Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
RULE: NO. The records show that the deeds of sale are
actionable documents. The Rule, however, covers both an
action or a defense based on documents.
The proper procedure was for the petitioners to specifically
deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the
questioned deeds of sale and to set forth what they claim to be
the facts.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the respondents anchor
their defense on the deeds of sale by virtue of which the
hereditary rights of all the petitioners over Lot 1943-B were
sold, transferred, and conveyed in favor of their brother,
Dionisio Toribio, who in turn sold the same to herein
respondents. The deed of sale executed by the petitioners in
favor of their brother Dionisio is an essential and
indispensable part of their defense to the allegation that the
petitioners had never disposed of their property.
IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and THE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATE BANK, INC., respondents.
FACTS: Private respondent in this case filed an action for the
collection of a sum of money against herein petitioner
evidence by promissory note before the RTC. While defendant
specifically denied the aforestated promissory note alleged in
the complaint, the answer was not verified. RTC ruled in favor
of the private respondent. CA denied the appeal. Hence the
instant case.
Petitioner contend that The petitioner denied liability and
alleged that one Julio Tan had no authority to negotiate and
obtain a loan on its behalf.
ISSUE: WON the contention of petitioner is meritorious.
RULE: No. No rule is more settled than that in an action based
on a written instrument attached to the complaint, if the
defendant fails to specifically deny under oath the genuineness
and due execution of the instrument, the same is deemed
admitted. 5
Section 7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court is explicit in that there
are two ways of pleading an actionable document, namely:
(a) by alleging the substance of such written
instrument in the pleading and attaching a
copy thereof to the pleading; and
(b) by copying the instrument in the
pleading.
The complaint in the present case complied with the first
situation under paragraph (a). The complaint alleged the
substance of the promissory note subject of the litigation and a
copy of the promissory note was attached.
... where a case has been tried in complete disregard of the rule
and the plaintiff having pleaded a document by copy, presents
oral evidence to prove the due execution of the document as
well as the agent's authority and no objections are made to the
defendant's evidence in refutation, the rule will be considered
waived.
Ferrer v. Ericta
Facts:
Mr. And Mrs. Franis Pfleider were the owners or operators of
a Ford pick-up car. At about 5pm of December 31, 1970, their
son, defendant Dennis, who was only 16 at the time, without
proper official authority, drove the ford, without due regard to
traffic rules and regulations, and without taking the necessary
precaution to prevent injury to persons or damage to property.
The pick up car was overturned, causing physical injuries to
plaintiff Annette Ferrer, who was then a passenger, which
injuries paralyzed her and require medical treatment an
confinement at different hospitals for more than two year. As a
result of the physical injuries sustained by P, she suffered
unimaginable physical pain, mental anguish, and her parents
also suffered mental anguish, moral shock, and spent a
considerable sum of money for her treatment.
Complaint was only filed on January 5, 1975
Pretrial (May 12, 1975), only Ferrer and counsel were present.
As such, the Pfleiders were declared in default and the court
rendered judgment against them.
Upon filing a motion for reconsideration, respondent Judge,
without setting aside the order of default, issued an order
absolving defendants from any liability on the grounds that:
Complaint states no cause of action because it does
not allege that Dennis Pfleider was living with his
parents at the time of the vehicular accident.
Considering that under 2180, the father, and in case
of his death or incapacity, the mother, is only
responsible for the damages caused by their minor
children who live in their company
That the defense of prescription is meritorious, since the
complaint was filed more than 4 years after the date of the
accident and the action to recover damages based on quasidelict prescribes in 4 years
o Instant petition for mandamus
Held-Ratio:
No. Defense of prescription (DP) not deemed waived.
Where the answer does not take issue with the complaint as to
dates involved in the defendants claim of prescription, his
failure to specifically plead prescription in the answer does not
constitute a waiver of the defense of prescription.
Defense of prescription, even if not raised in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, is not deemed waived unless such
defense raises issues of fact appearing upon the preceding
pleading.
It is true that the DP can only be considered if it is invoked as
such in the answer of the defendant and that in this particular
instance, no such defense was invoked because the defendants
had been declared in default. But such rule does not obtain
when the evidence shows that the cause of action upon which
plaintiffs complaint us based is already barred by the statute
of limitations.
In the present case, there is no issue of fact involved in
connection with the question of prescription. Action for
damages arising from physical injuries because of a tort must
be filed within four years. The four-year period begins from
the day the quasi-delict is committed or the date of the
accident.
EDGARDO PINGA, Petitioner vs. THE HEIRS OF
GERMAN, SANTIAGO, Respondents
G.R. No. 170354
June 30, 2006
Facts:
The Heirs of Santiago filed an injunction against Pinga
alleging that Pinga had been unlawfully entering the coco
lands of the respondent cutting wood and bamboos and
harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees. As a counterclaim,
Pinga contests the ownership of the lands to which Pinga was
harvesting the fruits. However, due to failures of Heirs of
Santiago to attend the hearings, the court ordered the dismissal
of said case.
Respondents thus filed an MR not to reinstate the case but to
ask for the entire action to be dismissed and not to allow
petitioner to present evidence ex parte.
RTC granted the MR, hence the counterclaim was dismissed.
RTC ruled that compulsory counterclaims cannot be
adjudicated independently of plaintiffs cause of action vis a
vis the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal
of the counterclaim.
Petitioner then elevates it to the SC by way of Rule 45 on pure
questions of law. (Santiagos motive: They just asked for the
dismissal of their entire case so that their ownership wouldnt
be put in controversy in the counterclaim)
GOJO V GOYALA
FACTS
-Appellee Segundo Goyala, with his now deceased wife
Antonina sold to Gojo a 2.5 hectare parcel of agricultural land
for P750 by a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale, the repurchase to
be made within one year, as stated in the deed. The deed also
indicates that the vendee paid another P100 in addition to the
purchase price. 10 years after the execution of said document,
Gojo filed a case with the CFI against Goyala by way of a
petition for consolidation of ownership of said land. Gojo
alleged that the period for repurchasing had expired and
ownership had become consolidated in him and that for
purposes of recording the consolidation in the Registry of
Property, it was necessary that a judicial order be issued to that
effect.
-Goyala filed an answer to the petition, alleging that they had
obtained a cash loan of P810 from Gojo payable w/in one year
w/o interest and that to guarantee payment, Goyala executed a
mortgage in favor of the petitioner on the parcel of land in
question. Hence, although the deed was executed in the form
of a pacto de retro sale, the true intention of the parties was for
it to be a mere mortgage to secure payment. Goyala further
claimed that he and his wife attempted to pay the debt but
petitioner refused to receive the sum and cancel the mortgage.
By way of counterclaim, Goyala prayed that petitioner receive
the P810 and that the document of mortgage be declared so,
and not a pacto de retro sale. He further prayed for P1800 per
annum until the final termination of the case for the fruits of
said property and in the case that the instrument be deemed a
true pacto de retro sale, that petitioner be ordered to execute a
deed of resale in favor of respondents in accordance with
A1606CC.
-Counsel for Goyala filed a manifestation informing the TC
that the named defendant, Antonina, had died, prompting the
TC to issue an order requiring counsel for the plaintiff to
submit an amended Complaint substituting Antonina with one
of her successors in interest as party defendants. Goyala filed a
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that
notwithstanding the lapse of 43 days after appellants receipt
of a copy of the said TC order, said appellant failed and
neglected to submit the amended complaint required of him.
Appellant opposed the motion but the TC dismissed the
complaint.
-Appellee filed a motion to declare appellant in default in
respect of said appellees counterclaim, which was granted by
the TC, which further required Goyala to submit his evidence
before the Clerk of Court. TC rendered favorable judgment on
appellees counterclaim, declaring the Deed of Pacto de Retro
Sale an equitable mortgage and ordering Gojo to receive the
RELOVA, J.:
Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the then Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 14943-SP, dated November 29, 1982,
affirming (a) the order of default issued by respondent judge
in a collection suit instituted by private respondent Northern
Motors, Inc. against petitioner; and, (b) the judgment of
default in the same case.
On March 31, 1982, private respondent Northern Motors, Inc.
filed with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig) a
case for sum of money with damages; docketed as Civil Case
No. 4520.