Está en la página 1de 1

Sps. Aznar v. Hon. Bernad and Sps.

Kintanar
GR No.L-81190. 9 May 1988.

FACTS:
Sps. Kintanar filed against Sps. Aznar an action for annulment f a Sheriffs Certificate of Sale.
o Sps. Aznar filed an answer specifically denying the allegations.
7 days later, Sps. Aznar filed a Motion For Leave to Amend Answer Or To File Supplemental Pleading alleging
that:
1. Case had not been set for trial;
2. There was no reply to their answer;
3. Admitted evidences show that Aznars are assailing mortgage contract with respect to P60,000 and the
validity of a handwritten certificate they signed. Although Redempta Kintanar said it was dictated by them,
she did not say the statements were correct; and
4. Court had observed that, plaintiffs are assailing the documents relied upon by the defendants in the
foreclosure as not being an expression of the true intent and agreement of the parties.
Attached to the motion was a copy of the amended answer which contained an additional paragraph alleging, for
the first time, the affirmative defense of prescription.
o Trial court denied motion based on a strict construction of the rules which provide that defenses or
objections, except the failure to state a cause of action, if not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in an
answer, are deemed waived
o MR denied.

ISSUES + RULING:

Was the affirmative defense of prescription validly pleaded through the amended answer? YES.
GR: Affirmative defenses of prescription, when not seasonably raised in an answer or motion to dismiss, is
deemed waived
o This case, however, does not fall under the cited rule. It cannot be said that the petitioners failed to allege
the defense of prescription in their answer.
o Precisely, the amended answer is being submitted to take the place of the original one.
Court differentiated between a supplemental answer (which was the issue of Torreda v. Boncaros, upon which
court incorrectly relied on) and an amended answer.
o Supplemental Motion: Not a pleading; does not extinguish existence of original pleading since it only adds
something.
o Amended Answer: Takes place of original pleading.
Xpn: A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is
served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed
upon the trial calendar.
Even assuming that the petitioners had indeed failed to raise the affirmative defense of prescription in a motion to
dismiss or in an appropriate pleading and an amendment would no longer be feasible, still prescription, if apparent
on the face of the complaint, may be favorably considered.
o Contract was 8 years ago; prescription period for declaration of nullity on the ground of fraud is 4 years.

DISPOSITION: Granted.

También podría gustarte