A dispute arose between two parties over land. Shortly after the start of the proceedings, the complainant asked for the court to rule on the issue of who owns the property, even before pretrial. Pretrial is where, before the trial proper, the parties sort out the issues to be resolved, the admissions/denials and stipulations they have, among other matters. This is in order to abbreviate the trial proper.
The trial court granted the complainant’s motion and awarded the land in his favor. This was vehemently contested by the defendant. He argued that the ruling was in contravention of the rules considering that even the pretrial was not yet had. He lost on appeal and brought the matter to the Supreme Court.
The High Court then made this pronouncement against him:
“Anent the first issue, Laqui argues that a pretrial should have been first conducted before a judgment on the pleadings (or summary judgment as previously discussed) can be rendered. The Court finds the contention of Laqui untenable, whether viewed from the prism of judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
“In Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol) Inc., the Court repudiated the CA when the latter held that it is only at the pretrial that the rules allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment and clarified that Rule l8, Section 2(g) of the Rules of Court only spells out that unless the motion for such judgment has earlier been filed, the pretrial may be the occasion during which the court considers the propriety of rendering judgment or that a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment may be rendered even without a pretrial.
“Moreover, while Rule 18 on Pre-Trial has provisions dealing with judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments, Rule 34 and Rule 35 are still the legal bases for rendering the same, being the ones that deal specifically with Judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments. Nowhere in Rule 34 and Rule 35 is it stated that a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment can be rendered only after pretrial.
“A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when an answer to a claim fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations in the adverse party’s pleading... The essential query in resolving a motion for judgment on the pleadings is whether or not there are issues of fact generated by the pleadings. Whether issues of fact exist in a case or not depends on how the defending party’s answer has dealt with the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint. If the defendant admits all the ultimate facts in the complaint, then such facts, being undisputed, will no longer require evidence.
“On the other hand, a summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn-out litigations and useless delays. It is aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation. The reason for its existence is explained in Gorospe v. Santos: The proposed rule of the Revised Rules is to eliminate trial in those cases where there is no genuine issue of fact, since a trial under such circumstances is unnecessary and results in delay and expense which may operate to defeat in whole or in part the recovery of a just claim.
“The proper inquiry in this regard would be whether the affirmative defenses offered constitute genuine issues of fact requiring a full-blown trial. In a summary judgment, the crucial question is: are the issues raised not genuine so as to justify a summary judgment? If the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, or does not raise a genuine issue, then a court can render a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 34 or summary judgment pursuant to Rule 35, as the case may be, even before and without pretrial since a pretrial in this circumstance would be devoid of any practical significance as there would no longer be issues to be tried by virtue of the admission or the fact that the issues raised are either sham, fictitious, contrived, or set up in bad faith and are patently unsubstantial.”
The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from Rolly B. Laqui Jr. v. Alex F. Sagun et al. (G.R. 271967, 4 November 2024)