G.R. No. 148361 November 29, 2005
FACTS:
Respondent Maya-Maya Cottages filed a complaint for the cancellation of title of a lot owned by petitioners spouses Rafael and Ligaya Bautista in Nasugbu, Batangas. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that respondent has no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration with motion for leave to file an amended complaint for quieting of title. Petitioners opposed the motion contending that if admitted, respondent’s theory of the case is substantially modified. The trial court granted the motion and issued an Order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss, thus, reversing its previous order of dismissal. Petitioners' subsequent petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Court of Appeals was also denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the filing of a motion to dismiss constitutes a bar for the amendment of a complaint as a matter of right.
RULING:
No. Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, shows that before the filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the absolute right to amend his pleading, regardless of whether a new cause of action or change in theory is introduced. A motion to dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule. In this case, records show that petitioners had not yet filed a responsive pleading to the original complaint. What they filed was a motion to dismiss. Therefore, Maya-Maya may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final, as in this case.
Read the full text here.
