GR 143779; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143779 ; April 4, 2003
FRANCISCA L. MARQUEZ and GASPAR M. MARQUEZ, petitioners, vs. SIMEON BALDOZ, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Simeon Baldoz, claiming to be the sole heir of Spouses Dionisia Leonor and Aurelio Baldoz, filed an accion reivindicatoria and quieting of title complaint against petitioners Francisca L. Marquez, Gaspar M. Marquez, and Candelaria Orlina. He alleged that the subject land was purchased by his parents in 1937, and that after his co-heirs waived their rights in his favor, he discovered the petitioners were in possession and had declared portions of the land under their names. Demands to vacate were unheeded, prompting the suit.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of prescription and failure to state a cause of action. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, ruling the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action and that the issue of prescription involved evidentiary matters requiring a full trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders. Petitioners now argue the appellate court erred in affirming the RTC’s deferral of the prescription issue, allegedly violating Sections 2 and 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss, which deferred the resolution of the prescription issue for a full trial.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The trial court did not violate Rule 16. It conducted the required hearing on the motion to dismiss where parties submitted evidence. The court did not defer resolution; it expressly denied the motion. The denial was proper because prescription is effectively raised in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows the action has prescribed. Here, the complaint contained an allegation that petitioners’ predecessor, Gregorio Leonor, was a tenant of the respondent’s parents. This tenancy allegation made petitioners’ claim of uninterrupted adverse possession for over thirty years implausible on the face of the complaint. Since prescription was not clearly established from the pleading alone, a full-blown trial was the logical and proper course to thoroughly examine the factual issue. The appellate court correctly affirmed the trial court’s orders.