FACTS
TOPIC Objections to Pleadings; Motion for Bill of Particulars
CASE NO. GR No. 75311 (1988)
CASE NAME Rosita Zafra Bantillo v. IAC & Elsa Maniquis-Sumcad
MEMBER Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows | lo-fi hip-hop mix [LIVE]
RELEVANT DOCTRINES
1. [Rule 12 v. Rule 10] – Under Rule 12, the court may in appropriate cases direct
the adverse party: (a) to file a bill of particulars, or (b) to make the pleading
referred to in the motion more definite and certain, either by amending or
supplementing the same. Section 2 of Rule 10 does not apply in situations
where it is the court itself that orders a party litigant to amend his or her
pleading such as in the earlier mentioned second option of the court in Rule 12.
RECIT-READY DIGEST
In representation of her co-heirs, Bantillo filed before the IAC a complaint
for Reconveyance against Sumcad involving a lot that Bantillo alleges to have
occupied under claim of ownership since the death of her parents. Bantillo alleges
that Sumcad sought Bantillo's removal from the lot by virtue of a TCT issued in
Sumcad’s name. Before filing her Answer, Sumcad filed a motion for bill of
particulars asking Bantillo to specify the identity of her co-heirs and her authority
to represent them in this case. Bantillo agreed to submit such, so the IAC ordered
Bantillo to submit her Amended Complaint accordingly. 11 months lapsed without
Bantillo complying with the order, thus Sumcad sought to dismiss the complaint.
Bantillo filed her opposition (attaching thereto her amended complaint deleting the
implication of other heir) stating that Rule 10 (Amended Complaint) allowed her
to submit the amended complaint right “at any time before a responsive pleading
is served.” However, the IAC and the appellate court both dismissed the case ruling
that under Rule 12 (Bill of Particulars) Bantillo had only 10 days from the notice
of the order to comply.
The Supreme Court held that: First, the filing of a motion for bill of particulars
was proper because the Rules of Court requires that the facts must be averred
showing authority of a party to sue in a representative capacity of persons that is
made a party. Second, although the IAC did not expressly direct Bantillo to submit
a bill of particulars because in fact what was required was an amended complaint,
this singular circumstance does NOT PRECLUDE the application of Rule 12.
<INSERT DOCTRINE ABOVE>. However, in the end, the Court ruled in the
interest of justice to allow the amended complaint to be admitted because the
amendment was only unprejudicial and formal given that the amendment consisted
simply of a deletion of any reference to "other heirs" as co-plaintiffs.
1. In representation of the “heirs of the spouses Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel
Zafra”, Rosita Zafra Bantillo (Bantillo) filed before the IAC a <Complaint for
Reconveyance> against Elsa Maniquis-Sumcad (Sumcad) involving a lot in
Midsayap, North Cotobato (Lot No. 63). Here Bantillo alleged the following:
a. Banitllo is the surviving heir of the deceased spouses, Candido Zafra and
Maria Pimentel Zafra;
b. The Zafra spouses had occupied and possessed Lot No. 63 under claim of
ownership since 1950;
c. Bantillo, as surviving heir and in representation of the heirs of the Zafra
spouses, had been in open and continuous possession and occupation of Lot
No. 63 ever since the death of the spouses;
d. By virtue of Original Certificate of Title No. P-35267 issued in the name of
Sumcad, Sumcad had claimed ownership of the disputed land and had
sought Bantillo's removal therefrom; &
e. Sumcad had rejected demands to reconvey the land to petitioner.
2. Sumcad filed a <Motion for Bill of Particulars> requesting for the IAC to direct
Bantillo to:
a. Specify what kind of surviving heir she is; (See: Facts 1.a.)
b. Specify by what right or authority she represents the so-called “heirs of the
spouses Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel Zafra”; (See: Facts No. 1)
c. Show the papers under which she is authorized to represent the heirs of
spouses Zafra in court; and
d. Specify and identify these other heirs by name and the nature of their
heirship.
3. Banitllo questioned the motion, alleging that:
a. the matters mentioned in the motion were not essential to enable Sumcad
to file an answer to the complaint; and
b. that such matters are not proper subjects of a motion for bill of
particulars.
4. The hearing for the motion for bill of particulars was conducted, where the
following events occurred:
a. Bantillo and her counsel manifested in open court that she was willing to
specify the names of the heirs she claims to represent (In rel.: Fact No. 2.b),
and to submit the corresponding special power of attorney (In rel.: Fact No.
2.c).
b. Accordingly, on July 5, the IAC issued an order requiring Bantillo to
make good her manifestation, making the corresponding amendments
in the complaint therefor, and for Sumcad be furnished a copy of the
said amended complaint. (Note: walang binigay na express period to
comply, kaya may controversy later; also, the IAC really did keep on calling
it as an amendment to the complaint)
1
5. Sumcad filed a <Motion to Dismiss> on the ground that Bantillo still has not
submitted her amended complaint after 11 months from the order of the IAC,
invoking Section 1, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court (Bills of Particular) which
grants a party only a ten-day period to respond to a bill of particulars. However,
Bantillo sent an opposition (attaching thereto her amended complaint deleting
the implication of other heirs) stating that her delay was “due to the fact that [the
IAC] for quite a time had no presiding judge, so that even if said pleading be
filed, it still could not be acted upon.”
6. Yet the IAC and later the appellate court both ruled to dismiss because Bantillo
failed to submit her pleading within the ten-day period, and that the alleged judge
vacancy only lasted for two months.
7. Bantillo now appeals to the Supreme Court stating that the applicable rule is
Section 1 and 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court (Amended Pleadings) stating
that “a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before
a responsive pleading is served.” (Note: To be clear, Sumcad has not submitted
an Answer yet to Bantillo’s complaint because Sumcad is still waiting on the
complaint to be amended according to the specifications asked for in the bill.)
ISSUE/S and HELD
1. W/N the motion for bill of particulars was proper – YES
2. Which rule applies: Rule 12 or Rule 10? – Rule 12 applies
RATIO
1. YES, the motion for bill of particulars was proper. Rule 12 provides two remedies
for a party who seeks to clarify any issue or matter vaguely or obscurely pleaded
by the other party:
(1) File a motion for "a more definite statement", or
(2) File a motion for a bill of particulars.
2. RULE: An order directing the submission of such statement or bill is proper
where it enables the party movant intelligently to prepare a responsive pleading,
or adequately to prepare for trial.
3. APPLIED: Bantillo brought suit for herself and in representation of the Heirs of
Spouses Candido Zafra and Maria Pimentel Zafra. Bantillo alleged her capacity
personally to maintain the judicial action for reconveyance, manifesting that she
is the "surviving heir" of the Zafra spouses, the alleged original owners of the
land under litigation. YET there is an absolute lack of allegations in the
Complaint regarding the Bantillo’s authority to bring suit in behalf of her alleged
co-heirs. Despite the fact that Section 4, Rule 8 requires that the facts must be
averred showing authority of a party to sue in a representative capacity of persons
that is made a party. Thus, the "Motion for Bill of Particulars" was proper.
4. RULE 12 APPLIES. Although the IAC did not expressly direct Bantillo to
submit a bill of particulars because in fact what was required was an amended
complaint, this singular circumstance does NOT PRECLUDE the application of
Rule 12.
a. Under Rule 12, the court may in appropriate cases direct the adverse party:
(a) to file a bill of particulars, or (b) to make the pleading referred to in the
motion more definite and certain, either by amending or supplementing
the same. The IAC’s order fell under the second option.
b. Section 2 of Rule 10 does not apply in situations where it is the court
itself that orders a party litigant to amend his or her pleading (See:
Facts 4.b., and 7). In this case, the IAC ordered the amendment after a
motion for a bill of particulars was filed by the adverse party and heard by
the court. Thus, Rule 12 is still the applicable rule, which provides for a ten-
day period within which to comply with the order.
5. YET INTEREST OF JUSTICE still merits the admission of Bantillo’s amended
complaint. Although Bantillo only submitted after 11 months from the order, the
amendment of the original complaint consisted simply of deletion of any
reference to "other heirs" of the Zafra spouses as co-plaintiffs (See: Facts 5).
Thus, the amendment imposed no substantial prejudice upon Sumcad and was
formal in character. Additionally, after all this time, Sumcad had not been able
to file any responsive pleading at all and had not disclosed the nature and basis
of her own claim of ownership. Lastly, even if it was proper to dismiss the
amended complaint, the dismissal would be without prejudice to its refiling. Yet,
the amended complaint is already with the IAC. It would save more time to
proceed with the case.
DISPOSTIVE PORTION
ACCORDINGLY, the appellate court's Decision appealed from is REVERSED and
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, of North Cotabato at Midsayap, is DIRECTED
to admit petitioner's Amended Complaint and promptly to resume proceedings in Civil
Case No. 161. This Resolution is immediately executory. No pronouncement as to
costs.