Case Summary (G.R. No. 197380)
Petitioner
Petitioner alleged ownership of three parcels of land formerly evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. N‑5500, 224174 and N‑4234, claimed that her second husband (Lamberto C. Santos) caused transfer of those properties to his alleged daughter, respondent Gran, through void and voidable documents (including a Deed of Sale), and sought annulment of the sale, revocation/reconveyance of title, surrender of the properties and damages.
Respondents
Respondent Gran moved to dismiss the complaint on procedural and substantive grounds, arguing prescription (invoking the ten‑year period for written contracts under Article 1144, Civil Code) and failure to plead and identify the void instrument(s) sought to be annulled, including absence of the Deed of Sale as an essential pleading requirement. The Register of Deeds was joined as necessary for relief affecting registered titles.
Key Dates
Filing of complaint: January 9, 2006 (amended March 10, 2006). RTC Order dismissing amended complaint: July 6, 2006. CA Decision affirming dismissal: January 10, 2011. CA Resolution denying reconsideration (and rejecting late submission of the Deed of Sale): June 22, 2011. Supreme Court decision: October 8, 2014. Applicable constitution for the decision: the 1987 Philippine Constitution; controlling statutes and rules are the Civil Code and the Rules of Court.
Applicable Law
Primary procedural law: Rules of Court — Rule 16 (motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action), Rule 8 (allegation of ultimate facts), Rule 33 (demurrer to evidence). Substantive law invoked: Civil Code provisions governing prescription (Article 1144 cited in argument) and implied trust for property acquired through fraud (Article 1456). Governing jurisprudential distinctions (failure to state a cause of action vs. insufficiency of factual basis) were applied as developed in prior Supreme Court decisions cited in the record.
Facts (as alleged in the amended complaint)
Petitioner averred that she had been the registered owner of three parcels prior to their transfer to Gran; that she had a second husband, Lamberto, who purportedly succeeded in transferring the properties to Gran via void/voidable documents; that Gran’s birth records were allegedly forged to present Gran as petitioner’s daughter; that the Deed of Sale could not be located despite efforts; and that the transfers were discovered in or about November 2005. Petitioner prayed for annulment of the sale, reconveyance/surrender of the properties and damages.
Procedural History
Respondent Gran filed a motion to dismiss arguing prescription and failure to state a cause of action because the allegedly void Deed of Sale was not attached and the challenged documents were not identified with sufficient particularity. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and also ruled that the action had prescribed and that the TCTs could not be collaterally attacked. The CA affirmed dismissal but on the ground of insufficiency of factual basis, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration when petitioner attempted to attach, for the first time, a copy of the contested Deed of Sale.
Issue Presented
Whether the dismissal of petitioner’s amended complaint should be sustained, and if so, on what ground(s): failure to state a cause of action, insufficiency of factual basis, prescription, or some combination thereof.
Legal Distinction Between Grounds for Dismissal
The Court emphasized the procedural and substantive distinction between (a) failure to state a cause of action — an insufficiency of the pleading which is properly raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 16, Sec. 1(g); and (b) insufficiency of factual basis (lack of cause of action) — a defect concerning the evidence that may be raised by demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has presented his evidence. The Court reiterated established doctrine: at the preliminary stage, without presentation of evidence, a court cannot properly dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of factual basis; the proper remedy at that stage is motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
Court’s Determination of Proper Ground
The CA’s reliance on insufficiency of factual basis was procedurally incorrect because no evidence had been presented and that ground is for demurrer to evidence after the plaintiff’s case. The RTC’s dismissal on the ground of failure to state a cause of action was procedurally proper and therefore the correct basis for dismissal insofar as the complaint’s allegations were insufficient as a matter of law.
Analysis of the Amended Complaint’s Sufficiency
The Supreme Court analyzed the four corners of the amended complaint and attached documents and concluded that petitioner failed to plead ultimate facts sufficient to establish (a) her ownership of the subject properties prior to transfer, and (b) the factual circumstances rendering the transfer void or voidable. The complaint alleged ownership in conclusory terms without tracing the root of title or attaching prior certificates of title in petitioner’s name; the attached TCTs were in Gran’s name and what little reference existed merely reflected petitioner acting as representative when Gran was a minor, not an ownership interest. Further, the complaint alleged the transfer was made by “void and voidable” documents without identifying or describing those documents or setting forth ultimate facts showing why they were void or voidable. The Court reiterated established pleading principles: complaints must allege ultimate facts, not mere conclusions of law; general assertions that a contract is void or voidable are insufficient unless supported by factual allegations showing invalidity (citing Abad and related authorities).
On the Late Submission of the Deed of Sale
Petitioner attached a copy of the Deed of Sale for the first time in a motion for reconsideration before the CA. The CA denied admission of that document as untimely and prejudicial to respondent’s right to due process. The Supreme Court found no persuasive counter‑argument in petitioner’s petition to justify admission at that stage and tr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 197380)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 197380) filed before the Supreme Court assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 10, 2011 and Resolution dated June 22, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 87849.
- Lower court docketing: Complaint for annulment of sale and revocation of title filed January 9, 2006 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, docketed as Civil Case No. 2018-06; Amended Complaint filed March 10, 2006.
- Respondent Gran filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 24, 2006.
- RTC issued Order dated July 6, 2006 dismissing the Amended Complaint (Records, pp. 105-109).
- Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Decision on January 10, 2011 sustaining dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of factual basis (rollo, pp. 26-33).
- Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration on February 21, 2011 attaching the questioned Deed of Sale (CA rollo, pp. 98-105; attached deed dated January 20, 1984, id. at 106).
- CA denied the motion for reconsideration in Resolution dated June 22, 2011 (rollo, pp. 23-24).
- Supreme Court resolved the petition by Decision dated October 8, 2014 (745 Phil. 171), denying the petition and affirming the CA Decision and Resolution with modification: Amended Complaint dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and for prescription.
Parties
- Petitioner: Eliza ZuAiga‑Santos, represented by her attorney‑in‑fact Nympha Z. Sales (Special Power of Attorney dated April 5, 2005; records at id. at 39-40).
- Private respondent: Maria Divina Gracia Santos‑Gran (substituted by her compulsory heirs — Reino S. Gran, Rosauro Miguel S. Gran, Renee Patricia S. Gran, Bianca Louise S. Gran, and Lamberto Angelo S. Gran — per Resolution dated September 23, 2013, id. at 115-116).
- Official respondent: Register of Deeds of Marikina City.
- Note on petitioner substitution: Petitioner later substituted by her legal heirs Danilo B. Lasmarias and Derrick B. Lasmarias per Resolution dated February 17, 2014 (rollo, pp. 133-134).
Factual Allegations (as pleaded in the Amended Complaint)
- Petitioner alleged she was the registered owner of three parcels of land in the Municipality of Montalban, Province of Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. N‑5500, 224174, and N‑4234 prior to their transfer to private respondent Gran (records, pleadings and annexes).
- Petitioner alleged she had a second husband, Lamberto C. Santos, with whom she did not have any children.
- Petitioner claimed she was forced to take care of Lamberto’s alleged daughter, Gran, and alleged that Gran’s birth certificate was forged to make it appear that Gran was petitioner’s daughter.
- Petitioner alleged that pursuant to void and voidable documents (specifically a Deed of Sale), Lamberto succeeded in transferring the subject properties to Gran.
- Petitioner alleged that despite diligent efforts, the Deed of Sale could not be located at the time of filing.
- Petitioner discovered the properties were transferred to Gran sometime in November 2005 and prayed that Gran surrender the subject properties and pay damages, including costs of suit.
- Attached certificates of title to the Amended Complaint were in the name of Gran; TCT numbering error noted in the Amended Complaint (TCT N‑4234 erroneously stated as N‑4243 in the Amended Complaint, records, id. at 36).
- The Amended Complaint contained averments that the alleged sale and transfer were through “void” and “voidable” documents, but did not properly identify or attach the Deed of Sale at that stage.
RTC Ruling (Order dated July 6, 2006)
- RTC granted Gran’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action (Records, pp. 105-109; penned by Judge Josephine Zarate‑Fernandez).
- RTC reasoning:
- The Deed of Sale sought to be nullified was an essential and indispensable part of petitioner’s cause of action and was not attached to the pleading (id. at 107).
- Certificates of title covering the subject properties cannot be collaterally attacked.
- The action was based on a written contract and, under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, had prescribed (id. at 108).
Court of Appeals Ruling (Decision dated January 10, 2011; Resolution dated June 22, 2011)
- CA Decision:
- Sustained dismissal of petitioner’s Amended Complaint but on the ground of insufficiency of factual basis rather than failure to state a cause of action (rollo, pp. 26-33; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring).
- CA disagreed with the RTC’s finding regarding failure to state a cause of action because the Amended Complaint averred: (a) petitioner had a right over the subject properties being registered owner prior to transfer to Gran; (b) Lamberto transferred the subject properties to Gran through void and voidable documents; and (c) Gran’s refusal to surrender the properties violated petitioner’s rights (rollo, p. 30).
- CA ruled the action had not prescribed, reasoning that an action for nullity of void deeds is imprescriptible (rollo, p. 31).
- CA nevertheless held that because the Deed of Sale was not attached to the Amended Complaint, the court could not determine whether petitioner’s signature therein was a forgery; thus there was no basis to order surrender or reconveyance (rollo, p. 31).
- CA Resolution (June 22, 2011):
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration attaching the Deed of Sale dated January 20, 1984 was denied.
- CA held that admitting the contested Deed of Sale at that late stage would be contrary to Gran’s right to due process (rollo, pp. 23-24).
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the dismissal of petitioner’s Amended Complaint should be sustained.
Supreme Court Ruling — Dispositive Holding
- Peti