ANUNCIACION v BOCANERGA

Anunciacion filed a case for quieting of title and cancellation of transfer

certificate of title against Bocanegra. Bocanegra filed 3 motions to dismiss,
on the first motion, the alleged ground for dismissal was lack of cause of
action, on the supplemental motion to dismiss, an additional ground was
Anunciacions failure to pay the required filing fee. It was only in their
supplemental motion to dismiss, where they alleged that the court has no
jurisdiction over the person of Bocanegra since the summons were
served to Atty Pizarro- who is not Bocanegras counsel in the
present case, but merely wrote and signed the letter demanding
Anunciacion to vacate the property.
The RTC and the CA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
Bocanegra as respondents due to an invalid service of summons. The CA
held that the filing of the 2 earlier Motions to Dismiss only alleging lack of
cause of action and failure to pay the filing fees did not constitute as
waiver of the ground of lack of jurisdiction on their persons as defendants.
ISSUE: WON the filing of the motions to dismiss without invoking lack of
jurisdiction over the person of Bocanegra, is deemed a waiver on their part
to raise it in their supplemental motion to dismiss.
RULING: Yes.
In the case at bar, it is only in Bocanegras Second Supplemental Motion to
Dismiss that they raised the courts lack of jurisdiction on the ground that
summons were allegedly not properly served upon them. The filing of the
said Second Supplemental Motion to Dismiss did not divest the court of its
jurisdiction over the person of the respondents who had earlier voluntarily
appeared before the trial court by filing their motion to dismiss and the
supplemental motion to dismiss.
ThefilingofSupplementalMotiontoDismissandSecondSupplementalMotiontoDismiss
wereclearlyinviolationofRule15,Section8inrelationtoRule9,Section1oftheRules.
Rule15,Section8oftheRulesprovides:amotionattackingapleading,order,judgment,or
proceedingshallincludeallobjectionsthenavailable,andallobjectionsnotsoincluded
shallbedeemedwaived.
Rule9,Section1,inturn,states:
Sec.1.Defensesandobjectionsnotpleaded.Defensesandobjectionsnotpleadedeitherin
amotiontodismissorintheansweraredeemedwaived.
Applyingtheforegoingrules,respondentsfailuretoraisetheallegedlackofjurisdictionover
theirpersonsintheirveryfirstmotiontodismisswasfataltotheircause.Theyarealready
deemedtohavewaivedthatparticulargroundfordismissalofthecomplaint.
TheSCexpresseditdisapprovalonthetrialcourtsactofentertainingsupplementalmotionsto
dismisswhichraisegroundsthat arealreadydeemedwaived.Todosowouldencourage
lawyersandlitigantstofilepiecemealobjectionstoacomplaintinordertodelayorfrustrate
theprosecutionoftheplaintiffscauseofaction.

GODINEZ v CA
Delfina Village Subdivision Homeowners Association (DVSHA), respondent,
filed with the RTC, an amended complaint for injunction and damages
against spouses Sps Godinez and their son. The complaint alleges that
Godinez et al were operating a mineral processing plant in the annex of
their residential house located within Delfina Village.
Godinez et al in their answer raising the following affirmative defenses: a)
the complaint states no cause of action; b) respondent DVSHA has no
capacity to sue; c) it is not a real party in interest; d) the complaint fails to
implead the real parties in interest; and e) respondent failed to refer the
case for conciliation to the barangay before filing its complaint.
The trial court issued an Order directing DVSHA to amend its complaint
and attach thereto proofs showing that it is a juridical person with capacity
to sue and that it is the real party in interest.
DVSHA submitted its amended complaint impleading, as additional
plaintiffs, its officers and members, and attaching thereto its Certificate of
Registration with the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation, as well as
its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.
GODINEZ filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts Order but it
was denied, prompting them to file a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals which was dismissed.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in directing DVSHA
to amend its complaint. The purpose of the trial court was to determine
whether DVSHA is a juridical person and whether it is a real party in
interest. In sum, its intention was to ensure compliance with the
procedural rules.
ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial courts Order
directing DVSHA to amend its complaint
RULING: NO. The purpose of order to amend is to correct the defect in the
designation of DVSHA
RULE 10, SEC. 4. Formal amendments. A defect in the designation
of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may
be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its
initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby
to the adverse party.
In the case at bar, the amendment of complaint at the instance of the trial
court merely involves the designation of DVSHA as a proper party,

whether it has a juridical personality and, therefore, can sue or be sued.

When DVSHA amended its complaint by attaching the required supporting
documents, such amendment did not change its cause of action.
Nor was its action intended to prejudice petitioners.