Basbas et. al. v. Sayson, G.R. No. 172660, 24 August 2011.

1st Division

DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS: Spouses Sayson filed a petition for registration of an agricultural land. It was
opposed by the Republic and the petitioners. CFI ruled in favor of the spouses and
approved registration under their names.

Oppositors filed their Appeal to the CA, but CA affirmed CFI decision. CA decision
became final and executory and a writ of possession was issued, but it was never
implemented. A year after, an OCT was issued under the name of the spouses and alias
Writ of Possession. But the writ was not implemented in view of the refusal of Basbas.
Basbas claims that the land they occupy is not the same land subject in the decision.
They demanded a relocation survey be conducted. RTC approved the Commissioner’s
report on the relocation survey and ordered the opposite including the petitioners to
vacate the subject property.

The Order was, however, not implemented within 5 years from the time it became final.
Hence, Sayson filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment. Oppositors filed a Motion
to Dismiss, but was denied. Oppositors then filed an Answer with Counterclaim. In the
answer, the oppositors admitted that among others: 1) the land registration case was
decided in favor of the spouses Sayson; (2) said decision became final and executory;
(3) OCT was issued in the name of the spouses Sayson; (4) there was a relocation order.
But by way of special and affirmative defenses, petitioners contended that the order
sought to be revived is not the ‘judgment’ contemplated under Sec. 6, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court. Also they averred that they cannot be made parties to the complaint of
revival of judgment as they were not parties to the land registration case. Thus order
sought to be revived is not binding upon them.

The spouses Sayson then filed an omnibus motion for judgment on the pleadings
and/or summary judgment. They contended that since the petitioner’s answer failed to
tender an issue, they having expressly admitted the material allegations in the complaint,
a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment is proper.

RTC granted the motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the spouses. CA
affirmed and noted that the oppositors’ answer admitted almost all of the allegations in
plaintiff’s complaint. MR was denied.

ISSUE: Was the rendition of the Summary Judgment proper?

RULING: Yes. Spouses Sayson filed for registration of an agricultural land. Decision
was ruled in favor of the spouses, however, it was never enforced after 5 years from the
finality of the decision. Spouses filed a Complaint for the Revival of judgment. In the
petitioners’ answer, they admitted the following: (1) the land registration case was
decided in favor of the spouses Sayson; (2) said decision became final and executory;
(3) OCT was issued in the name of the spouses Sayson; (4) there was a relocation order.
Spouses Sayson then filed an Omnibus motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or
Summary Judgment. SC ruled that judgment on the pleadings is improper since the
answer of the petitioners posed an issue. However, the issue are not genuine issues,
thus, motion for summary judgment is a proper action.

What distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the

presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender
any issue, that is, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits
said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by admitting the truthfulness
thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is
appropriate. On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies the material
averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an
issue, a summary judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine.