FLORAIDA TERAA vs. HON.

ANTONIO DE SAGUN, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XIV, NASUGBU, BATANGAS AND ANTONIO B. SIMUANGCO
G.R. No. 15211 A!"#$ 2%, 2&&%
FACTS'
Antonio Simuangco owned a house and lot at 138 J.P. Laurel St., Nasugbu, Batangas,
which he leased to Floraida era!a. Sometime in 1""#, era!a demolished the leased house
and erected a new one in its $lace. Simuangco alleged that this was done without his consent.
%n &ontract o' Lease, the( agreed that the lessee is obligated to )ee$ the leased $ro$ert( in
such re$air and condition and not to ma)e an( alterations in the Leased $ro$ert( without the
)nowledge and consent o' the Lessor.
era!a allegedl( also ga*e the materials 'rom the demolished house to her sister, who
built a house ad+acent to Simuangco,s $ro$ert(. -hen Simuangco disco*ered what era!a did,
he immediatel( con'ronted her and ad*ised her to *acate the $remises. She re'used. %n
Februar( 3, 1""., Simuangco sent a letter demanding era!a to *acate the leased $ro$ert(.
/es$ite this letter o' demand, which era!a recei*ed on Februar( 10, she still re'used to *acate
the said $ro$ert(.
Simuangco thus 'iled a com$laint 'or unlaw'ul detainer against the $etitioner on A$ril 1#, 1"".
on the ground o' the $etitioner,s *iolation o' the terms o' the &ontract o' Lease.
era!a denied allegations o' the com$laint in her 1Sagot." She claimed that she
demolished the old building and built a new one with the )nowledge and consent o' Simuangco2
that the original house was old and was on the *erge o' colla$sing2 that without the timel(
re$airs made b( era!a, the house,s colla$se would ha*e caused the death o' era!a and her
'amil(.
ISSUE'
-hether or not Simuangco had the burden o' $ro*ing this allegation with $ositi*e
e*idence a'ter era!a 'rontall( denied it in her answer.
RULING'
he material allegations in a com$laint must be s$eci'icall( denied b( the de'endant in
his answer. Section 10, 3ule 8 o' the 1"". 3ules o' &ourt, $ro*ides4
A de'endant must s$eci'( each material allegation o' 'act the truth o' which he does not
admit and, whene*er $racticable, shall set 'orth the substance o' the matters u$on which he
relies to su$$ort his denial. -here a de'endant desires to den( onl( a $art o' an a*erment, he
shall s$eci'( so much o' it as is true and material and shall den( the remainder. -here a
de'endant is without )nowledge or in'ormation su''icient to 'orm a belie' as to the truth o' a
material a*erment made in the com$laint, he shall so state, and this shall ha*e the e''ect o' a
denial.
Section 11, 3ule 8 o' the 3ules o' &ourt li)ewise $ro*ides that material allegations in the
com$laint which are not s$eci'icall( denied, other than the amount o' unli5uidated damages, are
deemed admitted. A denial made without setting 'orth the substance o' the matters relied u$on
in su$$ort o' the denial, e*en when to do so is $racticable, does not amount to a s$eci'ic denial.
he $etitioner,s denial in her answer consists o' the 'ollowing4
1. Maliban sa personal na katangian at tirahan ng nasasakdal, ay walang katotuhanan
ang mga isinasakdal ng nagsasakdal;
2. Na hindi lumabag sa kasunduan ng upahan ang nasasakdal;
3. Na, ang pagpapagawa ng bahay na inuupahan ng nasasakdal ay sa kaalaman at
kapahintulutan ng nagsasakdal at higit na gumanda at tumibay ang bahay ng
nagsasakdal sa pamamagitan ng pagpapagawa ng nasasakdal; xxx
-e do not 'ind this denial to be s$eci'ic as the $etitioner 'ailed to set 'orth the substance
o' the matters in which she relied u$on to su$$ort her denial. he $etitioner merel( alleged that
consent was gi*en2 how and wh(, she did not sa(. 6' indeed consent were gi*en, it would ha*e
been eas( to 'ill in the details. She could ha*e stated in her $leadings that she *erball( in'ormed
the res$ondent o' the need 'or the re$airs, or wrote him a letter. She could ha*e stated his
res$onse, and how it was con*e(ed, whether *erball( or in writing. She could ha*e stated when
the consent was solicited and $rocured. hese, she 'ailed to do. Ergo, the $etitioner is deemed
to ha*e admitted the material allegations in the com$laint.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN( vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, )*+ ATT,.
MORDENO CUA
G.R. No. 12-15 J)*.)"/ 10, 2&&0
FACTS'
%n Se$tember #, 1""0, PNB 'iled a com$laint against the &ua with the 3&, &aga(an
de %ro &it(, Branch 78, wherein it alleged that on /ecember 18, 1"89, remitted an amount o'
P7#7,."3.08 under Account No. 1#08. u$on demand o' :antrust &or$oration. 6t was
disco*ered that the account was not maintained b( the &/% PNB branch but in the name
o' CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES with &ua as the sole signator( hence,
&/% PNB Branch trans'erred and deli*ered the amount o' ;18,09#.79 to Account No. 1#08.
with the P&6 Ban), &aga(an de %ro Branch and 'unds were withdrawn b( &ua. <$on trans'er,
:antrust recti'ied their message and instructed PNB that the message was not intended to
PNB. /ue to the recall, PNB re5uested P&6 Ban) 'or the return o' the amount but the( were
in'ormed that the amount were alread( withdrawn b( &ua. =erbal and written re5uests were
made to &ua but all e''orts 'ailed as :ordeno &ua re'used and continue to re'use to restitute or
ma)e necessar( arrangement 'or the restitution.
&ua, in his answer, denied the allegations and claim that he has no )nowledge o' the
trans'er and he was no noti'ied o' the trans'er o' the amount. >e denied withdrawing such
amount.
he trial court ruled that the $etitioner adduced the re5uisite 5uantum o' e*idence to $ro*e its
claim against the $ri*ate res$ondent. %n a$$eal, the &ourt o' A$$eals re*ersed the decision o'
the trial court, holding that the $etitioner 'ailed to $ro*e that the $ri*ate res$ondent withdrew the
mone( remitted to the account o' &?SS with the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch b( the PNB,
&aga(an de %ro &it( Branch.
ISSUE'
-hether or not &ua is in good 'aith in den(ing the allegations.
RULING'
hus, in $aragra$h B, the $ri*ate res$ondent denied the a*erments in $aragra$h 3 o' the
com$laint, including the a*erment that Account No. 1#08. was carried with the P&6B, &aga(an
de %ro Branch in the name o' &?SS. Ne*ertheless, this denial was ine''ecti*e because such
'act was within the )nowledge o' the $ri*ate res$ondent, being the signator( thereto. he
de'endant,s denial is, thus, e5ui*alent to an admission. Li)ewise, the $ri*ate res$ondent,s
'ailure to s$eci'icall( den(, in $aragra$h & o' his Answer, the allegation in $aragra$h 8 o' the
com$laint that the PNB, &aga(an de %ro Branch trans'erred and deli*ered the amount o'
<S;18,09#.79 to Account No. 1#08. carried b( the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch was
e5ui*alent to his admission o' the truth thereo'.
<ndeniabl(, the $ri*ate res$ondent did not s$eci'icall( den( in $aragra$h ? o' his
Answer the material a*erment in $aragra$h # o' the com$laint, that is, that the $etitioner
recei*ed in'ormation that the entire remittance o' <S;18,09#.79 had alread( been withdrawn b(
the $ri*ate res$ondent. >owe*er, such 'ailure did not constitute as an admission that the said
amount was withdrawn b( the $ri*ate res$ondent. 6n Paragra$h & o' his Answer to the
a*erment in $aragra$h 8 o' the com$laint, the $ri*ate res$ondent s$eci'icall( alleged that he
ne*er withdrew 1'rom the 'und trans'er o' the $etitioner@Ban)1 and that he was not noti'ied o' the
'und trans'er b( the $etitioner to the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch. he $ri*ate res$ondent,s
admissionsAdenials in his Answer to the com$laint should be considered in their entiret( and not
truncated $arts. 6n sum then, the $etitioner was able to $ro*e that, indeed, the <S;18,09#.79
was remitted to P&6B Account No. 1#08. under the name o' &?SS with the $ri*ate res$ondent
as the de$ositor,s sole signator(. >owe*er, the $etitioner 'ailed to $ro*e that the $ri*ate
res$ondent withdrew the amount 'rom the said account. -e agree with the $ri*ate res$ondent,s
contention that the $etitioner was burdened to $ro*e not onl( that the amount was remitted to
Account No. 1#08., but also that the $ri*ate res$ondent withdrew the same in his ca$acit( as
the sole signator( o' the owner o' the account.
FELIX CAMITAN, FRANCISCO CAMITAN, SEVERO CAMITAN )*+ VICTORIA CAMITAN vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS )*+ THE FIDELIT, INVESTMENT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 121&%% D232452" 2&, 2&&-
FACTS'
%n 13 /ecember 1"#., the s$ouses :ateo &amitan and LorenBa AlcaBar sold to Fidelit(
6n*estment &or$oration a $arcel o' land located in Baranga( :aunong, &alamba, Laguna. <$on
the eCecution o' the /eed o' Absolute Sale, the s$ouses &amitan deli*ered to the &or$oration
the owner,s du$licate certi'icate o' title D%wner,s &o$(E. From then on, the &or$oration has been
$a(ing the real estate taCes due on the $ro$ert( and has remained in actual $h(sical
$ossession thereo'.
%n 7" /ecember 1""3, a'ter the death o' the s$ouses &amitan, without the )nowledge o' the
&or$oration, the heirs o' the s$ouses 'iled a $etition 'or the issuance o' a new %wner,s &o$(,
>owe*er, it a$$ears that the &or$oration was not gi*en notice o' such $roceedings. he trial
court issued an order o' general de'ault. A'ter an ex parte $resentation o' e*idence, the trial
court granted the $etition and directed the 3%/ o' Laguna to issue a new %wner,s &o$(, while
at the same time declaring *oid the 'irst %wner,s &o$(.
-hen the &or$oration learned o' the $etition and order 'or the 'irst time in :arch 1""9, it
caused the annotation o' a notice o' sale on the title o' the $ro$ert(. herea'ter, on 7# A$ril
1""9, it 'iled a Notice o' Ad*erse &laim with the 3egister o' /eeds o' &alamba, Laguna. he
&or$oration 'iled a $etition 'or the annulment o' the order.
he &ourt o' A$$eals granted the $etition and ordered the annulment o' the im$ugned %rder. 6t
'ound that the %wner,s &o$( is in the $ossession o' res$ondent since 1"#.. hus, $etitioners do
not own the $ro$ert(, nor do the( ha*e an( interest thereon that could ha*e been the sub+ect o'
succession. &o$( was ne*er lost in the 'irst $lace. Petitioners sought reconsideration o' the
3esolution, but the motion was denied 'or lac) o' merit.
Petitioners now claim that the( ha*e no )nowledge o' the $ur$orted sale and that the(
were not aware o' an( claim whatsoe*er o*er the $ro$ert( in 5uestion 'or o*er twent(@se*en@
D7.E (ears, stressing that $ro$ert( is still registered, declared 'or taCation, and realt( taCes $aid
thereon in the name o' the s$ouses &amitan.
ISSUE'
-hether or not the heirs o' &amitan were in good 'aith when the( denied in'ormation o'
the sale.
RULING'
Although $etitioners $ut their unmista)abl( s$arse denial o' res$ondent,s allegations
relati*e to the eCecution o' the deed o' sale in its 'a*or and its $ossession o' the %wner,s &o$(
under the heading 1SP?&6F6& /?N6ALS1 and anteceding it with the ad*erb 1s$eci'icall(,, the
same cannot 'unction as an o$erati*e denial within the $ur*iew o' the 3ules. A denial is not
s$eci'ic sim$l( because it is so 5uali'ied b( the de'endant. A general denial does not become
s$eci'ic b( the use o' the word 1s$eci'icall(.1 -hen the matters o' whether the de'endant alleges
ha*ing no )nowledge or in'ormation su''icient to 'orm a belie', are $lainl( and necessaril( within
the de'endant,s )nowledge, his alleged ignorance or lac) o' in'ormation will not be considered
as a s$eci'ic denial. 6n one case, it was held that when a res$ondent ma)es a 1s$eci'ic denial1
o' a material allegation o' the $etition without setting 'orth the substance o' the matters relied
u$on to su$$ort its general denial, when such matters were $lainl( within its )nowledge and the
de'endant could not logicall( $retend ignorance as to the same, said de'endant 'ails to $ro$erl(
tender an issue. Petitioners, 1s$eci'ic denial1 in this case is ine''ecti*e and amounts to an
admission $ursuant to 3ule 8, Sec. 11 o' the 3ules o' &ourt.
APOLONIO GALOFA vs. NEE BON SING
G.R. No. L622&11 J)*.)"/ 17, 1%-1
FACTS'
A$olonio Falo'a 'iled a com$laint against Nee Bon Sing 'or the reco*er( o' $ossession
o' and to 5uiet title o*er a certain $arcel o' land in Sta. Lourdes, Barcelona, Sorsogon, alleging
therein the $rior ownershi$ and $ossession o' the land b( his late 'ather, Francisco Falo'a, and
its ad+udication in 'a*or o' the $lainti'' in an oral $artition among his co@heirs. he com$laint
alleges that due to the unwarranted ad*erse claim o' rights o' ownershi$ and $ossession b( the
de'endant andAor his tenant or encargado, Abion Pantilone he was not able to ta)e $ossession
o' the $ro$ert(. Such $ossession is unwarranted because Nee Bon Sing had no right
whatsoe*er to legall( dis$ose the $ro$ert( not being the owner thereo', aside 'rom the 'act that
the de'endant is not allowed under the law to own and $ossess real $ro$erties being an alien.
6n his answer Nee Bon Sing denies the material a*erments contained in $aragra$h 8 o'
the &om$laint, the truth being, that the de'endant ne*er asserted title o' ownershi$ to the
$ro$ert( described in the &om$laint to an(bod(, much less to the herein $lainti'' in *irtue o' an(
deed o' con*e(ance eCecuted in 'a*or o' the de'endant b( one Fe Nicolas, nor claimed an( right
o*er the said $ro$ert(, either b( himsel' or through another.
ISSUE'
-hether or not the denial o' Nee Bon Sing is a negati*e $regnant.
RULING'
6t is to be noted that, to the $lainti''Gs allegation o' his inabilit( to ta)e actual $ossession
o' the $arcel o' land due to 1an unwarranted ad*erse claim o' rights o' ownershi$ and
$ossession b( the de'endant . . .1, 'ollowed b( an allegation o' how such claim was eCercised,
the de'endantGs denial is as to 1the materials a*erments contained in $aragra$h 8 o' the
&om$laint, . . .1 con+oined with his disclaimer or dominical or $ossessor( rights in the manner
alleged in the com$laint. he de'endantGs denial is, there'ore, a negati*e $regnant, which is
e5ui*alent to an admission.
A denial in the 'orm o' a negati*e $regnant is an ambiguous $leading, since it cannot be
ascertained whether it is the 'act or onl( the 5uali'ication that is intended to be denied.
D81 Am. Jur. 87"E
-here a 'act is alleged with some 5uali'(ing or modi'(ing language, and the denial is
con+uncti*e, a 1negati*e $regnant1 eCists, and onl( the 5uali'ication or modi'ication is
denied, while the 'act itsel' is admitted. 6son *. 6son, 119 S- 7d. 330, 7.7 H(. 83#. D78
-ords I Phrases 318E
SPOUSES MARCIAL VARGAS )*+ ELI8ABETH VARGAS vs. SPOUSES VISITACION )*+
JOSE CAMINAS, SPOUSES JESUS )*+ LORELEI GARCIA, )*+ SPOUSES RODOLFO )*+
ROSARIO ANGELES DE GU8MAN
G.R. No. 171-% J.*2 12, 2&&1
SPOUSES RODOLFO )*+ ROSARIO ANGELES DE GU8MAN vs. SPOUSES VISITACION
)*+ JOSE CAMINAS, )*+ SPOUSES MARCIAL )*+ ELI8ABETH VARGAS
G.R. No. 17%0& J.*2 12, 2&&1
FACTS'
%n # August 1"88, s$ouses &aminas bought a 98@s5uare meter lot with a two@store(
townhouse, designated as townhouse No. 8, 'rom rans@American Sales and ?C$osition
re$resented b( its de*elo$er Jesus Farcia DFarciaE. ownhouse No. 8 is located at No. #9
Feneral Lim Street, >eroes >ill, JueBon &it( and is on a $ortion o' the land co*ered b( &
No. 1"918.. S$ouses &aminas $aid Farcia P890,000 as e*idenced b( a contract o' sale and
$ro*isional recei$t. According to s$ouses &aminas, the( too) $ossession o' townhouse No. 8
u$on com$letion o' its construction.
6n /ecember o' 1"88, Farcia bought 'rom s$ouses =argas *arious construction
materials. As $a(ment to s$ouses =argas, Farcia eCecuted an absolute /eed o' Sale o*er
townhouse No. 17. >owe*er, on 1 :arch 1""0, s$ouses =argas and Farcia eCecuted a /eed o'
?Cchange with Addendum whereb( s$ouses =argas trans'erred to Farcia townhouse No. 17,
and in eCchange Farcia trans'erred to s$ouses =argas townhouse No. 8.
he contracts eCecuted b( Farcia with s$ouses &aminas and s$ouses =argas were not
registered with the 3egister o' /eeds. his was because & No. 1"918. was still being
reconstituted and it was onl( on 1. August 1"8" that & No. .789 was issued in its stead.
%n 10 :a( 1""0, s$ouses Farcia eCecuted a /eed o' 3eal ?state :ortgage o*er townhouse
No. 8 in 'a*or o' s$ouses /e FuBman as securit( 'or a loan. he mortgage was annotated at the
bac) o' & No. .789. As s$ouses Farcia 'ailed to $a( their indebtedness, s$ouses /e
FuBman 'oreclosed the mortgage on 17 %ctober 1""0. At the $ublic auction, s$ouses /e
FuBman were the highest bidder.
%n 13 No*ember 1""0, s$ouses &aminas 'iled a com$laint against s$ouses Farcia,
s$ouses /e FuBman, and s$ouses =argas be'ore the 3& o' JueBon &it(, 'or the declaration
o' nullit( o' deed o' mortgage and deed o' sale, 'or the declaration o' absolute ownershi$, 'or the
deli*er( o' title or in the alternati*e 'or re'und o' $urchase $rice and damages.
%n # /ecember 1""0, s$ouses =argas 'iled a case against s$ouses Farcia and
s$ouses /e FuBman, also be'ore the 3& o' JueBon &it(, 'or s$eci'ic $er'ormance, declaration
o' nullit( o' the mortgage contract, damages or in the alternati*e 'or sum o' mone( and
damages.
he two cases were consolidated be'ore the 3&, Branch 101, as the( in*ol*ed
interrelated issues.
6n their 3e+oinder dated 7. Februar( 1""3, s$ouses =argas raised the lac) o' +urisdiction
o' the trial court on the ground that the sub+ect matter 'alls within the eCclusi*e +urisdiction o' the
>L<3B. S$ouses =argas 'urther stated that the >L<3B had alread( rendered a decision dated
78 June 1""1 awarding the $ro$ert( in their 'a*or.
ISSUE'
-hether or not s$ouses =argas are esto$$ed 'rom raising the issue o' +urisdiction o' the
trial court since s$ouses =argas 'iled the case and acti*el( $artici$ated in the $roceedings
be'ore the trial court.
RULING'
%n the contention that s$ouses =argas are esto$$ed 'rom raising the issue o'
+urisdiction, the well@settled rule is that the +urisdiction o' a court ma( be 5uestioned at an( stage
o' the $roceedings. An eCamination o' the records o' the trial court will re*eal that in its
3e+oinder dated 7. Februar( 1""3, s$ouses =argas raised the issue o' lac) o' +urisdiction o' the
trial court since the case $ro$erl( 'alls within the +urisdiction o' the >L<3B.
>owe*er, the trial court 'ailed to address the issue o' +urisdiction in its decision as well as
in its order granting the motion 'or reconsideration o' s$ouses /e FuBman.
&learl(, the trial court erred in not dismissing the case be'ore it. <nder the 3ules o'
&ourt, it is the dut( o' the court to dismiss an action whene*er it a$$ears that the court has no
+urisdiction o*er the sub+ect matter.