G.R. No. 173008.

February 22, 2012

NENITA GONZALES, et al., petitioners,

vs.
MARIANO BUGAAY et al, respondents.

Demurrer – being considered a Motion to Dismiss must be filed before the court rendered its judgment.

Facts:

 The deceased spouses Bartolome and Marcelina Ayad had 5 children: Enrico, Encarnacion,
Consolacion, Maximiano and Mariano.
 The petitioners in this case are the children of Encarnacion
 The respondents are the children of Consolacion and Enrico.
 This case stems from a Amended 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 and the nullification of the
documents executed by Enrico.
 Respondents claimed that petitioners had long obtained their advance inheritance from the estate
and that properties sought to be partitioned are now individually titled.
 The RTC rendered a decision awarding all the children of the Spouses Ayad ¼ 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. It also directed the
parties to submit a project of partition within 30 days from finality of the Decision.
 The respondents filed an MR and/or new trial from the said Decision
 The RTC set the motion for hearing and granted the MR for the specific purpose of receiving and
offering for admission the documents referred to by the respondents.
 However, instead of presenting the documents adverted to, consisting of the documents to be
annulled, the respondents demurred to the evidence presented by petitioners.
 The demurrer was denied, as well as the MR.
 Respondent elevated the case to the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
RTC for denying their demurrer.
 The CA reversed the RTC decision and granted the demurrer, holding that there was no
sufficient evidence presented to grant the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

Issue:

 Whether or not the CA’s dismissal of the Amended Complaint was in accordance with law, rules
of procedure and jurisprudence.

Ruling

 Yes. the CA committed reversible error in granting the demurrer and dismissing the Amended
Complaint a quo for insufficiency of evidence. The demurrer to evidence was clearly no longer an
available remedy to respondents and should not have been granted,
 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 proof to sustain the judgment. Being
 considered a motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before the
court renders its judgment.
 In this case, respondents demurred to petitioners' evidence after the RTC promulgated its
Decision. While respondents' motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was granted, it was for
the sole purpose of receiving and offering for admission the documents not presented at the trial.
As respondents never complied with the directive but instead filed a demurrer to evidence, their
motion should be deemed abandoned. Consequently, the RTC's original Decision stands.

 Hence, the petition was granted. The RTC’s decision denying the respondents’ demurrer was
reinstated.