G.R. No. 104314 - HEIRS OF NEPOMUCENA PAEZ, VS. HONORABLE RAMON AM. TORRES, PRESIDING JUDGE, N BRANCH 6, RTC, CEBU CITY AND HEIRS OF EDILBERTO OSMEÑA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the affirmative defense raised by defendants-movants should have been heard before the dismissal of the complaint. Otherwise petitioners would be barred from pursuing their action without being accorded a hearing. Unlike a motion to dismiss based on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, which may be resolved solely on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, the motion to dismiss herein raised an affirmative defense that there is no cause of action as against them. The motion thus posed a question of fact that should be resolved after due hearing. In a similar case where a complaint filed below was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, this Court held: "Without hearing the plaintiff would be barred from pursuing her action. The plaintiff should at least have been accorded a hearing. This is the least she is entitled to. And this is true regardless of any strong opinion the court may have as to the truthfulness of the document. No such hearing was held. Without hearing, the plaintiff would be barred from pursuing her action and is to be deprived of what she claims to be her property without being given an opportunity to affirm or deny the validity of Exhibit B. xxx xxx xxx However, petitioner should have been heard before dismissal of its complaint especially because there is a stipulation in the Deed of Assignment which it executed in favor of private respondent, that the nine (9) parcels of land subject of the Deed were to be forfeited in favor of private respondent who could sell them to any interested party if the loan of P100,000.00 remained unpaid on 1 October 1983, the very day petitioner allegedly tendered payment by check. Such a precipitate deprivation of ownership should have been considered by the trial court, at the very least, in requiring a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and before actually dismissing the complaint, notwithstanding private respondents attack on the validity of the tendered check and its character as legal tender." [7] WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED ; the order of Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, dismissing Civil Case CEB-10159, is SET ASIDE ; Civil Case CEB-10159 is REINSTATED and the respondent Regional Trial Court is ordered to conduct a hearing on private respondents motion to dismiss the Complaint. SO ORDERED.