Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83710:57932&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:00:12+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 197380, October 08, 2014 - ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS,* REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN FACT, NYMPHA Z. SALES, Petitioners, v. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY, Respondents.
ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS,* REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN FACT, NYMPHA Z. SALES, Petitioners, v. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY, Respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated January 10, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated June 22, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87849 which affirmed the Order4 dated July 6, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 2018-06, dismissing the Amended Complaint for annulment of sale and revocation of title on the ground of insufficiency of factual basis.
On January 9, 2006, petitioner Eliza Zuñiga-Santos (petitioner), through her authorized representative, Nympha Z. Sales,5 filed a Complaint6 for annulment of sale and revocation of title against respondents Maria Divina Gracia Santos-Gran (Gran) and the Register of Deeds of Marikina City before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 2018-06. The said complaint was later amended7 on March 10, 2006 (Amended Complaint).
Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated the matter to the CA.
In a Decision19 dated January 10, 2011, the CA sustained the dismissal of petitioner’s Amended Complaint but on the ground of insufficiency of factual basis.
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration23 and attached, for the first time, a copy of the questioned Deed of Sale24 which she claimed to have recently recovered, praying that the order of dismissal be set aside and the case be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
In a Resolution25 dated June 22, 2011, the CA denied petitioner’s motion and held that the admission of the contested Deed of Sale at this late stage would be contrary to Gran’s right to due process.
The primordial issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the dismissal of petitioner’s Amended Complaint should be sustained.
In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA were one in dismissing petitioner’s Amended Complaint, but varied on the grounds thereof – that is, the RTC held that there was failure to state a cause of action while the CA ruled that there was insufficiency of factual basis.
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
At the preliminary stages of the proceedings, without any presentation of evidence even conducted, it is perceptibly impossible to assess the insufficiency of the factual basis on which the plaintiff asserts his cause of action, as in this case. Therefore, that ground could not be the basis for the dismissal of the action.
A judicious examination of petitioner’s Amended Complaint readily shows its failure to sufficiently state a cause of action. Contrary to the findings of the CA, the allegations therein do not proffer ultimate facts which would warrant an action for nullification of the sale and recovery of the properties in controversy, hence, rendering the same dismissible.
Hence, by merely stating a legal conclusion, the Amended Complaint presented no sufficient allegation upon which the Court could grant the relief petitioner prayed for. Thus, said pleading should be dismissed on the ground of failure to state cause of action, as correctly held by the RTC.
That a copy of the Deed of Sale adverted to in the Amended Complaint was subsequently submitted by petitioner does not warrant a different course of action. The submission of that document was made, as it was purportedly “recently recovered,” only on reconsideration before the CA which, nonetheless, ruled against the remand of the case. An examination of the present petition, however, reveals no counter-argument against the foregoing actions; hence, the Court considers any objection thereto as waived.
In any event, the Court finds the Amended Complaint’s dismissal to be in order considering that petitioner’s cause of action had already prescribed.
In the case at bar, a reading of the allegations of the Amended Complaint failed to show that petitioner remained in possession of the subject properties in dispute. On the contrary, it can be reasonably deduced that it was Gran who was in possession of the subject properties, there being an admission by the petitioner that the property covered by TCT No. 224174 was being used by Gran’s mother-in-law.42 In fact, petitioner’s relief in the Amended Complaint for the “surrender” of three (3) properties to her bolsters such stance.43 And since the new titles to the subject properties in the name of Gran were issued by the Registry of Deeds of Marikina on the following dates: TCT No. 224174 on July 27, 1992,44 TCT No. N-5500 on January 29, 1976,45 and TCT No. N-4234 on November 26, 1975,46 the filing of the petitioner’s complaint before the RTC on January 9, 2006 was obviously beyond the ten-year prescriptive period, warranting the Amended Complaint’s dismissal all the same.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 10, 2011 and the Resolution dated June 22, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87849 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the Amended Complaint be dismissed on the grounds of (a) failure to state a cause of action, and (b) prescription as herein discussed.
* Substituted by her legal heirs, namely: Danilo B. Lasmarias and Derrick B. Lasmarias, per Resolution dated February 17, 2014, rollo, pp. 133-134.
** Substituted by her compulsory heirs, namely: Reino S. Gran, Rosauro Miguel S. Gran, Renee Patricia S. Gran, Bianca Louise S. Gran, and Lamberto Angelo S. Gran, per Resolution dated September 23, 2013, id. at 115-116.
2 Id. at 26-33. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring.
4 Records, pp. 105-109. Penned by Judge Josephine Zarate-Fernandez.
5 See Special Power of Attorney dated April 5, 2005; id. at 39-40.
7 Through a Motion to Amend and Admit Amended Compliant; id. at 33-38.
8 See also id. at 53-56.
9 Id. at 7, including dorsal portion.
10 Id. at 6, including dorsal portion.
12 See id. at 35-37.
26 See Macaslang v. Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 106-107.
29Balo v. CA, G.R. No. 129704, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 227, 235-236.
30Macaslang v. Zamora, supra note 26, id. at 107.
31 See Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277 and 175285, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 511, 526; citations omitted.
32 See Abacan, Jr. v. Northwestern University, Inc., 495 Phil. 123, 133 (2005).
33Cañete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., 566 Phil. 204, 218 (2008).
34 Balo v. CA, supra note 29.
35Drilon v. CA, 409 Phil. 14, 27 (2001).
36 See Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014.
38 G.R. Nos. 58507-08, February 26, 1992, 206 SCRA 567.
40Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras, 452 Phil. 178, 202 (2003).
41See Spouses Aguirre v. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva, 551 Phil. 932, 935 (2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.