G.R. No. L-23275 May 29, 1969
VICENTE CARBAJAL and ARCADIO QUEMADA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PONCIANA DIOLOLA, MIGUEL AMOYAN, SILVESTRE AMOYAN and BENITO ABELLA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellees Vicente Carbajal and Arcadio Quemada filed a complaint on February 25, 1958, alleging that defendants-appellants unlawfully entered a portion of their land in San Policarpio, Samar, made copra from gathered coconuts, and refused to vacate despite demands. Plaintiffs prayed to be declared lawful owners, for defendants to vacate, and for payment of monthly rental value. Defendants, in their answer, denied the allegations and asserted they were lawful co-owners of the land, praying for dismissal of the complaint and respect for their ownership. After plaintiffs rested their case, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence, which the court denied. Plaintiffs then moved to deny defendants the right to present evidence because their motion to dismiss did not contain a reservation of that right. The court initially denied plaintiffs’ motion on July 15, 1959, but later revoked that order on July 28, 1959, and granted plaintiffs’ motion, thereby not allowing defendants to present evidence. On July 30, 1959, the court rendered judgment based solely on plaintiffs’ evidence, declaring one plaintiff the absolute owner, ordering defendants to vacate, and to pay monthly rental value from July 1, 1951, attorney’s fees, and costs. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not allowing the defendants to present their evidence after denying their motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed judgment and remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings. The Court held that under the applicable rule (Section 1, Rule 35 of the Revised Rules of Court, and the jurisprudence it embodies, specifically Director of Lands vs. Ceniza and Siyangco vs. Costibolo), a defendant who moves for dismissal (demurs to the evidence) after the plaintiff rests, without waiving the right to offer evidence if the motion is denied, retains the right to present evidence upon denial of the motion. A reservation of such right in the motion is not necessary because the rule itself reserves it. The rationale is to allow the trial court to receive all evidence from both parties for proper adjudication and to provide a complete record for appellate review, avoiding unnecessary remands. The waiver of the right to present evidence only occurs if the motion is granted and the dismissal order is later reversed on appeal. Since defendants’ motion here did not waive their right to present evidence, they should have been allowed to do so after their motion to dismiss was denied. Costs were imposed on plaintiffs-appellees.