GR L 24392; (February, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24392, February 28, 1979
ANACLETO ONDAP, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO ABUGAA, CRISTINA JANOLINO and NICOLAS LABARES, defendant-appellants.
FACTS
This case originated from an ejectment complaint filed by plaintiff Anacleto Ondap against the defendants before the Justice of the Peace Court of Kibawe, Bukidnon. The defendants failed to file a written answer. During the trial, they merely denied paragraphs 2 to 8 of the complaint without specifying their denials. Consequently, the inferior court rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and pay Ondap the sum of P711.00, with costs.
The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bukidnon. In the CFI, they filed an answer that incorporated new matters not raised in the inferior court. The CFI, upon motion, struck out these new allegations for being at variance with their original position. The CFI then dismissed the appeal and ordered the records returned to the justice of the peace court for execution, holding that the inferior court’s judgment was properly issued. The defendants appealed, contending the CFI should have tried the case on the merits.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal and refusing to try the case on the merits, thereby effectively affirming the judgment on the pleadings rendered by the justice of the peace court.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s dismissal. The legal logic is clear and twofold. First, the defendants’ failure to file a written answer in the inferior court, coupled with their general denial of the material allegations during trial, constituted an admission of those facts under the Rules of Court. A general denial, even if phrased as a specific denial of each paragraph, does not qualify as a specific denial of material averments. This failure justified a judgment on the pleadings, a doctrine long-established in jurisprudence such as El Hogar Filipino v. Santos and Baetamo v. Amador.
Second, the defendants attempted to change their theory on appeal by alleging new matters in their CFI answer. This is procedurally impermissible. Consistent with a line of cases beginning with Tan Machan v. Trinidad, a party cannot substantially alter their position on appeal. The CFI correctly struck out these new allegations. The defendants’ brief merely asserted they had a “good and valid defense” without substantiation, failing to justify a deviation from settled doctrine or to invoke equitable considerations compelling a trial on the merits. Given the prolonged pendency of the case, the Supreme Court found no justification to grant the relief sought by the appellants.