G.R. No. L-30167 - AUGUST 1984 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-30167August 31, 1984Arcadio Domaoal vs. Teodora Bea, et al. G.R. No. L-40108August 31, 1984Cesar B. Haguisan vs. Ostervaldo Z. Emilia, et al. G.R. No. L-42526August 31, 1984Mario Garcia vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-43105August 31, 1984Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-43647August 31, 1984Eustaquio Barbas vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-45084August 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Expedito Lopez G.R. No. L-51901August 31, 1984Simplicio Alvarez vs. Sixto R. Guanzon, et al. G.R. No. L-54158August 31, 1984Pagasa Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-59167August 31, 1984Vicmico Industrial Workers Asso., et al. vs. Carmelo Noriel, et al. G.R. No. L-59952August 31, 1984Ruby H. Gardner, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62284August 31, 1984Dolores P. Poral vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-62431-33August 31, 1984Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62593August 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Augusto Pizarro, et al. G.R. No. L-63805August 31, 1984Republic Planters Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-64931August 31, 1984Universal Far East Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-66242August 31, 1984Cornelio Labrada vs. Sinforiano A. Monsanto, et al. G.R. No. L-44223August 30, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Dominador D. Angsioko G.R. No. L-58193August 30, 1984Leonora A. Punongbayan vs. Gregorio G. Pineda, et al. G.R. No. L-65152August 30, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Federico Mercado G.R. No. L-65464August 30, 1984Leandro D. Valisno vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-32032August 28, 1984Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of Lanao Del Norte, Branch Iv, et al. G.R. No. L-36445August 28, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Narciso Pizarro G.R. No. L-36948August 28, 1984Director of Lands vs. Epifanio Romamban, et al. G.R. No. L-39378August 28, 1984Generosa Ayson-Simon vs. Nicolas Adamos, et al. G.R. No. L-55808August 28, 1984Leandro Alazas vs. Juan Y. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-57555August 28, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Teresa Jalandoni G.R. No. L-63614August 28, 1984Danilo Gonzalez, Jr., et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-63817August 28, 1984Corazon Legamia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-66596August 28, 1984New Zealand Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. L-57809-10August 28, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Quiban G.R. Nos. L-61554-55July 31, 1984Tomasa Vda. De Jacob vs. Ricardo C. Puno, et al. G.R. No. L-62119August 27, 1984Ignacio Del Castillo, et al. vs. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al. A.M. No. L-1411August 24, 1984Obdulia L. Prado vs. Eliseo A. Razon A.M. No. L-2001August 24, 1984Ricardo S. Ocampo vs. Alfredo N. Cuba G.R. No. L-26273August 24, 1984Silverio Lumawag vs. Dominador Solis G.R. No. L-30487August 24, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Protacio Danes, et al. G.R. No. L-37837August 24, 1984People of the Philippines vs. J. Leodegario L. Mogol, et al. G.R. No. L-39253August 24, 1984Rey Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-46005August 24, 1984Basilisa Generoso, et al. vs. J. Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-48257August 24, 1984Rogelio Mania vs. Josefina Vda. De Segarra, et al. G.R. No. L-52171August 24, 1984Aning Sucdad, et al. vs. J. Sergio N. Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-52178August 24, 1984Demetrio Ernesto, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-55999August 24, 1984Salvacion Serrano Ladanga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-57582August 24, 1984Metro Port Service, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-58579August 24, 1984Cecilia Elizalde-Landegger vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-58794August 24, 1984Lydia Terrado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62408August 24, 1984Luis Tan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-37147August 22, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Policronio Escalante, et al. G.R. No. L-42942August 22, 1984Vivencio Omison vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-61023August 22, 1984Nat'l.Treasurer of the Philippines vs. Paulina Perez Vda. De Meimban, et al. G.R. No. L-66123August 22, 1984Manila Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-63318August 18, 1984Phil. Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Com. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Arcadio Domaoal vs. Teodora Bea, et al.Cesar B. Haguisan vs. Ostervaldo Z. Emilia, et al.Mario Garcia vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Eustaquio Barbas vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., et al.People of the Philippines vs. Expedito LopezSimplicio Alvarez vs. Sixto R. Guanzon, et al.Pagasa Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Vicmico Industrial Workers Asso., et al. vs. Carmelo Noriel, et al.Ruby H. Gardner, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Dolores P. Poral vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Augusto Pizarro, et al.Republic Planters Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Universal Far East Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Cornelio Labrada vs. Sinforiano A. Monsanto, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Dominador D. AngsiokoLeonora A. Punongbayan vs. Gregorio G. Pineda, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Federico MercadoLeandro D. Valisno vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of First Instance of Lanao Del Norte, Branch Iv, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Narciso PizarroDirector of Lands vs. Epifanio Romamban, et al.Generosa Ayson-Simon vs. Nicolas Adamos, et al.Leandro Alazas vs. Juan Y. Reyes, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Teresa JalandoniDanilo Gonzalez, Jr., et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Corazon Legamia vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtNew Zealand Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Carlito QuibanTomasa Vda. De Jacob vs. Ricardo C. Puno, et al.Ignacio Del Castillo, et al. vs. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al.Obdulia L. Prado vs. Eliseo A. RazonRicardo S. Ocampo vs. Alfredo N. CubaSilverio Lumawag vs. Dominador SolisPeople of the Philippines vs. Protacio Danes, et al.People of the Philippines vs. J. Leodegario L. Mogol, et al.Rey Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Basilisa Generoso, et al. vs. J. Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., et al.Rogelio Mania vs. Josefina Vda. De Segarra, et al.Aning Sucdad, et al. vs. J. Sergio N. Cruz, et al.Demetrio Ernesto, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Salvacion Serrano Ladanga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Metro Port Service, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Cecilia Elizalde-Landegger vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Lydia Terrado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Luis Tan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Policronio Escalante, et al.Vivencio Omison vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Nat'l.Treasurer of the Philippines vs. Paulina Perez Vda. De Meimban, et al.Manila Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Phil. Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Com.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-30167 August 31, 1984
ARCADIO DOMAOAL,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
TEODORA BEA, JOAQUIN REYES and his wife MARIA ARENAS, SALVADOR ARENAS and his wife ANGELINA PECHAY, and HERMOGENES G. BAUTISTA and his wife TEOFILA SONSING,defendants-appellees.
Niceto C. Joaquin for plaintiff-appellant.
Maximo F. Belmonte & Associates for the heirs of Arcadio Domaoal.
Sucaldito & Narajos for defendants-appellants.
RELOVA,J.:
This is an appeal by petitioner Arcadio Domaoal from the order, dated May 9, 1968, of the then Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch 11, in Civil Case No. 586, dismissing the complaint as well as from the order, dated July 24, 1968, denying the motion for reconsideration.
Records show that on May 19, 1965, herein petitioner filed an action for reconveyance and/or damages against herein private respondents based upon fraud allegedly committed by the latter in obtaining Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-92 on February 10, 1960 and for which Original Certificate of Title No. V-681 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Cotabato on May 27, 1960 in favor of respondent Teodora Bea and in subsequently transferring it to respondent Joaquin Reyes who, in turn, conveyed it to Salvador Arenas and Hermogenes Bautista. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-12825 was issued by the Register of Deeds to Salvador Arenas and Hermogenes Bautista who, thereafter, mortgaged the same property to Joaquin Reyes. Petitioner averred that all these sales or transfers were made without valuable considerations and in favor of immediate relatives. Further, petitioner alleged that it was only in October 1964 when he discovered the fraud perpetrated by herein private respondents.
In their answer, private respondents interposed the following affirmative defenses which are also grounds for motion to dismiss, namely:
1. That the complaint states no cause of action;
2. That the cause of action, if there be any, had already prescribed,
3. That the plaintiff has no personality to file suit; and,
4. That the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or suit. (p. 54, Record on Appeal)
No preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses was conducted; instead, the parties submitted their memoranda in support of their respective stands. Thereafter, the lower court ruled that "five (5) years have elapsed since the issuance of Patent on May 27, 1960, to the filing of the present action on May 19, 1965; if the plaintiff were the owner of the land, he has no longer any remedy under ordinary circumstance to recover the property itself.ℒαwρhi৷His only remedy is to file a personal action for recovery of damages from the party who registered his property through fraud as held by the Supreme Court in Manotoc vs. Choco, 30 Phil. 628." (pp. 54-56, Record on Appeal). As a consequence, the complaint was dismissed with costs against petitioner.
In his brief, petitioner claims that the lower court erred (1) in dismissing the complaint and denying the motion for reconsideration without considering the fact that both combatant litigants have not yet presented any evidence to support their contentions; (2) in holding and declaring that the action of plaintiff is primarily an action to nullify the title issued in favor of defendants; (3) in holding and declaring that plaintiff is a third person in contemplation of the government as grantor and defendants as grantees; and, (4) in holding and declaring that defendants are the owners of subject lot.
There is merit in this appeal.
1. The trial court based its order of dismissal principally on private respondents' averments that petitioner's complaint failed to state a cause of action, oblivious of the well-settled rule that "in order to sustain a dismissal on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint, and the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, to constitute a cause of action, is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. For this purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint." (Azur vs. Provincial Board, 27 SCRA 50).
In his complaint, petitioner alleged that he was the lawful awardee of Lot No. 4374, TS-217, located at Pioneer's Avenue, Dadiangas, General Santos, Cotabato, by virtue of Resolution No. 571 of the Board of Directors of the National Land Settlement Administration dated April 17, 1950, but thru a series of fraud committed by private respondents, respondent Teodora Bea was able to obtain OCT No. V-681, covering the lot in question. Petitioner prayed for the reconveyance of said lot to him The allegations, assuming to be true, constitute a valid cause of action in which the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
2. Considering that petitioner is suing private respondents, based upon a constructive trust or implied trust resulting from the fraud, the complaint must be brought within four (4) years from the discovery of fraud. The averments in the complaint show that petitioner discovered the fraud committed by private respondents only in October 1964. Thus, the filing of the case on May 19,1965 is well within the prescriptive period.
3. The allegation that inasmuch as the subject lot was previously a public land, the proper party to bring the suit is the Director of Lands, thru the Solicitor General and not petitioner, should be taken with caution. The trial court should have conducted a preliminary hearing thereon because the action brought by petitioner is one for reconveyance of real property based on constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud and it has no way of determining against whom fraud was committed unless a hearing is held. The assertion of private respondents would be true if the fraud or misrepresentation was committed against the State or in violation of the law but if it was committed against petitioner in breach of their understanding, then the latter is the right party to bring the suit.
4. Records reveal that the action is for reconveyance and was brought within the prescriptive period; hence, the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
WHEREFORE,the order of the lower court, dated May 9, 1968, dismissing the complaint; and the order, dated July 24, 1968, denying the motion for reconsideration are herebySET ASIDE,and the case isREMANDEDto the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.