, VS. HEIRS OF FLORENTINO JURADO, NAMELY: LUCITA U. VILLAMOR

Ruling

Accordingly, summons were served and respondents filed their respective Answers and Affirmative Defenses. [6] Tiu, one of the private respondents, filed her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated February 18, 2008 challenging the petitioners' foregoing complaint on the following grounds: (1) it failed to state a valid cause of action; (2) petitioners had no valid cause of action against her; (3) petitioners were guilty of laches; and (4) petitioners had no personality to file the case. [7] The trial court directed the petitioners and Tiu to file their respective memoranda, but only the latter filed her memorandum. [8] On October 4, 2013, the trial court issued an Order [9] dismissing the complaint against Tiu, for petitioners' failure to state a cause of action. It was noted that petitioners were suing as heirs of Januaria, the alleged owner of the lot subject of the complaint. However, the trial court found that petitioners have not shown that they have been declared as legal and forced heirs of Januaria. Citing Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario , [10] the trial court ruled that if the suit is not brought in the name of or against a real party-in­-interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. [11] The foregoing Order of the trial court became final as the petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration therefrom. [12] Subsequently, several respondents, through their respective counsel, filed their pleadings before the trial court, to wit: (1) Motion for Preliminary Hearing of Affirmative Defenses by Rolan and the heirs of Lucita; (2) Motion to Dismiss by the spouses Martinez; (3) Manifestation and Motion by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for public respondent Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); (4) Manifestation with Motion filed by Bernardita, Robert, and Gilbert; and (5) Motion to Dismiss/ Manifestation filed by the intervenors heirs of Atty. Antonio "Boy" S. Regis and respondents Abellas. [13] On July 14, 2014, petitioners filed a Consolidated Comment/Opposition to Motions/Manifestation. [14] As regards spouses Martinez, petitioners claimed that: (1) the former have distinct interest which are not similar to that of the other respondents; (2) lack of personality to sue was not one of the affirmative defenses raised; and (3) their affirmative defenses have already been denied by the previous judges who handled the case. [15] As regards the special and affirmative defenses of respondents Rolan and the heirs of Lucita, petitioners claimed that these defenses should have been heard after the Answer was filed and before trial. [16] Petitioners also opposed the motion by Bernardita, Robert, and Gilbert, alleging that since the latter did not raise the question on paternity and filiation, their defenses were already deemed waived. [17] Lastly, petitioners claimed that the DPWH cannot invoke the October 4, 2013 Order of the trial court since it did not share the