Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
G.R. No. 171531 January 30, 2009
GUARANTEED HOMES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
HEIRS OF MARIA P. VALDEZ, (EMILIA V. YUMUL and VICTORIA V. MOLINO), HEIRS OF SEVERINA P. TUGADE (ILUMINADA and LEONORA P. TUGADE, HEIRS OF ETANG P. GATMIN (LUDIVINA G. DELA CRUZ (by and through ALFONSO G. DELA CRUZ), HILARIA G. COBERO and ALFREDO G. COBERO) and SIONY G. TEPOL (by and through ELENA T. RIVAS and ELESIO TEPOL, JR.), AS HEIRS OF DECEDENT PABLO PASCUA, Respondents.
Facts:
The descendants of Pablo Pascua filed a complaint (in their complaint respondents alleged that Pablo died intestate sometime in June 1945 and was survived by his four children, one of whom was the deceased Cipriano) seeking reconveyance of a parcel of land with an area of 23.7229 hectares situated in Cabitaugan, Subic, Zambales with Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 404 in the name of Pablo. In the alternative, the heirs of Valdez prayed that damages be awarded in their favor.
OCT No. 404 was attached as one of the annexes of respondents’ complaint. It contained several annotations in the memorandum of encumbrances which showed that the property had already been sold by Pablo during his lifetime to Alejandria Marquinez and Restituto Morales.
It was further averred in the complaint that Jorge Pascua, Sr., son of Cipriano, filed a petition before the RTC of Olongapo City for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 404. However, the RTC denied the petition and held that petitioner was already the owner of the land, noting that the failure to annotate the subsequent transfer of the property to it at the back of OCT No. 404 did not affect its title to the property.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, more than 28 years having elapsed from the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the complaint states no cause of action as it is an innocent purchaser for value, it having relied on the clean title of the spouses Rodolfo.
The RTC granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
The appellate court further held that the ruling of the RTC that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value is contrary to the allegations in respondents’ complaint.
Hence, the present petition for review.
Issue:
The sole issue before this Court revolves around the propriety of the RTC’s granting of the motion to dismiss and conversely the tenability of the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC’s ruling.
Held:
The petition is meritorious.
It is well-settled that 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.
Firstly, the complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242 in the name of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest, or any circumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred that petitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would impel it to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo.
Secondly, while the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales executed by Cipriano alone despite the existence of the other heirs of Pablo, is not binding on such other heirs, nevertheless, it has operative effect under Section 44 of the Property Registration Decree (SEC. 44. Statutory Liens Affecting Title).
Lastly, respondents’ claim against the Assurance Fund also cannot prosper. Section 101 of P.D. No. 1529 clearly provides that the Assurance Fund shall not be liable for any loss, damage or deprivation of any right or interest in land which may have been caused by a breach of trust, whether express, implied or constructive. Even assuming arguendo that they are entitled to claim against the Assurance Fund, the respondents’ claim has already prescribed since any action for compensation against the Assurance Fund must be brought within a period of six (6) years from the time the right to bring such action first occurred, which in this case was in 1967.
The petition is GRANTED.
No comments:
Post a Comment