Aznar v. Bernad
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a civil action filed by the spouses Nicolas L. Kintanar and Redempta C. Kintanar against the spouses Matias B. Aznar III and Eleonor S. Aznar. The Kintanars sought the annulment of a Sheriff's Certificate of Sale, along with damages and attorney's fees, and requested a preliminary injunction. The core of the dispute appears to stem from the validity of a real estate mortgage executed on July 17, 1978, which the Kintanars alleged was fraudulent and which led to the foreclosure. 2. Procedural History: The Kintanars initiated their civil action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu on September 15, 1986. The Aznars filed their original answer on October 13, 1986. Subsequently, on October 20, 1986, the Aznars filed a motion for leave to amend their answer or to file a supplemental pleading, seeking to include the affirmative defense of prescription. The RTC, through respondent Judge Juanito A. Bernad, denied this motion on November 4, 1986, citing a strict interpretation of Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court. A motion for reconsideration was also denied on December 10, 1986. The Aznars then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the purely legal question involved. 3. The Petition: The Aznars filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC erred in denying their motion to amend their answer. They contended that the defense of prescription was validly pleaded in their amended answer, which was filed before any responsive pleading to the original answer was served and before the case was calendared for hearing, thus falling under the rule allowing amendments as a matter of right. Furthermore, they argued that even if the amendment were not allowed, the prescription of the cause of action was apparent on the face of the complaint itself, as the action was filed more than eight years after the execution and registration of the mortgage, exceeding the four-year prescriptive period for actions based on fraud.
Issue(s)
Whether the affirmative defense of prescription may be validly set up for the first time in an amended answer. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to amend the answer to include the defense of prescription.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court dated November 4, 1986, and December 10, 1986, denying the petitioners' motion to amend their Answer are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petitioners' Amended Answer is ADMITTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the affirmative defense of prescription may be validly set up for the first time in an amended answer: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The general rule is that the affirmative defense of prescription, if not seasonably raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, is deemed waived. However, this case does not fall under the cited rule because the petitioners sought to amend their answer. Once an amended answer is admitted, it takes the place of the original answer, thereby curing any prior lapse. The reliance of the trial court on Torreda v. Boncaros was misplaced, as that case involved a supplemental motion to dismiss, not an amended answer. An amended pleading replaces the original, whereas a supplemental pleading merely adds to it. Furthermore, the amendment was sought within seven days of the original answer's filing, and no responsive pleading had been served, nor had the case been calendared for hearing. Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court allows amendment as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served or within ten days if no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar. The Court stressed that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice and should be liberally construed to avoid technicalities that frustrate substantial justice. Even if amendment were not feasible, prescription apparent on the face of the complaint, as in this case where the complaint itself showed the action was filed more than eight years after the mortgage registration, could still be considered. On the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to amend the answer to include the defense of prescription: As the Supreme Court ruled that the affirmative defense of prescription may be validly set up for the first time in an amended answer, it follows that the trial court erred in denying the motion to amend the answer to include the defense of prescription. The amended answer takes the place of the original, curing any prior lapse. The amendment was timely, and procedural rules should be liberally construed to facilitate justice. The prescription was apparent on the face of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
An affirmative defense of prescription may be validly set up for the first time in an amended answer, provided that the amendment is made as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served or within ten days if no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been calendared. Procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote justice and avoid technicalities that frustrate substantial justice.