ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 138497. September 15, 2003]

RELUCIO vs. LOPEZ

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 15 2003.

G.R. No. 138497(Imelda Relucio vs. Angelina Lopez.)

Before us is respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated January 16, 2002, which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34398 dated May 31, 1996 and ordered the dismissal of Special Proceedings M-3630 against petitioner which is pending before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141.

A perusal of the motion filed by respondent shows that the points raised and arguments advanced therein were already exhaustively pass upon by this Court.

The Decision sought to be reconsidered ruled that respondent's "Petition for Appointment as Sole Administratrix of Conjugal Partnership of Properties, Forfeiture, etc." failed to state a cause of action against petitioner Imelda Relucio, thus:

The first cause of action is for judicial appointment of respondent as administratrix of the conjugal partnership or absolute community property arising from her marriage to Alberto J. Lopez. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this cause of action. Article 128 of the Family Code refers only to spouses, to wit:

"If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property xxx."

The administration of the property of the marriage is entirely between them, to the exclusion of all other persons. Respondent alleges that Alberto J. Lopez is her husband. Therefore, her first cause of action is against Alberto J. Lopez. There is no right-duty relation between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support a cause of action. In fact, none of the three elements of a cause of action exists.

The second cause of action is for an accounting "by respondent husband." The accounting of conjugal partnership arises from or is an incident of marriage.

Petitioner has nothing to do with the marriage between respondent and Alberto J. Lopez. Hence, no cause of action can exist against petitioner on this ground.

Respondent's alternative cause of action is for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez's share in the co-owned property "acquired during his illicit relationship and cohabitation with [petitioner]" and for the "dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between him [Alberto J. Lopez] and the [respondent]."

The third cause of action is essentially for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez's share in property co-owned by him and petitioner. It does not involve the issue of validity of the co-ownership between Alberto J. Lopez and petitioner. The issue is whether there is basis in law to forfeit Alberto J. Lopez's share, if any there be, in property co-owned by him with petitioner. [1] cralaw

In her Motion for Reconsideration, respondent asserts that when petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, she admitted the facts alleged in the petition (1) that Alberto Lopez, for the purpose of evading his obligations to respondent Angelina Lopez, placed substantial conjugal properties in the name of petitioner Imelda Relucio; (2) that petitioner Imelda Relucio received the benefits and fruits of the conjugal properties of Alberto Lopez and respondent Angelina Lopez; (3) that the conjugal partnership properties were fraudulently concealed; and (4) that petitioner Imelda Relucio was not validly married to Alberto Lopez and her contribution to the co-ownership was virtually nil. Having admitted the foregoing facts, there arises an obligation for petitioner to render an accounting of all the properties in her name which properly pertain to the conjugal partnership between Alberto Lopez and respondent Angelina Lopez.

We are not persuaded.

As a general rule, averments in the complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted upon the filing of a motion to dismiss grounded on the failure to state a cause of action. However, this rule does not apply as regards epithets of fraud, legal conclusions, erroneous statements of law, inferences or conclusions from facts not stated, allegations of fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice, matters of evidence, surplusage and irrelevant matters, scandalous matter inserted merely to insult the opposing party, legally impossible facts, facts which appear unfounded by a record incorporated in the pleading, or by a document referred to, or general averments contradicted by more specific averments. [2] cralaw

The allegations that Alberto Lopez placed substantial conjugal properties in the name of petitioner Imelda Relucio and that she received the benefits and fruits of the conjugal properties of Alberto Lopez and respondent Angelina Lopez, being matters of evidence, are not deemed hypothetically admitted by the petitioner. Neither are allegations that conjugal properties were fraudulently concealed or the share of Alberto Lopez in the co-ownership between him and petitioner Imelda Relucio shall accrue to or be forfeited in favor of the respondent are admitted by the petitioner, the same being mere epithets of fraud and conclusions of law, respectively.

Furthermore, contrary to respondent's contention, we find that a final determination of the case may be had without petitioner being joined as a party to it. The character of an action is determined from the issues raised by the complaint, from the nature of the right or grievance asserted, and from the relief sought therein. [3] cralaw In the assailed decision, we ruled that in the context of her petition in the lower court, respondent would be accorded complete relief if Alberto Lopez were ordered to account for his alleged conjugal partnership property with respondent, give support to respondent and her children, turn over his share in the co-ownership with petitioner and dissolve his conjugal partnership or absolute community property with respondent. [4] cralaw

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding no valid and compelling reason to warrant the reversal of our decision, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. This denial is FINAL.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, Decision, pp. 145-147.

[2] cralaw Tan v. CA, G.R. No. 125861, 9 September 1998.

[3] cralaw Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Panasiatic Travel Corporation, G.R. No. 140468, 16 January 2003.

[4] cralaw Rollo, Decision, p. 149.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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