CEROFERR

CEROFERR REALT
REALTY CORPORAT
CORPORATION
ION vs. COURT
COURT OF APPEA
APPEALS
LS and ERNEST
ERNESTO
O D.
SANTIAGO

 Key Doctrine: If
Doctrine:  If the allegations in the complaint furnish suicient basis by which
the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of 
the defense that may be assessed by the defendants.

Facts
acts:: Plaint
Plaintif
if (Cero
(Ceroerr
err Realty
Realty Corpor
Corporati
ation)
on) led
led wit
with
h the RTC,
RTC, a compla int i
complaint
against
against deendant
deendant Ernesto
Ernesto D. antiago (antiago),
(antiago), or damages
damages and in!"nction,
in!"nction,
with preliminary in!"nction. #n the complaint, Ceroerr prayed that antiago and
his agents $e en!oined rom % claiming possession and ownership o&er 'ot o. * o 
the Tala Estate
Estate "$di&
"$di&isi
ision,
on, +"eon
+"eon City
City,- that
that ant
antia
iago
go and
and his
his agen
agents
ts $e
pre&ented rom maing "se o the &acant lot as a !eepney terminal- that antiago
$e ordered to pay Ceroerr P/0.00 daily as lost income or the "se o the lot "ntil
possessio
possession n is restored to the latter- and that antiago
antiago $e directed
directed to pay plaintif 
plaintif 
Ceroerr moral, act"al and e1emplary damages and attorney2s ees, pl"s e1penses
o litigation.

#n his answer, deendant antiago alleged that the &acant lot reerred to in the
complaint was within 'ot o. 30 o the Tala Estate "$di&ision and that he had the
legal right to ence since this $elonged to him.

#n the co"rse o the proceedings, there was a &erication s"r&ey, ollowed $y a

relocation s"r&ey, where$y it wo"ld appear that the &acant lot is inside 'ot o. *.
The o"tcome o the s"r&ey, howe&er, was &igoro"sly o$!ected to $y deendant who
insist
insisted
ed that
that the area
area is inside
inside his lot.
lot. Deend
Deendant
ant,, in his manie
maniesta
statio
tion
n dated
dated
o&em$
o&em$er er 4, 5336,
5336, ad&ert
ad&erteded to the report
report o a geodet
geodetic
ic engine
engineer
er.. 7arian
7ariano
o 8.
9lotildes, to the efect that the disp"ted portion is inside the $o"ndaries o 'ot o.
30 o the Tala Estate "$di&ision which is separate and distinct rom 'ot o. *,
and that the two lots are separated $y a concrete ence.

Deend
Deendant
ant led
led a motion
motion to dismis
dismiss
s the compla
complaint
int premis
premised
ed primar
primarily
ily on his
contention that the trial co"rt cannot ad!"dicate the iss"e o damages witho"t
passing o&er the con:icting claims o ownership o the parties o&er the disp"ted
portion.

Trial co"rt dismissed the case or lac o ca"se o action and lac o !"risdiction.
The co"rt held that plaintif was in efect imp"gning the title o deendant which
co"ld not $e done in the case or damages
damages and in!"nction
in!"nction $eore it. #t concl"ded
concl"ded
that it co"ld not proceed to decide plaintifs claim or damages and in!"nction or
lac o !"risdiction $eca"se its !"dgment wo"ld depend "pon a determination o the
 &alidity o deendants title and the identity o the land co&ered $y it. 9rom this
r"ling, plaintif appealed to this co"rt insisting that the complaint stated a &alid
ca"se o action which was determina$le rom the ace thereo 

Issue: ;hether Ceroerrs complaint states a s"ficient ca"se o action

Held: <es

The r"les o proced"re re="ire that the complaint m"st state a concise statement
o the "ltimate acts or the essential acts constit"ting the plaintifs ca"se o 
action. > act is essential i it cannot $e stricen o"t witho"t lea&ing the statement
o the ca"se o action inade="ate. > complaint states a ca"se o action only when it
has its three indispensa$le elements, namely? (5) a right in a&or o the plaintif $y
whate&er means and "nder whate&er law it arises or is created- (4) an o$ligation
on the part o the named deendant to respect or not to &iolate s"ch right- and (@)
an act or omission on the part o s"ch deendant &iolati&e o the right o plaintif or
constit"ting a $reach o the o$ligation o deendant to the plaintif or which the
latter may maintain an action or reco&ery o damages. # these elements are not
e1tant, the complaint $ecomes &"lnera$le to a motion to dismiss on the gro"nd o 
ail"re to state a ca"se o action.

 These elements are present in the case at $ar.

The complaint alleged that petitioner Ceroerr owned 'ot * co&ered $y TCT o.
RT%30400 (@@6///). Petitioner Ceroerr "sed a portion o 'ot * as a !eepney
terminal. The complaint "rther alleged that respondent antiago claimed the
portion o 'ot * "sed as a !eepney terminal since he claimed that the !eepney
terminal was within 'ot 30 owned $y him and co&ered $y TCT o. RT%A*5 50
(@/@*) iss"ed in his name.

Despite clarication rom petitioner Ceroerr that the !eepney terminal was within
'ot * and not within 'ot 30, respondent antiago persisted in his plans to ha&e
the area enced. Be applied or and was iss"ed a encing permit $y the "ilding
ficial, +"eon City. #t was e&en alleged in the complaint that respondent%
antiago was pre&enting petitioner Ceroerr and its agents rom entering the
property "nder threats o $odily harm and destroying e1isting str"ct"res thereon.

 > deendant who mo&es to dismiss the complaint on the gro"nd o lac o ca"se o 
action, as in this case, hypothetically admits all the a&erments thereo. The test o 
s"ficiency o the acts o"nd in a complaint as constit"ting a ca"se o action is
whether or not admitting the acts alleged the co"rt can render a &alid !"dgement
"pon the same in accordance with the prayer thereo. The hypothetical admission
e1tends to the rele&ant and material acts well pleaded in the complaint and
inerences airly ded"ci$le thererom. Bence, i the allegations in the complaint
"rnish s"ficient $asis $y which the complaint can $e maintained, the same sho"ld
not $e dismissed regardless o the deense that may $e assessed $y the
deendants.

#n this case, petitioner Ceroerrs ca"se o action has $een s"ficiently a&erred in
the complaint. # it were admitted that the right o ownership o petitioner Ceroerr
to the peace"l "se and possession o 'ot * was &iolated $y respondent antiagos
act o encroachment and encing o the same, then petitioner Ceroerr wo"ld $e
entitled to damages.
i