G.R. No. 173987 February 25, 2012
PADILLA MERCADO, ZULUETA MERCADO, BONIFACIA MERCADO, DAMIAN MERCADO and EMMANUEL MERCADO BASCUG, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES AGUEDO ESPINA and LOURDES ESPINA, Respondents.
Petitioners alleged in their Complaint that they are the heirs of the late spouses Santiago and Sofronia Mercado, who were the owners of the subject parcel of land; after the death of Santiago and Sofronia, petitioners inherited the disputed lot, possessing the same as owners; sometime in 1996, herein respondents claimed ownership over the subject parcel of land, alleging that they bought the same from one Josefa Mercado Espina (Josefa) who, in turn, previously bought the same in 1939 from a certain Genivera Mercado Kavanaugh; that Genivera supposedly purchased the same property from one Escolastico Mercado in 1937 who, in turn, allegedly bought it from Santiago Mercado. Petitioners further alleged that in 1962, Josefa, through fraudulent machinations, was able to obtain a title (Original Certificate of Title No. 35) over the subject property in her name. Asserting that the above-mentioned contracts of sale never happened, petitioners prayed for the declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale between Santiago and Escolastico, Escolastico and Genivera, and between Genivera and Josefa.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case due to the failure of the complainant to state the assessed value of the property, that petitioners' cause of action is barred by prescription, laches and indefeasibility of title, and that the complaint does not state sufficient cause of action against respondents who are buyers in good faith
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on grounds of prescription, laches, indefeasibility of title and lack of cause of action.
Issue:
WON failure to state a cause of action is a ground for motion to dismiss
Held:
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right
If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. A perusal of the Amended Complaint in the present case would show that there is, indeed, no allegation of any act or omission on the part of respondents which supposedly violated the legal rights of petitioners. Thus, the CA is correct in dismissing the complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
PADILLA MERCADO, ZULUETA MERCADO, BONIFACIA MERCADO, DAMIAN MERCADO and EMMANUEL MERCADO BASCUG, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES AGUEDO ESPINA and LOURDES ESPINA, Respondents.
Petitioners alleged in their Complaint that they are the heirs of the late spouses Santiago and Sofronia Mercado, who were the owners of the subject parcel of land; after the death of Santiago and Sofronia, petitioners inherited the disputed lot, possessing the same as owners; sometime in 1996, herein respondents claimed ownership over the subject parcel of land, alleging that they bought the same from one Josefa Mercado Espina (Josefa) who, in turn, previously bought the same in 1939 from a certain Genivera Mercado Kavanaugh; that Genivera supposedly purchased the same property from one Escolastico Mercado in 1937 who, in turn, allegedly bought it from Santiago Mercado. Petitioners further alleged that in 1962, Josefa, through fraudulent machinations, was able to obtain a title (Original Certificate of Title No. 35) over the subject property in her name. Asserting that the above-mentioned contracts of sale never happened, petitioners prayed for the declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale between Santiago and Escolastico, Escolastico and Genivera, and between Genivera and Josefa.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case due to the failure of the complainant to state the assessed value of the property, that petitioners' cause of action is barred by prescription, laches and indefeasibility of title, and that the complaint does not state sufficient cause of action against respondents who are buyers in good faith
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on grounds of prescription, laches, indefeasibility of title and lack of cause of action.
Issue:
WON failure to state a cause of action is a ground for motion to dismiss
Held:
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;
(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right
If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. A perusal of the Amended Complaint in the present case would show that there is, indeed, no allegation of any act or omission on the part of respondents which supposedly violated the legal rights of petitioners. Thus, the CA is correct in dismissing the complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
No comments:
Post a Comment