G.R. No. 166301 ; February 29, 2008
ST. MICHAEL SCHOOL OF CAVITE, INC. and SPOUSES CRISANTO S. CLAVERIA and GLORIA M. CLAVERIA, petitioners, vs. MASAITO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and REXLON REALTY GROUP, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner St. Michael School is located adjacent to respondents’ Citihomes subdivision. The school’s sole entrance and exit gate is situated on a portion of a lot within the subdivision, which the school uses as a passageway. Respondents offered to sell the lot to petitioners, but the offers were refused. Petitioners, along with others, filed a complaint for easement of right-of-way and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, ruling that petitioners did not adequately allege the essential elements for a compulsory easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code, particularly the payment of proper indemnity.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, citing a defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The CA noted the verification lacked an assurance that the allegations were based on authentic records and was signed by one petitioner on behalf of others without the required authorization. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching documents to cure the defects, but the CA denied it.

ISSUE

1. Did the CA err in dismissing the petition based on procedural defects in the verification and certification?
2. Did the CA err in not finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action?

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and RTC resolutions. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the CA committed reversible error. The requirement for a verification based on “personal knowledge or authentic records” is satisfied if the pleading, as a whole, alleges such a basis. Petitioners’ verification stated the allegations were true and correct based on “knowledge and information and belief,” which was deemed substantial compliance. Furthermore, the documents submitted with the motion for reconsideration sufficiently cured any initial defect. Procedural rules should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantial justice.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. A motion to dismiss on this ground hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations in the complaint. The complaint sufficiently alleged the elements for an easement of right-of-way: the school is surrounded by respondents’ property with no adequate outlet to a public highway, and the current passageway is the only feasible exit. The complaint also contained an express offer to pay reasonable indemnity. The RTC’s dismissal, based on its view that the offered indemnity was insufficient, was premature, as the proper indemnity is a matter for full trial and evidence. The petitioners, as school operators and landowners, are real parties-in-interest. The complaint, therefore, stated a valid cause of action. The RTC was directed to reinstate the complaint and proceed with the trial.