The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the

JUDGMENT ON SUMMARY pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious
THE PLEADING JUDGMENT character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper
Based SOLELY on the Based on the case for summary judgment from one for a judgment on
the pleadings.
PLEADINGS PLEADINGS,
(ANSWER) DEPOSITIONS, B.
ADMISSIONS AND In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is
AFFIDAVITS NO OSTENSIBLE ISSUE AT ALL because of the
Generally available ONLY Available to BOTH failure of the defending party’s answer to raise an
to the plaintiff, UNLESS the plaintiff and defendant issue.
defendant presents a
On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment,
COUNTERCLAIM... issues apparently exist ? i.e. facts are asserted in the
The answer FAILS to There is NO genuine complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission,
issue between the disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or
tender an issue ORthere parties, i.e. there may affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer?
is an ADMISSION of be issues but these are BUT THE ISSUES thus arising from the pleadings ARE
material allegations irrelevant.
SHAM, FICTITIOUS OR NOT GENUINE, as
NO NOTICE to the NO NOTICE to the shown by affidavits, depositions, or
adverse party is adverse party is admissions.45cralawlawlibrary
REQUIRED REQUIRED.
However, the adverse FAIL TO TENDER AN ISSUE
party MAY FILE a An answer would “fail to tender an issue” if it “ DOES
comment AND NOT DENY the material allegations in the complaint
SERVE opposing OR ADMITS said material allegations of the
affidavits, depo- adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the
sitions, or admi- truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them
at all.
ssions WITHIN a Now, IF AN ANSWER does in fact SPECIFICALLY DENY
NONEXTENDIBLE period the material averments of the complaint and/or asserts
of FIVE (5) CALENDAR affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which,
DAYS FROM receipt of while admitting the material allegations of the
motion. complaint expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless
On the MERITS. May be INTERLOCUTORY prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on
(i.e. partial summary the pleadings would naturally be
judgments) OR on the IMPROPER.”46cralawred
MERITS.
C.
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 - TEOFILO B. ADOLFO,
Petitioner, v. FE. T. ADOLFO, Respondent.
On the other hand, “whether x x x the issues raised by
the Answer are genuine is not the crux of inquiry in a
A. motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a
Judgment on the pleadings is proper “where an answer motion for summary judgment. In a case for judgment
on the pleadings, the Answer is such that no issue is
FAILS TO TENDER AN ISSUE, OR
otherwise ADMITS raised at all. The essential question in such a case is
THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS of the adverse party’s whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.”47
pleading.”43

Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be granted GENUINE ISSUE

“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.” 44cralawred
We have elaborated on the basic distinction between
summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings,
thus:c
“A ‘genuine issue’ is an issue of fact which REQUIRES
THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE as distinguished from
a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the
facts as pleaded APPEAR UNCONTESTED OR
UNDISPUTED, then there is no real or genuine issue or
question as to the facts, and summary judgment is
called for.”48cralaw
March 18, 2015. TEOFILO B. ADOLFO vs FE. T. ADOLFO.
FACTS:
CIVIL CASE MAN8241 Teofilo Adolfo filed a petition for
judicial separation of property against his wife, Fe,
alleging that they bought with conjugal funds because
they have been separated in fact and reunion is now an
impossibility due to irreconcilable differences. In her
answer, Fe alleged that the property is NOT CONJUGAL,
but paraphernal property belonging to her.
CIVIL CASE MAN2683 Fe’s sister Florencia and her
husband Juanito (Gingoyons) filed a civil case for
partition with damages, alleging that in 1988, Fe sold a
300square meter lot portion of the lot to the spouses
Gingoyon, but that the former refused to subdivide it.
This time, Fe alleged that the PROPERTY WAS
CONJUGAL, and the sale was made without the
signature of Teofilo, hence it was null and void.
The RTC ruled in favour of Fe and declared it conjugal
property, hence, the Gingoyons appealed to the CA.
Going back to Civil Case No. MAN8241 Teofilo filed a
Request for Admission of (among others) respondent’s
declaration in said Answer that the subject property
constituted conjugal property of the marriage; and the
trial court’s pronouncement in said case that the
subject property forms part of the conjugal estate. Fe
failed to answer the Request for Admission.
Hence, Teoflio filed a MOTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS, alleging that since Fe failed to
answer the request for admission, the matters included
in the request are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule
26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, he is now entitled to
judgment on the pleading based on Rule 34.
Fe opposed the motion, arguing that the decision, was
the subject of an appeal, had not yet become final. The
RTC granted the motion by Teofilo, treating it as a
motion for summary judgment. It ruled that judicial
separation was proper, taking judicial notice of its
decision in Civil Case No. MAN2683 that the property is
conjugal property. With Fe’s failure to provide a verified
answer or denial under oath to the request for
admission of the documents, she is deemed to have
admitted the genuineness of the same.
Going back to Civil Case No. MAN2683 The Gingoyon’s
appeal to the CA, was resolved in their favour, the CA
ruling that the PROPERTY IS PARAPHERNAL PROPERTY
as established by the records and the evidence. It
became final and executory.
Going back to Civil Case MAN4821 Fe appealed to the
CA saying that the TC was wrong in treating his motion
for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary
judgment. She also asks the court to submit to the
findings of the CA in Civil Case 2683 finding the property
to be paraphernal.
Her appeal was favourably acted upon by the CA. The
CA held that the trial court cannot treat Adolfo’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings as one for summary
judgment. It stated that in a proper case for judgment
on the pleadings, there are no ostensible issues at all
on account of the defending party’s failure to raise an
issue in his answer, while in a proper case for summary
judgment, such issues exist, although they are sham,
fictitious, or not genuine as shown by affidavits,
depositions or admissions. In other words, a judgment
on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded,
while a summary judgment is a judgment on the facts as
summarily proved by affidavits, depositions, or
admissions.
It added that Fe’s Answer appeared on its face to
tender an issue; it disputed petitioner’s claim that the
subject property is their conjugal property. The next
thing to be determined is whether this issue is fictitious
or sham as to justify a summary judgment.
The CA added that although respondent was bound by
the resulting admission prompted by her failure to
reply to petitioner’s request for admission, her claims
and documentary exhibits clearly contradict what
petitioner sought to be admitted in his request; that
the trial court disregarded the fact that the issue of
whether the subject property is conjugal was still
unresolved as CAG.R. CV No. 78971 was still pending;
and that finally, the trial court should have been guided
by the principles that trial courts have but limited
authority to render summary judgments and that
summary judgments should not be rendered hastily.
Teofilo assailed the CA decision to the Supreme Court
via petition.
ISSUE: W/N summary judgment is proper in the case,
considering the failure of Fe to answer or deny under
oath the Request for Admission in Civil Case No. MAN-
4821.
HELD: 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.” An answer would “fail to tender an
issue” if it “does not deny the material allegations in the
complaint or admits said material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness
thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. Now, if
an answer does in fact specifically deny the material
averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative
defenses (allegations of new matter which, while
admitting the material allegations of the complaint
expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or
bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the
pleadings would naturally be improper.”
FINAL JUDGMENT FINAL AND
EXECUTORY
JUDGMENT
–A final order of judgment 1. a "final judgment" in
finally disposes of, the sense just described
adjudicates, or becomes final "UPON
determines the rights, or
some right or rights of the
EXPIRATION OF THE
parties, either on the PERIOD TO APPEAL
entire controversy or on THEREFROM IF NO
some definite and APPEAL HAS BEEN
separate branch thereof,
DULY PERFECTED"
and CONCLUDES
THEM UNTIL IT IS OR , an appeal
REVERSED OR SET therefrom having been
taken, the judgment of the
ASIDE. appellate tribunal in turn
becomes final and the
Where NO ISSUE IS LEFT
for future consideration,
RECORDS OF THE
except the fact of CASE are RETURNED
COMPLIANCE OR NON- TO THE COURT OF
COMPLIANCE with the ORIGIN.
terms of the judgment or
order, such judgment or
2. The "final" judgment is
order is FINAL AND then correctly categorized
APPEALABLE. as a "final and executory
judgment" in respect to
which, as the law explicitly
provides, "EXECUTION
SHALL ISSUE AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT."
It bears stressing that only
a final judgment or
order, i.e., "a judgment or
order that finally dispose
of the action of
proceeding" can become
final and executory.
The case of Antonio v. Samonte, [7] elaborated on this
matter, thus:
A final order of judgment finally disposes of,
adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or
rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or
on some definite and separate branch thereof, and
concludes them until it is reversed or set aside. Where
no issue is left for future consideration, except the fact
of compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the
judgment or order, such judgment or order is final and
appealable.
By contrast, in Investments, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, [8] We declared:
Now, a "final judgment" in the sense just described
becomes final "upon expiration of the period to appeal
therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected" or, an
appeal therefrom having been taken, the judgment of
the appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the
records of the case are returned to the Court of origin.
The "final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a
"final and executory judgment" in respect to which, as
the law explicitly provides, "execution shall issue as a
matter of right." It bears stressing that only a final
judgment or order, i.e., "a judgment or order that finally
dispose of the action of proceeding" can become final
and executory.
A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation
of law. Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the
lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal
is perfected. In such a situation, the prevailing party is
entitled to a writ of execution, and issuance thereof is a
ministerial duty of the court.

CITY OF MANILA, represented by MAYOR GEMILIANO

C. LOPEZ, JR., Petitioner,G. R. No. 100626 November
29, 1991 -versus- HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE
ARMY & NAVY CLUB, INC., Respondents.

It is useful, at this point, to review the distinction

between a "final" judgment and one which has become
"final and executory."

In PLDT Employees Union v. PLDT Free Telephone

Workers Union, [6] the Court observed:

An order or judgment is deemed final when it finally

disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can
be done with it in the trial court. In other words, a final
order is that which gives an end to the litigation when
the order or judgment does not dispose of the case
completely but leaves something to be done upon the
merits, it is merely interlocutory.