MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA) v HEIRS OF MARCELINA L.

SERO

G.R. No. 174672

On July 6, 1999, respondents filed a complaint against several defendants for recovery of ownership and
declaration of nullity of several Transfer Certificates of Title four of which are registered in the names of
the petitioner Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and the Republic.

They alleged that the subject properties were owned by their predecessor Ysabel Limbaga, but the
Original Certificates of Title were lost during the Second World War. Respondents alleged that the mother
of therein defendants pretended to be Isabel Limbaga and fraudulently succeeded in reconstituting the
titles over the subject properties to her name and in selling some of them to the other defendants.

It will be recalled that the subject properties were acquired by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA)
through expropriation proceedings for the expansion and improvement of the Lahug Airport.
Subsequently, however, Lahug airport was ordered closed, and all its functions and operations were
transferred to petitioner MCIAA.

In its Answer, petitioner denied the allegations in the complaint and by way of special and affirmative
defenses moved for the dismissal of the complaint. Likewise, defendants Ricardo Inocian, Haide Sun and
spouses Victor Arcinas and Marilyn Dueas filed their separate motions to dismiss.

On June 14, 2001, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the respondents had no cause of
action, and that the action was barred by prescription and laches. Respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied; hence, they filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which reversed
the Orders of the RTC.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, however, it was denied. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in holding that respondents have a cause of
action against petitioner.

2. Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in not affirming the lower courts finding that
respondents are guilty of laches and that their cause of action, if any, has prescribed.

HELD:

1. YES.

The appellate court held that the complaint alleged ultimate facts constituting respondents cause of
action; that the respondents cannot be faulted for not including therein evidentiary facts, thus causing
confusion or doubt as to the existence of a cause of action; and assuming the complaint lacked some
definitive statements, the proper remedy for the petitioner and other defendants should have been a
motion for bill of particulars, not a motion to dismiss.

However, while a trial court focuses on the factual allegations in a complaint, it cannot disregard
statutes and decisions material and relevant to the proper appreciation of the questions before it. In
resolving a motion to dismiss, every court must take judicial notice of decisions this Court has rendered
as provided by Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms
of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of
the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, laws of nature, the measure of
time, and the geographical divisions.

Further, when land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the
exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public
use may be abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the
estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner.

A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. The
existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Thus, in the resolution of
a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint
must be considered. Hence, it has been held that a motion to dismiss generally partakes of the nature of
a demurrer which hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations made in a complaint.

2. YES.

Even assuming that respondents have a right to the subject properties being the heirs of the alleged
real owner Ysabel Limbaga, they still do not have a cause of action against the petitioner because such
right has been foreclosed by prescription, if not by laches. Respondents failed to take the necessary steps
within a reasonable period to recover the properties from the parties who caused the alleged fraudulent
reconstitution of titles.

Respondents action in the court below is one for reconveyance based on fraud committed by Isabel
Limbaga in reconstituting the titles to her name. It was filed on July 6, 1999, or 38 years after the trial
court in Civil Case No. R-1881 granted the expropriation, or even longer if we reckon from the time of the
fraudulent reconstitution of titles, which date is not stated in the complaint but presumably before the
complaint for expropriation was filed by CAA on April 16, 1952.
 An action for reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in anothers name. However, such action must be filed
within 10 years from the issuance of the title since the issuance operates as a constructive notice. Thus,
the cause of action which respondents may have against the petitioner is definitely barred by prescription.

Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the action is already barred by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim. Further, contrary to respondents claim that a complaint may not be dismissed based on
prescription without trial, an allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss when
the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has prescribed at the time it was filed.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is GRANTED.