G.R. No. 200042 - FELIZARDO T. GUNTALILIB, VS. AURELIO Y. DELA CRUZ AND SALOME V. DELA CRUZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that after trial in this case, this Honorable Court issue a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against, defendants, as follows: 1. Quieting [of] title and ownership over Lot No. 421 and portions thereof, in favor of Plaintiffe, particularly TCT No. 147078; TCT No. 142232; TCT No. 142233; TCT No. 142235; TCT No. 142236; TCT No. 142237; TCT No. 142239; and TCT Nos. 142241 thru 142245 and all such titles of individuals who acquired title to portions of Lot No. 421 from Plaintiffs; 2. An order directing the cancellation of the Unnumbered Original Certificate of Title to Lot 421 in the name of Bernardo Tumaliuan; 3. An order directing defendants to pay plaintiffs moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; 4. Ordering defendants to reimburse plaintiffs for their attorney's fees, appearance fee and costs of this suit. 5. Any such other relief as may be just and fair under the attendant circumstances. [10] Petitioner and his co-defendants opposed the Motion for Admission of Amended Complaint, arguing in their Opposition ( Ad Cautelam ) [11] that the motion was a mere scrap of paper because it did not comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure [12] (1997 Rules), as no date of hearing was set and the motion was addressed to the Clerk of Court alone; that the verification and certification on non-forum shopping contained in the original Complaint, being defective, could not be cured by the subsequent filing of the Amended Complaint; and that the Amended Complaint was improper and prohibited, as it is essentially aimed at setting aside the Decision in LRC Case No. 6544 issued by a court of concurrent jurisdiction. On January 12, 2010, the trial court in Civil Case No. 6975 issued an Order [13] admitting respondents' Amended Complaint and denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. It held that - Assuming arguendo that this Court shall treat the Motion for Admission of Amended Complaint as not filed, this Court is still duty bound to recognize the right of herein plaintiff under Rule 10 Section 2 where plaintiffs are allowed as a matter of right to file their amended complaint anytime before a responsive pleading is filed. Considering that a Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive pleading, this Court has no other recourse but to allow plaintiffs to submit their amended complaint. With respect to the contention of the defendants that the complaint did not raise any cause of action, this Court x x x is in the belief that the plaintiff may be entitled to the relief sought for after exhaustively trying the case on the merits. On that note, considering the quantum of documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff herein, this Court is inclined to try the case on the merits. With respect to the contention of the defendants that the complaint failed to include and implead all indispensable parties, this Court construes the cited case of Teresita V. Orbeta vs. Paul B. Send