G.R. No. L-95; January 24, 1946
MAXIMO C. TRIAS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, PEDRO TRIAS, FELISA TRIAS, GERONIMO T. REYES, CRESENCIA T. REYES, CARLOS T. VINIEGRA, FERNANDO T. VINIEGRA, RAFAEL F. TRIAS, MIGUEL F. TRIAS, SOLEDAD F. TRIAS, CLARA F. TRIAS, GABRIEL F. TRIAS, ROMULO T. VINIEGRA, GLORIA T. VINIEGRA, and FERNANDO T. VINIEGRA, Jr., the last three through their judicial guardian FERNANDO T. VINIEGRA, respondents.

FACTS

On or about June 12, 1944, petitioner Maximo C. Trias filed Civil Case No. 193 in the Court of First Instance of Cavite against the respondents (excluding the court itself) for partition of a 100-hectare parcel of land inherited from their common ancestor Balbino Trias and for recovery of damages totaling at least P54,000 from 1926. The complaint alleged that since 1926, defendant Miguel F. Trias had administered the property and derived income from it but failed to account for and distribute the proceeds despite demands.
On July 4, 1944, defendants Miguel, Rafael, Soledad, Clara, and Gabriel Trias (children of the late General Mariano Trias) filed an answer “ad cautelam,” admitting only the parties’ residences and capacities to sue, and denying “generally and specifically each and every other allegation in the complaint,” reserving the right to file an amended answer later. The other defendants did not contest.
On August 9, 1944, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the answer was not a specific denial as required by Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and thus constituted an admission of the complaint’s material allegations.
On August 18, 1944, the same five defendants filed an amended answer with a motion to admit it, asserting special defenses: that a partition of Balbino Trias’s properties had already occurred; that Mariano Trias and his successors had possessed the property as absolute owners for over thirty years; and that the plaintiff’s cause of action had prescribed. They also filed an opposition to the motion for judgment, explaining that the original answer was filed cautiously as they had not yet fully studied the case.
The incident remained unresolved until after liberation. At a hearing on August 22, 1945, the defendants submitted a supplementary statement under oath, explaining that defendants Rafael and Miguel Trias, who were handling the case, were hampered in preparing the amended answer due to their activities in the resistance movement and harassment by the Japanese.
On the same day, Judge Antonio Quirino issued the order now challenged, admitting the amended answer and denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The petitioner seeks certiorari to annul this order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended answer and denying the petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the respondent court did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The order admitting the amended answer and denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed.
The Court considered the following facts and circumstances: (1) The cause of action arose from the death of Balbino Trias over half a century prior, making it difficult for the defendants to plead intelligently without a full investigation. (2) The complaint claimed damages over P50,000, which under Section 8 of Rule 9 must be proven at trial and is not deemed admitted even if not specifically denied. (3) The amended answer was filed before the case was set for trial and before the hearing on the motion for judgment. (4) The filing did not appear to be intended to delay the action. (5) The defendants satisfactorily explained their inability to allege the facts in the original answer due to the defendants Rafael and Miguel Trias being engaged in underground resistance activities and harassed by the Japanese.
The Court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner (El Hogar Filipino vs. Santos Investments, Inc. and Philippine Trust Co. vs. Reyes), as those involved actions where the defendants filed a general denial and did not seek to amend their answers, leading to judgments on the pleadings. Here, the defendants sought leave to amend under Section 2 of Rule 17.
The Court concluded: (1) The admission of material averments imposed by Section 8 of Rule 9 is not irrevocable and may be withdrawn with leave of court for justifiable reasons and in the interests of justice. (2) An answer consisting of a general denial may, with leave of court under Section 2 of Rule 17, be amended to do away with the implied statutory admission.
The petition was denied, with costs.