TOPIC: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS , What are Benedicto’s daughter, one of the defendants in

responsive pleadings the first case, filed a motion to dismiss and later,
an amended motion to dismiss. Among the
IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, DANIEL RUBIO, grounds are: (1) the cases involved an intra-
ORLANDO G. RESLIN, and JOSE G. RESLIN, corporate dispute over which the Securities and
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Exchange Commission, not the RTC, has
JULITA C. BENEDICTO, and FRANCISCA jurisdiction; (2) venue was improperly laid; and
BENEDICTO-PAULINO, respondents (3) the complaint failed to state a cause of
G.R. No. 154096| August 22 , 2008| VELASCO action, as there was no allegation therein that
plaintiff, as beneficiary of the purported trust,
Digested by: Casano, Diana Rola Y. / Sanchez, has accepted the trust created in her favor.
Alissa Anne D.
To the motions to dismiss, Irene filed a
DOCTRINE: Responsive pleadings are those Consolidated Opposition, which Benedicto and
which seek affirmative relief and/or set up Francisca countered with a Joint Reply to
defenses, like an answer. A motion to dismiss is Opposition. Then, it was consolidated.
not a responsive pleading for purposes of Sec. 2
of Rule 10. RTC dismissed both complaints , stating that
these partly constituted real action, and that
If there is no responsive pleading had been filed, Irene did not actually reside in Ilocos Norte, and,
respondent could amend her complaint as a therefore, venue was improperly laid. It also
matter of right. declared all other issues in the Motion to
Dismiss moot and academic.
As the aforequoted provision makes it
abundantly clear that the plaintiff may amend his Pending resolution of her motion for
complaint once as a matter of right, i.e., without reconsideration, Irene filed on July 17, 2000 a
leave of court, before any responsive pleading is Motion (to Admit Amended Complaint), attaching
filed or served. therewith a copy of the Amended Complaint
dated July 14, 2000 in which she added
FACTS: Ambassador Benedicto and Benedicto
additional plaintiffs, and practically the same
Group organized Far East Managers and
cause of action but, as couched, sought the
Investors, Inc. (FEMII) and Universal Equity
reconveyance of the FEMII shares only.
Corporation (UEC), respectively. As petitioner
Irene Marcos-Araneta would later allege, both RTC admitted the amended complaint. Julita
corporations were organized pursuant to a and Francisca Benedicto (wife and daughter of
contract or arrangement whereby Benedicto, as Ambassador Benedicto) moved to dismiss the
trustor, placed in his name and in the name of amended complaint for there is no complaint to
his associates, as trustees, the shares of stocks amend since it was dismissed; but it was denied
of FEMII and UEC with the obligation to hold and they were ordered to answer the amended
those shares and their fruits in trust and for the complaint. Moreover the RTC held that there
benefit of Irene to the extent of 65% of such was actually no need to act on Irenes motion to
shares. Several years after, Irene, through her admit, it being her right as plaintiff to amend her
trustee-husband, Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, complaints absent any responsive pleading
demanded the reconveyance of said 65% thereto.
stockholdings, but the Benedicto Group refused
to oblige. CA granted the petition for certiorari and set
aside the decision of the RTC.
In March 2000, Irene thereupon instituted before
the RTC two similar complaints for conveyance Hence, Petition for Review on Certiorari under
of shares of stock, accounting and receivership Rule 45
against the Benedicto Group with prayer for the ISSUE: Whether a motion to dismiss is a
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). responsive pleading
HELD: NO. In Alpine Lending Investors v. inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when
Corpuz, the Court, expounding on the propriety justice requires; and (2) the amendment is made
of admitting an amended complaint before a before judgment
responsive pleading is filed, wrote:
FACTS: August 11, 1995, a joint complaint for
“What petitioner Alpine filed in Civil damages based on quasi-delict was filed before
Case No. C-20124 was a motion to dismiss, not the RTC of Panabo City, Davao by 1,185
an answer. Settled is the rule that a motion to individuals against Del Monte, Dow Chemical
dismiss is not a responsive pleading for Corporations and other companies alleging that
purposes of Section 2, Rule 10. As no the companies were negligent in the
responsive pleading had been filed, respondent manufacture, distribution and sale or in not
could amend her complaint in Civil Case No. C- informing the users of the hazardous effects of
20124 as a matter of right. Following this Courts the chemical they used. It was amended to
ruling in Breslin v. Luzon Stevedoring Co. implead other plaintiffs and dropped 4
considering that respondent has the right to defendants. The remaining defendants filed their
amend her complaint, it is the correlative duty of Answer with Counterclaim.
the trial court to accept the amended complaint;
otherwise, mandamus would lie against it. In On September 2, 1997, the Dow/Occidental
other words, the trial courts duty to admit the defendants jointly moved for the dismissal of the
amended complaint was purely ministerial. In complaint against them, as well as their
fact, respondent should not have filed a motion counterclaim against the plaintiffs. They alleged
to admit her amended complaint” that they have already entered into a
compromise agreement.
It may be argued that the original complaints
had been dismissed. It should be pointed out, The Chiquita defendants, on even date, filed
however, that the finality of such dismissal order their Motion for Leave to Admit Amended
had not set in when Irene filed the amended Answer with Counterclaims and Cross-claims,
complaint on July 17, 2000, she having citing inadvertence, oversight, and excusable
meanwhile seasonably sought reconsideration neglect as grounds for amendment. DOLE also
thereof. Irenes motion for reconsideration was filed a Motion to Admit Amended Answer with
only resolved on August 25, 2000. Thus, when Cross Claim.
Irene filed the amended complaint on July 17, The parties thereafter filed numerous
2000, the order of dismissal was not yet final, oppositions/motions to the pleadings filed by
implying that there was strictly no legal each. Replies and comments were likewise filed
impediment to her amending her original in response thereto.
complaints.
Del Monte filed motion to dismiss alleging the
PETITION IS DISMISSED. Amended Joint Complaint be dismissed entirely
with prejudice because the claimants had been
TOPIC: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, Section
paid, waived, abandoned and extinguish their
10, Rule 11
rights in effect of their compromise agreement
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A v. Dow with the claimants.
Chemical Co.,
RTC granted and left to the cognizance of the
G.R. No. 179232, 179290 | August 23, 2012| court the case for cross claim among defendants
Villarama filed by DOLE, Del Monte and Chiquita

Digested by: Casano, Diana Rola Y. / Sanchez, The Dow/Occidental defendants filed a petition
Alissa Anne D. for certiorari with the CA. The CA ruled that the
RTC gravely abused its discretion when it
DOCTRINE: two requisites for a court to allow admitted the cross-claims against the
an omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by Dow/Occidental defendants without any
amendment: (1) there was oversight, qualificationThe CA also held that the dismissal
of the complaint as regards the Dow/Occidental FACTS: On August 13, 1999, petitioners filed a
defendants in the civil case did not carry with it Complaint against respondents for Annulment of
the dismissal of the cross-claims filed against Mortgage with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
said defendants. Order & Preliminary Injunction with Damages
with the RTC of Legaspi City. Petitioner Lolita A.
Hence, consolidated petitions for review on Soriano alleged that she is a stockholder of
certiorari under Rule 45 petitioner Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LEI) and a
ISSUE: Whether the two requisites for a court to member of its Board of Directors, designated as
allow an omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by its Corporate Secretary.
amendment LEI acquired a lot in Legaspi. Sorianos acquired
HELD: YES. The CA correctly held that there is a loan from PCIB in their personal capacity for
basis for allowing the cross-claims of the Dole, P20m and as security, the Sorianos as president
Del Monte and Chiquita defendants against the and treasurer but without authority, falsified a
Dow/Occidental defendants as they complied Board Resolution and executed a Real Estate
with the rules. It is undisputed that the Dole, Del Mortgage.
Monte and Chiquita defendants sought to After service of summons, TRO and Injunction
amend their answers to include their cross- were issued by the RTC.
claims before judgment. More importantly,
justice requires that they be allowed to do so in On September 25, 1999, Sorianos filed an
consonance with the policy against multiplicity of Answer. On September 28, PCIB filed a Motion
suits. to Dismiss the Complaint on grounds of lack of
legal capacity to sue, failure to state a cause of
We also uphold the appellate court’s ruling that action, and litis pendencia.
the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it
admitted the cross-claims against the On November 11, 1999, the RTC issued the first
Dow/Occidental defendants without any assailed Resolution dismissing petitioners'
qualification. The Del Monte and Chiquita Complaint. Petitioners then filed a Motion for
defendants’ cross-claims against the Reconsideration of said Resolution. While
Dow/Occidental defendants cannot extend to the awaiting resolution of the motion for
plaintiffs with whom they had settled. reconsideration, petitioners also filed, on
January 4, 2000, a Motion to Admit Amended
PETITION IS DENIED. Complaint. RTC denied both.
TOPIC: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, when not Hence, Petition for Review under Rule 45.
as a matter of right
ISSUE:Whether or not an amendment to the
FAUSTA AGCANAS, JUAN MIGUEL, complaint may still be filed after a responsive
JUANITA MIGUEL, assisted by her husband pleading is filed
ULPIANO PASION, assisted by her husband
JUAN PASCUAL, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HELD: YES. that respondents Lilian S. Soriano
BRUNO MERCADO and ANTONIO DASALLA, and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr.
defendants-appellants. already filed their Answer, to petitioners'
complaint, and the claims being asserted were
G.R. No. 143264| April 23, 2012| made against said parties. A responsive
MAKALINTAL pleading (Answer) having been filed,
amendments to the complaint may, therefore, be
Digested by: Casano, Diana Rola Y. / Sanchez,
made only by leave of court and no longer as a
Alissa Anne D.
matter of right.
DOCTRINE: A responsive pleading having been
PETITION IS DISMISSED.
filed, amendments to the complaint may,
therefore, be made only by leave of court and no
longer as a matter of right.
TOPIC: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, when revoked the authority of Ventures and,
allowed to file even after the reglementary thereafter, asked for the documents in his
period for filing the answer expires possession

HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, Represented by On December 20, 2004, there was no answer
REMEDIOS CHAN, petitioners, vs. PAZ yet from Van der Kolk. The heirs of Yabao filed
LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK, respondent. again a motion to declare Van der Kolk to be on
default.
G.R. No. 207266| June 25, 2014| MENDOZA
On March 07, 2005, Van der Kolk filed an
Digested by: Casano, Diana Rola Y. / Sanchez, answer through her new counsel.
Alissa Anne D.
On December 04, 2006, Vander Kolk was
DOCTRINE: The trial court permits the filing of declared in default by the MTCC for failure to
the responsive answer and to be heard on the submit an answer within the fresh period of 10
merits even after the reglementary period for days from July 27, 2004 Resolution.
filing the answer expires. The answer should be
admitted where it is filed before a declaration of Van der Kolk filed an appeal to the RTC but it
default and no prejudice is caused to the was dismissed. Van der Kolk then filed a Petition
plaintiff. for Review under Rule 42 before the CA, one of
the grounds is that the MTCC abused its
FACTS: A complaint for ownership against Van discretion in declaring Van der Kolk in default.
der Kolk was filed by the heirs of Yabao on CA granted the petition.
March 08, 2001. That despite demands to
vacate the lot in Calbayog City, Van der Kolk still Hence, Petition for Certiorari
refused and continued to occupy the lot. Copies
of summons and complaints were served to the ISSUE: Whether or not the MTCC should have
lawyer of Vander Kolk, Ma. Narcisa Fabregas- admitted the answer filed by Van der Kolk
Ventures. It was noted in the Return of Service HELD: YES. The MTCC should have admitted
that Van der Kolk was in Netherlands. Van der Kolk's answer, which was appended to
On April 02, 2001, Van der Kolk filed a motion to her motion for allowance to belatedly file
dismiss for 1] lack of jurisdiction by the MTCC answer, filed on March 7, 2005 instead of
over her person due to defective service of declaring her in default. Record shows that the
summons; and 2] lack of cause of action. MTCC rendered the judgment of default only on
December 4, 2006 and thus, it slept on Van der
The Heirs of Yabao filed their opposition to the Kolk's said motion for 1 year and nine months,
said motion and moved to declare Van der Kolk just as it also slept on the petitioners' motion to
in default contending that the motion to dismiss declare her in default for almost two years. This
was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary is procedurally unsound.
period and no answer had been filed.
It is within the sound discretion of the trial court
The MTCC denied the motion to dismiss and to permit the defendant to file his answer and to
held there was proper service of summons. It be heard on the merits even after the
also denied to declare Van der Kolk in default reglementary period for filing the answer
since the motion to dismiss was seasonably expires. The rule is that the defendant's answer
filed. The MTCC further directed Van der Kolk to should be admitted where it is filed before a
file an answer within 10 days from receipt of the declaration of default and no prejudice is caused
aforesaid resolution. to the plaintiff. In this case, Van der Kolk filed
the answer beyond the reglementary period but
On September 6, 2004, Van der Kolk's counsel, before she was declared in default, and there
Atty. Felidito Dacut, filed a Manifestation with was no showing that she intended to delay the
Motion praying that he be relieved as her prompt disposition of the case. Consequently,
counsel because she never contacted him about her Answer should have been admitted.
the case after he was informed that she had
PETITION IS DENIED. On December 26, 2007, the RTC declared the
petitioners in default for failure to file responsive
TOPIC: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, failure to answer within the reglementary period.
file within reglementary period
Petitioners moved to reconsider, but the trial
RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, LUCINIA F. court was unmoved. It proceeded to receive
GUYAMIN, and EILEEN G. GATARIN, respondents' evidence ex parte.
petitioners, vs. JACINTO G. FLORES and
MAXIMO G. FLORES, represented by RAMON RTC resolved the pending case in favor
G. FLORES, respondents. of the respondent Flores. The Guyamins were
ordered to vacate. The court reiterated that the
G.R. No. 202189 | April 25, 2018| DEL denial of the answer with motion to dismiss was
CASTILLO due to the late filing of the answer with motion to
dismiss. That if indeed having a good defense,
Digested by: Casano, Diana Rola Y. / Sanchez,
could have been vigilant in this case instead of
Alissa Anne D.
resorting to delays in the prosecution thereof.
DOCTRINE: The party failing to file the
Petitioners filed an appeal to the Court of
responsive answer within the reglementary
Appeals, and which the court ruled that the
period of 15 days will be declared in default.
lower court did not commit any error declaring
FACTS: them in default because they filed their answer 8
months after receiving the summons.
In 2006, respondent Flores filed a complaint for
Recovery of Possession against petitioners ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were in
Guyamins et al. They alleged that they are the default for not filing the responsive answer within
registered owners of the disputed lot in Cavite; the reglementary period of 15 days even if the
that petitioners were occupying the lot for years petitioners refused to sign the service of
by mere tolerance of the respondents; that they summons
reminded their relatives petitioner Guyamins et
HELD: YES.
al to vacate the property because they will be
selling it; and that petitioners still failed to vacate The SC held that “The filing of petitioners'
despite several attempts to settle in the answer prior to respondents' motion to declare
conciliation before the Punong Barangay. them in default, and the latter's filing of a reply,
do not erase the fact that petitioners' answer is
On September 25, 2006, summons and a copy
late. Respondents' reply filed thereafter is, like
of the Complaint were served upon petitioners
the belated answer, a mere scrap of paper, as it
through Eileen, who nonetheless refused to sign
proceeds from the said answer.” The reply to the
and acknowledge receipt thereof. This fact was
late answer was not a cure to the defective
noted in the court process server's Return of
answer contrary to petitioner’s argument. The
Summons dated September 26, 2006.
service of summons was presumed regular as
On January 9, 2007, respondents filed a Motion per the court process server's Return of
to Declare Defendants in Default, arguing that Summons dated September 26, 2006.
despite service of summons on September 25,
PETITION IS DENIED.
2006, petitioners failed to file their answer.

On May 28, 2007, petitioners filed their Answer

On June 5, 2007, respondents filed their Reply