CASE DIGEST : ADOLFO VS ADOLFO

 G.R. No. 201427

TEOFILO B. ADOLFO, Petitioner,

vs.

FE T. ADOLFO, Respondent.

FACTS : Civil Case No. MAN-4821 - On April 14, 2004, petitioner Teofilo B. Adolfo filed with the RTC Mandaue a Petition for judicial separation of property against his estranged wife, respondent Fe Adolfo, nee Tudtud. In her Answer with counterclaim, respondent contended that while she remained married to petitioner, she is the sole owner of the subject property, the same being her paraphernal property which she inherited from her mother. Respondent claimed in her Answer that the subject property was a portion of a bigger lot (mother lot) owned by her mother Petronila Tudtud which was covered by TCT T-15941. On October 11, 1967, her mother executed a quitclaim deed transferring a portion of the mother lot – the subject property – to respondent. Respondent argued that she is the sole owner of the subject property, the same being her paraphernal property which she alone redeemed from the Garcias; that the inclusion of petitioner’s name in TCT 18368 does not make him a co- owner of the property, but was merely necessary to describe respondent’s civil status. 

Civil Case No. MAN-2683 - In 1996, respondent’s sister Florencia Tudtud and her husband Juanito Gingoyon (the Gingoyons) filed a case for partition with damages against respondent. The Complaint therein alleged that in 1988, respondent executed a deed of sale in favor of the Gingoyons over a 300-square meter portion of the subject property, but that respondent refused to partition/subdivide the same even after the Gingoyons paid the taxes, fees and expenses of the sale. On May 15, 2002, the trial court rendered its Decision in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, declaring that the subject property constituted conjugal property of the marriage. It thus nullified the 1988 deed of sale executed by respondent in favor of the Gingoyons for lack of consent on the part of petitioner, citing Article 124 of the Family Code.

Meanwhile, on May 30, 2007, the CA rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971. It reversed the May 15, 2002 Decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. MAN-2683. and that the CA’s eventual finding in CA- G.R. CV No. 78971 that the subject lot was respondent’s paraphernal property cannot bind him because he was not a party to Civil Case No. MAN-2683.

On October 6, 2009, the CA issued the assailed Decision

ISSUE : WON Petitioner now claims that the Court of Appeals erred in deciding the case on a question of substance not in accord with law, Rule 26 of the 1997 Rules, and applicable jurisprudence

HELD : Judgment on the pleadings is proper "where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading." Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be granted "if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." An answer would "fail to tender an issue" if it "does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. In rendering summary judgment, the trial court relied on respondent’s failure to reply to petitioner’s request for admission, her admission in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, as well as its May 15, 2002 Decision declaring that the subject property is a conjugal asset. While it is true that a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action,51 petitioner cannot, after invoking the proceedings in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 to secure affirmative relief against respondent and thereafter failing to obtain such relief, be allowed to repudiate or question the CA’s ruling in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971. The principle of estoppel bars him from denying the resultant pronouncement by the appellate court, which became final and executory, that the subject property is respondent’s paraphernal property. Finally, the Court notes that the appellate court overlooked the May 30, 2007 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971, which became final and executory on June 23, 2007. The respondent included this development in her appellee's brief, but the CA did not take it into account. As an unfortunate consequence, the case was not appreciated and resolved completely.

Thus, with the development in Civil Case No. MAN-2683 brought upon by the final and executory decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971, petitioner's case is left with no leg to stand on. There being no conjugal property to be divided between the parties, Civil Case No. MAN-4821 must be dismissed.