Republic of the Philippines -v- Neri

G.R. No. 139588 March 04, 2004

Callejo, Sr., J.:

Facts:

The respondents are the Predecessor-in-interest of Graciano A. Neri, who later filed an
application within the CFI for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, alleging that they are the applicant
owner of the parcel of land located at Barrio Indahag, Cagayan de Oro City. That they have been open,
public, peaceful, adverse and continuous possession int the concept of owners and have been paying
taxes of the said land. They prayed for that after the proceedings, the court would grant in their favor.

Subsequently, Applicants filed an amended application, in which, the court granted and
designated a time and date for the hearing. However, despite of notice, the OSG and the Bureau of
Lands failed to appear in court, in which, the court rendered judgment granting the said application.

After sometime, the OSG through the Director of Bureau if Lands, filed a complaint to annul the
application of the heirs of Neri, contending inter alia that the republic is the true owner of the parcel of
land of the public domain. That the said public land was declared as alienable and disposable and under
the control, administration and disposition of the Bureau of Lands, and the respondent failed to comply
with the requisites provided under Commonwealth Act. No. 141. In their answer, respondents averred
that the lot hade been theirs and they exclusively occupied the property for more than 50 years, and
that they complied with the requirement under CA N. 141. Consequently, the court rendered a decision
dismissing the petition filed by the OSG.

Thereafter, a motion for leave to intervene was filed by Vladehuesa and 22 others, but it was
subsequently dismissed. However, on petition for certiorari by the petioner, the Ciyrt set aside the said
order and directed the court to proceed with the hearing of the case. The Bureau of Lands excuted a SPA
authorizing Atty. Serina to represent the pre-trial and later, during the hearing the parties agreed to
forego a full-blown trial and to file their respective Authority and to submit evidence in support of their
contentions. However, the court dismissed the petition because it failed to prove the factual averments.
The case was elevated to the CA, and in the same vein the it affirmed the decision rendered by the RTC,
thus the case was appealed to the CA.

Issue:

Whether the RTC erred in rendering the decision without a full-blown trial, based solely on the
pleadings of the parties and the documents appended to their memorandum.

Ruling:

The petitioner avers that the trial court erred when it rendered a decision without conducting a full-
blown trial, and based its ruling merely on the pleadings of the parties and the documents appended to
their respective memoranda. The petitioner asserts that under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, the court
may render judgment on the pleadings only when the respondents’ answer fails to tender an issue or
otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Furthermore, it was not
proper for the trial court to render summary judgment under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, for the
simple reason that the private respondents, in their answer, tendered genuine issues of fact which
called for the presentation of evidence.

We do not agree with the petitioner. The trial court dispensed with a full-blown trial because,
precisely, the parties themselves agreed thereto, on the claim that the issues raised may be resolved on
the basis of the pleadings, the memoranda and the appended documents, without need of presenting
witnesses thereon. A party may waive its right to present testimonial evidence and opt to adduce
documentary evidence and thereafter, submit the case for resolution based solely on their pleadings
and documentary evidence. In this case, no less than the petitioner, represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General through Special Attorney Vicente Seriña, agreed to dispense with a full-blown trial.