1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 34

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Judgment on the Pleadings

Rule 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

SEC. 1. Judgment on the pleadings.- Where an answer fails to tender an

issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's
pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such
pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint
shall always be proved. (1a, R19)

Judgment on the pleadings is an expeditious way of terminating a civil action. There is no more
trial and judgment will be rendered based on what the plaintiff says in his pleadings.

Illustration:

PROBLEM: Plaintiff files a complaint. Defendant files an answer. The answer contains what
you call defenses – negative, affirmative defenses. Now, after the defendant files the answer, his
issues are joined. Next step is pre-trial. If the case is not terminated in pre-trial, next step is trial.
That’s the procedure.
But suppose I will file a complaint against you and you file your answer where you admitted
everything that I said in my complaint. All the allegations in the complaint are admitted and no
defense was interposed by the defendant. So, meaning, the defendant filed an answer which
contains no defense at all. Everything is admitted. Should the case go to trial? Should the plaintiff
prove his cause of action? What is there to prove when you admitted everything? So, there is no
more trial because everything is admitted by the defendant.

Q: In the above case, what should the plaintiff do?

A: The plaintiff will now apply Rule 34. He will file a motion in court which is known as
Judgment on the Pleadings. He will ask the court to render judgment based on what the complaint
says and what the answer says. No more evidence. Eto ang sabi ng complaint, “Oh! You borrowed
money, and you did not pay.” Sabi ng answer, “admit! admit! admit!” Oh, ano pa? What is there to be
tried? You admitted everything, so the court will now decide! You can render a decision based on
what the complaint says and what the answer says and the court will immediately render judgment
for the plaintiff. So wala ng trial.

Rule 34 is one of the procedures or remedies under the Rules of Court for the prompt expeditious
resolutions of civil actions – one of the fastest ways of resolving a civil dispute because plaintiff files the
complaint, defendant files his answer, plaintiff asks for judgment and the case is decided. No more
pre-trial, no more trial. Why? There is nothing to try kasi wala ka mang depensa. Everything that I
say in my complaint you admit.

Q: Under Rule 34, what are the grounds for Judgment on the Pleadings?
A: The following are the grounds:
1.) When an answer fails to tender an issue; or
2.) When an answer otherwise admits all the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading.

Q: When does an answer fails to tender an issue?

A: An answer fails to tender an issue:

1.) when it neither admits nor denies the allegations in the complaint;
It neither admits nor denies. So, you cannot do that. Either you admit or you deny
the allegations in the complaint. You cannot say, “Defendant does not admit, he does not
also deny the allegation.” Meaning you are trying to be evasive. That is not allowed.

2.) when all the denials in the answer are general denials and not specific.
A denial is general if the pleader does not state the facts relied upon in support of his
denial – “Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.” That is an

Lakas Atenista 95
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 34
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors> Judgment on the Pleadings

answer which does not tender an issue because all the denials are general, or no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. Just like what happened in the case
of CAPITOL MOTORS vs. YABUT.

So if an answer contains evasive allegations, denials which are general, it does not also tender any
issue aside from the fact that it also admits the law. Consider it as an admission of the material
allegations of the complaint. Therefore plaintiff will now move for an immediate judgment in his
favor. That is why it is called judgment on the pleadings.

Now, judgment on the pleadings has already been mentioned in the previous rule that we took up.
Let’s go back to pre-trial in Rule 18 because there is a mention there on judgment on the pleadings.
Section 2, Rule 18:

SEC. 2. Nature and purpose. - The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall
consider:
xxx
g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to
exist.
xxx

In other words, during the pre-trial, the defendant there and based on his pleadings, meron siyang
defense. But during the pre-trial, he makes now an admission, “Actually, your honor, wala akong depensa
ba. I have no defense.” Court: “Ah, wala ka ba? Okay. Judgment on the pleadings!” – tapos!

Or, another example: Collection case. According to the defendant in his answer the obligation is
paid. And then during the trial, the court asks the defendant, “Are you serious that the obligation is paid?”
Defendant: “Actually your honor, wala pa. Hindi pa bayad.” Court: “Ganoon ba? O plaintiff, what do you
say?” Plaintiff: “I move for judgment on the pleadings.” Tapos! The case is finished because the admission
is made in the course of the pre-trial that he has no valid defense.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Q: Give the exceptions to the rule on judgment on the pleadings.

A: Judgment on the pleadings does not apply:
1.) in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage; or
2.) in actions for legal separation;
3.) when the issue is the amount of unliquidated damages because there must always be
evidence to prove such amount (Rule 8, Section 11);
4.) when only conclusions of law are being alleged.

So, judgment on the pleading is not allowed on actions for nullity of marriage or for legal
separation. It cannot be resolved based only on what the complaint and what the answer says.
Otherwise, if we will allow Rule 34 in that kind of action, then it is very easy for husbands and wives to
have their marriages annulled or in obtaining a legal separation. So, the husband and the wife, they
quarrel and they decide: “O, sige. I-admit mo lahat para judgment on the pleadings na! Eh, di tapos!”

My golly! The court will never allow that to succeed simply because the other party admitted
everything. That would be a license for collusion. It’s not as easy as that. Walang judgment on the
pleading sa marriage. In other words, no allegation is deemed admitted even if the other party admits.
You still have to prove or disprove.

So, the premise is similar to Rule 9 on Defaults. There is no default judgment in actions for legal
separation based on the same principle eh! It is a one-sided story and collusion or connivance between
the parties is possible.
-oOo-

Lakas Atenista 96
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law