G.R. No. 271967 - ROLLY B. LAQUI, SR., VS. ALEX E. SAGUN, NELIA S. ESPIRITU, KATHERINE MARIE T. SAGUN, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY MARY JANE S. CUEVAS,D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Laqui was ordered to vacate the subject property and to pay Sagun et al. the rent of PHP 5,300.00 from September 2019 until he finally vacates the premises. Laqui's Motion for Reconsideration [32] of the MTCC Judgment was denied in an Order [33] dated August 16, 2021. [34] Thus, he appealed to the RTC, the appeal was docketed as Civil Case No. 9467-R. [35] Laqui argued that the MTCC erred in not conducting a pretrial before rendering a judgment on the pleadings [36] and in denying his affirmative defense. [37] The RTC Ruling In a Decision [38] dated March 3, 2022, the RTC affirmed the MTCC Judgment. Anent the issue of the absence of a pretrial, the RTC ratiocinated that there is no rule which says that a judgment on the pleadings could not be rendered without a pretrial conference. [39] On the merits of the case, the RTC concurred with the MTCC's pronouncement that in view of Laqui's improper denial of the material allegations in Sagun et al.'s complaint, he is deemed to have admitted the same, [40] particularly the asseveration that Laqui failed to comply with the Amicable Settlement entered into before the Lupong Tagapamayapa . Further, the RTC did not consider Laqui's affirmative defense that the subject property was assigned to him on the following grounds: (a) Laqui failed to attach his Judicial Affidavit in his Answer, which constitutes as a waiver of its submission pursuant to Section 10 [41] of A.M. No 12-8-8-SC or the "Judicial Affidavit Rule" (Judicial Affidavit Rule); [42] (b) Laqui's Judicial Affidavit, which was belatedly filed, is defective as the documentary exhibits were lacking and it did not contain a statement that "he is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath," as required by Sections 2 [43] and 3, [44] respectively, of the Judicial Affidavit Rule; [45] (c) Laqui failed to provide a valid justification in his "Motion to Admit Documentary Exhibits with Sincerest Apologies" to warrant the admission of the missing documentary exhibits; [46] and (d) even if the documentary exhibit, i.e., Deed of Assignment is to be admitted, Laqui is estopped from denying the title of the respondents pursuant to Article 1436 of the Civil Code and Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. [47] In an Order [48] dated May 11, 2002, the RTC denied Laqui's Motion for Reconsideration. Unperturbed, he filed a Petition for Review [49] under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court with the CA, principally arguing that the RTC erred: (a) in ruling that a pretrial is not necessary before rendering a judgment on the pleadings; [50] and (b) in denying his affirmative defense. [51] The CA Ruling In a Decision [52] dated November 13, 2023, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto . It affirmed the pronouncement of the RTC that there is no rule requiring the conduct of a pretrial conference before a judgment on the pleadings can be had. [53] Further, the CA ruled that the judgment on the pleadings was proper