G.R. Nos. 262727-28 – MARIA CLAUDIA BELINDA CANDANO-LIM, petitioner, vs. DAVID LIM and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

INTING, J.

Rule Synopsis

While Rule 10, Section 3 implies that the motion for leave of court to amend a pleading should be written, an oral motion may be validly granted by the trial court to avoid multiplicity of suits, to determine the real controversies between the parties, and to decide the case on the merits without unnecessary delay. The Rules of Court should be construed liberally to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.

The “granting of leave to file an amended pleading is a matter particularly addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” The discretion is also broad, subject only to certain limitations. Moreover, the amendment of a pleading would not cause delay if it is made before trial proper.

Moreover, a judicial admission pertains to a concrete fact, no an opinion or a legal conclusion, within the party’s peculiar knowledge. Ownership and title to property cannot be created by mere judicial admission. In any case, the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand, may relieve a party from the consequences of his or her admission.

Facts

Belinda and David Lim (David) married in 1971. They did not execute any agreement relative to their property relations.

In 2015, David petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage to Belinda under Article 36 of the Family Code (original petition). As to their conjugal properties, he asserted that it has an estimated value of PHP15,350,000.00, consisting of condominium units.

Belinda moved to dismiss the petition on grounds that David did not disclose the true value of their conjugal assets, which supposedly had a value of around PHP186,830,000.00, among others.

David filed a reply with an omnibus motion for leave of court to allow him to pay additional docket fees, asserting that the undervaluation of the conjugal assets in his original petition was by mere inadvertence. Further, that he does not know the extent of the conjugal properties as he has no copies of their titles and has no idea of the purchases made by Belinda using conjugal funds. He provided a conservative estimate of at PHP100,000,000.00.

With leave of court, David filed his first amended petition containing an estimated value of the conjugal assets amounting to PHP173,350,000.00. Pursuant to another RTC order, David further filed a second amended petition.

On August 8, 2018, the RTC conducted a hearing on the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens annotated on a title to one of the in Foggy Heights properties. During the hearing, David’s counsel manifested that the property involved is presumed conjugal. Despite opposition from Belinda’s counsel, the RTC allowed David to further amend his petition (first assailed RTC order). Belinda moved for partial reconsideration arguing that David should have filed the necessary motion for leave of court to further amend his petition pursuant to Rule 10, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which the RTC denied. David then filed his third amended petition, estimating the value of the conjugal assets in the amount of PHP284,311,155.00.

In the meantime, Belinda filed another Motion for Special Order, praying for the RTC to authorize her to sell seven (7) units of the Foggy Heights properties. The RTC denied Belinda’s motion ruling that David should be given his day in court to argue on the issue of whether the subject properties are conjugal or paraphernal (second assailed RTC order).

Belinda filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) before the Court of Appeals (CA) to question the first and second assailed RTC orders, which the CA denied.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issues

Did the CA commit a reversible error in holding that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion when (1) it allowed David to file a substantially amended petition for a third time; and (2) when it denied Belinda’s Second Motion for Special Order?

Ruling and Discussion

No. The CA did not commit a reversible error in holding that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed decision and resolution.

(1) The RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the substantial amendment of David’s petition for a third time.

(a) The RTC had the authority to act upon an oral motion for leave of court to amend the petition.

Upon filing of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the RTC also acquires jurisdiction over matters incidental and consequential to the marriage, including the settlement of the parties’ common properties, which requires determining which properties are included in and excluded from the co-ownership.

Meanwhile, Rule 10, Sections 2 and 3 of the Rules provide that after the filing of responsive pleading, a party may amend its pleading by leave of court. Rule 15, Section 2 of the same states that “[a]ll motions shall be in writing except those made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial.” Rule 10, Section 3 requires that the motion (for leave of court to amend a pleading) be “filed” in court. Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court (Rule 13, Section 2). The fact that the rule requires a “motion filed in court” necessarily implies that the motion should be written.

However, an oral motion for leave of court to amend a pleading may be validly granted by the trial court to avoid multiplicity of suits, to determine the real controversies between the parties, and to decide the case on the merits without unnecessary delay. The Rules of Court should be construed liberally to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.

Here, David did not file a written motion for leave of court to amend his petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Instead, his counsel made an oral motion for the said amendment during the hearing held on August 8, 2018. Still, the requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard in Rule 10, Section 3 of the Rules of Court were both met during the hearing. Belinda was represented by her counsel and had the full opportunity to oppose David’s oral motion through oral arguments or pleadings and other papers. Particularly, Belinda’s counsel orally argued against the amendment of David’s petition. She was further given the time to file her comment or opposition to the amended petition.

Hence, David’s prayer for leave of court for the substantial amendment of his petition through an oral motion instead of a written one should be considered as a mere irregularity in the proceedings that does not deprive the RTC of the authority to act upon the oral motion.

(b) There was no inexcusable delay in the submission of the amended petition.

The “granting of leave to file an amended pleading is a matter particularly addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” The discretion is also broad, subject only to certain limitations. Moreover, the amendment of a pleading would not cause delay if it is made before trial proper.

In relation to David’s motion to amend his petition, he repeatedly manifested to the RTC that he had difficulty identifying all the conjugal properties because he had no copies of the titles or papers evidencing them and he lacked information on all the purchases that Belinda made using their conjugal funds. The latter was supposedly in possession of most, if not all, of the documents pertaining to the conjugal properties. Additionally, David’s counsel moved for the production of documents in relation to the conjugal properties, which was granted by the RTC. There may certainly be situations where the husband or wife is deprived of information on the full extent of their conjugal properties.

Furthermore, when the RTC allowed David to substantially amend his petition for a third time, the initial presentation of David’s evidence that was scheduled on the same day was deferred. The RTC then categorically granted Belinda the opportunity to amend her answer should David file a third amended petition.

(2) The RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying the Second Motion for Special Order.

Contrary to Belinda’s argument, David did not judicially admit that the subject properties are Belinda’s paraphernal properties.

(a) Judicial admission must be a statement of fact and not of opinion or legal conclusion.

An averment that a party is entitled to “full and complete legal ownership” of a parcel of land, that it “owned or possessed” the property in issue, or that it “became the owner” of the property in question before the commencement of the action, are legal conclusions.

Here, David’s statement on the paraphernal character of the properties in question, or Belinda’s exclusive ownership thereof, cannot constitute a judicial admission. Such statement should be considered as a mere legal conclusion and not a factual assertion.

(b) Ownership and title to property cannot be created by mere judicial admission.

The right or title to a property must be completed by fulfilling the appropriate conditions imposed by law.

Here, having no marriage settlement, the property regime of the parties is the conjugal partnership of gains, which is the default property regime at the time of their marriage in 1971 before the Family Code took effect in 1988. Article 117 and 109 of the Family Code defines which properties are included in the conjugal partnership, and the exclusive property of each spouse, respectively. The RTC’s determination of whether a particular property is conjugal or exclusive would require a review of facts and evidence, including documents of title, and an analysis of law. David’s statement cannot be considered as conclusive on the nature of the subject properties as paraphernal. A spouse’s exclusive ownership of a property cannot be created through mere judicial admission.

(c) A judicial admission pertains to a concrete fact within the party’s peculiar knowledge.

Here, David’s alleged judicial admission is contradicted by his earlier statement that he has no personal knowledge of the extent of the conjugal properties because he has no copies of the titles thereto and has no idea of the purchases made by Belinda using conjugal funds. He even filed a motion for Belinda to produce documents in relation to their conjugal assets. It thus appears that David’s statement is not only a legal conclusion; it also does not categorically appear from the records that it is based on his personal knowledge as to be deemed a judicial admission.

(d) The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand, may relieve a party from the consequences of his or her admission.

Even assuming that David made a judicial admission as to the paraphernal character of all properties that were not identified as conjugal in the First Amended Petition, the RTC has the discretion to relieve David from the alleged admission for strong reasons. Moreover, a statement cannot be deemed a judicial admission when the record before the court shows that the admission is not truthful and that the opposite of the admission is true, or if it is contrary to the express terms of an agreement that is related to the purported admission.

The reasons cited by the RTC in issuing the assailed Orders are consistent with jurisprudence, which enjoins courts to be liberal in allowing the amendment of pleadings, and to decide cases on the merits after all parties have been given the full opportunity to ventilate their causes, rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. The RTC allowed David to further amend his petition for the following reasons: (1) for justice to be served; (2) to avoid further delay; and (3) to avoid multiplicity of suits or the filing of separate cases for properties that were not included in the proceedings before it. In denying the Second Motion for Special Order, it pointed out that David should be given his day in court to argue on the character of the subject properties as conjugal. Furthermore, David submitted evidence which contradicts earlier admission supposedly made concerning the ownership of the subject properties, such as TCTs of the subject properties showing that they were acquired during his marriage with Belinda.

dispositive

Petition denied. Decision and Resolution of the CA affirmed.