St. Michael School v. Masaito Development Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc. (St. Michael), owned by Spouses Crisanto S. and Gloria M. Claveria, utilizes a passageway and school gate situated on a 61-square meter portion of Lot 4, Block 7, Phase 1 of Citihomes, a development owned and managed by respondents Masaito Development Corporation and Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. This passageway serves as the sole entrance and exit for the entire school population. Respondents previously offered to sell portions of their property to petitioners, including the lot used for the passageway, at prices petitioners found to be grossly overpriced and excessive. 2. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for easement of right-of-way with damages against respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite. The RTC initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining respondents from blocking the school's passageway and gate. Subsequently, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, first as to other plaintiffs and then as to St. Michael and the Claveria spouses, finding that St. Michael was not a real party in interest as it was not the registered owner of the property and that the Claveria spouses' properties were bounded by public roads, thus having adequate access. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioners' subsequent petition for certiorari, citing defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and a lack of a special power of attorney or board resolution authorizing Gloria M. Claveria to sign on behalf of the other petitioners, and the failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorney's Number. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of their petition for certiorari. They argue that the CA erred in its interpretation of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which they contend they substantially complied with by submitting an affidavit, a Special Power of Attorney, and a Secretary's Certificate authorizing Gloria M. Claveria to represent them. Petitioners also contend that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's dismissal of their complaint, asserting that the RTC improperly considered matters outside the pleadings and that the complaint, when read with its annexes, sufficiently alleged the elements for an easement of right-of-way under Article 649 of the Civil Code, establishing them as real parties in interest.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for alleged non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court regarding verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for easement of right-of-way.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and the Orders of the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is directed to reinstate petitioners’ complaint and conduct further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of verification and certification of non-forum shopping: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Petitioners substantially complied with the requirements of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. While the CA insisted on an amended verification stating allegations were true and correct based on authentic records, the rules allow for verification based on personal knowledge OR authentic records. Crucially, petitioners attached an Affidavit by Gloria M. Claveria, a Special Power of Attorney from Crisanto S. Claveria, and a Secretary's Certificate from St. Michael, all authorizing Gloria M. Claveria to represent them and attesting to the truthfulness of the allegations based on her personal knowledge and authentic documents. These submissions, taken together, satisfied the purpose of verification, which is to assure that the pleading is filed in good faith and not based on speculation. The Court reiterated that while procedural rules must be followed, they can be relaxed based on justifiable circumstances and substantial compliance, which was demonstrated here. On the issue of failure to state a cause of action for easement of right-of-way: The Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. For an easement of right-of-way under Article 649 of the Civil Code, three elements must be present: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) there is payment of proper indemnity; and (3) the isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate. The Court meticulously examined the Complaint and its annexes. Annexes "A," "A-1," and "A-2" (location plan and photographs) clearly showed that the school's only access to a public highway was through Lot 4, Block 7 of Citihomes, which abuts a major access road connected to the public highway. The photographs revealed the school was bounded by other immovable properties, necessitating a single entry and exit point. Without the right-of-way on Lot 4, the school would have no adequate access to a public highway. The Court emphasized that a motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged, and the RTC erred by considering matters not embodied in the Complaint, such as the alleged bounding of the spouses' properties by public roads, which was contrary to the Complaint's averments and annexes. The Court also clarified that St. Michael, as a possessor and user of the immovable property with a real right to cultivate or use it, and being surrounded without adequate outlet, is a real party-in-interest, along with the Claveria spouses who own the lot and are officers of the school. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint was patently erroneous and bereft of legal basis.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to alleged defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, finding substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action for easement of right-of-way, as the allegations and annexes sufficiently established the requisites under Article 649 of the Civil Code.