7/25/2019 TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

1/2

G.R. No. 129008 January 13, 2004

TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, ET AL.vs.CORT OF A!!EAL", ET AL.

TINGA, J.

FACT":

After Alfonso Ornadas death, his legitimate familydiscovered that the Petitioner (the paramour and her

children) executed an Extraudicial !ettlement of Estate of a"eceased Person #ith $uitclaim involving the properties ofthe estate of the decedent located in "agupan %ity and thataccordingly, the &egistry of "eeds issued %erticates of

'itles in their favor 'he &espondents also found out that thePetitioners #ere ale to otain a loan from the &ural *an+ yexecuting a &eal Estate ortgage over the properties suectof the extra-udicial settlement

.ence, the &espondents led a %omplaint for theAnnulment/&escission of Extra 0udicial !ettlement of Estateof a "eceased Person #ith $uitclaim, &eal Estate ortgageand %ancellation of 'ransfer %erticate of 'itles #ith"amages against petitioners, the &ural *an+ of angaldan,1nc and the &egister of "eeds

'he petitioners led their Ans#er, raising among othersthe a2rmative defense that respondents are not the realparties-in-interest ut rather the Estate of Alfonso in vie# of

the pendency of the administration proceedings 'hey led aotion to !et A2rmative "efenses for .earing on theaforesaid ground, #hich the lo#er court denied

I""E:

7/25/2019 TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

2/2

3hether or not the lo#er court erred in denying thePetitioners motion to set the case for preliminary hearing ontheir a2rmative defense

#ELD:

4o 1t must e stressed that the holding of apreliminary hearing on an a2rmative defense lies in thediscretion of the court 'his is clear from the &ules of %ourt,thus:

!E% 5 Pleadings grounds as a2rmative defenses- Anyof the grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, exceptimproper venue, may e pleaded as an a2rmative defense,and a preliminary hearing may e had thereon as if a motionto dismiss had een ledof the phrase 6in the discretion ofthe %ourt6, apart from the retention of the #ord 6may6 in!ection 7, in &ule 87 thereof

'hus, no lame of ause of discretion can e laid on the

lo#er courts doorstep for not hearing petitioners a2rmativedefense

$#EREFORE, the petition for revie# is "E41E" 'heassailed decision and resolution of the %ourt of Appeals areherey A991&E" 4o costs