NELSIE B.

CAÑETE, RONA ANAS, MILAGROSA APUAN, ERLINDA AQUINO, GODOFREDO

AQUINO, CORITA BARREDO, TESSIE BARREDO, JESUS BATRINA, ALBERTO BUENAVENTURA,
BONIFACIO BUENAVENTURA, EUSEBIO CAPIRAL, MARIO CAPIRAL, LOLITA CAPIRAL, ELENA
CAPIRAL, LETICIA CAPIRAL, RENATO CAPIRAL, ELY CABANGON, ERWIN CATALUNA, JESSIE
CONRADO, JOEL CONRADO, NARCISIO CONRADO, RICARDO CALAMPIANO, ALUMNIO
CORSANES, NILO COLATOY, MARJETO DAYAN, HENRY DIAZ, SALVACION ESMANDE,
REYNALDO FUENTEBELLA, GERRY GEQUILLANA, DELSIE GARCIA, NERISSA GONZALES,
VISITACION JUNSAY, ESTELA JOVEN, JOSE LANZUELA, MARLON MALANGAYON, RENATO
MARCELO, ANITA MARZONIA, MARCELINO MONTALBO, AMADO MULI, JR., LEONITA MULI,
EDUARDO OLVIDO, ALMARIO PACON, ASUNCION PACON, SALVACION PAGAYUNAN, ESTER
PANTALEON, SHERLITA RABE, ANITA REYES, MEDELYN RIOS, BERTITO RIVAS, ENGRACIA RIVERA,
GERALYN RIVERA, ARMANDO RIVERA, MA. MERCY SHERVA, ALEXANDER SANGALAN, ERNESTO
SANTIAGO, JOY SANTIAGO, ELENA TALION, JOE RANDY TRESVALLES, ELIAS VALENZUELA,
GERRY VALENZUELA, LILIBETH VALENZUELA, JOSEPHINE VICTORINO, JOJO VICTORINO,
MAXIMINO VICTORINO, NOEL VICTORINO, REYNANTE VICTORINO, ROBERTO VICTORINO and
JOVITO VILLAREAL, represented by NELSIE B. CAÑETE, petitioners, vs. GENUINO ICE
COMPANY, INC., respondent.

Date: Jan 22 2008

Ponente: J. Ynares- Santiago

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari to set aside decision of CA

Facts:

 Jan 11 1999 – P filed a complaint for cancellation of title to property covered by four
TCTs
o Alleged that said titles are spurious, fictitious and were issued “under mysterious
circumstances”
o Holders of the title and their predecessors-in-interest were never in actual,
adverse and physical possession of the property rendering them ineligible to
acquire title to the said property under the Friars land Act
 P also sought to nullify OCT from whicht the foregoing titles sought to be cancelled
originated or were derived
 Genuino Ice Co (R) filed motion to dismiss on the ground that complaint states no
cause of action because:
o they are not real parties-in-interest
o No relief may be granted as a matter of law
o P failed to exhaust administrative remedies
 However, motion was denied by TC
 R MR but denied
 Nove 4 1999 – P filed second amended complaint which sought to annul 5 more TCTs
in addition to the titles already alleged
 Second amended complaint alleged the ff (Important ata to so lagay ko nalang)

“4. That plaintiffs (petitioners) and their predecessors- ininterest are among those who have been
in actual, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession in concept of owners of unregistered
parcels of land situated at Sitio Mabilog, Barangay Culiat, Quezon City, Metro Manila, which
parcels of land are more particularly described as follows:

. (1) “A parcel of unregistered land known as Lot 668, situated at Barangay Culiat,
Quezon City x x x.” 


. (2) “A parcel of unregistered land known as Lot 669, situated at Barangay Culiat,
Quezon City x x x.” 


5. That the above-described real property is a portion of a friar land known as “Piedad Estate,”
which property is intended for distribution among the bona fide occupants thereof pursuant to
the Friar Lands Act.

6. That transfer certificates of title allegedly having originated or derived from Original Certificate
of Title No. 614 were issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, which transfer certificates of
title are in truth and in fact fictitious, spurious and null and void, for the following reasons: (a) that
no record of any agency of the government shows as to how and in what manner was OCT 614
issued; (b) that no record of any proceedings whatsoever, whether judicial or administrative,
can support defendants’ claim that the above­described property originated from OCT 614;
and (c) that the transfer certificates of title over the above-described property were issued
under mysterious circumstances for the abovenamed defendants and their so-called
predecessors-in-interest never had any actual, adverse, physical possession of the said property,

thus, not allowed to acquire title over the property in litigation pursuant to the Friar Lands Act.

. That defendants are holders of transfer certificates of title of the above-described

property, which transfer certificates of title are null and void, for reasons specifically
mentioned in Paragraph 6 hereof x x x; 


. That the acts in acquiring and keeping the said transfer certificates of title in violation of
the Friar Lands Act and other existing laws are prejudicial to plaintiffs’ rights over the
abovedescribed property. 


. That equity demands that defendants’ transfer certificates of title as specified in

Paragraph 7 hereof be declared fictitious, spurious and null and void ab initio. 


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants:

. (1) Declaring as null and void ab initio OCT 614 and all transfer certificates of title
derived therefrom; 


. (2) Declaring as null and void defendants’ transfer certificates of title over the property
 in litigation; 


. (3) Ordering defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel defendants’ transfer
certificates of title and all transfer certificates of title derived therefrom; 


. (4) Declaring the plaintiffs as bona fide occupants of the property in litigation pursuant
to the provisions of the Friar Lands Act and other existing laws.”


 R moved to dismiss on the second amended complaint on ff grounds

o Parties not real parties in interest so cannot bring suit to cancel TCTS
o Allegations and prayer of complaint = no relief, as a matter of law may be
granted
o Prescription has set in
o There are earlier similar complaints filed by a different set of plaintiffs against a
different set of defendants which involve the same subject matter, cause of
action and allegations of the plaintiffs with respect to cancellation of OCT which
have been dismissed by RTC Branch 93 of QC, which is pending before the
appellate court on certiorari
 Jan 3 2001 TC denied Motion to dismiss on second amended complaint
 CA granted certiorari and dismissed P second amended complaint for failure to state
a cause of action

Issue: WON there is a cause of action (NO)

Held:

 Gist of the Friar lands act as these lots in litigation are part of the Piedad Estate
o When PH gov claimed the friar lands in 1910 through the said Act, it was
originally in 874 lots
o When disposed, increased to 1305 lots
o Even before the WWII all the lots of Piedad estate has been sold
o Successors in interest of the said lot cannot claim rights to purchase as it has
been bought by the government through the same ACT
 Those who were already there on the land are only given preference for
lease, purchase, etc.
 Basic rules of proper pleading and procedure
o Every pleading shall contain
 In a methodical and logical form
 Plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
partypleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting
the statement of mere evidentiary facts
  And in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting
fraud or mistake, must be stated with particularity
o Ultimate facts
 Essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action
 Such facts are so essential that they cannot be stricken out without
leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate
o Cause of action elements
 Right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law
it arises or is created
 An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to
violate such right
 Act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right
of the plaintiff or constituting a branch of the obligation of defendant to
the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of
damages
o The test is whether a court can render a valid judgement on the complaint
based upon the facts alleged and pursuant to the prayer therein
o Question of whether or not a complaint states a cause of action against the
defendant or the action is premature is one of law
 TC can consider all the pleadings filed, including annexes, motions and
the evidence on record
 TC does not rule on truth or falsity of such documents
 Only hypothetical admission
 Any review of a finding of lack of cause of action based on these
documents
 Would not involve a calibration of probative value
 Inquiry limited WON the law was properly applied given the facts
and these supporting documents
 TC must likewise apply relevant statutes and jurisprudence in determining
if complaint establishes a cause of action
 Considering all the foregoing, there is a need for particularity in the P second
amended complaint
o First, claim that all derivatives from OCT 614 is void has been proven wrong as
this has been issued in the name of PH gov in 1910
o Second, Ad Hoc committee of Ministry of Natural resources found that Piedad
estate has already been disposed of
o Third, Piedad estate has been placed in torrens title = all lands are titled
o Fourth, continuous possession has no bearing under the friar lands act except
when predecessors in interest were in actual possession at the time of the Friar’s
land
 In the case no allegation that predecessors were in possession at that
 time
 P second amended complaint
o Incomplete narration of facts unsupported by documentary or other exhibits
o Allegations are conculusions of law unsupported by particular averment of
circumstances that will show why or how such inferences or conclusions were
arrived at
o Replete with sweeping genalization and inference derived from facts that are
not founde therein
o Fraud based on “mysterious circumstances” = not specific to bring bring the
controversy within the jurisdiction of TC
 Fraud must be stated with particularity
 P claim that they are bona fide occupants of the subject property under the friar lands
act
o But they do not pray to be declared owner of the property despite alleged
adverse possession
o Only to be adjudged “bona fide occupants” so the P concede of the State’s
ownership of the property
o Thus, P cannot be considered real parties in interest for the purpose of maintain
the suit (Kahit na macancel, sa State din mapupunta property hindi sa P)
 Only the State through Sol Gen may institute such suit
 RULE 3 sec 2 Real party in interest is the party who stands to be benifited or
injured by the judgement in the suit or party entitled to the avails of the
suit
 Interest = material interest in issue and not merely incidental interest
 Real interest = present substantial interest and not mere expectancy or a
future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest
o Interest as applied to the case
 P think that if said properties reverted back to the state, they possibly
could be given preferential treatment to buy or lease said land is not the
interest required by law
 On exhaustion of Administrative remedies
o They are not qualified in the firstplace
 Dispositive: Denied CA affirmed