Case Summary (G.R. No. 217365)
Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioners: The legitimate children of the deceased Spouses Sadhwani (other than Gop).
Respondents:
- Gop S. Sadhwani (registered owner in trust) and his wife, Kanta G. Sadhwani
- Union Bank of the Philippines and Philippine Savings Bank (mortgagees)
- Register of Deeds of Makati City
- Subsequent purchaser of the Bel Air property, Sefuel Siy Yap
Key Dates and Procedural History
• November 13, 2013 – Petitioners filed their original complaint for reconveyance and related reliefs.
• November 27, 2013 – Respondents Gop and Kanta moved to dismiss for prescription, lack of capacity, and failure to state a cause of action; Union Bank likewise moved to dismiss; PSB answered.
• March 11, 2014 – Petitioners amended the complaint to account for the Bel Air sale.
• January 6 and March 18, 2015 – RTC, Branch 59, Makati City, granted motions to dismiss, finding lack of legal capacity and cause of action.
• August 14, 2019 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XII, Section 7 (prohibition on foreign acquisition of private lands except by hereditary succession).
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16, Section 1 (grounds for motion to dismiss); Section 5 (effect of dismissal); Rule 41, Section 1 (non-appealable orders); Rule 45 (appeals to the Supreme Court); Rule 65 (special civil actions via certiorari).
• Civil Code, Article 16 (succession governed by the national law of the decedent).
• Jurisprudence prohibiting implied or resulting trusts by which an alien circumvents land-ownership restrictions.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners availed of the correct remedy to challenge the RTC’s dismissal.
- Whether the complaint stated a cause of action and whether the petitioners had legal capacity to sue.
Remedy and Hierarchy of Courts
The Supreme Court held that the RTC’s January 6 and March 18, 2015 dismissals were “without prejudice” (based on failure to state a cause of action under Rule 16, Section 1[g]). Under Rule 41, Section 1(h), such orders are not appealable; the appropriate remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, filed with the Court of Appeals. By proceeding by petition for review under Rule 45 directly to the Supreme Court, petitioners chose the wrong remedy and violated the hierarchy of courts.
Failure to State a Cause of Action
A cause of action requires (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff, (2) an obligation on the defendant not to violate that right, and (3) an act or omission that breaches it. Petitioners premised ownership on inheritance from Indian-national parents who, under Article XII, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, could not hold private land in the Philippines (except by hereditary succession). Because the parents never validly acquired title, petitioners had no right to en
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 217365)
Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
- The dispute concerns two properties: a parcel of land at 58 Aries St., Bel Air, Makati (Bel Air Property) and condominium unit 602-A at the Ritz Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City (Ritz Condominium Unit).
- The Spouses Satramdas and Kishnibai Sadhwani (Indian nationals) allegedly purchased both properties and caused the titles to be registered in the name of their son, Gop S. Sadhwani, in trust for themselves and their children.
- On November 13, 2013, petitioners (other legitimate children) filed a Complaint for Reconveyance, Partition, Accounting, Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Injunction and Damages, invoking an express trust and Civil Code succession rules to assert equal ownership rights.
- Respondents Gop and Kanta Sadhwani moved to dismiss for lack of legal capacity to sue, failure to state a cause of action, and prescription; Union Bank likewise moved to dismiss, and PSB filed an answer.
- The RTC of Makati City, Branch 59, in resolutions dated January 6 and March 18, 2015, granted the motions to dismiss, holding that petitioners lacked capacity and cause of action because the trustors were aliens prohibited from owning or transmitting real property interests under Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether petitioners resorted to the correct remedy in challenging the dismissal of their Complaint.
- Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the Complaint for (a) lack of legal capacity to s