Zuniga-Santos vs Santos-Gran
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS:
Petitioner, through her authorized representative, Nympha Z. Sales, filed a Complaint 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
Petitioner alleged, among others, that: (a) she was the registered owner of three (3) parcels of
land located in the Municipality of Montalban, Province of Rizal(subject properties) prior to their
transfer in the name of private respondent Gran; (b) she has a second husband by the name of
Lamberto C. Santos, with whom she did not have any children; (c) she was forced to take care of
Lamberto’s alleged daughter, Gran, whose birth certificate was forged to make it appear that
the latter was petitioner’s daughter; (d) pursuant to void and voidable documents, i.e., a Deed
of Sale, Lamberto succeeded in transferring the subject properties in favor of and in the name of
Gran; (e) despite diligent efforts, said Deed of Sale could not be located; and (f) she discovered
that the subject properties were transferred to Gran sometime in November 2005. Accordingly,
petitioner prayed, inter alia, that Gran surrender to her the subject properties and pay damages
Gran filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending, inter alia, that (a) the action filed by petitioner had
prescribed since an action upon a written contract must be brought within ten (10) years from
the time the cause of action accrues, or in this case, from the time of registration of the
questioned documents before the Registry of Deeds;14 and (b) the Amended Complaint failed to
state a cause of action as the void and voidable documents sought to be nullified were not
properly identified nor the substance thereof set forth, thus, precluding the RTC from rendering
a valid judgment in accordance withthe prayer to surrender the subject properties
RTC granted Gran’s motion and dismissed the Amended Complaint for its failure to state a
cause of action, considering that the deed of sale sought to be nullified – an "essential and
indispensable part of [petitioner’s] cause of action"– was not attached.
The CA sustained the dismissal
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of petitioner’s Amended Complaint should be sustained.
HELD:
YES. Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a
particularaction. The former refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the latter
to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may
be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through a motion to dismiss under Rule16 of the
Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of
fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.
It is clear that "insufficiency of factual basis" is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Rather, it is a
ground which becomes available only after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of
stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. The procedural recourse to raise such
ground is a demurrer to evidence taken only after the plaintiff’s presentation of 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.
However, the Amended Complaint is still dismissible but on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action, as correctly held by the RTC.
In Abad v. CFI Pangasinan, the Court pronounced that:
A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as
distinguished from mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law.
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.
It is evident that petitioner ultimately seeks for the reconveyance to her of the subject properties
through the nullification of their supposed sale to Gran. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to
transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner.40 Having alleged the
commission of fraud by Gran in the transfer and registration of the subject properties in her name, there
was, in effect, an implied trust created by operation of law pursuant to Article 1456 of the Civil Code
To determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for reconveyance, the plaintiff’s
possession of the disputed property is material. If there is an actual need to reconvey the property as
when the plaintiff is not in possession, the action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in
ten (10) years, the reference point being the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the title.
On the other hand, if the real owner of the property remains in possession of the property, the
prescriptive period to recover titleand possession of the property does not run against him and in such
case,the action for reconveyance would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title which is
imprescriptible.41
In the case at bar, reading ofthe 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. In
fact, petitioner’s relief in the Amended Complaint for the "surrender" of three (3) properties to her
bolsters such stance. 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 July 27, 1992, January 29, 1976, and
November 26, 1975, the filing of the petitioner’s complaint before the RTC on January 9, 2006 was
obviously beyond the ten-year prescriptive period.
