied by the RTC in
its Orders dated April 20, 2001 and August 17, 2001,
petitioner's motion is without merit, as said ground was
raised belatedly.

2. YES

● A cause of action, which is an act or omission by which a party

violates the right of another, has these elements:
1) the legal right of the plaintiff;
2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect
that legal right; and
3) an act or omission of the defendant that violates such
right.
• The Petition for Quieting of Title sufficiently states a cause of
action. Respondents alleged that they are the heirs of the late
Melquiades Silva who died on July 3, 1961 and are thus the true
owners of a parcel of land registered in the name of the latter
(first and second elements); that the private documents
allegedly executed by the late Melquiades Silva in favor of the
predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner are forged documents
(third element); and that the existence of these documents
casts a cloud over the title of the respondents as owners of the
property (fourth element).