Clidoro v. Jalmanzar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rizalina Clidoro, et al. filed a complaint for revival of judgment against Onofre Clidoro, et al. The original case was Civil Case No. T-98 for partition, and the judgment sought to be revived was the November 13, 1995 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 19831, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated March 10, 1988. The CA Decision ordered the partition of the estate of the late Mateo Clidoro among specific heirs and successors-in-interest. Procedural History: Defendants-appellees (except Gregoria Clidoro-Palanca) moved to dismiss the complaint for revival of judgment on grounds including lack of cause of action, improper substitution of parties, non-compliance with execution requirements, and the judgment being interlocutory. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding that the deceased parties were no longer real parties-in-interest and that the complaint was flawed in form and substance. Plaintiffs-appellants moved for reconsideration, seeking to amend the complaint to implead additional heirs, but this was denied. The CA reversed the RTC's dismissal orders, remanding the case for further proceedings. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners seek the reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution, raising issues regarding proper substitution of parties, identification of real parties-in-interest, propriety of amendment to pleadings, and alleged misjoinder of parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint for revival of judgment may be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Whether the respondents are the real parties-in-interest and whether there was proper substitution of parties in the action for revival of judgment. Whether amendment to pleadings was properly made and whether there was a mere misjoinder of parties.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated October 17, 2006, and its Resolution dated February 6, 2007, are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for lack of cause of action: The Court reiterated that lack of cause of action is not a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court; only failure to state a cause of action is. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations in the complaint. In this case, the complaint alleged that the parties in the revival action were also parties in the partition action, which, if hypothetically admitted, sufficiently stated a cause of action for revival. The action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action where the cause of action is the decision itself, not the merits of the original action. Therefore, the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint on this ground. On the real parties-in-interest and substitution of parties: The Court emphasized that the parties in an action for revival of judgment need not be exactly the same as in the original case. What is important is that they are the ones who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment. The complaint for revival impleaded heirs and representatives of the original parties, and a comparison with the original partition case showed that most of the prevailing parties were plaintiffs in the revival action, and the defendants were represented by their alleged heirs. The Court cited Basbas v. Sayson to state that even just one co-owner can bring an action for recovery, implying that not all original prevailing parties need to be plaintiffs in the revival action. Thus, the respondents, as prevailing parties with an interest in enforcing the decision, could be considered real parties-in-interest. On the amendment of pleadings and misjoinder of parties: The Court found that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action. The allegations regarding the parties' interest in having the decision executed sufficiently stated a cause of action. The question of whether the respondents were the real parties-in-interest and had the right to seek execution should have been determined in a full-blown trial, not through a motion to dismiss. The CA correctly reversed the RTC's dismissal orders and remanded the case for further proceedings, implying that issues of substitution, misjoinder, and amendment could be addressed during trial.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action is not proper under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court; such determination can only be made during or after trial. What is dismissible via motion to dismiss is a failure to state a cause of action, which is determined solely from the allegations in the complaint.