Ondap v. Abugaa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves an ejectment case where the plaintiff-appellee sought to recover possession of premises and damages amounting to P711.00, plus costs, from the defendants-appellants. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Justice of the Peace Court of Kibawe, Bukidnon, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon. The Court of First Instance dismissed the defendants' appeal, finding that their appeal to that court was not properly filed and that their attempt to introduce new matters in their answer constituted a change of theory on appeal. The Court of Appeals subsequently endorsed the case to the Supreme Court due to the purely legal questions raised. 3. The Petition: The defendants-appellants petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing their appeal without trying the case on the merits. They contended that the lower court should have considered their defense. However, the Supreme Court noted that the defendants failed to file a written answer in the Justice of the Peace Court, which, under the rules, amounted to an admission of the material allegations. Furthermore, their attempt to introduce new defenses on appeal was deemed impermissible, and their brief offered no justification for deviating from established legal doctrines, especially given the case's protracted pendency.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment on the pleadings without trial on the merits. Whether the defendants-appellants were allowed to change their theory on appeal.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of a judgment on the pleadings: The defendants-appellants failed to file a written answer and merely denied paragraphs 2 to 8 of the complaint with the Justice of the Peace Court. This failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the complaint, under the law, amounts to an admission of those allegations. Consequently, a judgment on the pleadings was appropriate under the admitted facts. The Court cited El Hogar Filipino v. Santos and Baetamo v. Hon. Amado P. Amador to support the doctrine that a general denial does not become specific by merely calling it so, and that a failure to specifically deny material allegations leads to their admission. On the change of theory on appeal: The defendants-appellants attempted to introduce new matters and change their theory on appeal by filing a written answer with the Court of First Instance that incorporated new allegations. The Court of First Instance correctly struck out these allegations as they varied from the original answer before the justice of the peace court. This principle, that a party cannot change their theory on appeal, has been consistently upheld in numerous cases, including Tan Machan v. Trinidad and Arangco v. Baloso. The defendants-appellants' attempt to present a "good and valid defense" without further explanation, especially after the case had been pending for a long time, was insufficient to warrant a deviation from established doctrines.
Main Doctrine
A judgment on the pleadings is proper when the defendants fail to specifically deny the material allegations in the complaint, which failure amounts to an admission of said allegations. A party cannot change their theory on appeal.