DOLORES EVANGELISTA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.

It appears that on February 7, 1955, Dolores, Eufemia, Francisco,
Felix, Simeon, Justina, Manuela, Rafael and Francisco, all surnamed
Evangelista, filed in the court below a complaint against the Director
of Lands and Perpetuo Mendoza for the annulment of the homestead
application of the latter, it being alleged that the same covers a
portion of land which is part of Lot No. 2443, Naujan Cadastre,
Mindoro, Case No. 11, G.L.R.O. Record No. 953, which portion of land
had been adjudicated in 1930 by the Court of First Instance of Mindoro
to plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest, Eugenio Evangelista and
Petrona Lim, but that the Director of Lands subsequently refused to
subdivide the lot in accordance with the court’s decision. Answering
the complaint, the Director of Lands claimed that Lot No. 2443 is of
the public domain, over a portion of which defendant Mendoza filed his
homestead application before the war; and that said application was
approved and given due course in a regular manner. Defendant Mendoza,
on the other hand, alleged in his answer that the homestead he applied
for was disposable public agricultural land and the same was
adjudicated to him after he had complied with all legal requirements
for the acquisition of a homestead. Thereafter, plaintiffs amended
their complaint to include Ruperta Bool de Robles, Wenceslao Bool and
Mateo Macaraeg as defendants, the last named defendant being the
purchaser of the land covered by the homestead. Perpetuo Mendoza filed
another answer and Mateo Macaraeg also answered, but Ruperta Bool de
Robles and Wenceslao Bool both defaulted.

After trial,
during which plaintiffs presented evidence, the lower court granted the
request of the Director of Lands and Macaraeg that they be granted 15
days to move for dismissal. These two defendants subsequently filed a
joint motion to dismiss, with the homestead patent attached thereto,
alleging that plaintiffs’ complaint states no cause of action and that
assuming the contrary to be true, the same has already prescribed.
Defendant Mendoza in a separate motion also moved to dismiss the
complaint, alleging the same grounds averred by the other defendants in
their motions to dismiss.

Acting upon the motion to dismiss,
the lower court, on September 27, 1958, dismissed the complaint. The
dismissal was, however, not based upon any of the grounds alleged in
the motion but on the ground that “plaintiffs did not introduce as
evidence the homestead patent issued to Perpetuo Mendoza.”
Reconsideration of the order of dismissal having been denied, the
plaintiff’s appealed directly to this Court.

We find the appeal to be meritorious.

It is true that at the trial, plaintiffs-appellants did not present a
copy of the homestead patent sought to be annulled. Defendants Director
of Lands and Macaraeg have, however, attached said patent to their
joint motion to dismiss, making it part of their pleading and thereby
rendering unnecessary the presentation thereof by plaintiffs. Even if
appellants, therefore, failed to present the homestead patent at the
trial, the lower court has, nevertheless, been afforded the chance to
examine the same, it having been submitted as an annex to the motion to
dismiss. In the circumstances, we do not think the lower court acted
correctly in dismissing the complaint upon the ground stated in the
order complained of.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal
appealed from is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the lower
court for further proceedings. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.