BASBASv. SAYSONAugust 24, 2011 | Del Castillo, J. | Petition for Review | Entry of judgent and final order !under judgent on t"e#leadings versus suary judgents a$$ording sa reviewer%PETITIONER: Eugenio &as'as et alRESPONDENT: (#ouses (aysonSUMMARY:(#ouses(aysonfileda#etitionforregistrationofanafgri$ultural land) De$isionwasruledinfavoroft"es#ouses, "oweveritwasneverenfor$ed)after*yearsfrot"efinalityoft"ede$ision) (#ousesfiledaCo#laintfort"eRevival of judgent) +n t"e answer of t"e #etitioners, t"e aditted t"e ff, !1% t"e land registration $ase was de$ided in favor oft"e s#ouses sayson- !2% t"e said de$ision 'e$ae final and e.e$utor- !/% 0C1 was issued in t"e nae of t"e s#ouses (ayson-!4% t"ere was a relo$ation order) (#ouses sayson t"en filed an 0ni'us otion for Judgent on t"e Pleadings and2or (uaryJudgent) (C ruled t"at judgent on t"e #leadings is i#ro#er sin$e t"e answer of t"e #etitioners #osed an issue) 3owever,t"e issue are not genuine issues t"us otion for suary judgent is a #ro#er a$tion)DOCTRINE:4"at distinguis"es a judgent on t"e #leadings fro a suary judgent is t"e #resen$e of issues in t"eAnswer to t"e Co#laint) 4"en t"e Answer fails to tender any issue, t"at is, if it does not deny t"e aterial allegations in t"e $o#laint or adits saidaterial allegations of t"e adverse #arty5s #leadings 'y aditting t"e trut"fulness t"ereof and2or oitting to deal wit" t"e atall, a judgent on t"e #leadings is a##ro#riate) 0nt"eot"er "and, w"ent"eAnswer s#e$ifi$allydeniest"eaterial averentsof t"e$o#laint or assertsaffirativedefenses, or in ot"er words raises an issue, a suary judgent is #ro#er #rovided t"at t"e issue raised is not genuineFACTS:1) (#ouses (ayson filed a #etition for registration ofanagri$ultural landinCag'atag, &alagtas, 6eyte) +twaso##osed'yt"eRe#u'li$and"erein#etitioners)C7+ruledinfavorofs#ouses(aysonanda##rovedregistration under t"eir naes)2) 0##ositors filed t"eir A##eal to t"e CA'ut CAaffiredintotot"ede$isionoft"eC7+) CA de$ision'e$ae final and e.e$utory and a writ of #ossession wasissued'ut it was never i#leentedAyear after, an0C1 was issued under t"e nae of t"e (#ouses (aysonandanAlias 4rit of Possession'ut t"ewrit eas noti#leented in view oft"erefusal of Eugenio&as'asand "is son) &as'as $lais t"at t"e land t"ey o$$u#y isnot t"e sae land su'je$t in t"e de$ision) 1"eydeanded a relo$ation survey 'e $ondu$ted) R1Ca##rovedt"eCoissioner5sre#ort ont"erelo$ationsurvey and ordered t"e o##osite in$luding "erein#etitioners to va$ate t"e su'je$t #ro#erty)/) 1"eorderwas, "owever, not i#leentedwit"in*years fro t"e tie it 'e$ae final) 3en$e (ayson fileda Co#laint for Revival of judgent) 0##ositors filed a8otiontoDisiss'ut it wasdenied) 0##ositerst"enfiled an Answer wit" Counter $lai) +n t"e answer, t"eo##ositors aditted t"at aong ot"ers, !1% t"e landregistration$asewas de$idedinfavor of t"es#ousessayson- !2% t"e said de$ision 'e$ae final and e.e$utor-!/% 0C1 was issued in t"e nae of t"e s#ouses (ayson-!4% t"ere was a relo$ation order) &ut 'y way of s#e$ialand affirative defenses,#etitioners $ontended t"at t"eorder sougt to 'e revived is not t"e 9judgent5$ote#latedunder(e$:, Rule/;oft"eR0C)Alsot"eyaverredt"at t"ey$annot 'e ade #arties to'e$o#laint of revival of judgent as t"ey were not #artiesto t"e land registration $ase !t"e #etitioners "ere are "eirssu$$eeding t"e original #arties in t"is $ase%) 1"us ordersoug"t to 'e revived is not 'inding u#on t"e) 4) Regarding t"e designation2su'stitution of #arties, t"eCourt dire$ts t"e #laintiff s#ouses to a