1. Cañete et al. vs. Genuino Ice Company, Inc.
FACTS: Canete filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title to Property for an OCT (and
other titles derived from it) granted to the Company. Canete bases its claim on 1) its
possession over the property, and 2) the Company’s fraudulent and “mysterious”
receipt of titles to the same. The Company filed an MTD, stating inter alia Canete’s
failure to state a cause of action. Trial Court sided with Canete, while the CA sided with
the Company, thus this case.
MAIN ISSUE: Should the OCT (from which the Company derives its right to the subject
property) be cancelled in favor of Canete? – NO.
RELEVANT ISSUE: Is the allegation of fraud and a “mysterious” receipt of the OCT, as
alleged in Canete’s pleading, proper as to give rise to a cause of action which is
actionable to the court? – NO.
RULING ON MAIN ISSUE: Facts show that the land in issue was subject to the Friar Land’s
Act, through which law ownership was eventually granted to the Government. Thus,
Canete’s prolonged possession over the property is irrelevant; as so is its claim of a
successional right to purchase by virtue of such possession. No right over the land
having transferred to Canete renders it not the proper party in action.
RULING ON RELEVANT ISSUE: While Canete indeed raised allegations of fraud in its
complaint, it did not aver ultimate facts (as opposed to a mere conclusion of facts) to
support the same. Sec.5,Rule8 of the ROC require that the allegations of fraud must be
“stated with particularity”, which Canete failed to do here.
*It is strange that counsel for Canete based his FE charge on Canete’s supposed
ownership, whereas it could have been merely on possession. Had counsel not done so,
the FE case could have existed independent of the quieting case.
