GR L 9246; (May, 1947) (Digest)
G.R. No. 9246; May 26, 1947
HIPOLITA ASEJO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BONIFACIO LEONOSO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Hipolita Asejo filed a complaint against Bonifacio Leonoso to recover a parcel of land and the value of its products. Leonoso had previously filed a mortgage foreclosure suit against Asejo and others over the same land, but that case was dismissed without prejudice because the judicial administrator of the mortgagor’s estate was not made a defendant. In the present case, the Court of First Instance of Masbate dismissed Asejo’s complaint on the ground that she had “previously waived all her rights and claims over the property in question,” based on a quitclaim document (Exhibit B) presented in the prior foreclosure case. The dismissal was ordered without a hearing on Leonoso’s motion, which alleged, among other grounds, that the plaintiff’s demand had been released. Asejo had previously repudiated Exhibit B in a pleading in the prior case, alleging that any consent she gave was obtained through fraud and deceit.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint based solely on Exhibit B without conducting a hearing to determine its validity and indubitability.
RULING
Yes. The trial court’s order of dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
The Rules of Court require that when a motion to dismiss is filed on grounds such as release of the obligation, the court must hold a hearing where the parties can present evidence. The court may only grant the motion if the ground alleged is “indubitable,” meaning it is certain, unquestionable, and beyond doubt. Exhibit B, the quitclaim deed, is not indubitable on its face. Asejo had specifically repudiated it, alleging fraud, and her filing of the present suit is a clear negation of its binding effect. Therefore, its validity and effect should be determined at a trial after a proper hearing.
Furthermore, the trial court could not rely on any factual findings from the prior foreclosure case to conclusively bind the parties here. That prior case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning there was no adjudication on the merits. The court’s comments on Exhibit B in that dismissed case were surplusage and could not produce any adverse effect on the parties’ rights in the present action.