G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015. Teofilo B. Adolfo, Petitioner, vs. Fe T. Adolfo, Respondent

11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015.*

TEOFILO B. ADOLFO, petitioner, vs. FE T. ADOLFO,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgment on the Pleadings;

Summary Judgments; Judgment on the pleadings is proper “where
an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.” Summary
judgment, on the other hand, will be granted “if the pleadings,
supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show
that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.”—Judgment on the pleadings is
proper “where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.”
Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be granted “if the
pleadings, supporting affidavits, deposi-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
581
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 581

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
tions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the

amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.”
Same; Same; Same; An answer would “fail to tender an issue”
if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or
admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings
by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with
them at all.—An answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “does
not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing
the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a31c34b72c45c49003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material

averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses
(allegations of new matter which, while admitting the material
allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment
on the pleadings would naturally be improper.”
Same; Same; Summary Judgments; Genuine Issues; Words
and Phrases; “A ‘genuine issue’ is an issue of fact which requires
the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as pleaded
appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine
issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called
for.”—“Whether x x x the issues raised by the Answer are genuine
is not the crux of inquiry in a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. It is so only in a motion for summary judgment. In a
case for judgment on the pleadings, the Answer is such that no
issue is raised at all. The essential question in such a case is
whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.” “A ‘genuine
issue’ is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of
evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or
false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or
undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question as
to the facts, and summary judgment is called for.”
Estoppel; In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has
induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from
adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct
that thereby causes loss or injury to another.—While it is true that
a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action,
petitioner
582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
cannot, after invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No.

MAN-2683 to secure affirmative relief against respondent and
thereafter failing to obtain such relief, be allowed to repudiate or
question the CA’s ruling in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971. The principle
of estoppel bars him from denying the resultant pronouncement
by the appellate court, which became final and executory, that the
subject property is respondent’s paraphernal property. “In
estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has induced
another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an
inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby
causes loss or injury to another. It further bars him from denying
the truth of a fact which has, in the contemplation of law, become
settled by the acts and proceeding of judicial or legislative officers

or by the act of the party himself, either by conventional writing
or by representations, express or implied or in pais.”
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Redula, Sanchez, Boholst, Borbajo, Ceniza, Montealegre
and Bauzon Law Offices for petitioner.
Patdu-Aguilar Law Firm for respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set
aside: 1) the October 6, 2009 Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01783 reversing the
October 2, 2006 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court, 7th
Judicial Region, Mandaue City (RTC Mandaue), Branch 55
in Civil Case No. MAN-4821; as
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-26.

2 Id., at pp. 182-192; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino
and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Samuel H.
Gaerlan.
3 Id., at pp. 151-159; penned by Judge Ulric R. Cañete.
583
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 583

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
well as 2) the CA’s March 2, 2012 Resolution4 denying

petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration5 and Supplement6
thereto.

Civil Case No. MAN-4821

On April 14, 2004, petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed with
the RTC Mandaue a Petition7 for judicial separation of
property against his estranged wife, respondent Fe Adolfo,
nee Tudtud. Docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-4821 and
assigned to Branch 55, the petition alleged that the parties
were married on November 26, 1966; that the union bore
one child; that during the marriage, they acquired through
conjugal funds Lot 1087-A-2-E, a 3,652-square-meter

property in Brgy. Cabancalan, Mandaue City, Cebu (the
subject property) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. (TCT) 18368; that later on, the parties separated due to
irreconcilable differences; that since reunion was no longer
feasible, petitioner suggested a separation of the conjugal
property, but respondent adamantly refused; that
respondent denied petitioner’s co-ownership of the subject
property, claiming the same as her paraphernal property;
that several earnest efforts to amicably settle the matter
between them proved unavailing; and that a judicial
separation of property is proper under the circumstances
and pursuant to Article 135(6) of the Family Code.8
Petitioner thus prayed that judgment be rendered
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 239-241; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-

Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela and Abraham B. Borreta.
5 Id., at pp. 193-202.
6 Id., at pp. 229-238.
7 Id., at pp. 27-31.
8 Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause
for judicial separation of property:
(1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty
which carries with it civil interdiction;
(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared an
absentee;
584

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
decreeing a separation of the conjugal property and the

subdivision or sale thereof, to the end of dividing the same
or the proceeds thereof; and ordering respondent to pay
petitioner P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees, appearance fees
(P2,000.00 per hearing), and P20,000.00 litigation costs.
In her Answer9 with counterclaim, respondent
contended that while she remained married to petitioner,
she is the sole owner of the subject property, the same
being her paraphernal property which she inherited from
her mother; that petitioner is a lazy bum, gambler,
drunkard, wife abuser, and neglectful father; that
respondent found all means to support the family even as
petitioner neglected it; that respondent bought on
installment a tricycle for the petitioner’s use in business,

but he kept the proceeds thereof to himself and used the
same in his gambling and drinking sprees; that respondent
alone took the initiative to support the family and found
ways to take care of the daily needs of her child; that she
caused to be built on a portion of her mother’s land a house
even while petitioner was bumming around; that one day,
petitioner destroyed the roof of the house that was then
being built; that petitioner subsequently abandoned her
and their child in 1968, and transferred to Davao City
where he took a
_______________
(3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been
decreed by the court;
(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or
failed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as provided for in
Article 101;
(5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the
marriage settlements has abused that power; and
(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated
in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
In the cases provided for in numbers (1), (2) and (3), the presentation of
the final judgment against the guilty or absent spouse shall be enough
basis for the grant of the decree of judicial separation of property.
9 Rollo, pp. 38-44.
585
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 585

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
mistress and begot four children by her; that in 1986,

petitioner returned to Cebu City seeking reconciliation
with respondent; that respondent took petitioner back, but
in 1987 they once more separated; that thereafter,
respondent never again saw or heard from petitioner.
Respondent claimed in her Answer that the subject
property was a portion of a bigger lot (mother lot) owned by
her mother Petronila Tudtud which was covered by TCT T-
15941. On October 11, 1967, her mother executed a
quitclaim deed transferring a portion of the mother lot —
the subject property — to respondent. The mother title
TCT T-15941 was then cancelled and a new one, TCT
(17216)-5415, was issued in respondent’s name.
Respondent then sold the subject property to her brother
on January 19, 1968, and a new TCT (17833)-5515 was
issued in her brother’s name. Her brother then mortgaged

the property to Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP), which foreclosed on the same. TCT 18231 was
issued in DBP’s name. DBP then sold the property to the
spouses Antonio and Lucy Garcia (the Garcias), and TCT
18266 was in turn issued in their name. Finally, on May
25, 1983, the Garcias sold back the subject property to
respondent, and a new title — TCT 1836810 — was then
issued in the name of respondent “FE M. TUDTUD, x x x
married to Teofilo Adolfo.”
Respondent argued that she is the sole owner of the
subject property, the same being her paraphernal property
which she alone redeemed from the Garcias; that the
inclusion of petitioner’s name in TCT 18368 does not make
him a co-owner of the property, but was merely necessary
to describe respondent’s civil status; and that under Article
13511 of the Civil Code, all property brought by the wife to
the marriage as well
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 33-34.

11 Art. 135. All property brought by the wife to the marriage, as well
as all property she acquires during the marriage, in accordance with
Article 148, is paraphernal.
586

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
as all property she acquires during the marriage in

accordance with Article 14812 of the same Code constitutes
paraphernal property.
Respondent thus prayed that the petition be dismissed.
By way of counterclaim, she sought the payment of moral,
exemplary, and nominal damages, attorney’s fees, and
litigation expenses.

Civil Case No. MAN-2683

In 1996, respondent’s sister Florencia Tudtud and her
husband Juanito Gingoyon (the Gingoyons) filed a case for
partition with damages against respondent. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-2683 and raffled to
Branch 55 of the RTC Mandaue. The Complaint13 therein
alleged that in 1988, respondent executed a deed of sale in
favor of the Gingoyons over a 300-square-meter portion of
the subject property, but that respondent refused to

partition/subdivide the same even after the Gingoyons paid
the taxes, fees and expenses of the sale. For her defense,
respondent claimed in her Answer14 that when the sale to
the Gingoyons was made, the subject property constituted
conjugal property of her marriage with petitioner; that as
early as 1983, or when the Garcias executed the deed of
sale in her favor, the subject property became a conjugal
asset; since petitioner did not sign the deed of sale in
_______________
12 Art. 148. The following shall be the exclusive property of each

spouse:
(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;
(2) That which each acquires, during the marriage, by lucrative title;
(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption or by exchange with
other property belonging to only one of the spouses;
(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the
husband.
13 Rollo, pp. 57-60.
14 Id., at pp. 61-65.
587
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 587

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
favor of the Gingoyons as he was in Davao at the time

and knew nothing about the sale, the sale was null and
void.
On May 15, 2002, the trial court rendered its Decision15
in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, declaring that the subject
property constituted conjugal property of the marriage. It
thus nullified the 1988 deed of sale executed by respondent
in favor of the Gingoyons for lack of consent on the part of
petitioner, citing Article 124 of the Family Code.16 The trial
court likewise awarded moral and exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in favor of the
respondent in the total amount of P107,000.00.
The Gingoyons filed an appeal with the CA, which was
docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971.

Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings in Civil
Case No. MAN-4821

Meanwhile, during the pretrial conference in Civil Case
No. MAN-4821, petitioner submitted as part of his evidence
_______________

16 Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal
partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of
disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to
the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within
five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to
participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other
spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not
include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the
written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or
consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the
transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the
consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding
contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the
court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
588

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
and for marking certified true copies of the Gingoyons’

Complaint in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, respondent’s
Answer thereto, and the trial court’s May 15, 2002 Decision
in said case.
On August 1, 2005, petitioner filed a Request for
Admission17 of 1) the genuineness of the duly marked
certified true copies of the Complaint, Answer, and
Decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 (Exhibits “F,” “G”
and “H,” respectively); 2) respondent’s declaration in said
Answer that the subject property constituted conjugal
property of the marriage; and 3) the trial court’s
pronouncement in said case that the subject property forms
part of the conjugal estate.
Respondent failed to file her answer or response to the
request for admission.
On September 5, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for
Judgment Based on the Pleadings,18 stating that since
respondent failed to answer his request for admission, the
matters contained in the request are deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure19 (1997
_______________
17 Rollo, pp. 55-56.

18 Id., at pp. 80-82.
19 RULE 26. ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
x x x x
Sec. 2. Implied admission.—Each of the matters of which an
admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period
designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow
on motion, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon
the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth
in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those
matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court
by the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his
sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his
compliance therewith shall be deferred until such
589
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 589

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
Rules); that as a consequence of the application of the

rule, respondent is in effect considered to have admitted
that the subject property is a conjugal asset of their
subsisting marriage which may thus be the subject of his
petition for judicial separation of property; and that on
account of said admission, a hearing on the merits becomes
unnecessary and, instead, Rule 3420 of the 1997 Rules on
judgments on the pleadings should apply. Petitioner thus
prayed that the trial court render judgment in his favor
based on the pleadings.
Respondent filed an Opposition.21 In her Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Memorandum,22 respondent argued among
others that the request for admission was premature
considering that the decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683
was the subject of an appeal, and thus not yet final.
In an October 11, 2005 Order,23 the trial court directed
the transfer of Civil Case No. MAN-4821 to Branch 55 of
the RTC Mandaue, since it is said court which decided the
closely related Civil Case No. MAN-2683.
On October 2, 2006, Branch 55 issued an Order24
granting petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
It held as follows:
_______________
objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as

practicable.
20 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.
21 Rollo, pp. 84-86.
22 Id., at pp. 97-105.
23 Id., at p. 87.
590

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
This court has painstakingly exerted effort in going over the

record and took serious note of all the pleadings, documents and
others on file. After serious consideration, the court believes and
so holds that there is basis in rendering judgment. The Motion for
Judgment Based on the Pleadings though denominated as such
but [sic] shall be treated as a move to seek summary judgment.
x x x
x x x x
The court in arriving at this resolution was guided by the
following pronouncements by the Supreme Court in the case of
Diman v. Alumbres, G.R. No. 131466, November 27, 1998, 299
SCRA 459 x x x:
x x x x
In the same case, it was held —
“It is also the law which determines when a summary
judgment is proper. It declares that although the pleadings on
their face appear to raise issues of fact — e.g., there are denials of,
or a conflict in, factual allegations — if it is shown by admissions,
depositions or affidavits, that those issues are sham, fictitious, or
not genuine, or, in the language of the Rules, that except as to the
amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law, the Court shall render a summary judgment for the
plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be. (Italics and
underscoring supplied)
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, not genuine, as shown by
[affidavits], depositions
591
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 591

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
or admissions. In other words, as a noted authority remarks, a

judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded,
while a summary judgment is a judgment on the facts as
summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or admissions.”
(Italics and underscoring supplied)
x x x x
Defendant25 did not file any verified answer or a pleading
denying under oath the genuineness and authenticity of the
documents attached to the Request for Admission and of the other
matters therein set forth. This failure has far reaching
implications in that the following are deemed admitted: a) the
genuineness of Exhibits F, G and H, all attached to the Request
for Admission; b) that she admitted in paragraph 10 in her
Answer to Civil Case No. MAN-2683 that Lot 1087-A-2-E was no
longer paraphernal property but rather a conjugal property of
Spouses Teofilo and Fe Adolfo; and c) that RTC, Branch 55,
Mandaue City, sustained and/or held the view of defendant (Fe
Tudtud) that Lot 1087-A-2-E is a conjugal property of Spouses
Teofilo and Fe Adolfo, thus, dismissed Civil Case No. MAN-2683
and awarded damages to the defendant.
Judicial admissions may be made in (a) the pleadings filed by
the parties, (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or
written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the
judicial proceeding, as in the pretrial of the case. Admissions
obtained through depositions, written interrogatories or requests
for admission are also considered judicial admissions. Page 686,
Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 9th Rev. Ed., Regalado.
With the admission that Lot 1087-A-2-E is a conjugal property,
it follows as its necessary and logical consequence, that plaintiff26
is entitled to the relief demanded.
x x x x
_______________
25 Herein respondent.
26 Herein petitioner.
592

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
A DECISION in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 had already been

rendered by RTC, Branch 55, on the 15th day of May 2002 with
the court finding that Lot 1087-A-2-E is a conjugal property
x x x —
x x x x
For reason[s] of expediency and convenience, the court may
even take judicial notice of its earlier decision finding Lot 1087-A-
2-E as a conjugal property.27
x x x x
Under the circumstances, judicial separation of property is
proper. Aware that the separation has the effect of a dissolution of
the conjugal partnership property regime, the presumptive
legitime of Nilo Adolfo (the only common child of the spouses) has
to be delivered in accordance with Article 51 in relation to
paragraph (8) Article 127 and Article 137 of the Family Code of
the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered directing the partition of Lot 1087-A-2-E between the
plaintiff and the defendant in equal share of what remains after
allocating to Nilo Adolfo a portion of Nine hundred thirteen (913)
square meters representing his presumptive legitime.
The plaintiff is directed to submit to this court the proposed
subdivision plan for its consideration before submitting the same
for approval to the Bureau of Lands.
In case of disagreement as to their respective location, the
same shall be done through raffle to be conducted by the sheriff
who shall see to it that judgment in this case shall be fully
implemented.
SO ORDERED.28
Respondent instituted an appeal with the CA, which

was docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01783.
_______________
27 In Civil Case No. MAN-2683.

28 Rollo, pp. 153-159.
593
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 593
Adolfo vs. Adolfo
Court of Appeals Decision

in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971

Meanwhile, on May 30, 2007, the CA rendered its
Decision29 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971. It reversed the May
15, 2002 Decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. MAN-
2683. It declared, among others, that the subject property
was respondent’s paraphernal property. Thus, it held:
Proceeding from the foregoing consideration, the finding that

Lot No. 1087-A-2-E is a conjugal property does not have any basis,
hence, does not have any merit at all. On the contrary, plaintiffs-
appellants30 sufficiently proved that the aforesaid lot was
defendant-appellee’s31 paraphernal property as the latter even
admitted that she inherited the same from her mother although
she claimed it as a conjugal property based on the TCT’s attached
to her answer. Another strong indication that Lot No. 1087-A-2-E
is solely owned by defendant-appellee is the fact that in another
case (Civil Case No. MAN-2008) involving the same property and
the same parties but for a different issue (road right of way),
defendant-appellee alone signed the compromise agreement
ceding a portion of the subject lot as a right of way perpetually
open and unobstructed for the benefit of plaintiffs-appellants,
defendant-appellee, their respective heirs, assigns and transferees
and guests. The same compromise agreement which became the
decision of the case attained finality without defendant-appellee
questioning the absence of her husband’s signature.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing premises, the
appeal is hereby GRANTED and the Deci-
_______________
29 Id., at pp. 135-150; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J.

Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A.
Abarintos and Stephen C. Cruz.
30 The Gingoyons.
31 Herein respondent.
594

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
sion of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 55,

dated 15 May 2002, in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.

Let the partition of Lot No. 1087-A-2-E consisting of 300
square meters bought by plaintiffs-appellants from defendant-
appellee be done in accordance to [sic] the sketch plan executed
for that purpose.
SO ORDERED.32

On June 23, 2007, the above CA decision became final
and executory.33

Ruling of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01783

In C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01783, respondent filed her
Appellant’s Brief,34 where she argued that the trial court
erred in issuing its October 2, 2006 Order directing the
partition or sale of the subject property; that it was error
for the trial court to take judicial notice of its own
judgment in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 and thus declare
that the subject property is conjugal, since the issue of
whether it constitutes conjugal or paraphernal property
was still pending in the appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971;
that since the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-2683
have not been terminated and the issue regarding the
character of the subject property has not been resolved
with finality, then petitioner’s resort to a request for
admission and motion for judgment on the pleadings was
premature; and that with the May 30, 2007 Decision in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971, petitioner and the trial court
should submit to the finding therein that the subject
property is her paraphernal property.
_______________
32 Rollo, pp. 144-149.

33 Id., at p. 270; Entry of Judgment in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971.
34 Id., at pp. 116-133.
595
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 595

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
In his Appellee’s Brief,35 petitioner insisted that the

trial court did not err in treating his motion for judgment
on the pleadings as one for summary judgment; that
respondent’s Answer in Civil Case No. MAN-2683
constituted a judicial admission that the subject property

was a conjugal asset, which required no further proof; that
respondent’s failure to reply to his written request for
admission also resulted in the acknowledgment that the
subject property is a conjugal asset; that the trial court
correctly took judicial notice of the proceedings in Civil
Case No. MAN-2683, as they were relevant and material to
the resolution of Civil Case No. MAN-4821; that since it
was not respondent who appealed the May 15, 2002
decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, then the finding
therein that the subject property is conjugal should bind
her; and that the CA’s eventual finding in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
78971 that the subject lot was respondent’s paraphernal
property cannot bind him because he was not a party to
Civil Case No. MAN-2683.
On October 6, 2009, the CA issued the assailed Decision
containing the following decretal portion:
WHEREFORE, based from the foregoing premises, the Order

of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City, in Civil
Case No. MAN-4821, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
the records of this case are remanded to RTC (Branch 55),
Mandaue City, for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.36

In arriving at the above conclusion, the CA held that the
trial court cannot treat petitioner’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings as one for summary judgment. It stated that
in a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there are no
ostensible issues at all on account of the defending party’s
_______________
35 Id., at pp. 160-181.

36 Id., at p. 192.
596

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
failure to raise an issue in his answer, while in a proper

case for summary judgment, such issues exist, although
they are sham, fictitious, or not genuine as shown by
affidavits, depositions or admissions. In other words, a
judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as
pleaded, while a summary judgment is a judgment on the
facts as summarily proved by affidavits, depositions, or

admissions.37 It added that respondent’s Answer appeared
on its face to tender an issue; it disputed petitioner’s claim
that the subject property is their conjugal property. The
next thing to be determined is whether this issue is
fictitious or sham as to justify a summary judgment.
The CA added that although respondent was bound by
the resulting admission prompted by her failure to reply to
petitioner’s request for admission, her claims and
documentary exhibits clearly contradict what petitioner
sought to be admitted in his request; that the trial court
disregarded the fact that the issue of whether the subject
property is conjugal was still unresolved as C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 78971 was still pending; and that finally, the trial court
should have been guided by the principles that trial courts
have but limited authority to render summary judgments
and that summary judgments should not be rendered
hastily.38
Petitioner moved to reconsider, but in a March 2, 2012
Resolution, he was rebuffed. Hence, the present Petition
was filed on April 30, 2012.
In a March 20, 2013 Resolution,39 the Court resolved to
give due course to the instant Petition.
_______________
37 Citing Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking

Corporation, 492 Phil. 106; 451 SCRA 724 (2005).
38 Citing Excelsa Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 317 Phil. 664;
247 SCRA 560 (1995).
39 Rollo, pp. 287-288.
597
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 597

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
Issue

Petitioner now claims that the Court of Appeals erred in
deciding the case on a question of substance not in accord
with law, Rule 26 of the 1997 Rules, and applicable
jurisprudence.40

Petitioner’s Arguments

In his Petition seeking to reverse and set aside the
assailed CA dispositions and thus reinstate the October 2,
2006 Order of the trial court, petitioner insists that

respondent’s failure to reply to his written request for
admission resulted in her admitting that the subject
property is a conjugal asset, applying Rule 26, Section 2 of
the 1997 Rules; that the CA grossly erred in disregarding
the rule; that with the resulting admission, there remains
no genuine issue to be resolved in Civil Case No. MAN-
4821, such that judgment based on the pleadings is proper.
Finally, petitioner adds that respondent’s trifling with the
law and rules of procedure — by conveniently claiming in
one case that the subject property is conjugal, and then in
another that it is paraphernal — should not be
countenanced; she should be held to her original
declaration that the subject property is conjugal.

Respondent’s Arguments

In her Comment,41 respondent counters that, as
correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner elected the wrong
remedy in filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings
when he should have moved for summary judgment; that in
a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the movant is
deemed to admit the truth of all of the opposing party’s
material and relevant allegations, and rest his motion on
those allegations taken together with
_______________
40 Id., at p. 12.
41 Id., at pp. 245-253.
598

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
that of his own as are admitted in the pleadings;42 that

the effect of this is that petitioner is deemed to have
admitted that the subject property is paraphernal, as
claimed in her Answer; that with the final and executory
May 30, 2007 Decision of the CA in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
78971, the subject property should now be considered as
her paraphernal property, and petitioner’s case for
partition on the claim that the subject property is conjugal
should be dismissed for being moot and academic.

Our Ruling

The Court denies the Petition.

Judgment on the pleadings is proper “where an answer
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.”43 Summary
judgment, on the other hand, will be granted “if the
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and
admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.”44
We have elaborated on the basic distinction between
summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, thus:
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
_______________
42 Citing Bauermann v. Casas, 10 Phil. 386 (1908); Evangelista v. Dela

Rosa, 76 Phil. 115 (1946); and Aquino v. Blanco, 79 Phil. 647 (1947).
43 Rules of Court, Rule 34, Section 1.
44 Id., Rule 35, Section 3.
599
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 599

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
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.45
An answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “does not

deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits
said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings
by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to
deal with them at all. Now, if an answer does in fact
specifically deny the material averments of the complaint

and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new
matter which, while admitting the material allegations of
the complaint expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless
prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the
pleadings would naturally be improper.”46
On the other hand, “whether x x x the issues raised by
the Answer are genuine is not the crux of inquiry in a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a
motion for summary judgment. In a case for judgment on
the pleadings, the Answer is such that no issue is raised at
all. The essential question in such a case is whether there
are issues generated by the pleadings.”47 “A ‘genuine issue’
is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of
evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived
or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear
uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine
issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is
called for.”48
_______________
45 Tan v. De la Vega, 519 Phil. 515, 527; 484 SCRA 538, 551 (2006).
Citation omitted.
46 Id., at p. 522; p. 545.
47 Supra note 37 at p. 114; p. 731.
48 Tan v. De la Vega, supra at p. 528; p. 551.
600

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
In rendering summary judgment, the trial court relied

on respondent’s failure to reply to petitioner’s request for
admission, her admission in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, as
well as its May 15, 2002 Decision declaring that the subject
property is a conjugal asset. It took judicial notice of the
proceedings in said case. While there is nothing irregular
with this — as courts may “take judicial notice of a decision
or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same
court if (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any
opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its
discretion, resolves to do so”49 — the trial court however
disregarded the fact that its decision was then the subject
of a pending appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971. It should
have known that until the appeal is resolved by the
appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment
on petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; that

it would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision
would be affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the
appeal is precisely whether the subject property is
conjugal, or a paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus,
instead of resolving petitioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it in
abeyance. It should have guided petitioner to this end,
instead of aiding in the hasty resolution of his case. In the
first place, Civil Case No. MAN-4821 was transferred to it
from Branch 56 precisely for the reason that it was the
court which tried the closely related Civil Case No. MAN-
2683.
Even if respondent is deemed to have admitted the
matters contained in petitioner’s request for admission by
her failure to reply thereto, the trial court should have
considered the pending appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971.
It cannot take judicial notice solely of the proceedings in
Civil Case No. MAN-2683, and ignore the appeal in C.A.-
G.R. CV No. 78971. After all, C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971 is
merely a continuation of
_______________
49 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises,

G.R. No. 172551, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 370, 384.
601
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 601

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
Civil Case No. MAN-2683; an appeal is deemed a

continuation of the same case commenced in the lower
court.50
On the part of petitioner, it must be said that he could
not have validly resorted to a motion for judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment. While it may appear that
under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997 Rules, he may file a
motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary
judgment as a result of the consequent admission by
respondent that the subject property is conjugal, this is not
actually the case. Quite the contrary, by invoking the
proceedings and decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683,
petitioner is precluded from obtaining judgment while the
appeal in said case is pending, because the result thereof
determines whether the subject property is indeed conjugal
or paraphernal. He may not preempt the appeal in C.A.-

G.R. CV No. 78971.
While it is true that a judgment cannot bind persons
who are not parties to the action,51 petitioner cannot, after
invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 to
secure affirmative relief against respondent and thereafter
failing to obtain such relief, be allowed to repudiate or
question the CA’s ruling in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971. The
principle of estoppel bars him from denying the resultant
pronouncement by the appellate court, which became final
and executory, that the subject property is respondent’s
paraphernal property. “In estoppel, a person, who by his
deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular
manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position,
attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or
injury to another. It further bars him from denying the
truth of a fact which has, in the contempla-
_______________
50 Guanzon v. Montesclaros, 208 Phil. 171, 177; 123 SCRA 185, 190
(1983); Strachan & Macmurray, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 159 Phil. 126,
131; 62 SCRA 109, 113 (1975); Luzon Rubber & Manufacturing Co. v.
Estaris, 152 Phil. 341, 349; 52 SCRA 391, 398 (1973).
602

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
tion of law, become settled by the acts and proceeding of

judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the party
himself, either by conventional writing or by
representations, express or implied or in pais.”52
Finally, the Court notes that the appellate court
overlooked the May 30, 2007 Decision in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
78971, which became final and executory on June 23, 2007.
The respondent included this development in her appellee’s
brief, but the CA did not take it into account. As an
unfortunate consequence, the case was not appreciated and
resolved completely.
Thus, with the development in Civil Case No. MAN-
2683 brought upon by the final and executory decision in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78971, petitioner’s case is left with no leg
to stand on. There being no conjugal property to be divided
between the parties, Civil Case No. MAN-4821 must be
dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October

6, 2009 Decision and March 2, 2012 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01783 are AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION in that Civil Case No. MAN-4821
is ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio** (Acting CJ., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,***

Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modification.
_______________
51 Bank of Commerce v. Radio Philippines Network, Inc., G.R. No.

195615, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 520.
52 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 1036, 1054; 293 SCRA 239, 256
(1998)
* * Per Special Order No. 1945 dated March 12, 2015.
* ** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1951 dated
March 18, 2015.
603
VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 603

Adolfo vs. Adolfo
Notes.—A summary judgment is permitted only if there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; A
genuine issue, as opposed to a fictitious or contrived one, is
an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence.
(Ong vs. Roban Lending Corporation, 557 SCRA 516
[2008])
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. (First Leverage
and Services Group, Inc. vs. Solid Builders, Inc., 675 SCRA
407 [2012])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015. Teofilo B. Adolfo, Petitioner, vs. Fe T. Adolfo, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015. Teofilo B. Adolfo, Petitioner, vs. Fe T. Adolfo, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015. Teofilo B. Adolfo, Petitioner, vs. Fe T. Adolfo, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753

G.R. No. 201427. March 18, 2015.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgment on the Pleadings;

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 581

tions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the

Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cannot, after invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No.

settled by the acts and proceeding of judicial or legislative officers

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 3-26.

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 583

well as 2) the CA’s March 2, 2012 Resolution4 denying

conjugal funds Lot 1087-A-2-E, a 3,652-square-meter

4 Id., at pp. 239-241; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

decreeing a separation of the conjugal property and the

installment a tricycle for the petitioner’s use in business,

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 585

mistress and begot four children by her; that in 1986,

issued in her brother’s name. Her brother then mortgaged

10 Id., at pp. 33-34.

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

as all property she acquires during the marriage in

the subject property, but that respondent refused to

12 Art. 148. The following shall be the exclusive property of each

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 587

favor of the Gingoyons as he was in Davao at the time

15 Id., at pp. 66-79; penned by Judge Ulric R. Cañete.

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and for marking certified true copies of the Gingoyons’

17 Rollo, pp. 55-56.

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 589

Rules); that as a consequence of the application of the

objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This court has painstakingly exerted effort in going over the

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 591

or admissions. In other words, as a noted authority remarks, a

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A DECISION in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 had already been

Respondent instituted an appeal with the CA, which

27 In Civil Case No. MAN-2683.

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 593

Adolfo vs. Adolfo

Court of Appeals Decision

Proceeding from the foregoing consideration, the finding that

29 Id., at pp. 135-150; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J.

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sion of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 55,

and SET ASIDE.

32 Rollo, pp. 144-149.

VOL. 753, MARCH 18, 2015 595

In his Appellee’s Brief,35 petitioner insisted that the

constituted a judicial admission that the subject property

WHEREFORE, based from the foregoing premises, the Order

35 Id., at pp. 160-181.

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

failure to raise an issue in his answer, while in a proper

Carpio (Acting CJ., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,*