G.R. No. 173008 ; February 22, 2012
NENITA GONZALES, et al., Petitioners, vs. MARIANO BUGAAY, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, descendants of Encarnacion Ayad, and respondents, descendants of Consolacion Ayad-Bugaay, are co-heirs of the estate of the deceased spouses Bartolome Ayad and Marcelina Tejada. Petitioners filed an Amended Complaint for Partition and Annulment of Documents, alleging that in 1987, their uncle Enrico Ayad (a surviving child of the spouses) executed fraudulent documents covering all the estate properties in favor of Consolacion and the respondents, to the exclusion of petitioners’ line. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision in 1995, declaring the heirs and annulling the questioned documents, and ordered the submission of a project of partition.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. Without resolving this motion, the RTC later issued a writ of execution in 2003 to enforce partition. A new judge then discovered the pending motion and granted a new trial specifically for the purpose of receiving the documents sought to be annulled. Instead of presenting these documents, respondents filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing petitioners failed to present the very documents they sought to nullify. The RTC denied the demurrer.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the respondents’ demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC’s orders denying the demurrer. The legal logic is procedural and substantive. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss filed after the plaintiff rests its case, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Critically, in this case, the RTC had already rendered a final judgment on the merits in its 1995 Decision. The subsequent grant of a new trial was limited solely to receiving specific documentary evidence. When respondents opted to file a demurrer instead of complying with the court’s directive to present those documents, they effectively abandoned their motion for new trial. Consequently, the 1995 RTC Decision regained its finality. A demurrer is no longer an available remedy after a judgment has been rendered, as it is a pre-judgment motion. The CA therefore committed reversible error in entertaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint based on an assessment of evidence, as the case had already been decided with finality. The proper subject for review was the 1995 RTC Decision, not a demurrer to evidence filed years after its promulgation.