Hence, the present petition with a sole Assignment of Error, to wit:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL-TYPE HEARING REQUIRED BY THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS IN ACCORD WITH SECTION 2, RULE 16 OF [THE] RULES OF COURT.10
Petitioner contends that there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which requires a trial-type hearing for the resolution of a motion to dismiss. Petitioner argues that the RTC, in requiring a trial-type hearing deferred the resolution of the subject Motion to Dismiss and, in so doing, violated Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
The Court does not agree.
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, insofar as hearings on a motion to dismiss are concerned, Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court sanctions trial-type proceedings in the sense that the parties are allowed to present evidence and argue their respective positions before the court, thus:
Sec. 2. Hearing of Motion. - At the hearing of the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved except those not available at that time. Should the case go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same.
In Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation,11 this Court had occasion to rule that the issues raised in a motion to dismiss have to be determined in accordance with the evidence and facts presented, not on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and that the courts could not afford to dismiss a litigant's complaint on the basis of half-baked conclusions with no evidence to show for it. In emphasizing the need for a formal hearing, this Court held that the demand for a clear factual finding to justify the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be dispensed with.12 To this end, Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court allows not only a hearing on the motion to dismiss, but also for the parties to submit their evidence on the questions of fact involved, which may be litigated extensively at the hearing or hearings on the motion.13 During the said hearings, the parties are allowed to submit their respective evidence, and even rebut the opposing parties' evidence.14 The hearings should provide the parties the forum for full presentation of their sides.15 Moreover, from the trial court's perspective, the extent of such hearings would depend on its satisfaction that the ground in filing the motion to dismiss has been established or disestablished.16
In the present case, petitioner's ground in filing his Motion to Dismiss is that he has been openly, continuously and exclusively possessing the subject property in the concept of an owner for more than ten years and that he has explicitly repudiated his co-ownership of the subject property with his co-heirs. Evidence is quite obviously needed in this situation, for it is not to be expected that said ground, or any facts from which its existence may be inferred, will be found in the averments of the complaint.17 When such a ground is asserted in a motion to dismiss, the general rule governing evidence on motions applies.18 The rule is embodied in Section 7, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that “[w]hen a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.”
However, in the present case, there was no affidavit or any other documentary evidence attached to petitioner's Motion to Dismiss as proof of the averments contained therein. Thus, the RTC is justified in directing the conduct of further hearings to ascertain petitioner's factual allegations in its motion.
Indeed, unlike a motion to dismiss based on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, which may be resolved solely on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner raised an affirmative defense that he has long been in possession of the disputed property as an owner and that he has repudiated his co-ownership of the subject property with private respondents and the other co-heirs. The motion thus posed a question of fact that should be resolved after due hearing.19
Neither may the trial court's act of setting the case for hearing in order to receive evidence be considered as a move to defer the resolution of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. As discussed above, Section 2, Rule 16 is explicit in allowing the conduct of hearings and the reception of evidence on the questions of fact involved in the motion to dismiss.
Contrary to petitioner's asseveration, what is prohibited by the second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 16 of the same Rules is the deferment until trial of the resolution of the motion to dismiss itself.20 Under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the assailed Orders of the RTC may not be construed as tantamount to deferring action on the motion to dismiss until trial is conducted.
In sum, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA in holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed Orders.
