G.R. No. L-19751; February 28, 1966
ALFREDO REMITERE, ET AL., plaintiff-appellants, vs. REMEDIOS MONTINOLA VDA. DE YULO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Alfredo Remitere, et al., filed a complaint against defendants-appellees Remedios Montinola Viuda de Yulo and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. The complaint alleged that Gregorio Remitere was the registered owner of two lots under Original Certificates of Title. Upon his death in 1914, his wife was appointed administratrix of his estate. During the administration, the provincial sheriff conducted a public auction sale of the lots on September 23, 1918, issuing a deed of sale to Mariano Yulo. The original titles were subsequently cancelled and replaced by transfer certificates of title, eventually leading to titles in the name of defendant Remedios Montinola Viuda de Yulo. The complaint alleged that the public auction sale was “absolutely a void sale” and did not pass title, and that the plaintiffs, as surviving heirs of Gregorio Remitere, were entitled to reconveyance of the lots and indemnity for benefits derived from them. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint stated no cause of action and that any cause of action had prescribed. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dismissed the complaint on these grounds, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

Yes, the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs’ cause of action. The allegations were mere conclusions of law. Specifically, paragraph 3 of the complaint merely recited facts about the death of Gregorio Remitere, the appointment of an administratrix, and the sheriff’s sale without stating any connection between the plaintiffs and the deceased or how the sale affected the plaintiffs’ rights. Paragraph 5 alleged the sale was “absolutely a void sale” but did not state any facts or circumstances upon which the alleged nullity was based. An allegation that a contract is void, without stating facts showing its invalidity, is a mere conclusion of law. The complaint did not contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts—the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action, which are the legal right of the plaintiff, the correlative obligation of the defendant, and the act or omission of the defendant violating that right. Since the complaint failed to state a cause of action, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the issue of prescription. The order of dismissal was affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.