Title
St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc. vs. Masaito Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 166301
Decision Date
Feb 29, 2008
St. Michael School sought easement of right-of-way over Citihomes' lot for access; SC ruled procedural defects excused, complaint valid, reinstated case.
property owner
trial court
dismissal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166301)

Factual Background

The school is situated immediately outside the northern perimeter fence of the subdivision known as Citihomes Molino IV in Bacoor, Cavite, and its sole gate and passageway occupy part of a sixty-one square meter lot described as Lot 4, Block 7, Phase I of Citihomes owned or controlled by respondents. The gate served as the only entrance and exit for the entire school population. Respondent Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. communicated appraisals in 1997 and 1998 valuing lots at PhP 3,872 per square meter. Respondent Masaito Development Corporation in 2001 proposed that petitioners purchase various lots fronting the school for substantial sums and later offered Lot 4, Block 7 with right-of-way for PhP 2,000,000, offers which petitioners rejected as unreasonable. Annexes to the complaint included a subdivision location plan and photographs depicting the site and its enclosure by surrounding lots.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioners and four homeowners filed a complaint in the RTC for easement of right-of-way with damages under Art. 649 of the Civil Code, and sought preliminary injunctive relief. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2001, extended to June 24, 2001. Respondents moved to dismiss on July 17, 2001. On July 29, 2002, the RTC dismissed the claims of the four homeowners for lack of cause of action and denied the application for preliminary injunction. On September 25, 2003, upon partial reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the complaint of St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc. and Spouses Claveria for failure to state a cause of action, a denial later affirmed as to reconsideration on May 5, 2004.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioners sought relief from the CA by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court against the RTC's May 5, 2004 order. In its August 13, 2004 Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, principally for failure of the verification and certification against forum shopping to comply fully with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and for the verification having been signed by petitioner Gloria M. Claveria purportedly without an accompanying special power of attorney or board resolution; the CA also noted counsel’s failure to indicate his Roll of Attorneys number. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on September 6, 2004 attaching an affidavit by Gloria M. Claveria, a special power of attorney executed by Crisanto S. Claveria, and a secretary’s certificate purporting to authorize Gloria M. Claveria to represent the corporation; the CA denied reconsideration in its November 23, 2004 Resolution.

Issues Presented

Petitioners framed two principal issues: whether the CA erred in interpreting and applying Section 4, Rule 7 so as to require an amended verification despite the submission of the affidavit, special power of attorney, and secretary’s certificate; and whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and in holding that the petition was patently without merit.

Petitioners' Contentions

Petitioners asserted that the affidavit of Gloria M. Claveria, the special power of attorney, and the corporate secretary’s certification established express authority for Gloria M. Claveria to sign pleadings and represent the co-petitioners, thus satisfying the verification and certification requirements under Section 4, Rule 7. Petitioners further argued that the RTC’s dismissal was premature because the complaint and its annexes sufficiently alleged the ultimate facts necessary to support a cause of action for an easement of right-of-way under Art. 649 of the Civil Code, and that resolution of the factual disputes required a hearing on the merits.

Respondents' Contentions

Respondents maintained that the initiatory pleading lacked the essential averments for establishing a legal easement of right-of-way, specifically that the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and lacks an adequate outlet to a public highway. They also argued that the co-plaintiffs did not allege any real right or ownership over the dominant estate, and that petitioners failed to plead the necessary elements under Art. 649, such that the complaint did not state a cause of action.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court granted the petition. It held that petitioners substantially complied with the verification and certification requirements under Section 4, Rule 7 by attaching the affidavit, special power of attorney, and secretary’s certificate to their motion for reconsideration, and that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on that procedural ground. The Court further held that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action because the complaint and its annexes sufficiently alleged the elements of a right-of-way under Art. 649 of the Civil Code. The CA and RTC orders dismissing the complaint were reversed and set aside, and the RTC was directed to reinstate the complaint and conduct further proceedings in Civil Case No. BCV-2001-60.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that the verification requirement under Section 4, Rule 7 serves to assure the accuracy and good faith of pleadings, and that courts may recognize substantial compliance when justifiable circumstances exist. The Court found that the affidavit of Gloria M. Claveria, the special power of attorney from Crisanto S. Claveria, and the corporate secretary’s certificate amounted to substantial compliance with the rule’s demand for assurance that the petition’s allegations were true and correct and that the signatory was authorized to act. The Court relied on precedents allowing relaxation of procedural strictures where substantial compliance is shown, citing Valdecantos v. People and Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines v. Tangal-Salvana for the proposition that strict adherence yields to substantial compliance in appropriate cases.

On the merits, the Court applied the familiar standard that a motion to dismiss admits the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and that dismissal for failure to state a cause of action turns on the sufficiency of the material allegations, not their veracity, as explained in Dabuco v. Court of Appeals and Suyom v. Collantes. The Court identified the three general elements of a cause of action and the specific requirements of Art. 649 of the Civil Code for an easement of right-of-way: that the dominant estate be surrounded by other immovables with no adequate outlet to a public highway, that proper indemnity be payable, and that the isolation not result from acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate. The Court found that the complaint, when read together with Annexes A, A-1, and A-2 (the subdivision plan and photographs), plainly alleged that the school’s only access to the public highway was the sixty-one square meter Lot 4 which abuts Citihomes’ major access road, and that the school was bounded by other immovables. Those annexes thus constituted material allegations sufficient to satisfy the requisites of Art. 649 and to entitle petitioners to relief if the allegations proved true.

The Court faulted the RTC for relying on matters outside the complaint in reaching dismissal, noting the settled rule that the trial court should not inquire into the truth of a complai

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms