Adolfo vs. Adolfo

A party who invokes the proceedings and decision in a related case to secure affirmative relief is estopped from denying the truth of the final judgment rendered in that case, even if not formally a party thereto, where the judgment determines the character of the property that is the subject of the subsequent action.

Spouses Teofilo and Fe Adolfo married in 1966 and subsequently acquired Lot 1087-A-2-E in Mandaue City. Following their separation due to irreconcilable differences, Teofilo filed a petition for judicial separation of property claiming the lot was conjugal property. Fe countered that it was her paraphernal property inherited from her mother. The property's characterization became the subject of concurrent litigation when Fe's sister filed a separate partition case (Civil Case No. MAN-2683) wherein Fe initially claimed the property was conjugal to invalidate a sale made without her husband's consent.

• The Marriage and Acquisition: Petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo and respondent Fe T. Adolfo were married on November 26, 1966. During the marriage, they acquired Lot 1087-A-2-E, a 3,652-square meter property in Brgy. Cabancalan, Mandaue City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 18368.
• Separation and Conflicting Claims: The spouses separated due to irreconcilable differences. Petitioner filed a petition for judicial separation of property alleging the subject property was conjugal. Respondent claimed it was her paraphernal property inherited from her mother Petronila Tudtud, tracing its title history through several transfers and redeeming it from the spouses Garcia in 1983.
• The Related Partition Case (Civil Case No. MAN-2683): In 1996, respondent's sister Florencia Tudtud and husband Juanito Gingoyon filed a partition case against respondent regarding a 300-square meter portion of the subject property. In her Answer therein, respondent claimed the property was conjugal to invalidate a 1988 deed of sale she executed without petitioner's consent. On May 15, 2002, the RTC (Branch 55) ruled in favor of the Gingoyons, declaring the property conjugal and nullifying the sale for lack of petitioner's consent under Article 124 of the Family Code.
• Request for Admission and Motion for Judgment: In Civil Case No. MAN-4821, petitioner filed a Request for Admission on August 1, 2005, seeking admission of the genuineness of documents from Civil Case No. MAN-2683 and respondent's admission therein that the property was conjugal. Respondent failed to respond. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings on September 5, 2005.
• Trial Court Ruling: On October 2, 2006, the RTC granted the motion, treating it as one for summary judgment. It held that respondent's failure to reply to the request for admission constituted a judicial admission that the property was conjugal, and took judicial notice of its May 15, 2002 Decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683. It ordered partition of the property.
• Appeal in Related Case: Meanwhile, the Gingoyons appealed the May 15, 2002 decision. On May 30, 2007, the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 78971) reversed the RTC, declaring the property respondent's paraphernal property. This decision became final and executory on June 23, 2007.

• Proper Remedy: Petitioner insisted that the trial court correctly treated his motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary judgment, or alternatively, that judgment on the pleadings was proper under Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Judicial Admission: Respondent's failure to reply to the written request for admission resulted in her admitting under Rule 26, Section 2 that the subject property was conjugal, removing any genuine issue of fact.
• Binding Effect of Prior Admission: Respondent's admission in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 that the property was conjugal constituted a judicial admission requiring no further proof, and the trial court properly took judicial notice of its own prior decision.
• Non-Binding Nature of Subsequent Decision: The CA's eventual finding in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 that the property was paraphernal could not bind petitioner because he was not a party to Civil Case No. MAN-2683.
• Estoppel Against Respondent: Respondent's contradictory positions—claiming the property was conjugal in the partition case to invalidate a sale, but paraphernal in the separation case—should not be countenanced; she should be held to her original declaration.

• Improper Remedy: Respondent countered that petitioner elected the wrong remedy; he should have moved for summary judgment under Rule 35 rather than judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34, as her Answer specifically denied material allegations and tendered genuine issues.
• Effect of Judgment on the Pleadings: In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the movant is deemed to admit the truth of all material allegations in the opposing party's pleading; thus, petitioner would be deemed to have admitted that the property was paraphernal.
• Prematurity: The request for admission and motion for judgment were premature because the decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 was still on appeal, and the issue of whether the property was conjugal or paraphernal had not been resolved with finality.
• Finality of Paraphernal Declaration: With the final and executory May 30, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 declaring the property paraphernal, petitioner's case for partition must be dismissed as moot and academic.

• Judgment on the Pleadings vs. Summary Judgment: Whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment despite respondent's Answer tendering issues and the pending appeal in the related case.
• Prematurity of Motion: Whether petitioner could validly resort to judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment while the appeal in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 determining the property's character was pending.
• Binding Effect of Final Judgment: Whether petitioner is bound by the final decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 declaring the property paraphernal despite not being a party to that case.

• Judgment on the Pleadings Improper: Judgment on the pleadings was improper because respondent's Answer specifically denied that the property was conjugal and asserted affirmative defenses (that it was paraphernal), thereby tendering genuine issues of fact. Rule 34 applies only where an answer fails to tender an issue or admits material allegations.
• Summary Judgment Improper: Summary judgment was likewise improper. While respondent's failure to reply to the request for admission resulted in deemed admissions, the trial court could not ignore the pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971, which presented the identical issue of whether the property was conjugal or paraphernal. An appeal is a continuation of the original case, and it was presumptuous for the trial court to assume its decision would be affirmed.
• Preclusion and Estoppel: Petitioner could not preempt the appeal in the related case by securing a judgment in his favor while the property's character was sub judice. Having invoked the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 to secure affirmative relief, petitioner is estopped from denying the truth of the final judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 that declared the property paraphernal. The principle of estoppel bars a party from adopting an inconsistent position that causes injury to another after inducing reliance on a prior position.
• Dismissal Required: With the final and executory decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971 establishing that the subject property is respondent's paraphernal property, Civil Case No. MAN-4821 must be dismissed as there is no conjugal property to divide.

• Distinction Between Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment: Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34) is proper where the answer fails to tender an issue or admits material allegations, rendering the facts as pleaded undisputed. Summary judgment (Rule 35) is proper where issues apparently exist in the pleadings but are shown to be sham, fictitious, or not genuine by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. In the former, there is no ostensible issue; in the latter, issues exist but are not genuine.
• Judicial Admissions via Request for Admission: Under Rule 26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, matters of which an admission is requested are deemed admitted if the party served fails to file a sworn statement denying or explaining them within the designated period. Such admissions are considered judicial admissions binding on the party.
• Judicial Notice of Related Cases: Courts may take judicial notice of decisions or facts in another case sitting in the same court if (1) the parties present them in evidence without opposition, or (2) the court in its discretion resolves to do so. However, this authority is limited where the decision is pending appeal.
• Estoppel by Conduct: A person who by deed or conduct induces another to act in a particular manner is barred from adopting an inconsistent position that causes loss or injury. This includes denying the truth of a fact settled by judicial proceedings after invoking those proceedings to obtain relief.

• "Judgment on the pleadings is proper 'where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading.' Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be granted 'if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
• "The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings."
• "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 in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971. 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."
• "In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another."

• Tan v. De la Vega, 519 Phil. 515 (2006) — Distinguished judgment on the pleadings from summary judgment; defined when issues are "genuine."
• Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 492 Phil. 106 (2005) — Explained that in judgment on the pleadings, the question is whether issues are generated by the pleadings, while in summary judgment, the question is whether issues are genuine.
• Guanzon v. Hon. Montesclaros, 208 Phil. 171 (1983) — Held that an appeal is a continuation of the same case commenced in the lower court.
• Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 1036 (1998) — Defined estoppel as barring a person from denying the truth of facts settled by judicial proceedings or his own acts.

• Rule 34, Section 1, Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs judgment on the pleadings where an answer fails to tender an issue or admits material allegations.
• Rule 35, Section 3, Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs summary judgment where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.
• Rule 26, Section 2, Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides for implied admissions where a party fails to respond to a request for admission.
• Article 135(6), Family Code — Ground for judicial separation of property when spouses have been separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
• Article 124, Family Code — Administration and enjoyment of conjugal partnership property; requires consent of both spouses for disposition or encumbrance.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Jose Catral Mendoza, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.