Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

APOSTOLIC VICAR OF TABUK, INC. rep. by BISHOP PRUDENCIO ANDAYA, JR. v. SPS b.

b. Lack of a cause of action refers to an insufficiency of factual or legal basis to


ERNESTO AND ELIZABETH SISON and VENANCIO WADAS [G.R. 191132. Jan. 27, 2016.] grant the complaint. Evidence failed to prove the cause of action alleged in
the pleading. It is a ground for dismissal using a demurrer to evidence after
Facts: the plaintiff has completed presenting his evidence. The dismissal
1. Sps. Sison and Wadas filed a forcible entry complaint against Vicar Apostolic of constitutes res judicata on the issue and will bar future suits based on the
Mountain Province, rep. By Fr. Gerry Gudmalin before the MCTC. same cause of action.
a. They alleged that Fr. Gerry, a priest of St. Anthony Church of the Vicar 2. In the present case, the petition for annulment of judgment actually stated a cause of
Apostolic of Mountain Province, ordered the forcible demolition of their action: that the MCTC rendered a judgment against the petitioner without acquiring
respective perimeter fences in order to expand the area of the Church. The jurisdiction over its person.
priest dispossessed them of their lands and began constructing a building 3. If the RTC hypothetically admitted this allegation, the petitioner becomes entitled to
that encroached on portions of their respective lots. the relief prayed for: the annulment of the MCTC judgment. Thus, the RTC erred when
b. The case was submitted for decision because Fr. Gerry failed to file its it stated that the dismissal was for "failure to state a cause of action."
answer despite service of summons.
2. MCTC rendered a decision in favor of the Sps. Sison and Wadas. 4. Nevertheless, Rule 47 authorizes RTC to dismiss a petition for annulment of judgment
a. It ordered Fr. Gerry and the Vicar Apostolic of Mountain Province to: (1) outright if it has no substantial merit. We affirm RTC's dismissal of the petition.
refrain from any further construction within the Sps. and Wadas’ properties; 5. First, in an ejectment suit (accion interdictal), the sole issue is the right of physical or
(2) remove their constructions; (3) vacate and return the properties; and (4) material possession over the subject real property independent of any claim of
pay damages. ownership by the parties involved.
b. MCTC decision became final and executory. a. Ownership over the property is immaterial and is only passed upon
3. Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. (the Vicariate of Tabuk) filed an urgent manifestation provisionally for the limited purpose of determining which party has the
and motion before the MCTC. It manifested: better right to possession.
a. (1) that the land is owned and possessed by the Vicariate of Tabuk 6. The only purpose of an ejectment suit for Forcible Entry (detentacion) is to protect the
represented by Reverend Monsignor Prudencio P. Andaya, Jr., not by the person who had prior physical possession against another who unlawfully entered the
Vicariate Apostolic of Mt. Province rep. by Fr. Gerry Gudmalin; and property and usurped his possession.
b. (2) that it had been denied due process because it was neither impleaded a. The suit is only filed against the possessor(s) of the property at the
nor served summons. commencement of action, and not against one who does not in fact occupy
4. MCTC denied the Apostolic Vicar’s urgent motion and manifestation. It treated the the land.
motion as a motion for reconsideration — a prohibited pleading under Section 19 of b. To determine who should be made a party- defendant, we simply look at
the Rules on Summary Procedure. who committed the acts amounting to forcible entry and remains in
a. It also stressed that in ejectment cases, the basic issue is possession de possession of the subject property.
facto, not ownership; the proper defendant is the person who actually 7. In the present case, it was alleged that it was Fr. Gerry, acting for the Vicar Apostolic
disturbed the complainant's possession over the property. of Mountain Province, who forcibly entered the property and who remains in
b. Thus, the Vicariate of Mt. Province (rep. by Fr. Gerry) which ordered the possession. Thus, the Vicariate of Mt. Province was correctly impleaded as defendant.
demolition of the perimeter fences and the expansion of the Church's 8. Second, ejectment suits are actions in personam wherein judgment only binds parties
occupied area, was properly impleaded. who had been properly impleaded and were given an opportunity to be heard.
5. Apostolic Vicar filed a petition for annulment of judgement in the RTC, which was a. The MCTC judgment was only rendered against Fr. Gerry and the Vicar
dismissed. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. It argues: Apostolic of Mountain Province, not against the Vicariate of Tabuk.
a. (1) that its petition for annulment sufficiently stated a cause of action; b. Hence, the Vicariate of Tabuk can only be bound by the MCTC judgment if it
b. (2) that it is the real party-in-interest that should have been impleaded in the is shown to be: (a) a trespasser, squatter, or agent of the defendants
ejectment suit; etc. fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or
6. Sps. Sison and Wadas maintain: other occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendants; (c) a
a. (1) that MCTC acquired jurisdiction over named defendant in the case; transferee pendente lite; (d) sub-lessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) a member of
b. (2) that as the actual occupant of the subject property, the named defendant the family, a relative, or other privy of the defendants.
is the real party-in-interest; etc. 9. In such a case, a court hearing is required to determine the character of such
possession. If the executing court finds that the Vicariate of Tabuk is a mere
Issue: W/N Vicariate of Mt. Province was properly impleaded in the forcible entry suit. - YES successor-in- interest, guest, or agent of the defendants, the order of execution shall
be enforced against it.
Held: Petition Denied. 10. Since the judgment was not rendered against Vicariate of Tabuk, it has no legal
1. RTC dismissed the Vicariate of Tabuk's petition for annulment of judgment because it personality to ask for annulment of the judgment.
allegedly ​failed​ to state a cause of action. However, we conclude that the dismissal 11. This is not to say that Vicariate of Tabuk is left without a remedy in law. It may still
was actually due to ​lack​ of a cause of action. avail of the plenary action of accion reinvindicatoria wherein the issue of its ownership
a. Failure to state a cause of action refers to an insufficiency of the allegations may be thoroughly threshed out in a full-blown trial after which complete reliefs may
in the petition/complaint. It is a ground for dismissal before the defendant or be granted to the proper parties.
respondent files a responsive pleading. Notably, the dismissal is without
prejudice to the refiling of an amended complaint.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi