G.R. No. L-6665; June 30, 1954
Josefa De Jesus, Pilar De Jesus and Dolores De Jesus, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Santos Belarmino and Teodora Ochoa de Juliano, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Josefa, Pilar, and Dolores de Jesus are the heirs of Petrona Quintero, who purchased Lot No. 400 of the Calamba Estate from Timoteo Villegas. Villegas originally bought the lot from the Bureau of Lands in 1910. The purchase price was fully paid by 1931. Defendant Santos Belarmino purchased the adjoining Lot No. 3211 from the Bureau of Lands. During a cadastral survey, a triangular portion of 7,396 square meters, which was originally part of Lot No. 400 purchased by Villegas, was erroneously included in the subdivision plan of Belarmino’s Lot No. 3211 (specifically in Lot No. 4639). The Register of Deeds subsequently issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129 in the name of Santos Belarmino (and partly Epifania Amatorio, whose heir is co-defendant Teodora Ochoa de Juliano), which included this triangular portion. The plaintiffs allege that their predecessors-in-interest had always been in continuous, open, public, notorious, and adverse possession of the disputed portion, and that the defendants knew it was not part of the lot sold to Belarmino. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the lower court granted, ruling that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the defendants, as holders of a certificate of title issued by the Government, should be considered as third parties who acquired the property in good faith and for value.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint, as amended, states a sufficient cause of action against the defendants.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The allegations in the complaint, taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The facts alleged show that: (1) the disputed triangular portion was part of the lot bought by plaintiffs’ predecessor; (2) it was erroneously included in the defendant’s lot during a resurvey; (3) the defendants knew or had constructive knowledge of this mistake; and (4) the defendants never claimed ownership or possession until after the title was issued in 1952. Under these alleged facts, the defendants cannot be considered purchasers in good faith. The test for sufficiency is whether, admitting the alleged facts, the court could render a valid judgment according to the complaint’s prayer. The complaint meets this test.