This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note now that (1) the RTC knew that the Answer asserted special and affirmative defenses; (2) the Court of Appeals recognized that certain issues were raised, but they were not genuine issues of fact; (3) petitioners insisted that they raised genuine issues; and (4) respondent argued that petitioners' defenses did not tender genuine issues. However, whether or not the issues raised by the Answer are genuine is not the crux of inquiry in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a motion for summary judgment.[14] In a case for judgment on the pleadings, the Answer is such that no issue is raised at all. The essential question in such a case is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.[15] This is the distinction between a proper case of summary judgment, compared to a proper case for judgment on the pleadings. We have explained this vital distinction in Narra Integrated Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[16] thus, | |||||