TOPIC: DEMURRER
again his defense and objections.
NOEL CRUZ vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE
CA, AND THE RTC BRANCH VI, MANILA
G.R. No. 121422 | February 23, 2009 | Pardo, J.:
Digested By: Dolar, Theodore Adriel S.
DOCTRINE: A Demurrer to Evidence generally cannot be
reviewed in special civil actions for certiorari, except when such the
granting or denial of such demurrer is patently erroneous or is done
with grave abuse of discretion.
FACTS:
 Petitioner was arrested without warrant for illegal
possession of a .38 caliber revolver with 6 rounds of
ammunition.
 An Information was later filed Petitioner for violation of
PD. 1866.
 During his arraignment, the Petitioner pleased no guilty.
 The Prosecution presented its evidence which was
admitted by the RTC.
 After the Prosecution rested its case, on motion and upon
leave of court, the Petitioner filed a Demurrer to
Evidence.
 The RTC denied the demurrer and ordered the Petitioner
to present his evidence. The MR was likewise denied.
 Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari to
annul the orders of the RTC which admitted the formal
offer of evidence of the Prosecution, denying the
Petitioner’s demurrer, and denying Petitioner’s MR.
 The CA denied the petition for lack of merit, ruling that
the assailed orders were interlocutory in nature and not
ordinarily reviewable by certiorari.
 Petitioner filed this instant Petition for Review, alleging
that the CA erred in upholding the orders of the RTC. He
further alleges that the evidence of the prosecution was
insufficient to sustain a conviction.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in denying the Demurrer.
HELD:
NO. The rulings of the trial court being questioned in this
instant case are interlocutory in nature and may not be subject of a
separate appeal or review on certiorari, but may be assigned as
errors and reviewed in the appeal properly taken from the decision
rendered by the trial court on the merits of the case.
As to the demurrer, the question of whether the evidence
presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convince the court that
the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely within
the sound discretion of the trial court. Errors in the denial of such
demurrer may be corrected by appeal. They cannot be reviewed in
special civil actions as a general rule, except when patently
erroneous or issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
This case does not fall within the exceptions to the rule,
as this Court finds no error nor grave abuse of discretion in the
rulings of the trial court. Thus, the Petitioner may present his
evidence. After trial on the merits, and such verdict is adverse to
him, the Petitioner may seasonably appeal such decision, raising
PETITION IS DENIED.
TOPIC: DEMURRER
NENITA GONZALES, et at. Vs. MARIANO BUGAAY, et al.
G.R. No. 173008 | February 22, 2012 | Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
Digested By: Dolar, Theodore Adriel S.
DOCTRINE: A Demurrer to Evidence, being considered a Motion
to Dismiss, must be filed before the court renders its judgment.
FACTS:
 The deceased spouses Bartolome and Marcelina Ayad
had 5 children: Enrico, Encarnacion, Consolcation,
Maximiano, and Mariano. Mariano predeceased his
parents without issue in 1943. Marcelina died in 1950
followed by Bartolome in 1964. Maximiano later died
without issue in 1986.
 The Petitioners in this case are the children of
Encarnacion.
 The Respondents are the children of Consolacion and
Enrico.
 This case stems from a Complaint for Partition and
Annulment of Documents filed by the Petitioners against
the Respondents.
 Petitioners alleged that Enrico executed fraudulent
documents covering all the properties of the Spouses
Ayad in favor of Consolacion, leaving nothing for
Petitioners, completely disregarding their rights. Thus,
Petitioners pray for the partition of the estate of Spouses
Ayad and the nullification of the documents executed by
Enrico.
 Respondents claimed that Petitioners had long obtained
their advance inheritance from the estate of the Spouses
Ayad, and that the properties sought to be partitioned are
now individually titled.
 The RTC rendered a decision, awarding all the children
of the Spouses Ayad ¼ share in the estate, except
Mariano who predeceased the spouses.
 The RTC further declared that the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Partition executed by Enrico, as well as
the titles in the name of the Petitioners, as null and void.
 The Respondents filed an MR.
 The RTC granted the MR for the specific purpose of
receiving and offering for admission the documents
referred to by the Respondents.
 Instead of presenting the documents, the Respondents
demurred to the evidence presented by Petitioners.
 The demurrer was denied, as well as the MR.
 Respondents elevated the case to the CA through a
petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the RTC for denying their Demurrer.
 The CA reversed the RTC and granted the Demurrer,
holding that there was no sufficient evidence presented to
grant the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
 Petitioners now elevate the case before the SC through a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE: Whether the CA was correct in granting the Demurrer.

HELD:
NO. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain
whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the
judgment. Being considered a motion to dismiss, a demurrer must
be filed before the court renders its judgment.

In this case, the Respondents demurred to Petitioners’

evidence after the RTC promulgated its Decision. While their MR
was granted, it was for the sole purpose of receiving and offering for
admission the documents not presented in trial. As Respondents
never complied with the directive, but instead filed a demurrer to
evidence, their motion should be deemed abandoned. Consequently,
the RTC decision stands.

The CA committed a reversible error in granting the

demurrer and dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of
evidence. The demurrer was no longer an available remedy to
Respondents and should not have been granted.

PETITION IS GRANTED.