Case Digest (G.R. No. 116825)
Facts:
San Lorenzo Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116825, March 26, 1998, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Almeda Development & Equipment Corporation (ADEC) filed a petition on December 13, 1991 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62 (Civil Case No. 91‑3450) seeking cancellation of certain restrictive annotations (Entry No. 59599) on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47348 and prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing enforcement of membership and building‑height restrictions, cancellation of the annotation by the Register of Deeds, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. ADEC alleged it purchased the subject lot from the record owner and claimed it could not be compelled to become a member of San Lorenzo Village Association, Inc. (SLVAI) nor be restricted in the use and development of the property.
SLVAI moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and lack of ADEC’s personality to sue, asserting ADEC was not the registered owner because the deed of sale was not registered and thus could not bind third persons. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated March 31, 1992, holding that ADEC, as successor‑in‑interest of the registered owner, had shown interest in the property and could sue. SLVAI’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 15, 1992; the trial court concluded Article 709 of the Civil Code and the Land Registration Act did not render ADEC a mere third person unable to challenge the annotation.
SLVAI petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and TRO, contending the complaint failed to state a cause of action and ADEC was not real party in interest; the Court of Appeals denied the petition in a June 22, 1994 decision, applying the rule that a motion to dismiss admits the truth of well‑pleaded material facts and inferences fairly deducible therefrom (citing Galeon v. Galeon). Reconsideration was denied August 26, 1994.
SLVAI elevated the case to the Supreme Court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in treating ADEC’s allegation of ownership by deed of sale as hypothetically admitted for purposes of a motion to dismiss, thereby giving ADEC capacity to sue?
- Even assuming ADEC is owner, is that allegation insufficient as a matter of law to state a cause of action because the Deed of Restrictions requires cancellation to be initiated only by registered owners who are members and by their two‑thirds vote?
- Was ADEC not the real party in inte...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)