Case/ Facts
issue
Aquino vs Aure
Aure and E.S. Aure Lending
Investors, Inc. (Aure Lending) filed a
Complaint for ejectment against
Aquino. Aure and Aure Lending
alleged that they acquired the subject
property from spouses Aquino. Aure
claimed that after the spouses Aquino
received substantial consideration for
the sale of the subject property, they
refused to vacate the same.
In her Answer, Aquino countered that
the Complaint, Aure and Aure
Lending do not have any legal right
over the subject property.
MeTC rendered a Decision in favor of
Aquino and dismissed the Complaint
for ejectment of Aure and Aure
Lending for non-compliance with the
barangay conciliation process, among
other grounds.
RTC - RTC affirmed the dismissal of
the Complaint on the same ground
CA- Court of Appeals rendered a
Decision, reversing the MeTC and
RTC Decisions and remanding the
case to the MeTC for further
proceedings and final determination
of the substantive rights of the
parties.
Anuncacion vs Bocanegra
Complaint/ Ruling/ Doctrine and principles
Complaint for We do not agree. It is true that the precise technical
ejectment effect of failure to comply with the requirement of
Section 412 of the Local Government Code on barangay
conciliation is much the same effect produced by non-
The only issue to be exhaustion of administrative remedies -- the complaint
resolved is whether becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the
non-recourse to the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial
barangay determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a
conciliation process motion to dismiss.
is a jurisdictional
flaw that warrants in the landmark case of Royales v. Intermediate
the dismissal of the Appellate Court: Ordinarily, non-compliance with the
ejectment suit filed condition precedent prescribed by P.D. 1508 could affect
with the MeTC. the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make
his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack
of cause of action or prematurity; but the same would
not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction
from exercising its power of adjudication over
the case before it, where the defendants, as in
this case, failed to object to such exercise of
jurisdiction in their answer and even during the
entire proceedings a quo.
In the case at bar, we similarly find that Aquino cannot
be allowed to attack the jurisdiction of the MeTC over
Civil Case No. 17450 after having submitted herself
voluntarily thereto. We have scrupulously examined
Aquino’s Answer before the MeTC in Civil Case No.
17450 and there is utter lack of any objection on her part
to any deficiency in the complaint which could oust the
MeTC of its jurisdiction
By Aquino’s failure to seasonably object to the deficiency
in the Complaint, she is deemed to have already
acquiesced or waived any defect attendant thereto
It is clear and categorical in Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Revised Rules of Court that failure to raise defenses and
objections in a motion to dismiss or in an answer is
deemed a waiver thereof; and basic is the rule in
statutory construction that when the law is clear and
free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for
construction or interpretation
Thus, although Aquino’s defense of noncompliance with
Presidential Decree No. 1508 is meritorious,
procedurally, such defense is no longer available for
failure to plead the same in the Answer as required by
the omnibus motion rule.
three instances when the court may motu
proprio dismiss the claim
(1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) there is another cause of action pending between the
same parties for the same cause; or
(3) where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
a statute of limitations.
petitioners filed before the RTC,
Manila, a complaint for Quieting of
Title and Cancellation of TCTs. The
complaint averred that defendants
(respondents) may be served with
summons and legal processes through
Atty. Rogelio G. Pizarro, Jr.
The summons, together with the
copies of the complaint, were then
served on Atty. Pizarro. The record
shows that before the filing of the said
complaint, Atty. Pizarro wrote a
demand letter on behalf of
respondents and addressed to
petitioner German Anunciacion,
among others, demanding that they
vacate the land owned by his clients
(respondents), who needed the same
for their own use.
respondents, through their counsel,
Atty. Norby C. Caparas, Jr., filed a
Motion to Dismiss8 on the ground
that the complaint stated no cause of
action.
A Supplemental Motion to Dismiss
and Reply to the Comment on the
Motion to was filed by respondents,
alleging an additional ground that
petitioners failed to pay the required
filing fee.
respondents filed a Second
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss
In all of these petitioners filed their
answer and comments to MTD and
Supplemental MTD
the trial court sustained the
respondents and dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
the persons of respondents as
defendants.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed before the
CA seeking the nullification of the
RTC Orders, on the ground that the
said orders were issued with grave
abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed
the petition upon finding that there
was no waiver of the ground of lack of
jurisdiction on the part of
respondents in the form of voluntary
appearance.
Dico vs Vizcaya Management
Corporation
Dicos commenced an action for the
annulment and cancellation of the
titles of VMC.
It was only in respondents’ Second Supplemental
complaint for Motion to Dismiss dated November 27, 2000 that
Quieting of Title respondents for the first time raised the court’s lack of
and Cancellation of jurisdiction over their person as defendants on the
TCT ground that summons were allegedly not properly
served upon them. The filing of the said Second
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss did not divest the court
of its jurisdiction over the person of the respondents
who had earlier voluntarily appeared before the trial
court by filing their motion to dismiss and the
supplemental motion to dismiss. The dismissal of the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the respondents after they had voluntarily
appeared before the trial court clearly constitutes grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
respondents’ failure to raise the alleged lack of
jurisdiction over their persons in their very first motion
to dismiss was fatal to their cause. They are already
deemed to have waived that particular ground for
dismissal of the complaint. The trial court plainly
abused its discretion when it dismissed the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendants. Under the Rules, the only grounds the court
could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in the
motion to dismiss or answer, are: (a) lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter; (b) existence of another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause;
and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations
We likewise cannot approve the trial court’s act of
entertaining supplemental motions to dismiss which
raise grounds that are already deemed waived. To do so
would encourage lawyers and litigants to file piecemeal
objections to a complaint in order to delay or frustrate
the prosecution of the plaintiff’s cause of action.
Although the CA correctly observed that Atty. Pizarro, as
the lawyer of the respondents in the demand letters,
does not per se make him their representative for
purposes of the present action, a scrutiny of the record
shows that the address of Atty. Pizarro and Atty. Norby
Caparas, Jr., (the counsel who eventually entered his
appearance for respondents) is the same. This
circumstance leads us to believe that respondents’
belated reliance on the purported improper service of
summons is a mere afterthought, if not a bad faith ploy
to avoid answering the complaint.1avvphi1
action for the We find and hold that the action of the Dicos for
annulment and reconveyance was properly dismissed.
cancellation of the
titles of VMC. Although defenses and objections not pleaded in a
motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived, it
was really incorrect for the Dicos to insist that

They averred, among others, that they
were the registered owners of Lot No.
486 and the possessors-by-succession
of Lot No. 1412 (formerly Lot No.
1118) and Lot No. 489; that VMC had
land-grabbed a portion of their Lot
No. 486 totaling 111,966 square
meters
Ruling of the RTC - rendered in favor
of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants
Ruling of the CA - the CA reversed the
RTC
Heirs of Medrano vs Estanislao
De Vera
Flaviana died intestate, leaving her
half-sisters (Hilaria) and (Elena) as
her compulsory heirs. Hilaria and
Elena, by virtue of a private document
waived all their hereditary rights to
Flaviana’s land in favor of Francisca
Medrano (Medrano). In the same
year, Medrano built her concrete
bungalow on the land in question
without any objection from Hilaria
and Elena or from their children.
Hilaria and Elena died. Due to the
refusal of the other children to sign a
similar renunciation, Medrano filed a
Complaint. De Vera presented himself
as the real party-in-interest on the
ground that some of the named
defendants had executed a Deed of
Renunciation of Rights in his favor.
The trial court admitted De Vera’s
Answer with Counterclaim. In the
same Order, the court declared the
named defendants in default for not
answering the complaint despite valid
service of summons. Thus, it appears
that the court a quo treated the
named defendants and De Vera as
distinct and separate parties.
Medrano asked the court to order De
Vera to file a pleading in-intervention
so that he could be properly named as
a defendant in the case. De Vera did
not comply with the court’s order
despite service upon his lawyer
RTC – render decision in favor of
medrano, Motion was denied. The
trial court explained it would have
allowed De Vera to present his
evidence in the case had he complied
whether prescription could not be appreciated against them for
prescription that reason. Their insistence was contrary to Section l,
already barred Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, which provides as follows:
petitioners’ cause of
action Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.-
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion
to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter, that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
(2a) Under the rule, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and
prescription of action may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, except
that the objection to the lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter may be barred by laches.
We sustain the CA’s ruling that the trial court gravely
Complaint for abused its discretion in refusing to allow De Vera to
quieting of title, participate in the case and requiring him to file a motion
reconveyance, to intervene.
reformation of
instrument, and/or The trial court’s approach is seriously flawed because De
partition with Vera’s interest is not independent of or severable from
damages the interest of the named defendants. De Vera is a
transferee pendente lite of the named defendants His
rights were derived from the named defendants and, as
transferee pendente lite, he would be bound by any
judgment against his transferors under the rules of res
judicata. Thus, De Vera’s interest cannot be considered
and tried separately from the interest of the named
defendants.
It will be remembered that the trial court had already
admitted De Vera’s answer when it declared the original
defendants in default. As there was a transferee
pendente lite whose answer had already been admitted,
the trial court should have tried the case on the basis of
that answer, based on Rule 9, Section 3(c):
Effect of partial default. – When a pleading asserting
a claim states a common cause of action against several
defending parties, some of whom answer and the others
fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon
the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
evidence presented.
Thus, the default of the original defendants
should not result in the ex parte presentation of
evidence because De Vera filed an answer. The
trial court should have tried the case based on
De Vera’s answer, which answer is deemed to
have been adopted by the non-answering
defendants
with the court’s order to file a
pleading-in-intervention
CA- The appellate court then ordered
the case remanded to the trial court to
afford De Vera an opportunity to
present his evidence.
Lui Enterprises vs Zuellig
Pharma
Lui Enterprises, Inc. and Zuellig
Pharma Corporation entered into a
10-year contract of lease in Davao
City. Zuellig Pharma received a letter
from the Philippine Bank of
Communications (PBC). Claiming to
be the new owner of the leased
property, the bank asked Zuellig
Pharma to pay rent directly to it.
Zuellig Pharma promptly informed
Lui Enterprises of the PBCs’ claim.
Lui Enterprises wrote to Zuellig
Pharma and insisted on its right to
collect the leased property’s rent. Due
to the conflicting claims of Lui
Enterprises and the PBC over the
rental payments, Zuellig Pharma filed
a complaint for interpleader with the
RTC of Makati. Zuellig Pharma
alleged that it already consigned in
court P604,024.35 as rental payments
that Lui Enterprises and the
Philippine Bank of Communications
be ordered to litigate their conflicting
claims. Lui Enterprises filed a motion
to dismiss. Zuellig Pharma filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss.
It argued that the motion to
dismiss should be denied for
having been filed late. Considering
that Lui Enterprises filed its motion
to dismiss beyond the 15-day period
to file an answer, Zuellig Pharma
moved that Lui Enterprises be
declared in default.
RTC – declared Lui Enterprises in
default, It was only one year after the
issuance of the order of default, that
Lui Enterprises filed a motion to set
aside order of default in the Makati
trial court on the ground of excusable
negligence. Appealed to CA
CA- motion to set aside order denied,
affirmed in toto RTC decision
Hence, this petition.
There should be no inexplicable delay in the filing of a
motion to set aside order of default. Even when a motion
is filed within the required period, excusable negligence
must be properly alleged and proven.
Whether the a defendant who fails to answer within 15 days from
Regional Trial service of summons either presents no defenses against
Court of Makati the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint or was
erred in denying prevented from filing his or her answer within the
Lui Enterprises’ required period due to fraud, accident, mistake or
motion to set aside excusable negligence.
order of default;
In either case, the court may declare the defendant in
default on plaintiff’s motion and notice to defendant.
The court shall then try the case until judgment without
defendant’s participation and grant the plaintiff such
relief as his or her complaint may warrant.
A defendant declared in default loses his or her standing
in court. He or she is "deprived of the right to take part
in the trial and forfeits his [or her] rights as a party
litigant, "has no right "to present evidence [supporting
his or her] allegations," and has no right to "control the
proceedings [or] cross-examine witnesses."
Moreover, he or she "has no right to expect that [the
court] would [act] upon [his or her pleadings]"or that he
or she "may [oppose]motions filed against him [or
her]."106 However, the defendant declared in default
"does not [waive] all of [his or her] rights."
He or she still has the right to "receive notice of
subsequent proceedings." Also, the plaintiff must still
present evidence supporting his or her allegations
"despite the default of [the defendant]."
After notice of the declaration of default but before the
court renders the default judgment, the defendant may
file, under oath, a motion to set aside order of default.
The defendant must properly show that his or her failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident,115 mistake116 or
excusable negligence
If the defendant discovers his or her default
after judgment but prior to the judgment
becoming final and executory, he or she may file a
motion for new trial under Rule 37, Section 1, paragraph
(a) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
If he or she discovers his or her default after the
judgment has become final and executory, a
petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Section
1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may be filed
A petition for certiorari may also be filed if the trial
court declared the defendant in default with grave abuse
of discretion
The remedies of the motion to set aside order of default,

Otero vs Tan
Complaint for collection of sum of
money and damages was filed by
Roger Tan in MTCC for the reason
that Otero purchased on credit
petroleum products from his Petron
outlet. Despite receipt of the
summons and a copy of the said
complaint Otero failed to file his
answer with the MTCC.
Tan filed a motion with the MTCC to
declare Otero in default for his failure
to file his answer. Otero opposed
Tan’s motion, claiming that he did not
receive a copy of the summons and a
copy of Tan’s complaint. Otero failed
to appear at the next scheduled
hearing, and the MTCC issued an
order declaring him in default. A copy
of the said order was sent to Otero on
May 9, 2006. Tan was then allowed to
present his evidence ex parte.
MTCC - rendered a Decision directing
Otero to pay Tan his outstanding
obligation
RTC - rendered a Judgment affirming
motion for new trial, and petition for relief from
judgment are mutually exclusive, not alternative or
cumulative a defendant declared in default may avail of
only one of the three remedies
With a motion for new trial, the defendant must file the
motion within the period for taking an appeal123 or
within 15 days from notice of the default judgment.
Although a default judgment has already been rendered,
the filing of the motion for new trial tolls the
reglementary period of appeal, and the default judgment
cannot be executed against the defendant.
In this case, Lui Enterprises had discovered its default
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati rendered
judgment. Thus, it timely filed a motion to set aside
order of default, raising the ground of excusable
negligence.
Excusable negligence is "one which ordinary
diligence and prudence could not have guarded
against."125 The circumstances should be properly
alleged and proved. In this case, we find that Lui
Enterprises’ failure to answer within the required period
is inexcusable.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati declared Lui
Enterprises in default when it failed to answer the
complaint within the required period. Lui Enterprises
filed a motion to set aside order of default without an
acceptable excuse why its counsel failed to answer the
complaint. It failed to prove the excusable negligence.
Thus, the Makati trial court did not err in refusing to set
aside the order of default
A party in default loses his right to present his defense,
Complaint for control the proceedings, and examine or crossexamine
collection of sum of witnesses. He has no right to expect that his pleadings
money and would be acted upon by the court nor may be object to
damages or refute evidence or motions filed against him.
In Lina v. CA, et al.,this Court enumerated the
whether Otero, remedies available to party who has been declared in
having been default, to wit:
declared in default a) The defendant in default may, at any time after
by the MTCC, may, discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion,
in the appellate under oath, to set aside the order of default on the
proceedings, still ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud,
raise the failure of accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has
Tan to authenticate meritorious defenses; (Sec 3, Rule 18)
the statements of b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the
account which he defendant discovered the default, but before the same
adduced in has become final and executory, he may file a motion for
evidence new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;
c) If the defendant discovered the default after the
judgment has become final and executory, he may file a
petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and
d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered
against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law,
even if no petition to set aside the order of default has
been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)
a defending party declared in default retains the right to
the MTCC Decision appeal from the judgment by default. However, the
grounds that may be raised in such an appeal are
CA - denied the petition for review restricted to any of the following: first, the failure of the
filed by Otero plaintiff to prove the material allegations of the
complaint; second, the decision is contrary to law; and
third, the amount of judgment is excessive or different
in kind from that prayed for.

In this case, the petitioner sought the modification of

the decision of the trial court based on the evidence
submitted by it only in the Court of Appeals

The CA erred in brushing aside Otero’s arguments with

respect to the admissibility of the said statements of
account on the ground that the latter had already waived
any defense or objection which he may have against
Tan’s claim

The evidence of the plaintiff, presented in the

defendant’s absence, cannot be admitted if it is basically
incompetent.

In SSS v. Hon. Chaves

We must stress, however, that a judgment of default
against the petitioner who failed to appear during pre-
trial or, for that matter, any defendant who failed to file
an answer, does not imply a waiver of all of their rights,
except their right to be heard and to present evidence to
support their allegations.
The law also gives the defaulting parties some measure
of protection because plaintiffs, despite the default of
defendants, are still required to substantiate their
allegations in the complaint