Heirs of Dolleton vs Fil-Estate Managlot (Short title) year after its issuance and actions assailing fraudulent titles

its issuance and actions assailing fraudulent titles should

GR # 170750 | April 7, 2009 be filed within 10 years after the said titles were issued but in this
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court case, it took 30 years before petitioners filed their case.
Petitioner: Heirs of Tomas Dolleton, Heraclio Orcullo, Remedios San Pedro, Heirs of
Bernardo Millama, Heirs of Agapito Villanueva, Heirs of Hilarion Garcia, Serafina Sp Hence, this petition.
Argana, And Heirs of Mariano Villanueva
Respondent: Fil-Estate Management Inc., et al. and The Register of Deeds of Las ISSUE/S
Pias City 1. W/N the RTC properly granted respondents motion to dismiss
(Rule 2, Rules on Civil Procedure)
PROVISIONS
DOCTRINE
The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint Rule 2
alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the
sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. Every ordinary civil action must be based
on a cause of action. (n)
FACTS
- The Heirs of Tomas Dolleton, Heraclio Orcullo, Remedios San Pedro, et al., Section 2. Cause of action, defined. A cause of action is the act or omission by
Heirs of Bernardo Millama, Heirs of Agapito Villanueva, et al., Heirs of which a party violates a right of another. (n)
Hilarion Garcia, et al., Serafina SP Argana, et al., and Heirs of Mariano
Villanueva, et al. filed before the RTC separate Complaints for Quieting of RULING & RATIO
Title and/or Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Preliminary 1. NO
Injunction/Restraining Order and Damages against Fil-Estate Management
Inc., Spouses Arturo E. Dy and Susan Dy, Megatop Realty Development, - Respondents seek the dismissal of petitioners Complaints for failure to state
Inc., and the Register of Deeds of Las Pias. a cause of action.
o The Complaints were later consolidated. o This contention is untenable.
- The eight Complaints were similarly worded and contained substantially - Respondents mistakenly construe the allegations in petitioners Complaints.
identical allegations. What petitioners alleged in their Complaints was that while the subject
o That they had been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession properties were not covered by respondents certificates of title,
of the subject properties for more than 90 years until they were nevertheless, respondents forcibly evicted petitioners therefrom.
forcibly ousted by armed men. o It is not simply a question of whether petitioners possession can
o They had cultivated the subject properties and religiously paid the defeat respondents title to registered land. Instead, an initial
real estate taxes for the same. determination has to be made on whether the subject properties
o Spouses Dy cannot rely on Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were in fact covered by respondents certificates of title.
issued by the Registry of Deeds of Las Pias in their names, - Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of action
because the subject properties were not covered by said as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another.
certificates. o Its essential elements are as follows: (1) a right in favor of the
- Respondents filed before the RTC a Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
Application for a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction. created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
They moved for the dismissal of the eight Complaints on the grounds of (1) respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on
prescription; (2) laches; (3) lack of cause of action; and (4) res judicata. the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
- RTC: Granted respondents Motion to Dismiss for all the complaints. The trial constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
court determined that the subject properties were already registered in the plaintiff, for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of
names of respondents, and that petitioners were unable to prove by clear damages or other appropriate relief.
and convincing evidence their title to the said properties. - The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the
- CA: Denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC Resolutions stating that the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The
titles to the subject properties were indefeasible because they were inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations.
registered under the Torrens system. Thus, it could not be said that any - This Court is convinced that each of the Complaints filed by petitioners
claim on the subject properties casts a cloud on their title when they failed to sufficiently stated a cause of action. The Complaints alleged that petitioners
demonstrate a legal or an equitable title to the same. are the owners of the subject properties by acquisitive prescription. As
o In addition, actions had already prescribed. PD 1529 requires that owners thereof, they have the right to remain in peaceful possession of the
an action assailing a certificate of title should be filed within one said properties and, if deprived thereof, they may recover the same.
Page 1 of 2
DISPOSITION Courts ruling on other issues in case ASG asks
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated 16 September 2005 and Resolution dated 9 December 2005 of the Court of Complaints are not barred by prescription and laches
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80927 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the records
of the case be remanded for further proceedings to the Regional Trial Court, Branch While petitioners improperly prayed for the cancellation of respondents TCTs in their
253, of Las Pias City, which is hereby ordered to try and decide the case with Complaints, there is nothing else in the said Complaints that would support the
deliberate speed. conclusion that they are either petitions for reopening and review of the decree of
registration under Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree or actions for
NOTES reconveyance based on implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code. Instead,
petitioners Complaints may be said to be in the nature of an accion reivindicatoria, an
The Complaints, which were later consolidated, were docketed as follows: action for recovery of ownership and possession of the subject properties, from which
they were evicted sometime between 1991 and 1994 by respondents. An accion
1. Civil Case No. L-97-0228, which was filed by the Heirs of Tomas Dolleton reivindicatoria may be availed of within 10 years from dispossession. There is no
covering a parcel of land with an area of 17,681 square meters, located in showing that prescription had already set in when petitioners filed their Complaints in
Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal under Psu- 1997.
235279 approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands on 20 February
1959; It appears from the records that the RTC did not conduct a hearing to receive
2. Civil Case No. L-97-0229, which was filed by Heraclio Orcullo covering two evidence proving that petitioners were guilty of laches. Well-settled is the rule that the
(2) parcels of land with the total areas of 14,429 square meters and 2,105 elements of laches must be proven positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature, a fact
square meters, respectively, located in Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be
Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal under Lots 1 and 2, Psu-169404 approved by the resolved in a motion to dismiss. At this stage, therefore, the dismissal of petitioners
Director of the Bureau of Lands on 4 December 1959; Complaints on the ground of laches is premature. Those issues must be resolved at
3. Civil Case No. L-97-0230, which was filed by Remedios San Pedro, et al., the trial of the case on the merits, wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity
covering a parcel of land with an area of 17,159 square meters, located in to prove their respective claims and defenses.
Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal under Psu-96901 approved by the
Director of the Bureau of Lands on 21 July 1933; Complaints are not barred by res judicata
4. Civil Case No. L-97-0231, which was filed by the Heirs of Bernardo Millama,
et al., covering a parcel of land with an area of 23,359 square meters, There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment
located in Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal under was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of
Psu-96905 approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands on 16 January parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and
1933; subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the
5. Civil Case No. L-97-0236, which was filed by the Heirs of Agapito Villanueva first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted
covering a parcel of land with an area of 10,572 square meters, located in and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. There is
Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal; conclusiveness of judgment. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts
6. Civil Case No. L-97-0237, which was filed by the Heirs of Hilarion Garcia, et and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in
al., covering a parcel of land with an area of 15,372 square meters, located any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a
in Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal under Psu- different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not required but
96920 approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands on 16 January 1933; merely identity of issues.
7. Civil Case No. L-97-0238, which was filed by Serafina SP Argana, et al.,
covering a parcel of land with an area of 29,391 square meters, located in
Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias, Rizal under Psu-
96909 approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands on 18 January 1933;
and
8. Civil Case No. L-97-0239, which was filed by the Heirs of Mariano
Villanueva, et al., covering a parcel of land with an area of 7,454 square
meters, located in Magasawang Mangga, Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Pias,
Rizal under Psu-96910 approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands on
16 January 1933.

Page 2 of 2