Demurrer to evidence; when proper - G.R. No. 173008

G.R. No. 173008

"x x x.

          The RTC Orders assailed before the CA basically involved the propriety of filing a demurrer to evidence after a Decision had been rendered in the case. 

          Section 1, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court provides:

    “SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence. - After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.  If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence.  If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal was reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.”

          The Court has previously explained the nature of a demurrer to evidence in the case of Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago[18] as follows:

      “A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case.  It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.  The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case.” 

          In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the judgment.[19]  Being considered a motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before the court renders its judgment. 

          In this case, respondents demurred to petitioners' evidence after the RTC promulgated its Decision. While respondents' motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was granted, it was for the sole purpose of receiving and offering for admission the documents not presented at the trial.  As respondents never complied with the directive but instead filed a demurrer to evidence, their motion should be deemed abandoned.  Consequently, the RTC's original Decision stands.

          Accordingly, the CA committed reversible error in granting the demurrer and dismissing the Amended Complaint a quo for insufficiency of evidence.  The demurrer to evidence was clearly no longer an available remedy to respondents and should not have been granted, as the RTC had correctly done. 

x x x."