Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50680:gr-166301-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:28:15+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 166301 - ST. MICHAEL SCHOOL OF CAVITE, INC., ET AL. v. MASAITO DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.
ST. MICHAEL SCHOOL OF CAVITE, INC. and SPOUSES CRISANTO S. CLAVERIA and GLORIA M. CLAVERIA, Petitioners, v. MASAITO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and REXLON REALTY GROUP, INC., Respondents.
The core issue in this Petition for Review under Rule 45 is what constitutes a sufficient cause of action for a complaint for easement of right-of-way. Petitioners assail the August 13, 2004 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85558, dismissing their petition for defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and the November 23, 2004 CA Resolution2 rejecting their plea for reconsideration. In effect, the dismissal of petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. BCV-2001-60 before the Bacoor, Cavite Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 was upheld by the CA.
Petitioner St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc. (St. Michael) is a duly registered non-stock corporation3 owned by petitioners-spouses Crisanto S. Claveria and Gloria M. Claveria. It is represented by petitioner Gloria M. Claveria. Respondents Masaito Development Corporation (Masaito) and Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. (Rexlon) are domestic corporations that own, operate, and manage Citihomes Molino IV, Bacoor, Cavite (Citihomes). St. Michael is located outside the northern perimeter fence of Citihomes. Its passageway occupies a portion of the 61-square meter lot described as Lot 4, Block 7, Phase 1 of Citihomes. The gate to the school is located at the subdivision's northern perimeter fence and is the only entrance and exit for the entire school population.
On July 28, 1998, Rexlon informed petitioners that the value of the Citihomes lots when fully developed was PhP 3,872 per square meter as appraised by the Home Insurance and Guarantee Corporation.4 In a letter dated January 29, 2001, Masaito advised petitioners to purchase Lots 1-9, Block 7, Phase 1, fronting the school at PhP 3,579,000.5 On April 6, 2001, Masaito sent another offer to sell Lot 4, Block 7 of the subdivision with the right-of-way through the private roads/drainage facilities of Citihomes at the price of PhP 2 Million. Petitioners refused both proposals, reasoning that the school did not need the entire area mentioned in the first proposal. St. Michael also said that the second offer was grossly overpriced.
Petitioners, with four other homeowners, filed a complaint against respondents before the Bacoor, Cavite RTC, Branch 19 entitled St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc., Spouses Crisanto S. Claveria and Gloria M. Claveria, Pancho R. Navo, Vivencio B. Asuncion, Isaurito S. Hernandez and Elias Namit v. Masaito Development Corporation and Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. for easement of right-of-way with damages under Article 649 of the Civil Code and preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO).
The trial court issued a TRO on June 5, 20016 for 72 hours which was extended to June 24, 2001 through the June 13, 20017 Order enjoining respondents from blocking the passageway and school gate of St. Michael. On July 17, 2001, respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners failed to state a cause of action against them.
On July 29, 2002, the RTC issued an order,8 dismissing for lack of cause of action the complaint as to Pancho R. Navo, Vivencio Asuncion, Isaurito S. Hernandez, and Elias Namit, as plaintiffs a quo, and denying petitioners' application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
On October 9, 2002, respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the July 29, 2002 RTC Order, on the grounds that (1) St. Michael was not a real party in interest; and (2) petitioners-spouses failed to state a cause of action.
1. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping [did] not fully comply with [Section 4, Rule 7] of the Rules of Court, because it failed to give the assurance that the allegations of the petition are true and correct based on authentic records.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 4, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH, ACCORDING TO ITS INTERPRETATION, REQUIRES PETITIONERS TO STILL SUBMIT AN AMENDED VERIFICATION STATING THEREIN THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT NOT ONLY OF THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BUT ALSO BASED ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS DESPITE CLEAR COMPLIANCE BY PETITIONERS OF THE SAID PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE THREE (3) DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THEIR URGENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2004.
On the first issue, petitioners aver that Gloria M. Claveria is expressly authorized by her co-petitioners to represent them in filing the petition for certiorari with the CA, evidenced by her Affidavit,15 a Special Power of Attorney, and Secretary's Certificate. They claim that there was no need for them to submit an Amended Verification as the three aforementioned documents satisfied the requirement.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records x x x .A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
(3) Secretary's Certificate18 signed by Sanett M. Claveria, Corporate Secretary of St. Michael, attesting that Mrs. Gloria M. Claveria is authorized to represent St. Michael as approved in a special meeting of the board of directors dated September 1, 2004.
Although petitioners did not file their amended pleading to include the special power of attorney or board resolution authorizing Gloria M. Claveria to represent her co-petitioners, they, however, attached to their Urgent Motion for Reconsideration the special power of attorney; authorization signed by Crisanto S. Claveria for Gloria M. Claveria to make, sign, and execute all documents pertaining to the case; and the Board Resolution authorizing Gloria M. Claveria to represent the corporation. The submission of authorization, special power of attorney and certification issued by the corporate secretary is considered substantial compliance of the requirements under Rule 7, Sec. 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. We thus hold that petitioners were able to substantially comply with the requirements under the Rules of Court.
On the second issue. In its July 29, 2002 Order, the RTC resolved respondents' Motion to Dismiss by holding that plaintiffs Pancho Navo, Vivencio Asuncion, Isaurito Hernandez, and Elias Namit, as parents of some of the students in petitioners' school, have no cause of action to file the complaint for right-of-way. It ruled that the claimant in such an action must be the owner of a dominant estate and as such, the parents were not real parties-in-interest.
In its September 25, 2003 Order, the RTC resolved respondents' Motion for Reconsideration by ruling that St. Michael is not a registered owner of any property that is the subject matter of the easement case, hence not a real party-in-interest. It thus dismissed the case because petitioners failed to state a cause of action against respondents.
Petitioners claim that the lower court's orders are baseless. They argue that concrete evidence is necessary for a reliable judgment on the merits.
Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the initiatory pleading does not aver the first two basic requisites for the establishment of a legal easement of right-of-way: (1) that the dominant property is surrounded by estates of others and (2) there is no adequate outlet to a public highway. The rest of the co-plaintiffs, they point out, did not even allege if they are co-owners or possessors of any real right over the estate of the petitioners-spouses which is a requisite for the right to demand the establishment of a legal easement of right-of-way over a servient estate.
Three elements must be present for a complaint to state a cause of action: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violating said legal right.25 For a complaint to state a cause of action in an easement case, more specifically, Art. 649 of the Civil Code has laid down the following requirements: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) there is payment of proper indemnity; and (3) the isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate.
We rule that the Complaint satisfies these three elements and thus sufficiently alleges a cause of action. The Complaint, first, asserts that petitioners have a right to an easement of right-of-way that cuts across respondents' property; second, it refers to respondents' correlative obligation not to fence off and close the single gate which is used as the only entry and exit points of the school population; and third, it refers to respondents' expansion and excessive terms and conditions, constituting the acts violating petitioners' right. We thus hold that the Complaint's material allegations are enough to entitle petitioners to a favorable judgment if these are assumed to be true.
Pars. 11 and 21-A of the Complaint as aforequoted confusingly refer both to a major "access road" and the sixty-one (61) square meter lot (Lot 4, Block 7 of Citihomes) as an immediate and adequate outlet to the public highway. The paragraphs are not equivocal about petitioner school's lack of an adequate outlet to a public highway and give the impression that such road is an adequate outlet to a public highway.
A complete examination of the Complaint, however, unmistakably shows petitioners' sufficient cause of action. To be more precise, Annexes "A," "A-1," and "A-2" plainly demonstrate that the requisites for a legal easement of right-of-way under Art. 649 of the Code have been met.
Annex "A" of the Complaint which is the location plan of Citihomes clearly shows that the school's only access to the public highway is Lot 4, Block 7 that abuts the major "access road" of Citihomes which in turn is connected to the public highway. The photographs (Annexes "A-1"28 and Annex "A-2"29 of the Complaint) showing the school building and adjoining areas easily reveal that it is bounded by other immovable properties, which explains why it only has one entry and exit point. Without the right-of-way on Lot 4, Block 7 of Citihomes, the school has no adequate access to a public highway. Annex "A," as well as Annexes "A-1" and "A-2" of the Complaint, supports petitioners' averments as these show that the school has a lone entry and exit point which is the right-of-way in front of the school. The reference to a major access road, therefore, must be understood in the context of all the allegations of fact contained in the Complaint. Petitioners' cause of action is not solely found in the paragraphs referred to. The annexes cited likewise form part of the material allegations of the Complaint. Pars. 11 and 21-A of the Complaint and Annexes "A," "A-1," and "A-2" read together, the averments of the Complaint amply show a sufficient cause of action as prescribed by Art. 649 of the Code.
It is settled that a motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.31 Such being the case, the RTC erred when it apparently considered matters not embodied in the Complaint. The Complaint, contrary to the lower court's Order, does not aver that the properties of petitioners-spouses are bounded by public roads. The location plan and photographs of the subject lot and the school building appended to the Complaint, without doubt, demonstrate that the lot and school building are enclosed, not by public roads, but by other lots in the subdivision.
The Court has previously held that it is not for the trial court to inquire into the truth or falsity of a complaint's allegations before a hearing on its merits.32 In ordering the dismissal, it is apparent that the trial court relied on matters not encompassed by the Complaint. This is proscribed by the rules and jurisprudence. The dismissal of the Complaint has thus no leg to stand on.
In the same matter, the trial court erred when it ruled that the school, not being the registered owner of the subject lot, is not a real party-in-interest.
It will suffice under Art. 649 of the Civil Code that "any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way." Clearly, the school is a real party-in-interest since it has established a right to use the passageway for the benefit of its students. More importantly, the records reveal that petitioners-spouses are the owners of the lot where the school is located and they are the incorporators, trustees, and officers of St. Michael.33 They are also authorized to represent the corporation in the complaint and subsequent actions. Thus, petitioners are real parties-in-interest and we rule that the dismissal of the complaint is patently erroneous and bereft of any legal basis. Petitioners must be allowed to pursue their case before the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed August 13, 2004 and November 23, 2004 CA Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 85558 and the July 29, 2002 and September 25, 2003 Orders of the Bacoor, Cavite RTC, Branch 19 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is directed to reinstate petitioners' complaint and conduct further proceedings in Civil Case No. BCV-2001-60.
** Additional member as per Special Order No. 485 dated February 14, 2008.
1 Rollo, pp. 46-47. Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Magdangal M. De Leon.
19 Valdecantos v. People, G.R. No. 148852, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 474, 481-482.
20 Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines v. Tangal-SalvaÃ±a, G.R. No. 175020, October 4, 2007, 534 SCRA 721.
21 Valdecantos, supra at 482.
22 379 Phil. 939, 949 (2000).
23 Suyom, et al. v. Hon. Judge Collantes, et al., 161 Phil. 667 (1976).
25 Sta. Clara Homeowners' Association v. Sps. Gaston, 425 Phil. 221 (2002).
31 Vergel De Dios v. Bristol Laboratories Phils., Inc., 154 Phil. 311 (1974).
32 Galeon v. Galeon, et al., 151 Phil. 565 (1973); citing Garcon v. Redemptorist Fathers, 123 Phil. 1192 (1966).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 649
 Art. 649
 Art. 649
 Art. 649
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.