G.R. No. 187661 - MODESTO SANCHEZ, VS. ANDREW SANCHEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant complaint filed by plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED . The counterclaims of the defendant are likewise DISMISSED . [10] CA Decision Aggrieved, Andrew elevated the case to the CA. The appeal was premised on the sole issue of whether or not the lower court erred in dismissing Andrews complaint on the grounds of prescription and laches. For the appellate court, there was a need to determine whether the subject deed of sale is void, voidable or valid; and such could be ascertained only if the parties are allowed to go on trial. The CA held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint of Andrew without the benefit of a trial. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED . The assailed order dated December 28, 2006 of the court a quo is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 39 for trial and judgment on the merits. No pronouncement as to costs. [11] Our Ruling The petition is bereft of merit. We agree with the CAs ruling. It is apparent from the records that the RTC did not conduct a hearing to receive evidence proving that Andrew was guilty of prescription or laches. There was no full-blown trial. The case was simply dismissed on the basis of the pleadings submitted by the parties. We note that the RTC admitted the Amended Complaint and gave Andrew fifteen (15) days to comment on Modestos Motion to Dismiss based on affirmative defenses and likewise gave Modesto the same period to file his rejoinder, after which, it considered the matter submitted for resolution. [12] The Court has consistently held that the affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss. [13] Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses. [14] Contrary to Modestos contention, it is not apparent from the complaint that the action had already prescribed. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is the relief based on the facts alleged, and not the relief demanded, which is taken into consideration in determining the cause of action. Therefore, in terms of classifying the deed, whether it is valid, void or voidable, it is of no significance that the relief prayed for was Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale. The issue of prescription hinges on the determination of whether the sale was valid, void or voidable. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the issue of prescriptio