CASE DIGEST : VITANGCOL VS NEW VISTAS PROPERTIES

[G.R. NO. 176014 : September 17, 2009]

ALICE VITANGCOL and NORBERTO VITANGCOL, Petitioners, v. NEW VISTA PROPERTIES, INC., MARIA ALIPIT, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS : Subject of the instant controversy is Lot No. 1702 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (25311) 2528 of the Calamba, Laguna Registry in the name of Maria A. Alipit and Clemente A. Alipit, married to Milagros

On June 18, 1989, Maria and Clemente A. Alipit, with the marital consent of the latters wife, executed a Special Power of Attorney[4] (SPA) constituting Milagros A. De Guzman as their attorney-in-fact to sell their property described in the SPA as located at Bo. Latian, Calamba, Laguna covered by TCT No. (25311) 2538 with Lot No. 1735 consisting of 242,540 square meters more or less. Pursuant to her authority under the SPA, De Guzman executed on August 9, 1989 a Deed of Absolute Sale[5] conveying to New Vista Properties, Inc. (New Vista) a parcel of land with an area of 242,540 square meters situated in Calamba, Laguna.

Following the sale, New Vista immediately entered the subject lot, fenced it with cement posts and barbed wires, and posted a security guard to deter trespassers. he controversy arose more than a decade later when respondent New Vista learned that the parcel of land it paid for and occupied, i.e., Lot No. 1702, was being claimed by petitioners Vitangcol on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale for Lot No. 1702 under TCT No. (25311) 2528 entered into on August 14, 2001 by and between Vitangcol and Maria Alipit. Consequent to the Vitangcol-Maria Alipit sale, TCT No. (25311) 2528 was canceled and TCT No. T-482731 issued in its stead in favor of Vitangcol on August 15, 2001.

Alarmed by the foregoing turn of events, New Vista lost no time in protecting its rights by, first, filing a notice of adverse claim over TCT No. T-482731, followed by commencing a suit for quieting of title before the RTC. By Order of November 25, 2003, the trial court denied Vitangcols and Maria Alipits separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. As there held by the RTC, the amended complaint[10] sufficiently stated a cause of action as shown therein that after the purchase and compliance with its legal obligations relative thereto, New Vista was immediately placed in possession of the subject lot, but which Maria Alipit, by herself, later sold to Vitangcol to New Vistas prejudice

On August 14, 2006, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision reversing the December 21, 2004 RTC Order

ISSUE : WON THE DECISION AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE TWELFTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER CHALLENGE ARE CONTRARY TO LAW

HELD : The Rules of Court defines cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. It contains three elements: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff; (2) a correlative duty on the part of the defendant to respect that right; and (3) a breach of the defendants duty.[19] It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff a right to file an action in court for recovery of damages or other relief.[20].

Lack of cause of action is, however, not a ground for a dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, for the determination of a lack of cause of action can only be made during and/or after trial. What is dismissible via that mode is failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides that a motion may be made on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.

The rule is that in a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiffs complaint.[21] When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.[22] However, this principle of hypothetical admission admits of exceptions. Among others, there is no hypothetical admission of conclusions or interpretations of law which are false; legally impossible facts; facts inadmissible in evidence; facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded;[23] allegations which the court will take judicial notice are not true;[24] and where the motion to dismiss was heard with submission of evidence which discloses facts sufficient to defeat the claim.[25]