THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227065. April 5, 2017.]
CECILIA NAZARENO, LINDA NAZARENO, ISABEL MAGALLANO VDA. DE NAZARENO, BRYAN SHERWIN NAZARENO, ROBERT L. NAZARENO, MARIA DE GUZMAN NAZARENO, CIRIACO ESCUTIN, REIZHELLE MARIE NAZARENO and RODULFO APARRI, petitioners,vs. JUAN S. GELIG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 5, 2017, which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 227065 (CECILIA NAZARENO, LINDA NAZARENO, ISABEL MAGALLANO VDA. DE NAZARENO, BRYAN SHERWIN NAZARENO, ROBERT L. NAZARENO, MARIA DE GUZMAN NAZARENO, CIRIACO ESCUTIN, REIZHELLE MARIE NAZARENO and RODULFO APARRI, Petitioners v. JUAN S. GELIG, Respondent). — Petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The late Claudio Gelig and Guillerma Menguito were the owners of Lot No. 3589 situated in Agus, Lapu-Lapu City and previously covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. R0-0543. They were survived by their children, namely: Jesus, Lorenza, Emiliana and Atanacio (Gelig heirs). 1
On September 17, 1965, the Gelig heirs executed a Confirmation of Extrajudicial Partition and Adjudication of the Estate of Claudio Gelig whereby they partitioned and adjudicated Lot No. 3589 among themselves. Atanacio got a share of 5,571 square meters designated as Lot Nos. 3589-A and 3589-B, while Lorenza, Emiliana and Jesus got a total area of 18,640 square meters designated as Lot No. 3589-C. 2
On October 7, 1965, Atanacio sold his share to petitioner Linda Nazareno, who had the entire Lot No. 3589 surveyed and subdivided, and the title to which was reconstituted at her expense.
Lot No. 3589-C was subdivided into Lot No. 3589-C-1 and Lot No. 3589-C-2. Lot No. 3589-C-2 was further subdivided into Lot Nos. 3589-C-2-A, 3589-C-2-B, and 3589-C-2-C. Lot No. 3589-C-2-C was subdivided into Lot No. 3589-C-2-C-2. 3
Lorenza and Emiliana sold Lot No. 3589-C-1 to petitioner Cecilia Nazareno. Jesus Gelig likewise sold to Cecilia Nazareno Lot No. 3589-C-2-B, now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21554, registered in the name of petitioner Bryan Sherwin R. Nazareno. Lot No. 3589-C-2-C-1 was sold by Jesus Gelig to petitioner Linda Nazareno, who subsequently conveyed it to her son, Jose Nazareno, Jr. 4
On March 3, 1997, respondent Juan Gelig filed a complaint for quieting of title, declaration of nullity, reconveyance and damages, alleging that he was the heir of the late Jesus Gelig, one of the compulsory heirs of Claudio and Guillerma; that the sale of Lot No. 3589-A and Lot No. 3589-B by Atanacio to Linda Nazareno was made through a falsified document of sale; that the subsequent reconstitution of title by Linda Nazareno was made without the approval of the compulsory heirs of Claudio and Guillerma; that the subdivision of Lot No. 3589-C was caused by Linda Nazareno and Cecilia Nazareno who conspired and confederated with one another in causing the execution of the deeds of sale in favor of their close relatives through the use of fraudulent schemes and machinations; that he came to know of the unlawful schemes and fraudulent machinations only when the petitioners took initiatory steps to oust him from the premises in July 1996; that for over 32 years from the supposed extra-judicial settlement and partition of the estate of the late Claudio Gelig, he had been in possession of the lots in question, publicly, adversely, notoriously and continuously in the concept of an owner. 5
Gelig's complaint was amended three times, the last of which was through the third amended complaint dated February 21, 2003.
Meanwhile, on November 11, 1998, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that respondent Gelig had failed to take steps to prosecute his case.
Upon the admission of the third amended complaint, the petitioners again filed another Motion to Dismiss dated March 12, 2003 on the ground that respondent Gelig had failed to prosecute his case for an unreasonable length of time.
On August 12, 2005, the petitioners filed a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action.
On January 18, 2006, the RTC dismissed respondent Gelig's complaint for quieting of title, holding that he was not a party to any of the conveyances affecting Lot No. 3589; that he was not a declared heir of Atanacio, Lorenza and Emiliana; that he held no right or interest in the shares of the children of Claudio and Guillerma; that he lacked the personality to assail the transactions involving Lot No. 3589; that he was not a declared heir of the late Jesus Gelig; that he appeared to have siblings who were not impleaded either as plaintiffs or as defendants; and that his cause of action for reconveyance of real property had already prescribed. 6 aDSIHc
The respondent appealed to the CA.
In its decision promulgated on January 30, 2015, 7 the CA granted the appeal and set aside the order of the RTC dismissing the case. It disposed:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court dismissing Civil Case No. 4690-L is SET ASIDE and the trial court is directed to REINSTATE the Complaint and to proceed with the pre-trial of the case until its termination with utmost dispatch.
SO ORDERED. 8
The CA held that the merits of the allegations in the complaint could only be considered after the presentation of the evidence of the parties; that the respondent could not be faulted for not filing a motion to set the case for pre-trial because of the pending incident filed by the petitioners (i.e., the Petition to Cancel Notice of Lis Pendens); that the respondent also acted in good faith in not moving to set the case for pre-trial because the petitioners had already moved to set the pre-trial; that the grounds relied upon by the RTC were not proper under a motion to dismiss based on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion on August 17, 2016. 9
Hence, the appeal.
The petitioners aver that the respondent could not collaterally attack the certificates of title issued in their favor through the complaint for quieting of title as it was prohibited under the principle of indefeasibility of title; that the complaint did not allege that the respondent had any right over the said lots; and that his unnecessary delay in setting the case for pre-trial indicated his inaction and patent intention of merely harassing them.
Ruling of the Court
The Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in setting aside the order of the RTC dated January 18, 2006 in Civil Case No. 4690-L dismissing the complaint for quieting of title.
The petitioners' motion to dismiss was based on the grounds of failure to prosecute under Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court and lack of cause of action. It is important to note that failure to state a cause of action and not lack of cause of action is the ground for a motion to dismiss. The former signifies an insufficiency in the allegations in the pleading, while the latter refers to the failure to prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. 10 The resolution of whether or not the complaint fails to state a cause of action should be resolved on the basis only of the allegations in the complaint.
In setting aside the dismissal, the CA correctly observed that the RTC had erred in dismissing the case based on allegations outside the complaint; that the respondent's allegations that he was an heir of the late Jesus Gelig, and that Jesus Gelig was an heir of the original owners Claudio and Guillerma met the requirements for stating a cause of action for quieting of title, declaration of nullity and reconveyance; and that the issuance of the transfer certificates of title in the names of the petitioners cast a cloud on his title over the lots in question.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on January 30, 2015; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 10.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 10-11.
4.Id. at 11.
5.Id. at 11-12.
6.Id. at 16-17.
7.Rollo, pp. 9-29; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring.
8.Id. at 29.
9.Id. at 33-36.
10.Zuñiga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014, 738 SCRA 33, 39-40.