G.R. No. 149449 ; February 20, 2006
DANIEL C. VALENZUELA, et al., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HEIRS OF FEDERICO SALAZAR, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The Heirs of Federico Salazar filed an accion reivindicatoria against petitioners over an 853-square meter parcel of land covered by TCT No. 111366(16930), alleging petitioners were occupying 300 square meters thereof. In their Answer, petitioners claimed their house stood outside the titled area. During pre-trial, both parties agreed to a court-ordered resurvey to verify this claim, which the trial court formalized in an Order dated December 9, 1999. Petitioners later obstructed the survey team and, through new counsel, sought to set aside the agreed resurvey, arguing it should cover the original mother title, OCT No. 4097. They subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer, removing the original allegation and raising new defenses of good faith, prescription, laches, and estoppel.
The trial court denied the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and a Motion for Reconsideration in its Order of December 11, 2000. Petitioners elevated the case via certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and noting apparent dilatory tactics. Petitioners then filed this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s interlocutory orders directing a resurvey and denying the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The assailed orders were interlocutory, not final, as they did not dispose of the case on its merits but merely directed a procedural step and denied an amendment to the pleading. Consequently, they were not required to comply with the stringent form requirements for final judgments under Rule 36.
On the merits, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The agreement to conduct a resurvey, made during pre-trial and confirmed by the court, was binding upon the parties under the Rules of Court. Petitioners’ subsequent vacillation and obstruction constituted a disregard of this binding agreement and the court’s lawful order. The denial of the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer was proper, as the proposed amendment substantially altered petitioners’ defense from a specific factual claim (location outside the title) to general legal defenses, which appeared to be a dilatory tactic aimed at unduly delaying the proceedings. The Court affirmed the appellate court’s finding that petitioners’ actions were obstructive, justifying the trial court’s orders to proceed with the previously agreed resurvey.