G.R. No. 201427 , March 18, 2015
TEOFILO B. ADOLFO, Petitioner, vs. FE T. ADOLFO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed a Petition for judicial separation of property against his wife, respondent Fe T. Adolfo. He alleged that during their marriage, they acquired a property in Mandaue City (the subject property) through conjugal funds. Respondent refused to settle, claiming the property was her paraphernal property inherited from her mother. She detailed a history of the property’s transfers: her mother transferred it to her via quitclaim in 1967; she sold it to her brother in 1968; it was later foreclosed by DBP, sold to spouses Garcia, and then sold back to respondent in 1983, with the title issued in the name of “FE M. TUDTUD, married to Teofilo Adolfo.” Respondent argued petitioner was a neglectful husband who abandoned the family.
In a separate, earlier case (Civil Case No. MAN-2683) filed by respondent’s sister for partition, respondent, in her Answer, claimed the subject property was conjugal property of her marriage to petitioner, and that a deed of sale she executed was void for lack of petitioner’s consent. The trial court in that case declared the property conjugal and nullified the sale.
In the present case (MAN-4821), petitioner submitted the pleadings and decision from the prior partition case as evidence. He filed a Request for Admission asking respondent to admit the genuineness of those documents and her prior judicial admission that the property was conjugal. Respondent failed to respond. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings, arguing the matters in the request were deemed admitted and thus established the property as conjugal, warranting judgment without trial. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion, treating it as one for summary judgment, and ordered the separation of the conjugal property.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment was improper because respondent’s Answer in the present case tendered genuine issues of fact—specifically, her claim that the property was paraphernal—which could not be resolved solely based on her inconsistent judicial admission in the prior case. The CA remanded the case for trial on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s Order which granted petitioner’s Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings (treated as a motion for summary judgment) and declared the subject property as conjugal.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the RTC Order.
The RTC correctly treated the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 35, not judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34. A summary judgment is proper when, despite the apparent issues raised in the pleadings, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Here, the key material fact—the nature of the property as conjugal—was established through respondent’s judicial admission in her Answer in the prior partition case (Civil Case No. MAN-2683). Petitioner’s Request for Admission, which respondent failed to answer, deemed this admission and the genuineness of the relevant court documents as admitted under Rule 26. This deemed admission conclusively established that the property was conjugal.
Respondent’s attempt in the present case to claim the property as paraphernal created only a sham or fictitious issue. A party cannot contradict a judicial admission made in a prior proceeding to suit their present convenience. Her inconsistent position was a mere pretense to delay the proceedings. Since the character of the property as conjugal was conclusively settled by her prior admission, which was deemed admitted again in this case, no genuine factual issue remained for trial. Therefore, the RTC correctly rendered a summary judgment decreeing the judicial separation of the conjugal property.