With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Alonzo Alanis (collectively, “Alanis”) appeal from a final take-nothing judgment in their suit for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud against Jesus Maria Alvarez and Alvarez & Associates (collectively “Alvarez”). We reverse and remand. This court has considered multiple appeals from the underlying cause. Both Alvarez and another party to the underlying cause, Ana Lisa Garza, moved for summary judgment based on limitations. The trial court granted the summary judgment motions and rendered a final take-nothing judgment against Alanis. In a previous appeal, we concluded Alvarez and Garza were not entitled to summary judgment because they had failed to negate the discovery rule. Alanis v. Alvarez, No. 04-12-00517-CV, 2013 WL 5570418, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Oct. 9, 2013, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We reversed the trial court’s judgment

A: holding that the defendants waived their affirmative defense of unenforceability by failing to raise the defense in response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted
B: holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment
C: holding alvarez and garza were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of limitations when they did not negate the discovery rule in their summary judgment motions
D: holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto
C.