Heirs of Naya v. Naya, G.R. No. 215759, November 28, 2016

Summary: Heirs of Naya filed a complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance of ownership, damages, and attorney's fees before the RTC Cebu City against Orlando Naya and Sps Ruiz involving a parcel of land at V. Rama Ave., Cebu City.

RTC Cebu, however, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and laches. RTC opined that the heirs alleged that the transactions were conducted through the deceit and fraudulent scheme of Orlando, yet, the heirs did not give details of the same, in violation of S5, Rule 8 of the RoC.

CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. After their MR was denied by CA, the heirs filed a petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC. The heirs insisted that the case sufficiently avers grounds and facts that constitute a cause of action for quieting of title, and thus, should not have been dismissed. Likewise, the case was not barred by prescription and or laches.

SC granted the petition. SC ruled that the averments in the heirs' complaint  were sufficient to make out an action to quiet title under A476 of the Civil Code; that the allegations of fraud or mistake need not be stated with particularity, as the action of the heir, being at the same time, one for reconveyance, must allege only two facts in the complaint, namely, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed the land in the concept of owner, and (2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the land. The allegations in the heirs' complaint measured up to the requisite statement of fact to constitute an action for reconveyance based on  implied trust.  

As regards the issue of prescription and laches, the SC opined that these issues involve question of facts that must be threshed out in a full blown trial.

Doctrines:

To make out an action to quiet title, the initiatory pleading has only to set forth allegations showing that ( 1) the plaintiff has title to real property or any interest therein and (2) the defendant claims an interest therein adverse to the plaintiff's arising from an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable.

For an action for reconveyance, one must allege only two facts in the complaint, namely, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed the land in the concept of owner, and (2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the land. The allegations of fraud or mistake need not be stated with particularity.

------------------------------------------

Ponente: JARDELEZA, J

A Petition for Review on Certiorari

FACTS

Heirs of Naya filed a complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance of ownership, damages, and attorney's fees before the RTC Cebu City against Orlando Naya and Sps Ruiz involving a parcel of land at V. Rama Ave., Cebu City.

Allegations:

- they, together with Orlando Naya, are the legitimate and compulsory heirs of the late Sps Andres and Gregoria Naya.

- Andres died. The property was included in the estate of Andres.

- In 1968, his heirs executed an extra judicial adjudication and settlement of estate where his surviving spouse, Gregoria, held all his properties in trust in favor of the other heirs and on the condition that she will assume all debts and pay all the obligations of the estate.

- Gregoria, however, failed to fulfill this condition. Despite knowing all these, Orlando allegedly sold the property in 1965, under the name of his parents, to one Alfonso Uy by means of fraud and deceit.

- Sometime in the early 1970s, the heirs of Sps Naya initiated intestate proceedings and/or judicial settlement of their estate.

- In 1971, after the title of the property was transferred in the name of Alfonso, he then sold it to Orlando, who thereafter managed to have the title of the property transferred in his name.

- In Sept 1974, Orlando sold the property to Honesimo Ruiz. The title, however, was transferred to Honesimo' s name only in 2007.

- they only learned of Orlando's anomalous transactions in Sept 1974, prompting them to cause the annotation of an adverse claim to Orlando's title

- with their consent, their co-petitioner, Teresita Naya, occupied the property from the time of death of Sps Naya until the time of the filing of the case.

- Honesimo is not a buyer in good faith because he acquired the property after the notice of adverse claim had already been annotated on Orlando's title. It also took Honesimo 33 years before causing the transfer of title in his name.

Sps Ruiz filed a MD on the ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons since the summons for them was served on their son.

RTC Cebu dismissed the complaint.

Heirs of Naya moved for reconsideration and filed a motion for leave to effect summons by publication, which the RTC granted.

Sps Ruiz Answer (w/ Cross-Claim and Counter-Claims Ad Cautelam):

- the property was already sold by the late Sps Naya to Alfonso in 1965 and as such, had already been excluded from the decedents' estate since.

- the heirs' general allegations of fraud and deceit were mere conclusions of law which cannot defeat the presumption of genuineness and due execution of the deeds of sale between the Sps Naya and Alfonso, and between Alfonso and Orlando.

Aug 9, 2010, RTC Cebu dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and laches.

- the assailed transactions were conducted through the deceit and fraudulent scheme of Orlando, yet, the heirs did not give details of the same, in violation of S5, Rule 8 of the RoC.

- time had turned the heirs' claim into a stale demand for instituting the complaint only in 2009, or 45 years after the sale of the property to Alfonso in 1965.

The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC.

Hence, this petition.

-----------------------------------------------

Heirs of Naya's Position:

- the case sufficiently avers grounds and facts that constitute a cause of action for quieting of title. An allegation of fraud is not a mandatory requirement in such action. Being in physical possession of the land from the time of the death of Sps Naya, their action for quieting of title is imprescriptible.

- Orlando and Sps Ruiz also violated the omnibus motion rule when the defenses of lack of cause of action and laches were only raised in their answer and not in the motion to dismiss filed earlier.

Sps Ruiz' Position:

- the petition should be dismissed because the heirs are guilty of forum shopping. A Similar Complaint for Quieting of title, Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Deed of Sale, and Damages was filed by  the heirs against then and Sps Romeo Jatico before the RTC Cebu City.

- the CA correctly dismissed the complaint because the omnibus motion rule did not apply to them prior to the service of summons by publication upon them. The motion to dismiss they earlier filed was for the sole purpose of assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over their person. In other words, the RTC did not have jurisdiction over their person when they filed the motion and so S8, Rule 15 of the RoC on the omnibus motion rule did not apply to them. It was only after the heirs had effected a valid extraterritorial service of summons that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over them. The first pleading they filed after the ·RTC acquired jurisdiction over them was their Answer with Cross-Claim and Counterclaims Ad Cautelam, where they alleged affirmative allegations.

- the complaint miserably failed to state a cause of action because the heirs simply made sweeping allegations of deceit and fraud.

- also laches bars the heirs from questioning their title over the property.

--------------------------------------------

Issue 1 of 4: WON the complaint states a cause of action.

Held: Yes.

The complaint filed by the heirs is one for quieting of title, reconveyance of ownership, damages, and attorney's fees. To make out an action to quiet title, the initiatory pleading has only to set forth allegations showing that ( 1) the plaintiff has title to real property or any interest therein and (2) the defendant claims an interest therein adverse to the plaintiff's arising from an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable. Thus, the averments in the heirs' complaint that: ( 1) they are the legitimate, compulsory heirs of Spouses Naya, the former registered owners of the property; (2) the property is subject of intestate proceedings before the RTC, Branch 19 of Cebu City; (3) they consented to the occupation of their co-petitioner, Teresita, of the property since the time of death of Spouses Naya; ( 4) Orlando was able to fraudulently transfer the property in his name; and ( 5) Spouses Ruiz subsequently purchased the property at an allegedly void sale were sufficient to make out an action to quiet title under A476 of the Civil Code.

The action of the heir is, at the same time, one for reconveyance. They seek to compel Sps Ruiz, as the registered owners, to transfer or reconvey the land to them on the ground that they are its the rightful owners by succession and that the land was wrongfully registered in the names of Spouses Ruiz. The case would, in effect, challenge the efficacy of Spouses Ruiz' certificate of title under the theory that there had been no valid transfer or sale from the the heirs' predecessors in interest to the respondents of the rights or interests in the land, the reason being that the transactions transferring such rights and interests were purportedly carried out by means of fraud and such deceit.

In Mendizabel v. Apao, where the case was one for annulment of titles, reconveyance and damages, the Court were also confronted with an argument that the complaint must be dismissed because the circumstances constituting the allegations of fraud or mistake were not stated with particularity. The SC ruled against this argument, holding that in an action for reconveyance, all that must be alleged in the complaint are two facts which, admitting them to be true, would entitle the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed land, namely, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed the land in the concept of owner, and (2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the land. As already enumerated above, the allegations in the heirs' complaint certainly measure up to the requisite statement of fact to constitute an action for reconveyance based on  implied trust. Under to A1456 of the Civil Code, if the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is registered holds it as reconveyance a mere trustee, and the real owner is entitled to file an action for reconveyance of the property.  On its face, therefore, the complaint states a cause of action and raises issues of fact that can be properly settled only after a full-blown trial.

Issue 2 of 4: WON the action has prescribed.

Held: involves a question of fact that must be threshed out in a full blown trial.

The heirs allege that Teresita, a co-petitioner, is in possession of the property from the time of death of Spouses Naya until the filing of the case. This is a question of fact that must be threshed out in a full blown trial. If established, petitioners' action will be imprescriptible and hence, the defense of laches will not lie.

Issue 3 of  4: WON the action is barred by laches.

Held: need a full blown trial to rule if the heirs are guilty of laches

The elements of laches must be proven positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss. Thus, the dismissal of petitioners' complaint on the ground of laches was premature because the issue must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits where both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.

Issue of 4 of 4: WON the heirs are guilty of forum shopping.

Held: involves a question of fact that must be threshed out in a full blown trial

The consequences in relation to the dismissal of the cases simultaneously or successively filed vary as to whether forum shopping is deliberate, intentional, or willful. If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. If the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. However, the question as to whether there was deliberate or willful intent to forum shop is a question of fact, which the trial court is in the best position to determine.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the CA and its Resolution are SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the RTC Cebu City, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 7 which is directed to try and decide the case with deliberate speed.