G.R. No. 147738 December 13, 2005
FACTS:
Upon the sale of a piece of land cultivated by the spouses Crisanto and Mercedes Javier and owned by Felimon Emperado to PHILVILLE, the parties agreed to give the Javiers a 2,000 sq m lot. But instead of giving them a single lot, what they received were 2 separate lots of 1,000 sq m each located far apart. Javier filed an action for damages and injunction against PHILVILLE. In its answer, PHILVILLE specifically denied the allegations in the complaint and raised their affirmative and special defenses. Mercedes then filed a motion to amend her complaint which was denied by the trial court. PHILVILLE then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Javier had filed a protest with the Land Management Bureau seeking the reversion of the land to the public domain. The trial court granted the motion but was reversed by CA on appeal.
ISSUE:
Is the trial court's order of dismissal in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court?
RULING:
No. SC interpreted the “within the time for pleading” in Sec. 1, Rule 16 of Revised Rules of Court to mean within the time to answer. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 11, the time to answer is 15 days from the time of the service of summons upon the defendant. In the instant case, PHILVILLE’s motion to dismiss was filed after it had filed its answer. Where an answer has been filed, the defendant is estopped from filing a motion to dismiss. The only exceptions are:
- where the ground raised is lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.
- where the complaint does not state a cause of action.
- prescription
- where the evidence that would constitute a ground for the dismissal of the complaint was discovered only during the trial.
