BENZON O. ALDEMITA, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF MELQUIADES SILVA, REPRESENTED BY RAMON G. VILLORDON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Aldemita versus Heirs of Melquiades Silva

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Benzon O. Aldemita against the Heirs of Melquiades Silva, represented by Ramon G. Villordon, Jr. The respondents sued to quiet title over a registered parcel of land in Minglanilla, Cebu, claiming that certain old documents relied upon by the petitioner cast a cloud on their ownership. The case matters because it teaches two enduring lessons: that failure to state a cause of action is a ground that must be raised on time or is waived under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and that a document more than thirty years old does not prove itself as an ancient document when the evidence on record shows it to be a forgery.

Procedural History

The Heirs of Melquiades Silva filed a complaint for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 11. The petitioner answered and raised his defenses. At pre-trial, the parties stipulated on several facts and agreed to refer the questioned signatures to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office as commissioner of the court. After the commissioner reported that the signatures were forged, the trial court treated the report as its findings of fact, and the parties manifested that they would submit the case for decision without trial.

Only after the case had been submitted for decision did the petitioner, through new counsel, file a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, arguing that the respondents had first to be declared heirs in a special proceeding. The trial court denied the motion as filed out of time, denied reconsideration, and rendered judgment declaring the respondents the rightful owners, voiding the questioned documents, and ordering the petitioner to respect the title and vacate the premises.

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full. The appellate court held that the issue of real party in interest was raised for the first time on appeal, and that the forgery findings stood because the petitioner offered no evidence of due execution and authenticity. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Lot 11330 of Pcs-945, located in Minglanilla, Cebu, was registered in the name of Melquiades Silva under a transfer certificate of title and covered by a tax declaration in his name. Melquiades Silva died on July 3, 1961. His heirs, the respondents, have been in actual physical possession of the land, except for a portion of 2,000 square meters that the petitioner claims to possess.

The petitioner traces his claim to Dionisia Vda. de Zabate and, later, to Emilia Deiparine, who supposedly sold the property to him in 1996. His claim rests on old documents: a "Kalig-onan sa Palit" purportedly executed by Melquiades Silva in 1949, which the petitioner himself admitted at pre-trial to be a forgery; a "Kalig-onan sa Panagpalit nga Dayon" also purportedly executed in 1949; and a Deed of Confirmation of Previous Deed of Sale executed in 1979.

At pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the questioned signatures to a court-appointed commissioner. The commissioner's report found the purported signatures of Melquiades Silva and Porferia Silva to be forgeries. The trial court adopted the report as its findings of fact. The petitioner, through counsel, agreed to submit the case for decision without trial and offered no evidence to prove the due execution and authenticity of the documents.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the respondents the rightful and absolute owners of the land despite the absence of a court order appointing an administrator and of a judicial declaration of heirship.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the questioned documents null and void, considering the petitioner's claim that the 1949 deed is an ancient document whose authenticity need not be proven.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.

This fixes the four defenses that survive even if not pleaded, and failure to state a cause of action is not one of them.

Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides:

Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: x x x x (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; x x x x

This sets the period within which the ground of failure to state a cause of action must be raised, which the petitioner missed.

Section 21 of Rule 132, on ancient documents, was invoked by the petitioner and is discussed by the Court through its elements: the document must be more than thirty years old, found in proper custody, and unblemished by any alteration or circumstance of suspicion, and it must on its face appear to be genuine.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner's motion to dismiss was filed out of time. Under Section 1, Rule 16, the ground of failure to state a cause of action must be raised within the time for but before filing the answer. The petitioner filed his motion only after the case had been submitted for decision. Under Section 1, Rule 9, as amended, only lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription are not waived. Failure to state a cause of action is not among the exceptions, so the petitioner is deemed to have waived it.

Even on the merits, the Court found that the complaint states a cause of action. A cause of action has three elements: the legal right of the plaintiff, the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that right, and an act or omission of the defendant that violates it. The test is whether, admitting the truth of the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. The respondents alleged their ownership as heirs of the registered owner, the forgery of the documents, and the cloud cast on their title. The Court also noted that the petitioner never questioned the respondents' capacity at pre-trial, and that whether the persons named are actually the heirs may still be threshed out in a proper proceeding for declaration of heirs and settlement of the estate.

On the second issue, the Court held that the 1949 deed does not enjoy the presumption of authenticity of an ancient document. The commissioner, appointed with the parties' consent, found the signatures forged, and the trial court adopted that finding. The petitioner agreed to submit the case without trial and offered no evidence of due execution and authenticity. The Deed of Confirmation of Previous Deed of Sale, whose signatory's signature was likewise found forged, confirmed nothing. Since the source documents are void, the 1996 deed of sale in the petitioner's favor cannot transfer any right.

Doctrine

• Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to state a cause of action is waived if not raised in a motion to dismiss filed within the time for but before filing the answer. Only lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription are not waived.
• A cause of action exists when the complaint alleges the plaintiff's legal right, the defendant's correlative obligation to respect it, and an act or omission violating that right. The test is whether, admitting the allegations as true, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer.
• An ancient document must be more than thirty years old, found in proper custody, and unblemished by any alteration or circumstance of suspicion, and must on its face appear genuine. When the evidence shows the document to be a forgery, the proponent must still prove its due execution and authenticity.
• A void document transmits no right, and a later deed built upon it cannot be the source of any title.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the respondents' ownership, the nullity of the questioned documents, and the order for the petitioner to respect the title and vacate the premises.

Remember This

Memorize this line: failure to state a cause of action is waived unless raised before the answer, and an ancient document that is shown to be a forgery proves nothing. Examiners like to use this case on the four non-waivable defenses under the 1997 Rules and on the requisites of an ancient document under Rule 132.