Marquez v. Baldoz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Simeon Baldoz, as the son and heir of the late Spouses Dionisia Leonor and Aurelio Baldoz, claims ownership over a parcel of land located in Halang, Taal, Batangas. This land was originally purchased by his parents from Emiliano Baldoz on January 17, 1937. The deed of sale indicated that the property was owned in common by the vendor, Emiliano Baldoz, and Gregorio Leonor, the father of petitioners Francisca Leonor and Gaspar Marquez. After respondent's co-heirs waived their rights to him via an Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver of Rights on March 24, 1997, respondent discovered that Francisca Leonor and Candelaria Orlina had declared portions of the same land under their names, as evidenced by Tax Declaration Nos. 0056 to 0058. Respondent's demands for them to vacate and surrender possession were unheeded, leading him to file a case for accion reivindicatoria and quieting of title. Procedural History: Respondent Simeon Baldoz filed Civil Case No. 9-97 against petitioners Francisca Leonor and Gaspar Marquez, and Candelaria Orlina, for accion reivindicatoria and quieting of title, with a prayer for preliminary injunction and damages. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, asserting prescription and failure to state a cause of action. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taal, Batangas City, Branch 86, denied this motion in an order dated April 6, 1999, finding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action and that the issue of prescription involved evidentiary matters best resolved in a full-blown trial. The RTC subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a decision dated April 24, 2000, and denied petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners Francisca L. Marquez and Gaspar M. Marquez are seeking, through this petition for review, the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision. They contend that the CA erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the evidence presented and erroneously ruling that the respondent's right of action had not prescribed, solely based on the allegations in the complaint, contrary to Rules 16, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They further argue that the CA erred in not finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to consider the evidence on record and to rule definitively on the issue of prescription, again in violation of the same procedural rules. The core of their argument is that the trial court improperly deferred the resolution of the prescription issue, which is prohibited under the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and a reversible error in affirming the trial court's orders denying the motion to dismiss. Whether the trial court violated Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court in denying the motion to dismiss; and whether the complaint, on its face, clearly shows that the action has already prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC's orders. The RTC correctly denied the motion to dismiss because the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action and the issue of prescription was not clearly established on the face of the pleadings, necessitating further proceedings. The CA's affirmation of this ruling was therefore proper. On the alleged violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 16 and the issue of prescription: The Court held that the trial court did not violate Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 16. Section 2 requires a hearing, which the trial judge conducted, receiving testimonial and documentary evidence. However, the summary hearing did not persuade the court that the claim had prescribed, necessitating a full-blown trial. Section 3 requires a resolution, which the RTC provided by expressly denying the motion to dismiss, not deferring its resolution. The trial court's order clearly stated its reasons for denial, finding a sufficient cause of action and that prescription involved evidentiary matters. The Court reiterated the principle that an allegation of prescription can be a ground for a motion to dismiss only when the complaint, on its face, clearly shows that the action has already prescribed. In this case, the complaint did not ipso facto establish prescription. The allegation that Gregorio Leonor was a tenant of the respondent's predecessor-in-interest, as noted by the CA, made the claim of uninterrupted adverse possession for over thirty years implausible on the face of the complaint. Possession is not a definitive proof of ownership, nor is non-possession inconsistent therewith. Therefore, the issue of prescription required a full-blown trial on the merits.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss based on prescription may be denied if the complaint does not clearly show on its face that the action has already prescribed, requiring a full-blown trial to resolve evidentiary matters.