G.R. No. L-27940, June 10, 1971
FRANCISCO MILITANTE, III, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTERO EDROSOLANO and MANUEL BELLOSILLO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Francisco Militante III, initiated a complaint against the defendants-appellees. The core of his action stemmed from conflicting claims over certain properties arising from two separate civil cases. In the first case, Civil Case No. 6838, Militante had secured a writ of preliminary attachment over the properties of the appellees, which was duly levied, thereby creating a lien in his favor. Subsequently, in a different case, Civil Case No. 6216, a judgment was rendered against the same appellees, leading to a writ of execution and an execution sale of the very same properties that were under Militante’s attachment lien.
The trial court dismissed Militante’s complaint, holding that the facts alleged failed to constitute a cause of action. The court reasoned that the complaint did not sufficiently state a valid legal claim entitling him to relief. Militante appealed this dismissal, arguing that his acquired lien from the prior attachment was unlawfully disregarded or impaired by the subsequent execution sale.

ISSUE

Whether the facts alleged in the appellant’s complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the appellees.

RULING

Yes, the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action. Justice Dizon, in his concurring opinion, provides the legal logic for this conclusion. A cause of action exists when a wrong or delict committed by one party violates the right of another. Here, the appellant’s complaint clearly identifies a specific legal right: the lien he acquired over the appellees’ properties by virtue of the writ of preliminary attachment levied in Civil Case No. 6838. This lien is a recognized provisional remedy that creates a security interest in the attached property for the potential satisfaction of a future judgment.
The complaint then alleges a delict or act violative of that right: the issuance of the writ of execution and the subsequent execution sale of the attached properties pursuant to the judgment in Civil Case No. 6216. This execution sale, by purportedly transferring rights to the properties, directly threatens to nullify or render ineffective the appellant’s pre-existing attachment lien. The allegation that a later judicial process is undermining an earlier, properly established lien is sufficient to state a wrong that the court can adjudicate. The sufficiency of a cause of action is determined solely from the facts alleged in the complaint. At this procedural stage, the court is not tasked with deciding the ultimate merits, such as whether the appellant’s lien is superior to the rights derived from the execution sale. Those are evidentiary matters for full trial. The complaint need only show a violation of a right by a corresponding legal wrong, which it does by pleading the attachment lien and its impairment by the execution sale. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.