Dino v. Valencia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Irene Dino is the registered owner of a parcel of land. Private respondent Francisco L. Ong filed an adverse claim on the said land. Subsequently, Ong executed an "AFFIDAVIT AND MEMORANDUM OF QUITCLAIM" wherein he waived all his claims, rights, and credits over the land in consideration of P90,000.00, payable in installments. The quitclaim stipulated that failure to comply with the payments would make the full balance due and demandable, with P20,000.00 as liquidated damages. Petitioner failed to comply with the payment obligations, issuing dishonored checks for the remaining balance. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages. Petitioner's answer admitted some allegations but claimed the agreement was novated and the checks were merely for guarantee. Private respondent filed a reply, moving for default or judgment on the pleadings, arguing petitioner admitted material averments and failed to deny the quitclaim under oath. The respondent Judge denied the motion to declare petitioner in default but considered the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner opposed this motion. On January 26, 1976, the respondent Judge rendered a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the private respondent. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 14, 1976. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, assailing the judgment on the pleadings and the order denying her motion for reconsideration, arguing that her answer tendered an issue and that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering a judgment on the pleadings. Whether the petitioner's answer tendered an issue that required the presentation of evidence; and whether the defense of novation was a valid defense that precluded a judgment on the pleadings. Whether the petitioner admitted the genuineness and due execution of the Affidavit and Memorandum of Quitclaim. On the procedural arguments regarding the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The judgment on the pleadings rendered by the respondent Judge is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings: The Court held that the respondent Judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion. A judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. The petitioner's answer, while denying some allegations, primarily relied on the defense of novation and that the checks were merely for guarantee. The Court found this defense to be a sham and a mere scheme to avoid or delay payment, thus not tendering a genuine issue requiring a hearing for the reception of evidence. The Court reiterated that novation requires unequivocal terms or incompatibility between the old and new obligations, neither of which was present here. The issuance of postdated checks, some of which were cashed, did not extinguish the original obligation but ratified it. On whether the petitioner's answer tendered an issue that required the presentation of evidence; and on the defense of novation: The Court found the petitioner's defense of novation to be untenable. The "Affidavit and Memorandum of Quitclaim" was not expressly extinguished by a new obligation, nor were the old and new obligations incompatible. The contract itself provided a method for extinguishing the obligation through periodical payments. The issuance of checks, even if postdated and some dishonored, did not alter or change the original contract; rather, it was an express ratification of the obligation. Therefore, the defense of novation did not raise a genuine issue that would prevent a judgment on the pleadings. On the admission of the written instrument: The Court affirmed that the petitioner admitted the genuineness and due execution of the "Affidavit and Memorandum of Quitclaim" by failing to specifically deny it under oath, as required by Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. This admission made the judgment on the pleadings proper. The Court noted that the complaint was founded upon this written instrument, which was attached to the pleading. Consequently, the petitioner's failure to deny it under oath meant she was deemed to have admitted its genuineness and due execution. On the procedural arguments regarding the motion for judgment on the pleadings: The Court dismissed the petitioner's contention that the private respondent's reply, treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, should not have been considered due to non-compliance with the three-day notice rule and lack of a notice of hearing. The Court clarified that a motion for judgment on the pleadings, where the answer admits all material averments, may be considered ex-parte because the plaintiff is entitled to judgment based on the presented facts. Furthermore, the purpose of the notice rule, which is to avoid surprise and allow study of arguments, was sufficiently met as the petitioner filed an opposition to the motion.
Main Doctrine
A judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the complaint. A defense of novation is considered sham and does not tender an issue if it is merely a scheme to avoid payment and is not incompatible with the original obligation. Failure to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of a written instrument under oath results in its admission.