GR L 16601; (March, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16601 March 24, 1965
SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Soledad L. de Miraflores commenced an action for specific performance and damages against defendants-appellees Jose Y. Hilado and Cirilo Abrasia. The complaint alleged that Hilado and Abrasia sold to her sugar quota rights adhered to the Victorias Milling Co., Inc., as evidenced by written contracts. When she presented these documents to the milling company for registration, it refused, citing the vendors’ failure to register their own rights to the sugar quota with the Register of Deeds as required by Executive Order No. 873. Appellant then demanded that Hilado perfect his right to the quota to enable her registration, but appellees failed to comply, leading to the lawsuit. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of cause of action and non-joinder of indispensable parties. The lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, ruling that the contracts did not obligate the defendants to effect the transfer’s registration with the milling company.
ISSUE
Whether the allegations of the complaint constitute a sufficient cause of action against the appellees.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that, upon the facts alleged, it was the duty of Hilado to have the document through which he acquired the sugar quota from Marcos Tupas properly registered, along with the subsequent deeds of sale to Abrasia and to appellant. Similarly, it was Abrasia’s duty to cause the registration of the deed of sale he executed in favor of appellant. As vendors, both appellees were bound under their contracts to do everything requisite and necessary to accomplish the registration of the transfer to appellant in the central’s books and records, as without such registration, her rights could be jeopardized. Since the complaint alleged that appellees refused to comply with this duty, it stated a sufficient cause of action.