B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED June 21, 2021

Colmenar v. Colmenar Colmenar v. Colmenar

I. Rscit-ready summary in which case, the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. Here, the
Frank Colmenar’s father died, leaving real properties located at General Trias, case commenced with the filing of the complaint in September 2018 and remained
Cavite, all registered in his father's name. The respondents executed an Extrajudicial pending when the 2019 Amendments took effect.
Settlement of Estate of Francisco Jesus Colmenar and another Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate of Deceased Francisco Jesus Colmenar and Loida Colmenar The records though readily show that when Judge Gill motu proprio resolved the
where they made it appear that they were the surviving heirs of Francisco Jesus affirmative defenses on May 22, 2020, the prescribed thirty (30)-day period for
Colmenar, and by virtue thereof, allocated unto themselves the interests of his late resolving affirmative defenses had long expired. ProFriends filed its answer with
father in the aforesaid properties. Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria thereafter sold to affirmative defense in December 2018; PEC and Crisanta Realty on January 3, 2019;
various buyers (ProFriends, Crisanta Realty, PEC, Amaia) the subject properties. and Amaia on February 27, 2020. Judge Gill should have, therefore, desisted from
Frank then secured the services of counsel and sent demand letters to individual applying the 2019 Amendments to the case below, specifically Section 12, Rule 8
respondents to invoke his successional rights. ProFriends invoked as affirmative thereof, because when she did, the same was no longer feasible.
defense lack of cause of action, while PEC and Crisanta Realty, averred that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action against them. They also invoked the Judge Gill ignored the injustice caused by the application of the 2019 Amendments
following common defenses: (1) they are innocent purchasers for value; and (2) to the case. For as a consequence, petitioner lost his substantial right to be heard on
petitioner's claim is barred by laches and/or prescription. the common affirmative defense of PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia, and his right
In the meantime, the 2019 amendment to the Rules of Court took effect on May 1, to seek a reconsideration of the order of dismissal which were both granted him
2020. Thereafter, Judge Gill issued an order dismissing the complaint as against the under the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.
various buyers on ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against
them. Judge Gill stated that she applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments The complaint stated a cause of action against respondent companies
to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure. Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from In the Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020, Judge Gill did not resolve the
the Court against the assailed Order dated May 22, 2020. He faults Judge Gill for affirmative defense of lack of cause of action raised by ProFriends. She only
applying the 2019 Rules on Civil Procedure to the case, and based thereon, motu resolved the common affirmative defense of PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta Realty that
proprio acted on the affirmative defenses of respondent companies despite the clear the complaint failed to state a cause of action. And yet, in the assailed Order dated
injustice it caused to him. May 22, 2020, the case against ProFriends was also dismissed on the ground that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action, the common affirmative defense raised
WON the trial court committed reversible error when it applied the 2019 Rules of only by PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta Realty.
Procedure to resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by respondent companies? –
YES Failure to state a cause of action is not the same as lack of cause of action; the terms
are not interchangeable. It may be observed that lack of cause of action is not among
the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of
The trial court gravely erred when it applied the 2019 Amendments to resolve the
Court.
affirmative defenses pleaded by respondent companies
The 2019 Amendments shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on May 1,
2020 as well as all pending cases commenced, except to the extent that in the Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against ProFriends on
opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, an affirmative defense it
did not raise, and which is completely different from what it actually raised, i.e., lack

G.R. NO: G.R. No. 252467 PONENTE: Lazaro-Javier, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: I. Applicability of Rules 1 to 71 DIGEST MAKER: Marianne

Colmenar v. Colmenar Colmenar v. Colmenar

of cause action. And strictly speaking, lack of cause of action may only be raised thereof, allocated unto themselves the interests of his late father in the aforesaid
after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations or properties.
admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. Before then, it cannot be raised as
a ground for dismissal; much less can the court dismiss the case on that ground. Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria thereafter sold to various buyers (ProFriends, Crisanta
Realty, PEC, Amaia) the subject properties. These sales were made without his
Further, petitioner as legitimate child and lawful heir of Francisco Jesus Colmenar knowledge and consent. The individual respondents effectively deprived him of his
has the right to the relief prayed for, i.e., to declare as void the extrajudicial successional rights under Philippine laws as a legitimate son of his late father. Thus,
settlement of estate effected by the individual respondents who, not being lawful he secured the services of counsel and sent demand letters to individual respondents
heirs of his father, had no legal right to settle the estate; and to declare as void the to invoke his successional rights. Apollo's counsel, however, refused to meet with
subsequent deeds of sale executed by these individual respondents in favor of him. His subsequent demand letters were also ignored.
respondent companies which consequently also did not derive any valid title from
the individual respondents. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. TMCV-062-18 and raffled to RTC-Trece
Martires City, Cavite, Branch 23.
Whether respondent companies were buyers in bad faith or had knowledge of the
defect in the title of the seller is not the issue nor the trigger that gave rise to the ProFriends, PEC, and Crisanta Realty filed their respective answers. ProFriends
complaint. Petitioner's causes of action hinged on his averment that the individual invoked as affirmative defense lack of cause of action, while PEC and Crisanta
respondents are not the owners of the properties, hence, they cannot validly sell the Realty, averred that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them. They
same to respondent companies, nor convey any title to the latter by reason of the also invoked the following common defenses: (1) they are innocent purchasers for
invalid sale. value; and (2) petitioner's claim is barred by laches and/or prescription.
II. Facts of the case
Apollo and Amaia, on the other hand, filed their respective motions to dismiss.
Frank Colmenar’s family lived in Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Amaia, like PEC and Crisanta Realty, averred that the complaint stated no cause of
Following his parents' divorce, his father Francisco Jesus Colmenar returned to the
action against it and that it was a buyer in good faith. Crisanta Realty and PEC then
Philippines. Despite the distance between him and his father, he remained close to
filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Set the Case for Preliminary Hearing on
the latter. In fact, when his own child was born, Francisco Jesus Colmenar visited
Affirmative Defenses (Motion for Leave of Court).
them in Las Vegas, Nevada, where he and his family lived. Francisco Jesus
Colmenar confided in him that he had met a woman named Loida.
The trial court, through then Assisting Judge Bonifacio S. Pascua, issued an Order
granting the aforesaid motion and setting their affirmative defenses for hearing. In
Years later, he learned that his father had died. The latter left real properties located
the same order, the trial court deferred the resolution of the motions to dismiss of
at General Trias, Cavite, all registered in his father's name. He also learned that
Apollo and Amaia.
respondents Apollo Colmenar (Apollo), Jeannie Colmenar Mendoza (Jeannie), and
Victoria Jet Colmenar (Victoria) executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of
However, Assisting Judge Jean Desuasido-Gill (Judge Gill) set aside the Order and
Francisco Jesus Colmenar and another Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of
deemed PEC and Crisanta Realty's Motion for Leave of Court, as well as Apollo and
Deceased Francisco Jesus Colmenar and Loida Colmenar where they made it appear
that they were the surviving heirs of Francisco Jesus Colmenar, and by virtue

G.R. NO: G.R. No. 252467 PONENTE: Lazaro-Javier, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: I. Applicability of Rules 1 to 71 DIGEST MAKER: Marianne

Colmenar v. Colmenar Colmenar v. Colmenar

Amaia's respective motions to dismiss, submitted for resolution. Judge Gill issued an 12, Rule 15 of the 2019 Amendments prohibits the filing of a motion for
Omnibus Order denying these motions. reconsideration of court actions on affirmative defenses.

PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia filed their respective motions for reconsideration. Petitioner further posits that Judge Gill had earlier ruled on the affirmative defenses.
At the same time, Amaia filed its Answer pleading anew its affirmative defenses that The pending matters at the time the 2019 Amendments took effect were respondent
the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it, it was an innocent purchaser companies' motions for reconsideration of the February 12, 2020 Omnibus Order. If
for value, and petitioner's claim had prescribed. Judge Gill was truly insistent on applying the new rules in the case, she should have
denied the motions for reconsideration pursuant to Section 12 (e), Rule 8 of the 2019
In the meantime, the 2019 amendment to the Rules of Court took effect on May 1, Amendments which prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration where an
2020. Thereafter, the trial court, still through Judge Gill, issued the assailed Order affirmative defense is denied.
dated May 22, 2020, dismissing the complaint as against PEC, Crisanta Realty,
Amaia, and ProFriends on ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action Further, by motu proprio resolving the affirmative defenses, Judge Gill totally
against them. Judge Gill stated that she applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 disregarded the requirement set forth under Section 12 (c), Rule 8 of the 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure. As per this new provision, the Amendments that the court "shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative
Court shall motu proprio resolve the affirmative defense if claim [sic] allegedly defenses within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer." ProFriends
states no cause of action, among others. The Court marries the case status with the filed its answer with affirmative defense as early as December 2018; PEC and
new provision. Crisanta Realty, on January 3, 2019; and Amaia on February 27, 2020. Thus, when
she resolved their respective affirmative defenses on May 22, 2020, she did so way
Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court against the assailed Order beyond the 30-day period provided under the 2019 Amendments.
dated May 22, 2020. He faults Judge Gill for applying the 2019 Rules on Civil
Procedure to the case, and based thereon, motu proprio acted on the affirmative Lastly, Judge Gill gravely erred when she decreed that the complaint failed to state a
defenses of respondent companies despite the clear injustice it caused to him. He cause of action as against respondent companies in view of the absence of a material
asserts that although admittedly procedural rules may be applied to actions already allegation that they were purchasers in bad faith or had notice of a defect in the
pending prior to their effectivity, the 2019 Amendments expressly proscribe their sellers' titles. In truth, the complaint bears the material allegations that petitioner is
application to pending actions when "in the opinion of the court, their application the heir of Francisco Jesus Colmenar, the registered owner of the properties which
would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under were sold to respondent companies by Apollo, Jeannie, and Victoria, who were not
which the cases were filed shall govern." heirs of Francisco Jesus Colmenar. A purchaser may be impleaded in an action if
said purchaser acquired the property from a seller who had no right over the said
Here, Judge Gill motu proprio acted on and granted the affirmative defenses of property. A transferee's claim of good faith does not preclude a cause of action
respondent companies. This hasty turn-about caused him great prejudice as he was against it. Thus, the lack of specific allegation in the complaint that respondent
peremptorily deprived of the opportunity to assert his claim against respondent companies acquired the properties in bad faith does not equate to failure to state a
companies. More so considering the trial court's earlier pronouncement that the cause of action against them.
issues presented could be better threshed out through a full dressed trial. Worse, he
could not even seek a reconsideration from the assailed disposition because Section

G.R. NO: G.R. No. 252467 PONENTE: Lazaro-Javier, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: I. Applicability of Rules 1 to 71 DIGEST MAKER: Marianne

Colmenar v. Colmenar Colmenar v. Colmenar

In their Comments, PEC and Crisanta Realty, Amaia, An ProFriends aver that the
petition must be dismissed since it actually raises a question of fact. Contrary to As worded, the 2019 Amendments shall also govern all pending cases commenced
petitioner's claim, Judge Gill did not err in applying the 2019 Rules on Civil before they took effect on May 1, 2020, except to the extent that in the opinion of the
Procedure to the case for Rule 144 of the Rules itself clearly ordains that the same court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case,
may be applied to all pending proceedings. In fact, Judge Gill had consistently the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. Here, the case
applied the 2019 Rules in all proceedings before her court. In any event, Judge Gill commenced with the filing of the complaint in September 2018 and remained
was correct in holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against pending when the 2019 Amendments took effect.
them. Petitioner, indeed, did not allege in his complaint that they are purchasers in
bad faith or that they had notice of any defect in the titles of the properties they As it was, Judge Gill applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments when she
bought from individual respondents who are also children of Francisco Jesus supposedly resolved motu proprio the affirmative defense of respondent companies,
Colmenar, albeit, from a different wife. In effect, the complaint failed to state the that is, the complaint failed to state a cause of action, thus:
particular right, if any, which they supposedly violated. They were innocent Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses
purchasers for value. They exercised the required diligence when they investigated in his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6,
the property before buying it. Their diligent investigation did not yield anything and the following grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
suspicious about the properties and their corresponding titles.
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
III. Issue/s 4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
1. WON the trial court committed reversible error when it applied the 2019 5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
Amendments to the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure (now known as (b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver
the 2019 Rules of Procedure) to resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by thereof.
respondent companies? – YES (c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty (30)
calendar days from the filing of the answer.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
The trial court gravely erred when it applied the 2019 Amendments to resolve the The records though readily show that when Judge Gill motu proprio resolved the
affirmative defenses pleaded by respondent companies affirmative defenses on May 22, 2020, the prescribed thirty (30)-day period had long
The 2019 Amendments have been incorporated into the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil expired. ProFriends filed its answer with affirmative defense in December 2018;
Procedure, now known as the 2019 Rules on Civil Procedure. And as with all things PEC and Crisanta Realty on January 3, 2019; and Amaia on February 27, 2020.
new, precedence is generally scarce, hence, its application must be done with utmost Judge Gill should have, therefore, desisted from applying the 2019 Amendments to
caution and in strict adherence to its provisions. the case below, specifically Section 12, Rule 8 thereof, because when she did, the
same was no longer feasible.
Rule 144 of the 2019 Rules, provides:
The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern all cases Another. It was inaccurate for Judge Gill to say that she was motu proprio acting on
filed after their effectivity on May 1, 2020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the the affirmative defenses. In truth, she had already resolved this common affirmative
extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would defense of failure to state a cause of action, together with the other affirmative
work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.

G.R. NO: G.R. No. 252467 PONENTE: Lazaro-Javier, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: I. Applicability of Rules 1 to 71 DIGEST MAKER: Marianne

Colmenar v. Colmenar Colmenar v. Colmenar

defenses in her Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020. There, she denied the Zuñiga-Santos v. Santos-Gran explained that failure to state a cause of action refers
motions to dismiss and motions to set the affirmative defenses for hearing because in to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while lack of cause of action
her words, "the issues x x x are complex x x x and are x x x better threshed out in refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure to
trial." state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through
a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court or raised as an
Too, PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia all had pending motions for reconsideration affirmative defense in an answer, while dismissal for lack of cause of action may be
of the Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020 when Judge Gill "motu proprio" raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of
resolved their common affirmative defense, and dismissed the case based on, and stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.
consequently considered the pending motions for reconsiderations as moot. Thus,
instead of applying the 2019 Amendments, Judge Gill could have simply resolved Failure to state a cause of action is not the same as lack of cause of action; the terms
the pending motions for reconsiderations of PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia. are not interchangeable. It may be observed that lack of cause of action is not among
the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of
But this is not all. The worst part is when Judge Gill ignored the injustice caused by Court.
the application of the 2019 Amendments to the case. For as a consequence, petitioner
lost his substantial right to be heard on the common affirmative defense of PEC, Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against ProFriends on
Crisanta Realty, and Amaia, and his right to seek a reconsideration of the order of ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, an affirmative defense it
dismissal which were both granted him under the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil did not raise, and which is completely different from what it actually raised, i.e., lack
Procedure. of cause action. And strictly speaking, lack of cause of action may only be raised
after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations or
The complaint stated a cause of action against respondent companies admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. Before then, it cannot be raised as
To recall, there are two (2) sets of affirmative defenses raised below, viz.: (1) the a ground for dismissal; much less can the court dismiss the case on that ground.
complaint failed to state a cause of action, raised by PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta
Realty; and (2) lack of cause of action, raised by ProFriends. We now go to the dismissal of the complaint against PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta
Realty on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them.
In the Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020, Judge Gill did not resolve the
affirmative defense of lack of cause of action raised by ProFriends. She only A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of
resolved the common affirmative defense of PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta Realty that another. A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of
the complaint failed to state a cause of action. And yet, in the assailed Order dated the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
May 22, 2020, the case against ProFriends was also dismissed on the ground that the (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
complaint failed to state a cause of action, the common affirmative defense raised arises or is created;
only by PEC, Amaia, and Crisanta Realty. (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such
right; and
It has been repeatedly held, however, that failure to state a cause of action and lack
of cause of action are distinct and separate grounds to dismiss a particular action.

G.R. NO: G.R. No. 252467 PONENTE: Lazaro-Javier, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: I. Applicability of Rules 1 to 71 DIGEST MAKER: Marianne

Colmenar v. Colmenar Colmenar v. Colmenar

(c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the All told, the trial court gravely erred when it held that the complaint failed to state a
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for cause of action against respondent companies, and based thereon, dismissed the
which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. complaint against them.

If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, V. Disposition
the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Order dated May 22, 2020 of the
state a cause of action. Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires, Cavite in Civil Case No. TMCV-
062-18 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint is REINSTATED as against
In Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank, the Court ordained that the test to Philippine Estates Corporation, Crisanta Realty Development Corporation, Amaia
determine whether a complaint states a cause of action against the defendants is — Land Corporation, and Property Company of Friends. The trial court is DIRECTED
admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, to PROCEED with the resolution of the case with UTMOST DISPATCH.
may a judge validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint? SO ORDERED.

Here, petitioner as legitimate child and lawful heir of Francisco Jesus Colmenar has
the right to the relief prayed for, i.e., to declare as void the extrajudicial settlement of
estate effected by the individual respondents who, not being lawful heirs of his
father, had no legal right to settle the estate; and to declare as void the subsequent
deeds of sale executed by these individual respondents in favor of respondent
companies which consequently also did not derive any valid title from the individual
respondents.

Whether respondent companies were buyers in bad faith or had knowledge of the
defect in the title of the seller is not the issue nor the trigger that gave rise to the
complaint. Petitioner's causes of action hinged on his averment that the individual
respondents are not the owners of the properties, hence, they cannot validly sell the
same to respondent companies, nor convey any title to the latter by reason of the
invalid sale. The spring cannot rise above its source. Needless to state, the trial court
cannot inject its own theory to take the place of the actual allegations in the
complaint. Besides, where petitioner in this case has no actual or personal
knowledge of the good faith or bad faith of the buyers in the purchase of the
properties, how could he possibly allege it in the complaint? In any event, good faith
or lack of bad faith is a matter of defense for the buyers in this case. It can be
pleaded in the answer and proved during the trial.

G.R. NO: G.R. No. 252467 PONENTE: Lazaro-Javier, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: I. Applicability of Rules 1 to 71 DIGEST MAKER: Marianne