Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21957. October 14, 1968.]

LAURO ADAMOS, ORO ADAMOS, DOMINGO ALMEDA, BENITA ALTO, ADELAIDA BERNARDO, SIMPLICIO BELISARIO, BERNARDINO CUSTODIO, AMADO DOMINGUEZ, GREGORIO SAN DIEGO, FELICISIMO G. FAUSTO, ANGELA GATMAYTAN, BENITA ILAYA, LEONCIO LISING, MARGARITA V. LISING, EMELING P. LAHOM, ROSALINA MAGNO, FELICIANO MISERICORDIA, AUREA MISERICORDIA, ANA PASCUAL, JOSE PADILLA, ABUNDO PORTO, CARMEN REYTAS, LILY SANTOS, ELISA B. SISON, INES VITUG, FLORENTINA VERGARA, now deceased, represented by her heirs Nicanor Vergara, Hilarion Vergara, Miguel Vergara, Dolores Vergara and Margarita V. Lising, EMILIA MENDOZA, CARIDAD B. SISON, ESTER M. SISON, AUGUSTO M. SISON, MARIA M. DE SISON alias MARIA DE LEON, ALEJANDRO SISON and CESAR M. SISON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., and GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

Dominador G. Magno, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Araneta, Mendoza & Papa and Sison & San Juan for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROCEDURE; MOTION TO DISMISS; FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; INSUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE OF ACTION MUST APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT; SETTLED RULE. — It is a well-settled rule that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint itself. Whether those allegations are true or not is beside the point, for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. The issue rather is: admitting them to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? Stated otherwise, the insuffciency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground. No extraneous matter may be considered, nor facts not alleged, which would require evidence and therefore must be raised as defenses and await the trial (Garcon v. Redemptorist Fathers, L-23510, May 30, 1966). So rigid is the norm prescribed that if the court should doubt the truth of the facts averred it must not dismiss the complaint but require an answer and proceed to hear the case on the merits (Republic Bank v. Cuaderno, L-22399, March 30, 1967).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INSTANT CASE. — In the instant case, the lower court committed an error by departing from the well-settled rule that the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and by taking cognizance of facts not alleged or referred to in the complaint, specifically the so-called rescission of the compromise agreement on which the plaintiffs’ complaint is predicated.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPROPER VENUE; NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF A PERSONAL ACTION. — In their brief the defendants as appellees insist on the ground alleged by them below in support of their motion to dismiss but not passed upon by the lower court, namely, that venue was improperly laid. We do not agree with the defendants. All the allegations as well as the prayer in the complaint show that this is not a real but a personal action - to compel the defendants to execute the corresponding purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs and to pay damages.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This case is before us on regular appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the complaint in its Civil Case No. 53067.

The plaintiffs, numbering thirty-three (33) in all, instituted this action for "Specific Performance and Damages," alleging four (4) causes of action against J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc., and Gregorio Araneta Inc., the latter in its capacity as managing partner and attorney-in-fact of the former. In the first cause of action the complaint states that the plaintiffs are in possession of certain residential lots situated in Matalahib and Tatalon, Quezon City, having purchased the same sometime in 1949 from several persons collectively designated as the Deudors; that said lots are all embraced and included in a bigger parcel of land covered by a Torrens title in the name of J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc.; that after 1949 the same lots claimed by herein plaintiffs became the subject-matter of several civil cases in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) between the Deudors and J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc.; that on March 16, 1953 the parties in those cases entered into a compromise agreement, subsequently embodied in the decision of the Court, under which the legitimate purchasers of lots from the Deudors, named in a list attached to the said agreement, among them the plaintiffs, "who are to continue and/or who are entitled to elect and have elected to buy their respective lots, from the legal owners who are now the defendants (J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc.) shall be credited (the) sums already paid by them under their former purchase contracts from their respective predecessors-in-interest;" that it is likewise provided in the compromise agreement that the so-called owners (J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc.), now the defendants, shall make new purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to their respective lots acquired by them from the Deudors at the current rate then existing at the time of the execution of the compromise agreement; that the plaintiffs "are . . . willing to buy their respective lots and/or elect to continue to purchase the same from the defendants and also to sign new purchase contracts, but the defendants without any legal justification whatsoever, deliberately refused and failed and still refuse and fail to make new purchase contracts in favor of the herein plaintiffs up to the present time, notwithstanding verbal and written demands made by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and in spite of their written and verbal commitments to plaintiffs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The third and fourth causes of action, after incorporating by reference the allegations in the first one, merely deal with the prices at which, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants should sell the lots to them pursuant to the compromise agreement. The fourth cause of action contains a claim for damages and attorney’s fees.

The relief sought in the complaint, aside from the claim for damages and attorney’s fees, is for the defendants to be ordered "to make new purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs on their respective lots at the current price ranging from P17.00 to P20.00 (per square meter) at the time of the execution of the compromise agreement."cralaw virtua1aw library

J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc., and Gregorio Araneta, Inc. filed separate motions to dismiss, both pleading improper venue and failure to state a cause of action, and the first alleging, besides, extinctive prescription and misjoinder of parties. Over the plaintiffs’ opposition, the lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on one ground, namely, failure to state a cause of action. The material portions of the order of dismissal read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The compromise agreement upon which the plaintiffs based their complaint had already been rescinded and set aside. After the rendition of the decision which was based upon the compromise agreement, . . . several incidents arose in connection with the implementation thereof which led to the issuance of two orders by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, in Civil Cases Nos. Q-135, Q-139, Q-174 and Q-177.

"In the first order which was dated February 28, 1957, said court directed those referred collectively as the ‘Deudors’ in the compromise agreement, to clear and deliver the peaceful possession of the 30 ‘quiñones’ to J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., and Gregorio Araneta, Inc., within a period of four (4) months from that date.

"The ‘Deudors’ moved for the reconsideration of said order while Gregorio Araneta, Inc. filed a motion alleging that the former had not delivered the 30 ‘quiñones’ despite the expiration of four months fixed in the order of February 28, 1957 and praying that the Sheriff of Quezon City be directed to place movant in possession of said parcel of land except those portions which were in the possession of parties named individually in said motion.

"The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, denied the motion for reconsideration of the ‘Deudors’ and granted the motion of Gregorio Araneta, Inc. dated August 16, 1957 in an order dated January 10, 1958, wherein it made the following pronouncement:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘. . . There is no excuse, therefore, for the failure of the Deudors to deliver the remaining 30 quiñones, 4 years and 8 months after the execution and approval of the compromise agreement. The equitable, if not the legal, solution of the problem is the setting aside of the compromise agreement of March 16, 1953, so far as it still remains unimplemented or executory. The failure to deliver and the continued mushrooming of houses in the area, despite the compromise, justify the release of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc. from further obligations under the agreement of March 16, 1953.’

"From the orders of February 28, 1957 and January 10, 1958 the ‘Deudors’ appealed to the Supreme Court, but on May 30, 1961 it affirmed them and held among others the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘. . . In any event, said paragraph is but a faithful statement of the law pertinent to the subject, inasmuch as the period of four (4) months, given to the Deudors, in said decision, for the delivery of the land of 30 quiñones to which their right to collect P614,925.74 was subject as a suspensive condition — constituted a resolutory period. When the same expired with said suspensive condition still unfulfilled, appellants’ right to comply with it was extinguished, and the conditional obligation of the appellees to pay said sum was terminated (Article 1193, Civil Code of the Philippines). (Florencio Deudor, Et. Al. v. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., G.R. L-13768, May 30, 1961)’

"Whatever doubt there could still be as to the effect of the ruling in the abovequoted case on the compromise agreement of March 16, 1953, was dispelled by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in ‘J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., Et. Al. v. Bienvenido Sanvictores’, G.R. L-16886, promulgated on January 30, 1962 when it stated that —

‘It is also worthy of note that the compromise between Deudor and Tuason upon which Sanvictores predicates his right to buy the lot he occupies, has been validly rescinded and set aside, as recognized by this Court in its decision in G.R. No. L-13768, Deudor v. Tuason, promulgated on May 30, 1961.’

"WHEREFORE, the Court is of the opinion and so holds that the complaint states no cause of action and by virtue thereof is hereby dismissed without pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiffs moved to reconsider, were turned down, and came up directly to this Court on appeal.

It is a well-settled rule that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint itself. Whether those allegations are true or not is beside the point, for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. The issue rather is: admitting them to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? Stated otherwise, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground. No extraneous matter may be considered, nor facts not alleged, which would require evidence and therefore must be raised as defenses and await the trial (Garcon v. Redemptorist Fathers, L-23510, May 30, 1966). So rigid is the norm prescribed that if the court should doubt the truth of the facts averred it must not dismiss the complaint but require an answer and proceed to hear the case on the merits (Republic Bank v. Cuaderno, L- 22399, March 30, 1967).

In departing from this rule and taking cognizance of facts not alleged or referred to in the complaint, specifically the so-called rescission of the compromise agreement on which the plaintiffs’ complaint is predicated, the lower court committed an error. The alleged rescission, the extent of its effects on the different aspects of that agreement and specifically on the present claims of the plaintiffs, are matters of defense which should be properly raised in the answer. It is unsafe to lift the idea of "rescission" from the context in which it was used in the two cases relied upon by the lower court and apply it here without a previous inquiry into the facts to determine whether or not it is indeed applicable.

In their brief the defendants as appellees insist on the other ground alleged by them below in support of their motion to dismiss but not passed upon by the lower court, namely, that venue was improperly laid. We do not agree with the defendants. All the allegations as well as the prayer in the complaint show that this is not a real but a personal action — to compel the defendants to execute the corresponding purchase contracts in favor of the plaintiffs and to pay damages. The plaintiffs do not claim ownership of the lots in question: they recognize the title of the defendant J. Tuason, Inc. They do not ask that possession be delivered to them, for they allege to be in possession. The case cited by the defendants (Abao Et. Al. v. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., G.R. L-16796, Jan. 30, 1962) is therefore not in point. In that case, as stated by this Court in its decision, the "plaintiffs’ action is predicated on the theory that they are occupants, landholders", and ‘most’ of them ‘owners by purchase’ of the residential lots in question; that, in consequence of the compromise agreement adverted to above, between the Deudors and defendant corporations, the latter had acknowledged the right and title of the Deudors in and to said lots; and hence, the right and title of the plaintiffs, as successors-in-interest of the Deudors; that, by entering into said agreement, defendant corporations had, also, waived their right to invoke the indefeasibility of the Torrens title in favor of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc.; and that defendants have no right, therefore, to oust plaintiffs from the lots respectively occupied by them and which they claim to be entitled to hold. Obviously, this action affects, therefore, not only the possession of real property, but, also, the title thereto. Accordingly, it should have been instituted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal in which said property is situated (Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules Court)."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, with costs against the defendants- appellees in this instance.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., is on official leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON