Gonzales vs. Bugaay

A demurrer to evidence must be filed before the court renders its judgment; it is no longer an available remedy after a decision has been promulgated.

Spouses Bartolome Ayad and Marcelina Tejada owned several agricultural and residential properties, survived by their children Enrico, Encarnacion, Consolacion, and Maximiano. Encarnacion’s children (the petitioners) sought partition and annulment of documents, alleging that Enrico fraudulently executed documents transferring the entire estate to Consolacion and her children (the respondents) in 1987, completely disregarding the petitioners' successional rights.

• The Estate and the Parties: Spouses Bartolome Ayad and Marcelina Tejada had five children, one of whom predeceased them. The surviving children were Enrico (single), Encarnacion (survived by petitioners), Consolacion (survived by respondents), and Maximiano (who died single and without issue in 1986).
• The Fraudulent Transfer: Petitioners alleged that in 1987, Enrico executed fraudulent documents covering all the Spouses Ayad's properties in favor of Consolacion and the respondents, disregarding the petitioners' rights as heirs.
• Affirmative Defenses: Respondents countered that petitioners had already received their advance inheritance and that the subject properties were individually titled in the respondents' names.
• The RTC Decision: On November 24, 1995, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, awarding each surviving child a one-fourth pro-indiviso share, nullifying the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, and directing the submission of a project of partition.
• Post-Judgment Demurrer: Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. Years later, the RTC granted this motion but restricted the purpose to receiving and offering specific documents. Respondents failed to present these documents and instead filed a demurrer to evidence, which the RTC denied.

• Propriety of the Dismissal: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in dismissing the Amended Complaint because the demurrer to evidence was filed after the RTC had already promulgated its decision, rendering the demurrer procedurally improper.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioners maintained that the RTC correctly denied the demurrer, as the complaint should not have been dismissed for insufficiency of evidence given the procedural posture and the prior judgment on the merits.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Respondents argued that petitioners failed to present the documents sought to be annulled as well as evidence of the properties sought to be partitioned, warranting the dismissal of the complaint.
• Advance Inheritance: Respondents claimed that petitioners had long obtained their advance inheritance from the estate and that the properties were already individually titled in the respondents' names.

• Timeliness of Demurrer: Whether a demurrer to evidence can be filed after the trial court has promulgated its decision.
• Propriety of CA Dismissal: Whether the CA correctly dismissed the amended complaint based on insufficiency of evidence given the post-judgment filing of the demurrer.

• Timeliness of Demurrer: A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, presented after the plaintiff rests. Being a motion to dismiss, it must clearly be filed before the court renders its judgment. Because respondents filed the demurrer after the RTC promulgated its Decision, the remedy was no longer available.
• Propriety of CA Dismissal: The CA committed reversible error in granting the demurrer and dismissing the complaint. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was granted solely for the reception of documents; their failure to comply and subsequent filing of a demurrer meant their motion should be deemed abandoned, leaving the RTC's original Decision intact.

• Demurrer to Evidence — Defined as a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, presented after the plaintiff rests their case. It is an objection that the adversary's evidence is insufficient in point of law to make out a case or sustain the issue. The court's role is to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the judgment. Crucially, a demurrer to evidence must be filed before the court renders its judgment; it is unavailable after a decision has been promulgated.

• "A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case."
• "Being considered a motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before the court renders its judgment."

• Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, G.R. No. 161817, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 690 — Followed. Cited for the definition and nature of a demurrer to evidence.
• Choa v. Choa, G.R. No. 143376, November 26, 2002, 392 SCRA 641 — Followed. Cited for the principle that in passing upon a demurrer, the court merely ascertains whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the judgment.

• Section 1, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court — Governs demurrer to evidence, allowing a defendant to move for dismissal after the plaintiff completes the presentation of evidence on the ground that the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Applied to emphasize that a demurrer is a motion to dismiss that must be filed before judgment is rendered.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, Jose C. Mendoza.