FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253476. March 24, 2021.]
LUCY JUMAWAN, MITSUKO DOROTHY PROVIS, CYRIL P. GENEROSO, EUGENE P. GENEROSO, ET AL., petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF FERMIN FLORES, NAMELY: PURITA M. FLORES, CORAZON FLORES, CARMEN FLORES-WILHELM, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253476 (Lucy Jumawan, Mitsuko Dorothy Provis, Cyril P. Generoso, Eugene P. Generoso, et al. v. Heirs of Fermin Flores, namely: Purita M. Flores, Corazon Flores, Carmen Flores-Wilhelm, et al.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Orders dated August 20, 2020 2 and September 11, 2020 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 38, which dismissed petitioners' complaint for quieting of title on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
Facts of the Case
Petitioners alleged that they are the heirs of Pilar Flores Patrimonio, owner and possessor of a residential lot, known as Lot 989-I, located in San Juan, St., Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental consisting of 781 square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 14-0005-00243. The land was previously owned and possessed by petitioners' predecessors-in-interest — from Catalino Laspiñas in 1906 until its transfer to Eleuterio Diao Congue in 1921. 4
On June 18, 1924, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1133-A (pursuant to Decree No. 155788) was issued in the names of Filomeno Flores and Rufina Infante consisting of 2,485 square meters, which allegedly included the 781 square meters declared in the name of Eleuterio Diao Congue. 5
Petitioners averred that the 781-square meter was still declared in the name of Eleuterio Diao Congue while the 1,432-square meter thereof was declared in the name of Filomeno Flores and upon the latter's death, in the name of his heirs, herein respondents. 6
Petitioners claimed that on April 11, 1939, Eleuterio Diao Congue sold Lot 989-I to Pilar Flores, evidenced by a Deed of Sale. Pilar Flores thereafter declared the land in her name under Tax Declaration No. 27703. 7
Upon the death of Filomeno Flores on November 15, 1971, respondents-heirs subdivided the property into nine sub-lots with Lot Nos. 989-A to 989-H adjudicated to each individual heir while petitioners' property, Lot 989-I, was adjudicated to the heirs pro indiviso. 8
Petitioners, by themselves and through their predecessors in interest, have been in actual possession of Lot 989-I in the concept of an owner, public, adverse, peaceful, and uninterrupted for 97 years or since 1921 up to the present. In fact, the lot has been leased to Dumaguete Chung Hua School starting in 1950. They prayed, among others, that an order be issued to quiet their title over Lot 989-I surveyed for the heirs of Spouses Filomeno Flores and Rufina Infante, being a portion of Cadastral Lot No. 989 covered by OCT No. 1133-A. 9
Respondents, as an affirmative defense, 10 claimed that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. They pointed out that petitioners' complaint did not allege that the decree or title issued in the name of Spouses Filomeno Flores and Rufina Infante was obtained and issued through actual fraud or misrepresentation. The complaint did not attack or impugn the validity of the decree or title, thus, it has not cast a cloud on petitioners' title, if there is any. 11
Further, respondents averred that petitioners have no cause of action against them since the latter had no legal or equitable title to the subject land as they allegedly derived their interest from Eleuterio Diao Congue who, in the same manner, had no legal or equitable title to said land. When Eleuterio Diao Congue sold the land in favor of petitioners' predecessor in 1939, the subject land was already titled and registered in the name of Spouses Filomeno Flores and Rufina Infante on June 18, 1924. Respondents contended that the alleged actual possession of petitioners cannot ripen into legal title by acquisitive prescription since lands covered by Torrens title cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription. 12
Finally, respondents claimed that petitioners' cause of action is already barred by prescription and laches. 13
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Order 14 dated August 20, 2020, the RTC dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action. 15 It ruled that OCT No. 1133-A can never be considered as a cloud on the title of petitioners. From the allegations in the complaint, it is the portion occupied by petitioners that clouds OCT No. 1133-A. The RTC noted that when Flores, petitioners' predecessor, purchased the 781-square meter from a certain Eleuterio Diao Congue on April 1, 1939, the same area was already covered by OCT No. 1133-A. Petitioners cannot avail of the remedy of quieting of title after purchasing a parcel of land covered by a certificate of title from someone who is a complete stranger to the registered owners. 16
The RTC further held that the complaint was not brought in the name of the real party in interest. Petitioners, who claimed to be the legal heirs of Pilar Flores, failed to discuss about their lineage and genealogy to show why they became heirs of Pilar Flores. They have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it except the bare allegations that they are the legal heirs of Pilar Flores. 17
Petitioners moved for reconsideration 18 but it was denied in the Order 19 dated September 11, 2020.
Hence, the present petition under Rule 45 filed by petitioners.
Petitioners' Arguments
Petitioners argue that they have been in possession of the subject land for 97 years. Had this been considered, it would have established petitioners' cause of action. They claim that their complaint for quieting of title which seeks to cancel the certificate of title is a direct attack on the title and not a collateral attack on the same. Contrary to the RTC's ruling that Eleuterio Diao Congue is a stranger to the registered owners, petitioners assert that Eleuterio Diao Congue was a previous owner and possessor of a portion of Lot 989-I; hence, he is a co-owner of the property. Finally, petitioners aver that there is no need that they should be declared as heirs first to entitle them to bring this suit for quieting of title. 20
Issue
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
The Court notes that from the Order of the RTC dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, petitioners directly elevated the case to this Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The direct resort to this Court is justified considering that a dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action is essentially a question of law. The Court can resolve the instant petition without the need of evaluating or examining any findings of fact or evidence as none has been presented. The Court, on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, can determine whether petitioners' complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
By way of affirmative defense, respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause. The RTC granted the motion in the Order dated August 20, 2020, which is now being assailed in this petition.
The case of Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. v. Catalan21 laid down the test to determine the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint:
The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants. 22 (Citations omitted)
By moving for the dismissal of the complaint, respondents hypothetically admit the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in petitioners' complaint. 23 When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as a rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint. 24
A reading of the complaint avers the following facts:
15. That Filomeno Flores had never declared his ownership nor claimed possession of the property of Eleuterio Diao Congue and later, of the ownership and possession of Pilar Flores consisting of 781 sq.m. despite the passage of the Revised Administrative Code No. 2092 x x x requiring every property owner to prepare or cause to be prepared and submit to the provincial assessor a declaration of said property;
16. That in fact, in 1940, Filemon Flores declared only 1,432 sq.m. of Lot No. 989 as his property in O.C.T. No. 1133-A, as shown by his Tax Declaration No. 28638 for the year 1940, indicating therein his boundary owners, as follows:
|
North: Silliman Avenue |
South: Pilar Flores |
|
East: Segundo Galicano |
West: Dionisio Flores and Mateo Badon |
xxx xxx xxx
17. That on November 15, 1971, after the death of Filomena Flores and Rufina Infante, the 8 heirs had the entire property subdivided into 9 sub-lots with Lot Nos. 989-A to 989-H adjudicated to each individual heir while plaintiff's property, now known as Lot 989-I consisting of 781 sq.m. and subject of this case, was adjudicated to the 8 heirs, pro indiviso;
xxx xxx xxx
18. That on May 2, 1973, the heirs of Filomena Flores, despite their partition of Cadastral Lot No. 989, continued to declare only part of O.C.T. No. 1133-A as their property and recognized Pilar Flores as the property owner on the South of their property, to wit:
Declaration of Real Property No. 02774 dated May 2, 1973
Location of Property Silliman Avenue, Dumaguete City
Cadastral Lot No. 985-Part
Boundaries:
|
North: Silliman Avenue |
South: Ramon Cuadra and Pilar Flores |
|
East Segundo Galicano |
West: Dioniso Flores and Matea Badon |
with an area of 1,217 sq.m. after deducting 215 sq.m. therefrom;
xxx xxx xxx
22. Plaintiffs, by themselves and through their predecessors in interest have been in actual possession of Lot 989-I in the concept of an owner, public, adverse, peaceful and uninterrupted for Ninety Seven (97) years or since 1921 up to the present. In fact, in consequence of such ownership, Pilar Flores Patrimonio leased said Lot No. 989-I to the owners of the Dumaguete Chung Hua School starting in 1950. It was only on September 12, 2007, that defendants Tax Declaration No. 93-005-0354 of Pilar Flores Patrimonio cancelled and transferred to their names on the basis of O.C.T. No. 1133-A. 25 (Emphasis and Annexes removed)
Applying the foregoing test of hypothetically admitting the allegations in the complaint, and not looking into the veracity of the same, it would then appear that petitioners' complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. Petitioners had always been in possession of the subject land up to the present. Starting in 1950, the land had been leased to Dumaguete Chung Hua School. Despite having been issued a certificate of title, Filomeno Flores did not declare the 781-square meter under his name in the tax declaration. The 781-square meter portion was instead declared in the name of Eleuterio Diao Congue and then to Pilar Flores after the latter's purchase of the land. Equally telling is the allegation in the complaint that Lot 989-I, the subject land, was adjudicated to respondents-heirs pro indiviso while the nine sub-lots, Lot Nos. 989-A to 989-H, was given to each individual heir.
While captioned as one for quieting of title, the complaint is in effect an action for reconveyance of property wrongfully registered in the name of another, petitioners being in actual possession of the subject land. With the above-mentioned allegations as hypothetically admitted, the court may render a valid judgment on the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint. Clearly, the complaint stated a cause of action. Trial on the merits should ensue.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated August 20, 2020 and September 11, 2020 are SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 38 for trial on the merits.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-21.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Cenon Voltaire B. Repollo; id. at 54-60.
3.Id. at 66.
4.Id. at 32.
5.Id. at 33.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 34.
9.Id. at 35.
10.Id. at 40-53.
11.Id. at 43-44.
12.Id. at 45.
13.Id.
14.Supra note 2.
15.Rollo, p. 59.
16.Id. at 58-59.
17.Id. at 59.
18.Id. at 61-65.
19.Supra note 3.
20.Rollo, pp. 17-20.
21. 483 Phil. 525 (2004).
22.Id. at 25.
23.Heirs of Sadhwani v. Sadhwani, G.R. No. 217365, August 14, 2019.
24.Id.
25.Rollo, pp. 33-35.