RACOMA V.
FORTICH_DIGEST_CONCEPTS
FACTS:
This is a direct appeal for questions of law because of the dismissal by CFI of a complaint for
reconveyance and possession (for mistake or fraud over a parcel of land). The ground for dismissal was
the affirmative defenses (lack of cause of action and res judicata) as alleged in the answer.
The defendant submitted a motion to dismiss the original complaint. Before it could be resolved
by the court, plaintiff submitted a first amended complaint, hence, the court denied the motion to
dismiss. Then, the defendant submitted an answer to the first amended complaint, alleging, as
affirmative defenses the grounds in the aforecited motion to dismiss the original complaint.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, impleading 2 new additional defendants. The
court admitted the second amended complaint. The responsive answer to the first complaint shall be
considered reproduced as responsive answer to the second amended complaint.
The case at bar was set for preliminary hearings on the affirmative grounds averred in the
defendant's answer, which appears to be indubitable grounds for a motion to dismiss (Rule 16, s. 5).
The plaintiff prayed for the admission of their 3rd amended complaint. For purposes of
preliminary hearings, the statements in the 2nd amended complaint shall be the one considered,
because the first amended complaint is considered to have disappeared from the records of the case as
judicial admissions because they have been superseded by the 2nd amended complaint. Meanwhile, the
averments in the 3rd amended complaint cannot be considered because it has not yet been admitted by
the court.
A substantial part of appelant's brief was impertinent because its statement of facts and
assignment of errors are erroneously predicated on the 3rd amendment, which has not been passed
upon by the lower court, and is not the subject of the appealed order of dismissal.
ISSUE:
(1) WON the complaint alleges a sufficient cause of action
RULING:
The court (CFI) held that the 2nd amended complaint does not allege a sufficient cause of
action. Although the complaint alleged that the defendant, either by mistake or fraud, obtained title to
the land, which the plaintiff seeks to be reconveyed to himself, the complaint FAILED to state, with
particularity, the ultimate fact and circumstances constituting the alleged mistake or fraud, and that
such failure is fatal to the sufficiency of a cause of action. The general averment of mistake or fraud,
being merely a conclusion of law, not an allegation of ultimate facts. The court (CFI) is in error.
Examining the allegations of the complaint, a cause of action is sufficiently alleged. The plaintiff
has defined his primary right, which is, that he is the owner of a parcel of land for 30 years, that he had
applied for a free patent to it, and the Director of Lands has approved it. The plaintiff also alleged that
the defendant had violated his right by including his land, in the bigger parcel of land, over which the
defendant had obtained a certificate of title, and that the defendant, claiming adverse ownership,
wanted to oust the plaintiff from his land. The allegations even particularized fraud in the 2nd amended
complaint. (Complainant had no knowledge of the application for registration and the order of decree of
registration, when the defendant entered the parcel of land, claiming that the parcel of land now
belongs to her and is included in her application for registration. ALSO, the defendant, filed her
application for registration, knowing full well that at the the time she filed her application for
registration, the parcel of land belonged and still belongs to the plaintiff as the lawful owner and
possessor thereof.)
***The 2 factors that a cause of action must consist of are: plaintiff's primary right, and defendant's
delict or wrongful act or ommission which violates plaintiff's primary right, were alleged in the
complaint; and the allegations thereof could meet the test of sufficiency of stating a cause of action,
because a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged facts were admitted or proved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lower court also dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. It is stated that the
plaintiff had admitted that the property in controversy was applied for by the defendant in a cadastral
proceeding, that the proceedings were in rem, and therefore, the whole world, including the plaintiff
were parties thereto, and bound by the judgment thereon. Since no evidence was taken to support such
stated finding, but the orders depended only on the consideration of the allegations of the parties, it is
obvious that the lower court was referring to the legal effect of the conclusiveness against all persons of
the in rem decision in the cadastral case rather than the actual fact that the plaintiff was a claimant who
appeared in the said case, for he alleged in his complaint that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the
application for registration filed by the defendant, and the order of decree of registration issued in favor
of the defendant. Such being the case, action for reconveyance is available to the plaintiff.
***The existence of a decree of registration in favor of one party is no bar to an action to compel
reconveyance of the property to the true owner, which is an action in person, even if such action be
instituted after the year fixed by Land Registration Act (LRA) as a limit to the review of the registration
decree, provided it is shown that the registration is wrongful and the property sought to be reconveyed
has not passed to an innocent third-party holder for value.
***Conclusiveness of judgment in the registration of lands is not absolute. Public policy dictates that
those unjustly deprived of their rights over real property by reason of the operation of our registration
laws be afforded remedies. The aggrieved party may file a suit for reconveyance of property or a
personal action for recovery of damages against the party who procured theregistration through fraud.
Necessarily, without setting aside the decree of title, the issues raised in the previous
registration case are relitigated for purposes of reconveyance of said title or recovery of damages.
NOTES:
1. Define ultimate facts and circumstances.
- essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action
2. Define conclusion of law.
- ex-allegation that a contract is valid or void.
3. Test of sufficiency
- if upon admission or proof of the facts being alleged, a judgment may be properly given.
- A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action
insufficient.
