Facts:
Petitioner Zuniga-Santos, through her authorized representative, filed a complaint for annulment of sale and revocation of title against respondent Santos-Gran and the Register of Deeds of Marikina before the Regional Trial Court. Later, she filed an amended complaint and alleged that the three (3) parcels of land registered in her name were successfully transferred by Lamberto, her second husband, to his daughter Santos-Gran through void and voidable documents.
Santos-Gran filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the action has prescribed for an action upon a written contract prescribes within ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrues or from the time of registration of questioned documents before the Registry of Deeds.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Santos-Gran’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint of Zuniga-Santos for failure to state a cause of action. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
Issue:
Should the dismissal of petitioner’s amended complaint be sustained?
Ruling:
Yes, the dismissal of petitioner’s amended complaint should be sustained.
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are two distinct grounds to dismiss an action.
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of allegations in a pleading in which a motion to dismiss is proper. Dismissal based on this ground may be raised at the earliest stages of proceedings, through a motion to dismiss under Rule 16.
On the other hand, lack of cause of action denotes insufficiency of factual basis which can be remedied by a demurrer to evidence which may be taken only after plaintiff’s presentation of evidence. Dismissal based on this ground 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.
In this case, the RTC and CA differed in their findings of the basis for dismissal. The RTC found that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action while the CA suggested that such complaint lacked a cause of action.
The RTC correctly held that the amended complaint was still dismissible on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
Generally, a complaint has a cause of action if the three elements of a cause of action exist. If the allegations of the complaint are wanting in any of the elements, a motion to dismiss may be raised for failure to state a cause of action.
The plaintiff’s cause of action was sufficiently stated. The test in a motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The complaint should contain only ultimate or essential facts. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of cause of action inadequate.
A hypothetical admission extends only to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint. The rule of hypothetical admission does not apply to: (1) legally impossible facts; (2) facts inadmissible in evidence; or (3) facts that appear to be unfounded by record or document included in pleadings.
Void and voidable documents are mere conclusions of law. By presenting a legal conclusion, the amended complaint presented no sufficient allegation upon which the court could grant the relief prayed for.
