G.R. No. 129704 September 30, 2005
Ulpiano Balo, et al., Petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Enrique Asis and Josefina Garrido, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Josefina Garrido filed a complaint for Judicial Partition and Accounting against petitioners, her uncle and cousins. She alleged that she and petitioners are co-owners of parcels of land originally owned by the deceased spouses Eugenio Balo, Sr. and Maria Pasagui-Balo. The spouses were survived by their two children: Ulpiano, Sr. (petitioner Ulpiano Balo’s father) and Maximino (Garrido’s father). Garrido claimed petitioners took exclusive possession of the properties after Eugenio Sr.’s death and refused her request for partition.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss primarily on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. They argued Garrido failed to allege she is a legitimate child, which is fatal under Article 992 of the Civil Code barring an illegitimate child from inheriting from the legitimate relatives of the father. They also contended the estate’s obligations were unpaid and they had acquired the properties by purchase and adverse possession. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, ruling that only the facts pleaded in the complaint may be considered, and any doubt should be resolved in a trial on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the denial of the motion to dismiss.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reiterating the settled rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari. The proper remedy is to proceed to trial and, if the decision is adverse, to raise the denial as an error on appeal. Certiorari is available only when the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. A motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. The trial court correctly limited its review to these allegations, which sufficiently stated a cause of action for partition by a purported co-owner. Garrido’s complaint alleged her filiation to Maximino, a legitimate child of the original owners, and her status as an heir. The defense of illegitimacy, repurchase, and adverse possession raised by petitioners are matters of evidence that constitute defenses on the merits, not proper for resolution in a motion to dismiss. These defenses must be proven during trial. The trial court’s order to proceed with the case was a proper exercise of discretion.