Tañedo v. Bernad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Antonio Cardenas owned two contiguous parcels of land, Lot 7501-A and Lot 7501-B. He sold Lot 7501-A to Eduardo C. Tañedo. On the same day, he mortgaged Lot 7501-B to Tañedo as security for a P10,000.00 loan and agreed to sell Lot 7501-B to Tañedo should he decide to sell it, due to the septic tank on Lot 7501-B servicing Lot 7501-A and a portion of Tañedo's building encroaching on Lot 7501-B. Antonio Cardenas subsequently sold Lot 7501-B to spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim. Upon learning of the sale, Tañedo offered to redeem the property, but Romeo Sim refused and blocked the sewage pipe connecting Tañedo's building to the septic tank. Tañedo also received a demand to remove the encroaching portion of his building. Procedural History: Tañedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, invoking Article 1622 of the Civil Code. The Sps. Sim claimed absolute ownership and argued Tañedo had no right to redeem as Lot 7501-B was larger than Lot 7501-A. Antonio Cardenas admitted agreeing to sell Lot 7501-B to Tañedo but claimed the sale to Sps. Sim was merely an equitable mortgage to secure loans. The Sps. Sim insisted the sale was absolute. The RTC dismissed the complaint and cross-claim for lack of cause of action, and subsequently denied Tañedo's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Tañedo filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the RTC's dismissal orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the complaint for legal redemption and damages for lack of cause of action was proper. Whether the petitioner has a right to legal redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action for breach of promise to sell Lot 7501-B. Whether the easement of drainage through the septic tank on Lot 7501-B was extinguished upon the sale of the lots to different owners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the orders of the RTC, directing the court to proceed with the trial on the merits. The Court found the dismissal precipitate and contrary to law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for lack of cause of action: The Court held that the dismissal of an action on the ground of lack of cause of action must be based on the insufficiency appearing on the face of the complaint. The test is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment. The RTC's dismissal was precipitate because it failed to consider that the petitioner's claim for damages due to breach of promise to sell, as well as the issue of easement, required a trial on the merits. The hypothetical admission of facts by the movant for dismissal necessitates a thorough examination of the evidence, which was absent in the summary dismissal. On the right to legal redemption under Article 1622: While acknowledging that Tañedo could not redeem the entire Lot 7501-B as it was larger than his lot, the Court noted that Tañedo sought to purchase only the portion of Lot 7501-B occupied by his building, which encroached thereon. This specific claim, along with the demand to remove the encroachment, should have been determined during the pre-trial or trial stage, not summarily dismissed. The Court emphasized that the right to redeem, even a portion, should be given due course if the facts alleged, when admitted, could lead to a valid judgment. On the cause of action for breach of promise to sell: The Court found that the petitioner had a valid cause of action for damages due to breach of promise to sell Lot 7501-B. Antonio Cardenas admitted the existence of a written agreement to sell Lot 7501-B to Tañedo, although he claimed it was for security purposes. Given this admission and the apparent consideration for the promise, a trial was necessary to determine the existence and extent of the breach and the damages suffered by Tañedo. The allegations in the complaint regarding the "sureptitious" sale and the resulting moral damages and litigation expenses also warranted a full hearing. On the extinguishment of the easement of drainage: The Court ruled that the trial court's finding that the petitioner's right to use the septic tank on Lot 7501-B ceased upon the sale of the lots was contrary to law. Article 631 of the Civil Code enumerates the grounds for extinguishment of easements, and alienation of estates to different persons is not among them. Instead, Article 624 of the Civil Code provides that the existence of an apparent sign of easement, established by the owner of both estates, continues by operation of law upon their alienation, unless expressly stated otherwise or the sign is removed before the conveyance. Since no such provision or removal occurred, the easement of drainage through the septic tank continued, and the new owners of Lot 7501-B could not impair its use.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a complaint for legal redemption and damages on the ground of lack of cause of action is precipitate if the insufficiency does not appear on the face of the complaint, and the court can render a valid judgment based on the facts alleged. Furthermore, the existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established by the owner of both, continues by operation of law upon alienation of either estate, unless expressly provided otherwise in the title of conveyance or the sign is removed before the deed's execution.