incontrovertible, indefeasible and conclusive against
the petitioners and the whole world
EVANGELISTA, ET AL v. SANTIAGO As an affirmative defense, SANTIAGO claimed that
Chico-Nazario, J. (2005) EVANGELISTA, ET AL had no legal capacity to file
EVANGELISTA, ET AL occupied and possessed the Complaint, and thus, the Complaint stated no
parcels of land located in Bgy. San Rafael, cause of action
Montalban (now Rodriquez), Rizal, by virtue of Deeds SANTIAGO also raised the affirmative defense of
of Assignment executed by a certain Ismael FAVILA prescription. He argued that the Spanish title on
in their favor which EVANGELISTA, ET AL based their claim, was
According to the Deeds of Assignment, the Subject not imprescriptible. PD 892, in relation to RA 496,
Property was originally part of a vast tract of land required all holders of Spanish titles to apply for
called “Hacienda Quibiga”1 awarded to Don registration of their lands within 6 months from
Hermogenes Rodriguez by the Queen of Spain and effectivity of the decree. After such a period, Spanish
evidenced by a Spanish title titles could no longer be used as evidence of land
FAVILA claimed to be one of the heirs of Don ownership in any registration proceedings under the
Hermogenes. Acting as Attorney-in-Fact pursuant to Torrens System
a Special Power of Attorney executed by his “mga SANTIAGO also pointed out that any action against
kapatid,” FAVILA signed the aforementioned Deeds his certificates of title already prescribed (OCT No.
of Assignment, assigning portions of the Subject 670 was issued in 1913 or more than 83 years prior
Property to EVANGELISTA, ET AL in exchange for to the filing of the Complaint by EVANGELISTA, ET
the labor and work done on the Subject Property by AL). Lastly, SANTIAGO denied knowing
them EVANGELISTA, ET AL, much less, did he threaten to
EVANGELISTA, ET AL later came to know that evict them
respondent Carmelino SANTIAGO was planning to Thereafter, TC held a preliminary hearing. During
evict them from the Subject Property. Two of the said hearing, EVANGELISTA, ET AL presented their
petitioners had actually received notices to vacate lone expert witness, a certain Engr. Naval, a
EVANGELISTA, ET AL then investigated SANTIAGO’s supposed expert on land registration laws
claim and they found out that SANTIAGO’s TCT over According to Engr. Naval, a parcel of land titled
the Subject Property originated from OCT No. 670 illegally would revert to the State if the Torrens title
OCT No. 670 was issued in the name of SANTIAGO’s was cancelled, and that it was the State, through the
mother, ISABEL, pursuant to a decision of the Court Office of the Solicitor General, that should file for the
of Land Registration of the Philippine Islands. annulment or cancellation of the title
Thereafter, ISABEL executed a Deed of Donation Relying on Engr. Naval’s statement, the TC issued
transferring the property to her son, SANTIAGO herein assailed Order dismissing EVANGELISTA, ET
Thereafter, EVANGELISAT, ET AL filed with the trial AL’s Complaint against SANTIAGO. TC ruled that it
court an action for declaration of nullity of is the State who must file the corresponding case of
SANTIAGO’s certificates of title on the ground that annulment of title through the Office of the Solicitor
OCT No. 670 from which SANTIAGO’s titles General when title to a land is being claimed to be
originated was fake and spurious, based on the obtained through fraud and allegedly spurious. The
following: (1) OCT No. 670 was not signed by a duly TC also gave credence to SANTIAGO’s negative and
authorized officer; (2) material data therein were affirmative defenses. Particularly, the TC ruled that
merely handwritten by different penmanships; (3) it FAVILA’s Deeds of Assignment are of questionable
was not printed on the Official Form; (4) it failed to nature because the Power of Attorney FAVILA
indicate the Survey Plan which was the basis of the supposedly had from his “mga kapatid” was never
Technical Description of the property covered; (5) the presented nor proven in court
Land Registration Court’s decree was issued on April EVANGELISTA, ET AL filed an MR, denied. They
1913, but OCT itself issued earlier, February 1913; appealed to the CA, dismissed. MR, denied. The CA
and (6) the decree of the Land Registration Court affirmed the TC’s order of dismissal – hence, this
was issued over a property other than the one appeal by EVANGELISTA, ET AL
described in OCT No. 670, although also located in
the Rizal ISSUE: WON dismissal of the case was proper
SANTIAGO filed his Answer. As for his negative
defenses, SANTIAGO contends that the allegations in HELD: YES, but not according to the reasons held by
the Complaint are flimsy, fabricated, malicious, and the TC and the CA. The Complaint should be
without basis in law and in fact. SANTIAGO insists dismissed because EVANGELISTA, ET AL’s
that OCT No. 670 was genuine and authentic on its complaint did not state a cause of action!
face, thus all of his titles derived therefrom are
RATIO:
1 This Hacienda allegedly covered lands extending from Parañaque, Las Piñas, Recall that SANTIAGO pleaded that petitioners had
Muntinlupa, Cavite, Batangas, Pasay, Taguig, Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong, no legal capacity to file the Complaint, and thus, the
Quezon City, Caloocan, Bulacan, and Rizal… whoa!
Complaint filed before the trial court stated no cause questioning the existence of the Special Power of
of action before proceeding, it should be clarified Attorney in favor of FAVILA. These matters may only
that “no capacity to sue” and “no cause of action/no be resolved after a proper trial on the merits
personality to sue” are two different grounds for a To determine WON the allegations in the complaint
motion to dismiss, thus, are two different affirmative are sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it is
defenses important first to establish the true nature of
Columbia Pictures v. CA: The term "lack of petitioners’ action
capacity to sue" refers to a plaintiff’s general TC held that petitioners’ action was ultimately one
disability to sue (minority, insanity, for reversion of the Subject Property to the public
incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any domain this is UNTENABLE!
other general disqualifications of a party). Indeed, the Complaint was captioned as “an action
Meanwhile, the term "lack of personality to sue" for declaration of nullity of respondent’s certificates
refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real of title.” However, the caption of the pleading should
party- in-interest not be the governing factor, but rather the
Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff allegations therein should determine the nature of
is not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does not the action
have the necessary qualification to appear in the There is a stark difference between an “action for
case. On the other hand, a case is dismissible for declaration of nullity of land title” from an “action for
lack of personality to sue upon proof that the reversion.” the difference between them lies in the
plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence allegations as to the character of ownership of the
grounded on failure to state a cause of action realty in issue. In an action for reversion, the
IN THE CASE AT BAR, this Court assumes that pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit
SANTIAGO is raising the affirmative defense that the State ownership of the disputed land. On the other
Complaint stated no cause of action because the hand, in action for declaration of nullity of title, the
petitioners lacked the personality to sue, not being pertinent allegations in the complaint would be the
the real party-in-interest. It is SANTIAGO’s plaintiff’s prior/pre-existing ownership of the land as
contention that only the State can file an action for well as the defendant’s fraud or mistake in
annulment of his certificates of title, since such an successfully obtaining title over the realty in issue.
action will result in the reversion of the ownership of The nullity arises not from the fraud or deceit but
the Subject Property to the State from the fact that the Bureau of Lands had no
The affirmative defense that the Complaint stated no jurisdiction to bestow title to the land, hence,
cause of action, similar to a motion to dismiss based whatever patent or title obtained is void ab initio.
on the same ground, requires a hypothetical The real party-in-interest is not the State but the
admission of the facts alleged in the Complaint plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership
It is well-settled that in a motion to dismiss based on over the parcel of land in question even before the
lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the grant of title to the defendant
court for determination is the sufficiency of the IN THE CASE AT BAR, the Complaint never alleged
allegations of fact made in the complaint to that the Subject Property was part of the public
constitute a cause of action, and not on whether domain. On the contrary, EVANGELISTA, ET AL
these allegations of fact are true. As such, the asserted title over the Subject Property by virtue of
motion must hypothetically admit the truth of these the Deeds of Assignment executed in their favor and
facts. The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged attached to their Complaint. Clearly, petitioners are
in the complaint is WON, admitting the facts alleged, asserting private title over the Subject Property, and
the court could render a valid judgment upon the consequently, their action could not be one for
same in accordance with the prayer. The reversion. The TC patently erred in dismissing the
insufficiency of the cause of action must appear in Complaint for lack of personality to sue because the
the face of the complaint, and in the determination nature of the action is NOT reversion. So what is the
of WON a complaint states a cause of action, only nature of the action? And based thereon, does
the facts alleged therein and no other matter may be EVANGELISTA, ET AL have personality to sue? Are
considered they the real parties-in-interest?
In resolving WON the Complaint stated a cause of Based on the allegations of the Compliant, the action
action, the TC should have limited itself to was more appropriately an action to remove a cloud
examining the sufficiency of the allegations in the on or to quiet their title over the Subject Property
Complaint. It was proscribed from inquiring into the Under Art. 476, CC, whenever there is a cloud on
truth of the allegations in the Complaint or the title to real property or any interest therein, by
authenticity of any of the documents referred or reason of any instrument, record, claim,
attached to the Complaint, since these are deemed encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently
hypothetically admitted by the respondent Thus, valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid,
TC erred in making findings as to the authenticity of ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
the Deeds of Assignment executed by FAVILA and prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action their ownership of the Subject Property in
may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being registration proceedings
cast upon title to real property or any interest Registration proceedings under the Torrens system
therein do not create or vest title, but only confirm and
IN THE CASE AT BAR, SANTIAGO’s title over the record title already created and vested. By virtue of
Subject Property appeared valid or effective; but PD 892, the courts, in registration proceedings
according to the petitioners, they were fake, spurious under the Torrens system, are precluded from
and/or fraudulent, thus a cloud on their title to the accepting, confirming and recording a Spanish
same property that needed to be removed title. Likewise, courts are prevented from accepting
The action is for removal of cloud/quieting of title. and indirectly confirming such Spanish title in some
However, EVANGELISTA, ET AL have NO personality other form of action brought before them
to file the said action, not being the real parties-in- (i.e., removal of cloud on or quieting of title). To rule
interest. Thus, their Complaint should be dismissed otherwise would open the doors to the circumvention
According to Art 477, CC, the plaintiff, in an action of PD 892, and give rise to the existence of land
to remove a cloud on or to quiet title, must have legal titles, recognized and affirmed by the courts, but
or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property would never be recorded under the Torrens system of
which is the subject matter of the action. registration. This would definitely undermine the
This petitioners failed to establish in their Torrens system and cause confusion and instability
Complaint. EVANGELISTA, ET AL failed to establish in property ownership that PD 892 intended to
that had any legal or equitable title to, or legitimate eliminate
interest in, the Subject Property so as to justify their EVANGELISTA, ET AL failed to allege any other basis
right to file an action to remove a cloud on or to quiet for their titles in their Complaint aside from
title possession of the Subject Property from time
Title to real property refers to that upon which immemorial, and the Spanish title, which is already
ownership is based. It is the evidence of the right of ineffective to prove ownership over the Subject
the owner or the extent of his interest, by which Property
means he can maintain control and, as a rule, assert Therefore, without legal or equitable title to the
right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Subject Property, the petitioners lacked the
property personality to file an action for removal of a cloud on,
In their Complaint, petitioners claimed title to the or quieting of, title and their Complaint was properly
Subject Property by virtue of their actual and dismissed for failing to state a cause of action
continuous possession of the same since time
immemorial, by themselves and through their
predecessors-in-interest. Yet, the Deeds of
Assignment executed by FAVILA in their favor,
attached to and an integral part of their Complaint,
revealed that petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest
based their right to the Subject Property on the
Spanish title awarded to Don Hermogenes Rodriguez
These allegations are contradictions! Possession
since time immemorial carried the presumption that
the land had never been part of the public domain or
that it had been private property even before the
Spanish conquest. If the Subject Property was
already private property before the Spanish
conquest, then it would have been beyond the power
of the Queen of Spain to award or grant to anyone.
Nevertheless, petitioners also base their title to and
possession of the Subject Property on Spanish title of
Don Hermogenes Rodriguez
By PD 892, petitioners are prevented from invoking
the Spanish title as basis of their ownership of the
Subject Property. Indubitably, PD 892 divests the
Spanish titles of any legal force and effect in
establishing ownership over real property
In the absence of an allegation in the Complaint that
petitioners complied with PD 892, then it could be
assumed that they failed to do so. Since they failed
to comply with PD 892, then they are already
enjoined from presenting the Spanish title as proof of
