Case Digest (G.R. No. 166496)
Facts:
Josefa Bautista Ferrer v. Sps. Manuel M. Ferrer & Virginia Ferrer and Sps. Ismael M. Ferrer & Flora Ferrer, G.R. No. 166496, November 29, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Josefa Bautista Ferrer sued respondents Sps. Manuel M. Ferrer and Virginia Ferrer and Sps. Ismael M. Ferrer and Flora Ferrer in Civil Case No. MC02‑1780 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, for payment for conjugal improvements, sum of money, and accounting, with prayer for injunction and damages. Petitioner alleged she was the surviving spouse of Alfredo Ferrer, who before marriage owned a lot covered by TCT No. 67927; improvements (a residential house, a two‑door apartment building and a warehouse) were constructed thereon, and the SSS loan for construction was paid during the marriage from conjugal funds.
Petitioner alleged that respondents occupied one door of the apartment and the warehouse and later stopped paying rent in September 1991, claiming ownership through a Deed of Sale executed by Alfredo in favor of respondents; TCT No. 67927 was cancelled and TCT No. 2728 issued in respondents’ names. She further alleged that on October 2, 1989 respondents Ismael and Flora caused Alfredo, then bedridden, to sign a document presented as a will but which was a Deed of Sale; Alfredo filed an annulment suit (RTC Pasig Civil Case No. 61327) to annul that sale.
On June 22, 1993 the RTC in Civil Case No. 61327 dismissed the annulment complaint, holding the deed valid and observing that the lot was the principal and the improvements the accessory, so the improvements were Alfredo’s exclusive property subject to reimbursement to the conjugal partnership upon liquidation; the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court in G.R. No. L‑117067 (Nov. 7, 1994). Petitioner contended that upon Alfredo’s death (Sept. 29, 1999) she was entitled to reimbursement for improvements (claimed at P500,000), one‑half of which should be paid by respondents as registered owners; she also sought accounting from September 1991 of income from the boarding house.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss in RTC Mandaluyong asserting lack of cause of action and bar by prior judgment. The RTC denied the motion by Order dated December 16, 2002 and denied reconsideration on January 17, 2003, ruling that no pronouncement as to reimbursement had been made in Civil Case No. 61327 and that petitioner’s claim was a separate cause of action. Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals by certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 78525 granted the petition and, by Decision dated August 16, 2004, dismissed petitioner’s Complaint for failure to state a cause of action (holding petitioner’s remedy was to file a claim in the settlement of Alfredo’s estate under Article 129 of the Famil...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s Complaint for failure to state a cause of action?
- Are the respondents proper parties who have a correlative obligation to reimburse petitioner for improvements made with ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)