ZENAIDA D. ROA, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. ROBINSON K. AND MARY VALERIE S. SY, MARIE ANTOINETTE R. FRANCISCO, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and
set aside the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.
SP No. 135555:

1)	Decision[1] dated May 21, 2015 which reversed the trial court’s order denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint below for cancellation of deeds of sale, annulment of title, and reconveyance with damages; and
2)	Resolution[2] dated November 25, 2015 which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Antecedents

On March 19, 2013, petitioner (Zenaida D. Roa) filed the aforesaid
complaint against respondents Marie Antoinette R. Francisco
(Francisco), Spouses Robinson K., and Mary Valerie S. Sy (Spouses Sy),
and Register of Deeds of Makati City (RD Makati). The case was raffled
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) – Branch 66, Makati City.^[3]

Petitioner averred that, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 133936, she and her sister Amelia Roa (Amelia) are the
legitimate owners of a property located at 73 Amorsolo Street, San
Lorenzo Village, Makati City. On August 5, 2012, she learned from a
relative that their title had been cancelled by the RD Makati,
and by virtue of a deed of sale, a new TCT No. 006-2012000849 was
issued in the name of Francisco. The deed of sale was purportedly
executed between her and her sister Amelia, on the one hand,
and their niece Francisco, on the other.^[4]

It was impossible for her to have signed the deed of sale since she was
in Washington D.C. at the time it was purportedly executed on July 6,
2012 and notarized on July 10, 2012. She left the Philippines on March
20, 2012 and returned only on August 24, 2012, as evidenced by her
arrival and departure record issued by the Bureau of Immigration. On the
other hand, her sister Amelia could not have signed the same on her own
volition since she had been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease for the
last ten (10) years already prior to the supposed date of the sale.^[5]

Francisco subsequently sold the property to Spouses Sy for
P35,000,000.00 under Deed of Sale dated July 20, 2012. Consequently, a
new TCT No. 006-2012000889 was further issued in the name of Spouses Sy.^[6]

Francisco was able to secure a title in her name only on July 16, 2012,
while the sale of the same property to Spouses Sy was supposedly done
on July 20, 2012. At the time Francisco and Spouses Sy started
negotiating on the sale, the latter already knew of the existence of her
title considering the close proximity between the date the sale to
Spouses Sy took place and the date Francisco secured a certificate of
title in her name. During respondents’ initial negotiation, petitioner
and Amelia were still the registered owners of the property. This should
have alerted Spouses Sy on the legality of Francisco’s claimed title.
As part of their due diligence, they should have made further inquiries
on the identity of the legitimate owner of the property. More, the fact
that the only handwritten entry in the Deed of Sale dated July 20, 2012,
was the property’s title number should have made Spouses Sy suspicious
of Francisco’s title. Spouses Sy, therefore, are not buyers in good
faith, hence, the sale of the property in their favor is void.^[7] Accordingly, they ought to return the property to its legitimate owners (she and Amelia).

Instead of filing an answer, Spouses Sy filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action. The complaint
allegedly rested on conjectures and contained no specific averments of
bad faith on their part.^[8]
Spouses Sy further claimed that they acted in good faith when they
relied on Francisco’s title and noted no suspicious circumstances
attending the sale transaction.

The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

By Order^[9] dated
August 7, 2013, the trial court denied Spouses Sy’s motion to dismiss
for lack of merit. It noted that the complaint stated that petitioners
were the registered owners of the property. Francisco fraudulently
registered the property in her name by presenting a spurious and forged
deed of sale. Ultimately, Spouses Sy purchased the property from
Francisco despite her fraudulent title.^[10]

Spouses Sy’s motion for reconsideration was denied under Order^[11]
dated March 26, 2014. Thereafter, they filed a “Motion for Bill of
Particulars dated April 14, 2014 and later an “Amended Motion for Bill
of Particulars” dated April 15, 2014. They required herein petitioner to
answer the following questions:^[12]

3.1 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that it was Marie
Antoinette Roa Francisco, Marie Celine Roa Francisco and/or Amelia Roa
who had actual and physical possession of the house and lot located at
73 Amorsolo Street, San Lorenzo Village, Makati City (the “Property”) on
20 July 2012?

3.2 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she did not have actual and physical possession of the property on 20 July 2012?

3.3 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that it was her niece
Marie Antoinette Roa Francisco who was in actual and physical possession
of the original owner’s duplicate title to the Property currently
covered by TCT No. 006-201200889 on 20 July 2012?

3.4 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she did not have
actual and physical possession of the original owner’s duplicate title
to the property currently covered by TCT No. 006-201200889 on 20 July
2012?

3.5 Is plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa a US Citizen?

3.5 (sic) Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she did not
take any action before the Register of Deeds for the protection of the
public on or after December 2011, when “she came across an Earnest Money
Agreement purportedly executed by Antoinette Francisco in favor of a
certain Zoilo De La Cruz, the subject matter of which is the sale of the
Amorsolo property covered by TCT No. 133936, xxx”[?]

3.6 Did plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa file any action to cancel or to
void the Earnest Money Agreement between Marie Antoinette R. Francisco
and Zoilo De La Cruz?

3.7 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she never caused the
title covering the property to be annotated with a “lis pendens
annotation” at the Register of Deeds when according to par. 12 of her
Complaint, she filed on 4 June 2012, a Petition to Surrender Withheld
Owner’s Duplicate or To Cancel Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title and
Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title under Section 107 of
P.D. 1529 against Antoinette, which had been docketed as LRC Case No.
M-5668 before Branch 134 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City?

3.8 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that the case she filed,
namely the Petition to Surrender Withheld Owner’s Duplicate or To Cancel
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title and Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate
Copy of Title under Section 107 of P.D. 1529 against Marie Antoinette
Francisco, which had been docketed as LRC Case No. M-5668 x x x was
dismissed?

3.9. Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she did not
annotate her alleged claim x x x on the title covering the Property that
would alert or put a prospective purchaser on notice?

The trial court granted the motion under Order^[13] dated September 16, 2014, and ordered petitioner to submit her bill of particulars. Petitioner promptly complied.^[14]

Meantime, on Spouses Sy’s motion, the presiding judge of Branch 66
inhibited from the case. Thereafter, the case got re-raffled to Branch
148.^[15]

While the proceedings below were ongoing, Spouses Sy also pursued a petition for certiorari under CA G.R. SP No. 135555, assailing the earlier denial of their motion to dismiss.

The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

In CA G.R. SP No. 135555, Spouses Sy faulted the trial court
with grave abuse of discretion for denying their motion to dismiss
notwithstanding that the complaint purportedly failed to state a cause
of action against them. The complaint was supposedly based on mere
conclusions or opinions and not on ultimate facts, hence, it failed to
pass the test of sufficiency of cause of action.^[16] Spouses Sy, too, asserted they are buyers in good faith.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its assailed Decision^[17] dated May 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed.^[18]
It ruled that petitioner failed to particularly allege when Spouses Sy
started to negotiate with Francisco for the purchase of the property.
This is allegedly an ultimate fact necessary to determine whether
Spouses Sy exercised due diligence in ascertaining the genuineness of
Francisco’s title. The lack of this particular averment supposedly calls
for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
action against Spouses Sy.^[19]
Further, Spouses Sy were supposedly not obliged to look beyond the face
of Francisco’s title which contained no annotation of any adverse
claim. They had no notice of any defect in her title, hence, they are
essentially buyers in good faith.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution^[20] dated November 25, 2015.

The Present Petition

Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court via
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She maintains that her complaint
sufficiently states a cause of action against Spouses Sy. Any defect or
uncertainty in her complaint had already been cured by the bill of
particulars she subsequently filed.^[21]
Even assuming her complaint was deficient, the Court of Appeals,
instead of ordering its dismissal, should have required her to
file an amended complaint.^[22]

On the other hand, Spouses Sy reiterate that the complaint fails to
sufficiently allege a cause of action against them. It contains no
particular allegation of any wrongful or illegal act on their part that
violated petitioner’s right. Cause of action is to be determined from
the allegations of the complaint. Thus, the deficiency cannot be cured
by their subsequent filing of a bill of particulars. Lastly, they claim
anew that they are buyers in good faith.^[23]

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it dismissed the
complaint against Spouses Sy on the ground that petitioner has no cause
of action against them, albeit what the latter actually pleaded was
another ground, that is, failure to state a cause of action?

Our Ruling

To begin with, Spouses Sy sought the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action against them. Hence, it
is a reversible error for the Court of Appeals to have motu proprio taken cognizance of an entirely different ground, i.e., lack of cause of action, to justify the dismissal of the complaint.

In Colmenar v. Colmenar et al.,^[24]
petitioner Frank Colmenar filed a complaint for declaration of nullity
of deeds of extrajudicial settlement of estate, deeds of sale,
cancellation of titles, and damages against Property Company of Friends
(ProFriends) and other defendants. ProFriends invoked as affirmative
defense petitioner’s alleged lack of cause of action against it, while
the other defendants invoked the complaint’s failure to state a cause of
action against them. The trial court eventually dismissed the complaint
against all the defendants on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action, even as against ProFriends. The Court held that the trial court
erred in dismissing the complaint against ProFriends on a ground
entirely different from that which it actually raised in its motion to
dismiss.

While the courts may not motu proprio dismiss a
complaint based on a ground or grounds not pleaded by a party in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer with affirmative defenses, the same
may be done under the following instances, viz.: (1) the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) there is another case
pending between the same parties for the same cause; (3) where the
action is barred by res judicata; or (4) where the action is barred by prescription.^[25]
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are not
included in the enumeration. Hence, what is excluded is not deemed
included.

In any event, it has been repeatedly held that failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct and separate grounds to dismiss a particular action. Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. v. Spouses Sison,^[26]
explained that failure to state a cause of action refers to the
insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while lack of cause of
action refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action.
Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the
earliest stages of the proceedings through a motion to dismiss under
Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court^[27] or raised as an affirmative defense in an answer, while dismissal for lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank,^[28] further ordained:

Failure to state a cause of action is not the same as lack of cause of action; the terms are not interchangeable.
It may be observed that lack of cause of action is not among the
grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court. The dismissal of a Complaint for lack of cause of action
is based on Section 1 of Rule 33, which provides:

Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. – After the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff
has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the
right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the
order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence.

If the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, a
motion to dismiss must be made before a responsive pleading is filed;
and the issue can be resolved only on the basis of the allegations in
the initiatory pleading. On the other hand, if the Complaint lacks a cause of action, the motion to dismiss must be filed after the plaintiff has rested its case.

In the first situation, the veracity of the allegations is
immaterial; however, in the second situation, the judge must determine
the veracity of the allegations based on the evidence presented.

x x x x

Hence, in order to resolve whether the Complaint lacked
a cause of action, respondent must have presented evidence to dispute
the presumption that the signatories validly and intentionally delivered
the instrument.

x x x x

The test to determine whether a complaint states a cause of
action against the defendants is this: admitting hypothetically the
truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, may a judge
validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint? (Emphasis supplied)^[29]

x x x x

To emphasize, lack of cause of action may only be raised after
the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations
or admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. Before then, it
cannot be raised as a ground for dismissal; much less, can the court
dismiss the case on that ground.

A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.^[30]
A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the
existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action,
namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the
part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of
the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action
for recovery of damages.

If, however, the complaint contains ambiguity, indefiniteness,
or uncertainty, a party may move for a more definite statement or for a
bill of particulars of any matter which is not averred with sufficient
definiteness or particularity to enable him or her to properly prepare
his or her responsive pleading or to prepare for trial.^[31]

It is not the office of a bill of particulars to supply material
allegations necessary to the validity of a pleading, or to change a
cause of action or defense stated in the pleading, or to state a cause
of action or defense other than the one stated. Also, it is not the
office or function of a bill of particulars to set forth the pleader’s
theory of his cause of action or a rule of evidence on which he intends
to rely or to furnish evidential information whether such information
consists of evidence which the pleader proposes to introduce or of facts
which constitute a defense.^[32]

This means that when parties seek a bill of particulars, they in effect
admit that the complaint bears the ultimate facts comprising a valid
cause of action. What they ask for though is simply a specification of
these ultimate facts to enable them to properly prepare their responsive
pleading or to prepare for trial.^[33]
Consequently, any challenge against the complaint based on its supposed
failure to state a cause of action is no longer feasible after the
parties have sought a bill of particulars. So must it be.

We now go to requests for written interrogatories. Under Section 1, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court,^[34]
a request for written interrogatories is a mode of discovery by which a
party serves on the other party written interrogatories to be answered
by the party served. It seeks to elicit material and relevant facts from
the adverse party.

Generally, modes of discovery enable parties
to unmask their respective pieces of evidence to facilitate trial on
the merits. Parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that
justice can be rendered expeditiously.^[35]
A party defendant will not be inclined to reveal evidentiary matters
unless he or she recognizes the existence of the adverse party’s cause
of action and anticipates the case to proceed with trial.^[36]

It goes without saying, therefore, that when parties avail of any mode
of discovery under the Rules, in this case, a request for written
interrogatories (albeit erroneously referred to by Spouses Sy here as a
bill of particulars), they are deemed to have recognized the existence
and sufficiency of the allegations of the adverse party’s cause of
action in the complaint. They no longer put in issue the sufficiency of
the allegations of the adverse party’s cause of action. Rather, they ask
that evidentiary matters be unveiled so that better preparation for the
subsequent trial on the merits of the case may be had.^[37]

Here, Spouses Sy filed their so-called motion for bill of particulars
which in reality is a request for written interrogatories. For the
questions they posed were not meant to clarify the averments or
statements found in petitioner’s complaint, much less, inquire into the
existence and sufficiency of petitioner’s cause of action. In truth,
their questions sought to discover evidentiary matters relating to their
defense that they are buyers in good faith and that petitioner failed
to exercise reasonable diligence in protecting her title to the
property. For context, we quote anew these questions, viz.:

3.2 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she did not have
actual and physical possession of the property on 20 July 2012?
Response: Although Zenaida was not in the subject property on that date,
she had constructive possession of the property as a registered owner
thereof. It was incumbent upon any supposed into the provenance of
Antoinette’s title to the Property especially where Antoinette sold the
Property to the Sps. (sic) Sy on the same date that the title was
released by the Register of Deeds on July 20, 2012.

x x x x

3.8 Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that the case she filed,
namely the Petition to Surrender Withheld Owner’s Duplicate or To Cancel
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title and Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate
Copy of Title under Section 107 of P.D. 1529 against Marie Antoinette
Francisco, which had been docketed as LRC Case No. M-5668 x x x was
dismissed?

Response: LRC Case No. M-5668 was dismissed on August 31, 2012.
It became moot since Antoinette fraudulently transferred the title to
the Property to her name on July 6, 2012 by forging the signatures of
Amelia and Zenaida and later sold it to Sps. Sy on July 20, 2012 under
circumstances indicating Sps. Sy were buyers-in-bad-faith – i.e.,

a.)	All the terms and conditions of the Deed of Sale dated July 20, 2012 were computer-printed while the title number (sic) of the title (TCT No. 006-2012000849) in the “whereas” clause was handwritten. This shows that at the time the Sps. Sy showed interest in and negotiated for the sale of the subject property, the title to the property was still under the names of Zenaida and Amelia Roa. Sps. Sy must have known that Marie Antoinette was not yet the registered owner of the property. Otherwise, if at the time Sps. Sy. negotiated for the sale and actually executed the Deed of Sale, the property was also registered in the name Antoinette Roa Francisco under TCT No. 006-2012000849, then there is no reason why the title number would also have been entered in the Deed of Sale and computer-printed, and not (sic) handwritten.
b.)	TCT No. 006-2012000849 in the name of Marie Antoinette Francisco was released only on July 20, 2012, and yet, the Deed of Sale from Antoinette to Sps. Sy was executed and notarized on the same day – July 20, 2012. This shows that at the time Sps Sy showed interest and negotiated for the sale of the subject property, Sps Sy must have known that the property was still registered in the names of Zenaida D. Roa and Amelia D. Roa; that this should have alerted Sps. Sy to investigate the real owners of the property and the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale from Zenaida and Amelia Roa to Antoinette; that it is common knowledge and practice before a sale of highly-priced properties such as this one involving P35,000,000, (sic) negotiations and due investigation would have been done by the buyer and human experience dictates that this could not have been done on the same day as the title of the property of interest was released. This also explains why the title in the Deed of Sale was “handwritten” instead of being computer-printed. This shows that at the time of the negotiation for the sale and drafting of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the title was still under the names of Zenaida and Amelia Roa and the subsequent title number had to be hand-written in the Deed of Absolute Sale when the title was released on July 20, 2012.
c.)	The Sps. Sy or their agents, also required that Ma. Celine F. Abiera sign and indicate her conformity to the Deed of Sale. However, there was no need for Celine to conform to the Deed of Absolute Sale since she had no apparent or registered interest in the Property. Celine, a businesswoman, would not have assented to the sale if there was nothing amiss in the transaction which Sps. Sy sought to cover. Her conformity to the sale highlights the bad faith of the Sps. Sy.

3.9. Does plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that she did not annotate
her alleged claim on the Property on the title covering the Property
that would alert or put a prospective purchaser on notice?

Response: Zenaida need not annotate her claim on the property
since she is a registered co-owner of the property. More importantly, a
purchaser, like defendant Sps. Sy, cannot close their eyes to important
facts above-described which would have created suspicion on the validity
and integrity of the sale of the property and transfer of the title
from Amelia and Zenaida to Antoinette and should have investigated the
circumstances of the transfer.^[38]

As stated, these questions or the answers sought already delve on
matters of evidence which by law and jurisprudence would generally
establish the good faith of a buyer in purchasing a property.^[39]
Thus, by seeking answers to these interrogatories, Spouses Sy
effectively acknowledged the existence and sufficiency of the
allegations in the complaint pertaining to petitioners’ cause of action
against them. The filing of the request for written interrogatories,
therefore, is a supervening event which bars Spouses Sy from pursuing
their theory of failure to state a cause of action in CA G.R. SP No.
135555.

At any rate, the complaint contains sufficient allegations to support a cause of action against Spouses Sy, thus:

21. The Deed of Absolute Sale [d]ated July 20, 2012 executed by
Antoinette in favor of Sps. Sy should also be declared null and void,
and TCT No. 006-211200889 should also be cancelled and declared without
force and effect, considering that the Sps. Sy are buyers-in-bad faith. A
close examination of this Deed of Absolute Sale will show that all the
terms and conditions were computer-printed EXCEPT for the title number
and appearing in the first “whereas clause” in page one thereof. The
title number is handwritten. This fact would lead to an indisputable
conclusion that at the time the Sps. Sy showed interest and negotiated
for the sale of the subject property, the title of the property is still
under the names of Zenaida and Amelia Roa. Sps. Sy must have known that
Marie Antoinette was not yet the registered owner of the property.
Otherwise, if at the time Sps. Sy negotiated for the sale and actually
executed the Deed of Sale, the property was already registered in the
name Marie Antoinette Roa Francisco under TCT No. 006-2012000849, then
there is no reason why the title number would also have been entered in
the Deed of Sale and computer-printed, and not (sic) handwritten.

22. Also, the proximity of the date (July 20, 2012) of the Deed
of Sale from Antoinette to Sps. Sy with the date (July 16, 2012) of the
release and issuance of TCT No. 006-20122000849 to Antoinette, will lead
to the reasonable conclusion that at the time Sps. Sy showed interest
and negotiated for the sale of the subject property, Sps. Sy must have
known that the property is still registered in the names of Zenaida D.
Roa and Amelia D. Roa. This should have alerted Sps. Sy to investigate
the real owners of the property and the validity of the Deed of Absolute
Sale from Zenaida and Amelia to Antoinette. It is common knowledge and
practice before a sale of highly priced properties such as this one,
negotiations and due investigation would have been done by the buyer and
human experience dictates that this could not be done simply in a
matter of six days.

23. Even Atty. Tomas F. Dulay, Jr., the notary public who
purportedly notarized the Deed of Sale of Antoinette and Sps. Sy, has
denied he notarized the same. Not being a public document, the Deed of
Sale could not have transmitted any right to the Sps. Sy and it should
have never been registered with the Register of Deeds. A copy of the
Affidavit of Atty. Dulay is attached hereto as Annex “R”.

24. The fraudulent Deeds of Sale could not have vested any right
in favor of Antoinette and Sps. Sy over the subject property, including
the transfer of its registration in their names, to the prejudice of
Zenaida and her co-owner Amelia. Antoinette and Sps. Sy illegally
transferred the property in their names and have the obligation to
return it to the true owners, Zenaida and Amelia.^[40]

x x x x

In fine, petitioner essentially claims that: (a) she and Amelia
are the legitimate owners of the subject property; (b) Francisco
acquired title to the property through fraud by forging a deed of sale
making it appear that she and Amelia sold the property to her; (c)
Francisco’s title was issued only on July 16, 2012, and the sale in
favor of Spouses Sy was dated July 20, 2012, just days apart; (d)
Spouses Sy were aware that at the time they negotiated with Francisco
for the sale of the property, the latter was not yet the registered
owner of the property as evidenced by the mere handwritten annotation in
the title; and (e) Spouses Sy are buyers in bad faith because despite
the apparent irregularity in the manner by which Francisco obtained
title to the property, they turned a blind eye and did not further
investigate on the legality of the seller Francisco’s title and her
authority to sell the property.

Here, assuming the foregoing
allegations to be true, petitioner and her sister Amelia, as registered
owners of the property, have the right to the relief prayed for, i.e., to declare as void the Deed of Sale of the property in favor of Spouses Sy who are buyers in bad faith.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 21, 2015 and Resolution dated November 25, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 135555 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated August 7, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 66, Makati City in Civil Case No. 13-301 is REINSTATED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court Branch 148, Makati City for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.

^[2] Id. at 102-107.

^[3] Id. at 88-89.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id. at 89 and 112.

^[6] Id. at 89.

^[7] Id.

^[8] Id. at 91.

^[9] Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa; rollo, pp. 229-233.

^[10] Id. at 232.

^[11] Id. at 524.

^[12] Id. at 259-563.

^[13] Id. at 564.

^[14] Id. at 37.

^[15] Id. at 38.

^[16] Id. at 94.

^[17] Penned by Associate
Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ramon A. Cruz, id. at 87-100.

^[18] Id. at 99.

^[19] Id. at 97-98.

^[20] Id. at 102-107.

^[21] Id. at 73-74.

^[22] Id. at 79.

^[23] Id. at 731-732.

^[24] G.R. No. 252467, June 21, 2021.

^[25] Rule 9 of the Rules of Court

Rule 9 – Effect of Failure to Plead
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. – 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. (2a)

^[26] 779 Phil. 462, 469 (2016).

^[27] Rule 16 – Motion to Dismiss

Section 1. Grounds. — 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

^[28] 809 Phil. 289-310 (2017).

^[29] Id. at 297-299.

^[30] Spouses Chu v. Benelda Estate Development Corporation, 405 Phil. 936, 946 (2001).

^[31] See Virata v. Sandiganyan, 293 Phil. 55, 65 (1993).

^[32] Id. at 68.

^[33] Rules of Court, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 12 – Bill of Particulars

Section 1. When applied for; purpose. – Before responding
to a pleading, a party may move for a definite statement or for a bill
of particulars of any matter which is not averred with sufficient
definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to prepare his
responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the motion must be
filed within ten (10) days from service thereof. Such motion shall point
out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are
contained, and the details desired.

^[34] Rules of Court. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 25 — Interrogatories to Parties
Section 1. Interrogatories to Parties; service thereof.
— Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 23, any
party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse
parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to
be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or
private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer
thereof competent to testify in its behalf. (1a)

^[35] See Koh v. IAC, 228 Phil. 258, 263 (1986).

^[36] See Dulay v. Dulay, 511 Phil. 297, 304-305 (2005); see also Security Bank Corporation v. CA, 380 Phil. 299, 309 (2000); see also Koh v. IAC, 228 Phil. 258, 262 (1986).

^[37] See Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 281 Phil. 234-265 (1991).

^[38] Rollo, pp. 296-301.

^[39] See Spouses Arenas v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 372, 386 (2000).

^[40] Id. at 89-90.