ADOLFO V. ADOLFO motion of the trial court was reversed. Hence, the present case.
March 18, 2015 | GR No. 201427 | Del Castillo, J. | Second Division | JUDGMENTS OF THE
PLEADINGS/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Rule 34, Sections 1 and 2; and Rule 35, Sections 1 to
6)
DIGEST MADE BY:
Dave U.
CLUE: Admission Premature
PETITIONER: TEOFILO B. ADOLFO
RESPONDENTS: FE T. ADOLFO
DOCTRINE:
An Answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “does not deny the material allegations in the
complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing
the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.
RECIT- READY SUMMARY:
Civil Case No. MAN-4821 Petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed with the RTC Mandaue a Petition
for judicial separation of property against his estranged wife. Parties were married on
November 26, 1966, the union bore one child; that during the marriage, they acquired
through conjugal funds real properties that later on the parties separated due to
irreconcilable differences. Since reunion was no longer feasible, petitioner suggested a
separation of the conjugal property, but respondent adamantly refused. Respondent
contended that she is the sole owner of the property which is her paraphernal property
inherited from her mother
Civil Case No. MAN-2683, Respondent sold the property to her brother, her brother
mortgaged it to DBP, foreclosed and DBP sold it to the Garcias and the Garcias sold it to
respondent with new TCT. Respondent executed a deed of sale in favor of the Gingoyons
but refused to partition even Gingoyons paid the taxes and selling expenses. That when the
sale to the Gingoyons was made, the subject property constituted conjugal property of her
marriage with petitioner; when the Garcias executed the deed of sale, the subject property
became a conjugal asset; since petitioner did not sign the deed of sale in favor of the
Gingoyons as he was in Davao at the time and knew nothing about the sale, the sale was
null and void. RTC nullified the sale.
Meanwhile during the pre-trial of Civil Case No. MAN-4821, petitioner filed a request to
make admissions on the respondent’s statement that the property was conjugal in the
partition case. However, the respondent failed to file her answer. As a result, petitioner filed
a motion for summary judgement which was granted by the trial court. Upon appeal, the
ISSUE: Can a motion for summary judgement be admitted in the present case?
Court held in the negative. Rules of court provides that the court, on the motion of the
adverse may direct judgement on the pleadings if the answer filed to tender an issue or
otherwise admits the material allegation of the adverse patty’s pleading. An Answer would
“fail to tender an issue” if it “does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or
admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. In rendering summary
judgment, the trial court relied on respondent's failure to reply to petitioner’s request for
admission declaring that the subject property is a conjugal asset. It should have known that
until the appeal is resolved by the appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment
on petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
FACTS:
1. Teofilo Adolfo filed a petition for judicial separation of property (MAN-4821) against his
estranged wife, Fe Adolfo. The petition alleged among others that during the marriage,
they acquired through conjugal funds a lot located in Mandaue City. Since reunion
between the two was no longer feasible, Teofilo suggested a separation of conjugal
property which Fe refused. Fe claims that the lot in question is a paraphernal property
she inherited from her mother.
2. Another civil case (MAN-2683) was filed by Fe’s sister Florencia Tudtud and her
husband Juanito Gingoyon for the partition of the lot. Florencia and Juanito alleged that
Fe sold a portion of the property to them. In response, Fe argued that the sale is void
since the lot in question was conjugal property, and Teofilo did not assent to the sale.
PROCEDURAL AND CASE HISTORY:
RTC MAN 2683 (Partition Case)
● Trial Court in its decision declared that the subject property was conjugal
property. Therefore, the lack of consent on the part of Teofilo made the sale
void.
MAN 4821 (Legal Separation Case)
 During the pre-trial conference, Teofilo submitted as part of his evidence the
complaint in MAN 2683 where Fe stated that the assailed property was
conjugal.
 As a result, the petitioner filed a request for admission on Fe’s declaration
that the property was conjugal property. However, Fe failed to answer or
respond to the request.
1

 As a result, Teofilo filed a motion for judgement based on the pleadings
since Fe failed to answer his request for admission. He argued that her
failure to answer his request resulted in the matters contained therein to be
deemed admitted under Rule 26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.
 RTC granted the motion for judgement on the pleadings where it ruled in
favor of Teofilo.
CA MAN 2683 (Partition Case)
● Upon appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision declaring
that the subject property was paraphernal property.
● CA’s decision attained finality.
MAN 4821 (Legal Separation Case)
 Upon appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. Court
held that while Fe’s failure to answer the request for admission resulted in
the matters therein to be deemed admitted, her claims and exhibits clearly
contradict what Teofilo sought to be admitted in his request.
 Trial court disregarded the fact that the issue of whether the subject
property is conjugal was still unresolved.
 Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE/S:
1. Can a motion for summary judgement be admitted in the present case? - NO
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October 6, 2009 Decision and March 2, 2012
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01783 are AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION in that Civil Case No. MAN-4821 is ordered DISMISSED.
● On the other hand, “whether x x x the issues raised by the Answer are genuine is
not the crux of inquiry in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a
motion for summary judgment. In a case for judgment on the pleadings, the
Answer is such that no issue is raised at all. The essential question in such a case
is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.” “A ‘genuine issue’ is an
issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a
sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear
uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to
the facts, and summary judgment is called for.
● In rendering summary judgment, the trial court relied on respondent's failure to
reply to petitioner’s request for admission declaring that the subject property is a
conjugal asset. It should have known that until the appeal is resolved by the
appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment on petitioner’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings. On the part of petitioner, it must be said that he
could not have validly resorted to a motion for judgment on the pleadings or
summary judgment. While it may appear that under Rules 34 and 35 of the 1997
Rules, he may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment as
a result of the consequent admission by respondent that the subject property is
conjugal, this is not actually the case.
● While it is true that a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the
action, petitioner cannot, after invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-
2683 to secure affirmative relief against respondent and thereafter failing to obtain
such relief, be allowed to repudiate or question the CA's ruling. The principle of
estoppel bars him from denying the resultant pronouncement by the appellate
court, which became final and executory, that the subject property is respondent’s
paraphernal property.
● Upon the final and executory decision of the CA that the subject property is indeed
a paraphernal property of the wife, petitioner's case is not meritorious anymore.
Hence, there being no conjugal property, the petitioner cannot seek the division of
such property. The petition DENIED.

RATIO:
1. NO
● Court held in the negative. Rules of court provides that the court, on the motion of
the adverse may direct judgement on the pleadings if the answer filed to tender an
issue or otherwise admits the material allegation of the adverse patty’s pleading.
An Answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “does not deny the material
allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal
with them at all.