Roa v. Spouses Sy

A complaint cannot be dismissed based on lack of cause of action when the motion to dismiss raised failure to state a cause of action, and availing of a bill of particulars or written interrogatories constitutes a supervening event that bars a party from pursuing a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action.

Roa and her sister Amelia owned a Makati property. While Roa was abroad and Amelia was suffering from Alzheimer's, their niece Francisco allegedly forged a deed of sale to transfer the property to herself. Francisco then sold the property to Spouses Sy, who rapidly negotiated and bought the property under suspicious circumstances indicating they knew Francisco was not yet the registered owner at the time of their negotiations.

• Original Filing: RTC Branch 66, Makati City, Civil Case No. 13-301 (Complaint for cancellation of deeds of sale, annulment of title, and reconveyance with damages)
• Lower Court Decision: RTC Branch 66 denied Spouses Sy's motion to dismiss (Aug 7, 2013) and motion for reconsideration (Mar 26, 2014). Granted motion for bill of particulars (Sep 16, 2014). Case re-raffled to Branch 148 due to inhibition.
• Appeal: Spouses Sy filed a petition for certiorari under CA G.R. SP No. 135555 assailing the denial of the motion to dismiss.
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the CA decision.

• Ownership and the Forged Sale: Zenaida Roa and Amelia Roa owned property at 73 Amorsolo Street, Makati City (TCT No. 133936). On July 6, 2012, a deed of sale was purportedly executed by Zenaida and Amelia in favor of their niece, Marie Antoinette R. Francisco. Zenaida was in Washington D.C. at the time (left March 20, returned Aug 24), and Amelia had Alzheimer's for 10 years. Francisco's title (TCT No. 006-2012000849) was issued on July 16, 2012.
• The Subsequent Sale to Spouses Sy: Francisco sold the property to Spouses Sy for P35,000,000.00 under a deed of sale dated July 20, 2012. A new TCT was issued to Spouses Sy.
• Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith: Zenaida alleged Spouses Sy were buyers in bad faith because: (1) the close proximity between Francisco securing her title (July 16) and selling to Spouses Sy (July 20) meant Spouses Sy negotiated while Zenaida/Amelia were still the registered owners; (2) the title number in the Spouses Sy deed of sale was handwritten while the rest was computer-printed, indicating the title number wasn't available when the deed was drafted; (3) a third party (Ma. Celine Abiera) conformed to the sale despite having no registered interest; (4) the notary public denied notarizing the deed.
• Procedural Moves: Spouses Sy moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. RTC denied it. Spouses Sy then filed a motion for bill of particulars containing detailed questions about possession, citizenship, and prior legal actions (actually written interrogatories). Zenaida answered. Spouses Sy went to the CA via certiorari.

• The complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against Spouses Sy.
• Any defect or uncertainty was cured by the bill of particulars subsequently filed.
• Even if the complaint was deficient, the CA should have required an amended complaint instead of dismissing the case.
• Spouses Sy are buyers in bad faith due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the sale.

• The complaint fails to state a cause of action; it rests on conjectures and lacks specific averments of bad faith.
• They are buyers in good faith who relied on Francisco's clean title.
• Deficiency in the complaint cannot be cured by a bill of particulars; cause of action is determined from the allegations of the complaint.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the CA committed reversible error by dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action when the motion to dismiss raised failure to state a cause of action.
  • Whether filing a motion for bill of particulars (actually written interrogatories) bars a party from pursuing a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action.
  • Substantive Issues: N/A

• Procedural:
  • The CA erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action. Spouses Sy moved to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action. Courts cannot motu proprio dismiss on a ground not pleaded, except for: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) lis pendens; (3) res judicata; or (4) prescription. Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds and not interchangeable.
  • Filing a motion for bill of particulars (which was actually a request for written interrogatories) is a supervening event that bars Spouses Sy from pursuing their failure to state a cause of action theory. Seeking a bill of particulars admits the complaint bears ultimate facts comprising a valid cause of action and merely seeks specification. Seeking written interrogatories acknowledges the sufficiency of the adverse party's cause of action and seeks evidentiary matters for trial preparation.
  • The complaint states a cause of action. Applying the hypothetical acceptance test, assuming Zenaida's allegations are true (forged deed, suspicious proximity of dates, handwritten title number, notary denial), Zenaida has a right to relief (declaring the sale void due to buyers in bad faith).
  • Substantive: N/A

• Failure to State a Cause of Action vs. Lack of Cause of Action — Failure to state a cause of action refers to insufficiency of allegations in the pleading; raised at the earliest stages via motion to dismiss under Rule 16 or affirmative defense, resolved based solely on the allegations. Lack of cause of action refers to insufficiency of the factual basis for the action; raised after questions of fact have been resolved via demurrer to evidence under Rule 33, resolved based on evidence presented.
• Supervening Event Rule (Bill of Particulars / Interrogatories) — Availing of a bill of particulars or written interrogatories constitutes a supervening event that bars a party from pursuing a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action. Seeking a bill of particulars admits the complaint bears ultimate facts; seeking interrogatories acknowledges the sufficiency of the cause of action and seeks evidentiary matters for trial.
• Hypothetical Acceptance Test — The test to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action: admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, may a judge validly grant the relief demanded?

• Rule 9, Section 1, Rules of Court — Defenses and objections not pleaded are deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction, lis pendens, res judicata, and prescription. The SC applied this to show that failure to state/lack of cause of action are not exceptions allowing motu proprio dismissal.
• Rule 16, Section 1(g), Rules of Court — Grounds for motion to dismiss, including "that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action." The SC applied this to emphasize that lack of cause of action is not a ground under Rule 16.
• Rule 33, Section 1, Rules of Court — Demurrer to evidence. The SC applied this to show that lack of cause of action is raised after the plaintiff rests, via demurrer.
• Rule 12, Section 1, Rules of Court — Bill of Particulars. The SC applied this to explain that a bill of particulars seeks specification of ultimate facts, not to supply material allegations missing from the complaint.
• Rule 25, Section 1, Rules of Court — Interrogatories to Parties. The SC applied this to classify Spouses Sy's motion as a request for written interrogatories seeking evidentiary matters, which acknowledges the sufficiency of the complaint.