G.R. No. L-15522. January 28, 1961.
DOLORES EVANGELISTA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, the Evangelistas, filed a complaint in 1955 against the Director of Lands and Perpetuo Mendoza. They sought the annulment of Mendoza’s homestead application, alleging it covered a portion of Lot No. 2443, Naujan Cadastre. They claimed this portion had been adjudicated to their predecessors-in-interest by the Court of First Instance of Mindoro in 1930, but the Director of Lands later refused to subdivide the lot accordingly. The Director of Lands asserted the lot was public domain and Mendoza’s pre-war homestead application was regularly approved. Mendoza claimed he complied with all legal requirements for the homestead.
The plaintiffs later amended their complaint to include additional defendants, Ruperta Bool de Robles, Wenceslao Bool, and Mateo Macaraeg, the latter being the purchaser of the homestead land. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence at trial, the defendants moved for dismissal. The Director of Lands and Macaraeg filed a joint motion to dismiss, attaching the homestead patent and arguing the complaint stated no cause of action or had prescribed. Mendoza filed a separate motion on similar grounds.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the specific ground that the plaintiffs failed to introduce the homestead patent as evidence during trial.

RULING

No, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court found the appeal meritorious and set aside the order of dismissal. The legal logic is centered on procedural correctness and the integration of evidence. While it was true the plaintiffs did not formally present the homestead patent during their evidence-in-chief, this omission was cured by the defendants’ own actions. The defendants, the Director of Lands and Macaraeg, attached a copy of the very homestead patent to their joint motion to dismiss, thereby making it an integral part of their pleading submitted to the court.
By annexing the document to their motion, the defendants rendered its separate presentation by the plaintiffs unnecessary for the court’s consideration at that stage. The lower court had been afforded a full opportunity to examine the patent, as it was physically before the court as an annex to the motion. Therefore, the trial court’s basis for dismissal—the plaintiffs’ failure to present the patent—was incorrect. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings on the substantive merits, including the grounds actually alleged in the motions to dismiss, such as prescription and cause of action, which the trial court did not rule upon.