Aquino vs. Quiazon
Aquino vs. Quiazon
Aquino vs. Quiazon
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
* SECOND DIVISION.
99
100
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 13,
2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 92887, which affirmed the Orders2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City, Branch 59, in SP Civil
Case No. 05-076, dismissing the complaint for quieting of
title filed by the petitioners.
The Facts
On December 16, 2005, a complaint3 for Annulment and
Quieting of Title was filed before the RTC-Branch 59 by the
petitioners, namely, Leticia Naguit Aquino, Melvin Naguit,
Rommel Naguit, Elma Naguit Tayag, Yssel L. Naguit,
Rosalina Naguit Aumentado, Rizel Naguit Cunanan,
Caridad Naguit Parajas, Millie Naguit Florendo, Marnel
Naguit, Eduardo Naguit, Jose Naguit, Zoilo Naguit, and
Amelia Naguit Dizon, represented by Yssel L. Naguit
(petitioners). They alleged that they were the heirs of the
late Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, who acquired
a house and lot situated in Magalang, Pampanga,
consisting of 557 square meters, by virtue of a Deed of Sale,
dated April 20, 1894; that since then, they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous,
adverse, and notorious possession for more than a hundred
years, constructing houses and paying real estate taxes on
the property; that sometime in June 2005, they received
various demand letters from the respondents, namely,
Cesar B. Quiazon, Amanda Quiazon, Jose B. Quiazon, and
Reynaldo B. Quiazon, represented by Jaime B. Quiazon (re-
_______________
101
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
102
28, 1919 and OCT No. RO-1138 (11376) was issued on May
12, 1922. Hence, it was much too late for petitioners to
institute the action after more than 80 years. They also
raised the settled rule that a title registered under the
Torrens system could not be defeated by adverse, open and
notorious possession, or by prescription. Third, the action
was also barred by res judicata and violated the prohibition
against forum shopping, considering that petitioners had
earlier filed a similar case for quieting of title against
respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. 5487, which the
RTC-Br. 56 dismissed.
Petitioners filed their Comment to Defendant’s
Affirmative Defenses.6 Anent the alleged lack of cause of
action due to the spurious deed of sale, petitioners argued
that this contention was a matter of evidence which might
only be resolved in a full-blown trial. They insisted that the
deed of sale was genuine and authentic and was issued and
certified by the Deputy Clerk of Court of the RTC. They
added that the settled rule was that to determine the
sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts alleged in
the complaint should be considered, and that the
allegations in their complaint sufficiently stated a cause of
action.
As regards the allegation of prescription, the petitioners
countered that an action to quiet title did not prescribe if
the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in
question. They argued that they were neither guilty of
laches nor were they in possession of the property by mere
tolerance, their possession being in the concept of owner for
more than a hundred years.
Lastly, regarding the argument on res judicata,
petitioners explained that they were not the same plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. 5487 and that the case was dismissed
without prejudice.
_______________
103
_______________
104
_______________
105
held that although the deed of sale dated, April 20, 1894,
was never challenged, it was nevertheless unenforceable by
virtue of the June 28, 1919 decision. It found that
petitioners had lost whatever right they had on the
property from the moment the said decision was rendered
and an OCT was issued. Finding that petitioners were not
holders of any legal title over the property and were bereft
of any equitable claim thereon, the RTC-Branch 59 stated
that the first requisite of an action to quiet title was
miserably wanting. It also found the second requisite to be
wanting because respondents had proved that the TCT
registered in their names was valid.
Anent petitioners’ argument that only the complaint
may be considered in determining the sufficiency of the
cause of action, the RTC-Br. 59 ruled that under Section 2
in relation to Section 6, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, a
preliminary hearing on the affirmative defense in the
answer might be had at the discretion of the court, during
which the parties could present their arguments and their
evidence.
On December 22, 2008, the RTC-Br. 59 denied
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. It stated that the
court may consider evidence presented in hearings related
to the case, which was an exception to the general rule that
only the complaint should be taken into consideration. It
stated that petitioners were without legal or equitable title
to the subject property, thus, lacking the legal personality
to file an action for quieting of title and, therefore, “the
complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state a
cause of action.”9
_______________
9 Rollo, p. 75.
106
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, dated March 13, 2012, the CA
dismissed petitioners’ appeal. It explained that under
Section 6, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, a court is allowed
to conduct a preliminary hearing, motu proprio, on the
defendant’s affirmative defenses, including the ground of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
10 Id., at p. 28.
107
the intention of the rule is for the trial court to confine itself to
the allegations in the complaint in determining the sufficiency of
the cause of action, as the plaintiffs-appellants would want to
impress upon this Court, then it should have been so expressly
stated by barring the court from conducting a preliminary hearing
based on the said ground. The fact, however, that the said rule
speaks in general terms, it is its manifest intention to apply it in
all grounds for a motion to dismiss under the rules which are
pleaded as an affirmative defense in the responsive pleading.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
Thus, we find that that trial court did not err in considering the
evidence already presented and in not confining itself to the
allegations in the plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint.11
_______________
108
_______________
109
_______________
110
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
111
x x x x
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The test for determining the existence of a cause of
action was amply discussed in Insular Investment and
Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation,19
citing Perpetual Savings Bank v. Fajardo,20 to wit:
_______________
112
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
Thus, in determining the existence of a cause of action,
only the allegations in the complaint may properly be
considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a
procedural error and a denial of the plaintiff’s right to due
process.22
_______________
113
A “cloud on title” is an outstanding instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is actually invalid
or inoperative, but which may nevertheless impair or affect
injuriously the title to property. The matter complained of
must have a prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy. The cloud on title is a semblance of title which
appears in some legal form but which is in fact unfounded.
The invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument is not
apparent on the face of such instrument, and it has to be
proved by extrinsic evidence.23
In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper,
two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant
has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
23 Evangelista v. Santiago, 497 Phil. 269, 290; 457 SCRA 744, 765
(2005).
24 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio, G.R.
No. 167391, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 327, 341.
114
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
115
_______________
116
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
Exceptions and Section 6 of Rule 16 not applicable
The Court does not discount, however, that there are
exceptions to the general rule that allegations are
hypothetically admitted as true and inquiry is confined to
the face of the complaint. First, there is no hypothetical
admission of (a) the veracity of allegations if their falsity is
subject to judicial notice; (b) allegations that are legally
impossible; (c) facts inadmissible in evidence; and (d) facts
which appear, by record or document included in the
pleadings, to be unfounded.28 Second, inquiry is not
confined to the complaint if culled (a) from annexes and
other pleadings submitted by the parties;29 (b) from
documentary evidence admitted by stipulation which
_______________
117
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
In their answer, respondents raised the affirmative
defenses of “lack of cause of action, prescription, and res
judicata,”31 stated in the following manner:
x x x x
6. Plaintiffs have no valid, legal and sufficient cause of
action against the defendants. The alleged “deed of sale” (Annex
“B” – Amended Complaint) is spurious and the same cannot
prevail over the Land Registration Decree No. 122511 issued on
June 28, 1919 in Land Registration Case No. 5, LRC Record No.
128, by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in favor of
defendants’ predecessor-in-interest. In fact, plaintiffs’ pre-
_______________
118
A review of the first ground under paragraph 6 of the
answer reveals that respondents alleged that “[p]laintiffs
have no valid, legal and sufficient cause of action
against the defendants.” It is at this point that it must
again be emphasized that it is not “lack or absence of cause
of action” that is a ground for dismissal of the complaint
under Rule 16, but rather, that “the complaint states no
cause of action.”33 The issue submitted to the court was,
therefore, the determination of the sufficiency of the
allegations in the complaint to
_______________
119
_______________
34 Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil.
701, 709; 341 SCRA 485, 491 (2000).
35 Heirs of Nepomuceno Paez v. Torres, 381 Phil. 393, 402; 324 SCRA
403, 412 (2000).
36 Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94733,
February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 69, 76; Misamis Occidental II Cooperative,
Inc. v. David, 505 Phil. 181, 188-189; 468 SCRA 63, 71 (2005).
37 D.C. Crystal, Inc. v. Laya, 252 Phil. 759, 768-769; 170 SCRA 734,
743 (1989); Del Bros Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
87678, June 16, 1992, 210 SCRA 33, 42-43; Rava Development
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96825, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA
144, 153.
38 Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97816,
July 24, 1992, 211 SCRA 824, 835.
120
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/25
1/20/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753
_______________
121
_______________
122
_______________
123
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161125975e43ecaec12003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25