G.R. No. L-66520 August 30, 1988
EDUARDO C. TAÑEDO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUANITO A. BERNAD, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch XXI, Cebu City; Spouses ROMEO SIM and PACITA S. SIM; and Spouses ANTONIO CARDENAS and MAE LINDA CARDENAS, respondents.

FACTS

Antonio Cardenas owned two contiguous lots: Lot 7501-A (140 sqm) and Lot 7501-B (612 sqm). Improvements existed on both, including an apartment building on Lot 7501-A, part of which stood on Lot 7501-B, and a septic tank on Lot 7501-B servicing Lot 7501-A. On February 5, 1982, Cardenas sold Lot 7501-A to Eduardo Tañedo and, on the same day, mortgaged Lot 7501-B to Tañedo. Cardenas also agreed in writing to sell Lot 7501-B only to Tañedo if he decided to sell it. However, Cardenas later sold Lot 7501-B to spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim. Upon learning of the sale, Tañedo offered to redeem the property, but the Sims refused. The Sims then blocked the sewage pipe connecting Tañedo’s building to the septic tank and demanded he remove the encroaching portion of his building. Tañedo filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Tañedo’s complaint for lack of cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s orders of dismissal. The dismissal for lack of cause of action was precipitate. The test for sufficiency of a cause of action is whether, admitting the facts alleged in the complaint, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with its prayer. The movant for dismissal hypothetically admits the truth of the averred facts. While Tañedo could not legally redeem the entire Lot 7501-B under Article 1622 of the Civil Code, as the area sought (612 sqm) was larger than his own lot (140 sqm), his complaint contained other actionable claims. First, he sought to purchase only the small, encroached-upon portion of Lot 7501-B, an issue requiring determination at pre-trial or trial. Second, his complaint was also an action for damages due to Cardenas’s breach of promise to sell him the lot. Third, the complaint properly alleged a cause of action for the enforcement of an easement. The septic tank constituted a continuous and apparent easement of drainage for the benefit of Lot 7501-A. Under Article 624 of the Civil Code, such an easement continues by operation of law upon the alienation of the dominant or servient estate to different persons, unless expressly extinguished in the title. The deed of sale to Tañedo contained no such extinguishment. Therefore, the Sims, as new owners of the servient estate (Lot 7501-B), could not impair the use of this servitude. The case was remanded for trial on the merits.