G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988
SPOUSES MATIAS B. AZNAR III and ELEONOR S. AZNAR, petitioners, vs. HON. JUANITO A. BERNAD, In His Capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXI, RTC, Cebu, and the SPOUSES NICOLAS L. KINTANAR and REDEMPTA C. KINTANAR, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Spouses Kintanar, filed a complaint on September 15, 1986, seeking the annulment of a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale, damages, and attorney’s fees. The petitioners, the Spouses Aznar, filed their original answer on October 13, 1986, which did not include the defense of prescription. Seven days later, on October 20, 1986, they filed a motion for leave to amend their answer, attaching a proposed amended answer that, for the first time, pleaded the affirmative defense of prescription. They argued the action had prescribed, as the assailed real estate mortgage was executed and registered in July 1978, while the complaint for annulment based on fraud was filed only in September 1986—well beyond the four-year prescriptive period under Article 1391 of the Civil Code.
The Regional Trial Court, through respondent Judge Juanito A. Bernad, denied the motion to amend. The court strictly applied Section 2, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that defenses not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived. The trial court reasoned that the basis for prescription was evident before the original answer was filed and that allowing the amendment would leave the plaintiffs without an adequate remedy. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the affirmative defense of prescription may be validly set up for the first time in an amended answer.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the trial court’s orders, and admitted the amended answer. The Court clarified that the general rule under Section 2, Rule 9—that an unpleaded defense is deemed waived—does not apply when a party seeks to amend an answer before a responsive pleading is filed or before the case is set for trial. The petitioners filed their motion for leave to amend just seven days after their original answer, at a stage when no responsive pleading had been filed and the case was not yet calendared. Under Section 6, Rule 10 (then Rule 6), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served.
The Court emphasized that procedural rules are tools to promote substantial justice, not to frustrate it. Their liberal construction is mandated by Section 2, Rule 1 to ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. The trial court’s rigid application was erroneous. Furthermore, the Court noted that prescription was apparent from the face of the complaint itself, as it admitted the mortgage was executed in 1978, while the action was filed in 1986, clearly beyond the four-year prescriptive period for annulment based on fraud. Thus, even on substantive grounds, the defense had merit.