TOPIC Objections to Pleadings; Want of Legal Capacity to Sure

CASE NO. G.R. No. 157447

CASE NAME Evangelista v Santiago
MEMBER MY

DOCTRINE
1. Among the grounds to dismiss under the Rules are lack of legal capacity to sue and that the complaint
states no cause of action. They are different:

Lack of LEGAL CAPACITY to sue Lack of PERSONALITY to sue

− the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his
civil rights, or does not have the
necessary qualification to appear in the
case, or does not have the character or
representation he claims.
− plaintiff’s general disability to sue, such
as on account of:
o Minority
o Insanity
o Incompetence
o Lack of juridical personality or
o any other general disqualifications
of a party
− the plaintiff is not the real party-in-
interest
− a dismissal based on lack of personality to
sue grounded on failure to state a cause
of action
− can be a ground for dismissal (raised as an
affirmative defense) based on the fact that
the complaint, on the face thereof,
evidently states no cause of action.

2. Without legal or equitable title to the Subject Property, the petitioners lacked the personality to file an action
for removal of a cloud on, or quieting of, title and their Complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state
a cause of action.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Petitioners filed a Complaint for the declaration of nullity of OCT (Title to subject lot registered in the name of
Santiago, claiming that they have been in actual, physical, open, continuous and adverse possession of the subject
property ever since the Deed of Assignment executed in favor of their predecessors-in-interest (based on a Spanish
title). They claim that they later found out that such OCT was registered in Santiago’s name in the Torrens System
in accordance with PD 892. As an affirmative defense, Santiago claimed that petitioners had no LEGAL
CAPACITY to file the complaint, thus the complaint stated no cause of action. RTC dismissed the complaint
based on their expert witness’ testimony stating that only the OSG may file for a cancellation of title of an illegally
titled land. CA affirmed RTC. SC clarified that their action was for a removal of cloud on, or quieting of,
title. SC said that RTC and CA rightfully dismissed the Complaint, but the proper ground was that because
they did not have the LEGAL PERSONALITY to sue for having failed to have their Spanish Title
registered under the Torrens System in accordance with PD 892. Therefore, their Spanish Title may no longer
be presented as proof of ownership of land. Without any title to the subject property, the petitioners lacked
the personality to file an action for removal of cloud on, or quieting of, title.

FACTS
• Petitioners filed w/ RTC an action for declaration of nullity of Santiago’s certificates of title on the basis
that they were fake and defective.
o They claim that they have been in actual, physical, open, continuous and adverse possession of
the subject property ever since the Deed of Assignment executed in their predecessors-in-

1
 interest’s favor, and they later found out that said was registered in respondent’s name in the
Torrens System in accordance with PD 892.
• Santiago filed his Answer w/ Prayer for Prelim. Hearing on the Affirmative Defenses, claiming that the
allegations in the complaint were fabricated and without basis in law and in fact
o As an affirmative defense, he claimed that petitioners had no legal capacity to file the
complaint, and thus, the complaint stated no cause of action, arguing that that only the State
can file an action for annulment of his certificates of title, since such an action will result in the
reversion of the ownership of the Subject Property to the State.
o He also raised as as affirmative defense that the action has already prescribed
o He also denied knowing the petitioners, claiming that they entered his property as mere intruders
• RTC held a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses
o RTC court dismissed the Complaint based on the Engineer’s testimony (expert testimony)
stating that if the the Torrens title would be canceled, the land would revert back to the
state, and thus the only the OSG may file for a cancellation of title of an illegally titled
land
o Petitioners’ MR to RTC and appeal to the CA were denied, hence this petition for review (Rule
45)

ISSUE/S and HELD

• W/N the RTC as affirmed by the CA rightfully dismissed the petitioners’ complaint for the right reasons—
NO. Dismissal was proper, but for different reasons: Petitioners have no legal capacity to sue

RATIO
• Petitioners have NO PERSONALITY to sue in this case (Santiago was claiming they had no legal
capacity to sue) to file an action for removal of a cloud on, or quieting of, title and their Complaint
was properly dismissed for failing to state a cause of action (why? they failed to sufficiently establish
in the allegations in their Complaint that they had legal or equitable title to the property)
• It should be clarified that "the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue" and "the pleading asserting the claim
states no cause of action" are two different grounds for dismissal or are two different affirmative
defenses.
o Failure to distinguish between "the lack of legal capacity to sue" from "the lack of personality to
sue" is a fairly common mistake.
• The difference is explained in Columbia Pictures v CA
o Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his civil rights,
or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character
or representation he claims.
o On the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the
plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.
o While lack of legal capacity to sue refers to a plaintiff’s general disability to sue, such as on
account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general
disqualifications of a party. It can be a ground for dismissal based on the ground of lack of
legal capacity to sue.
o Lack of personality to sue refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest.
This can be a ground for dismissal based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof,
evidently states no cause of action.
• The affirmative defense that the Complaint stated no cause of action requires a hypothetical
admission of the facts alleged in the Complaint.
• In resolving whether or not the Complaint in the present case stated a cause of action, the trial court
should have limited itself to examining the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint.

2
 o It was proscribed from inquiring into the truth of the allegations in the Complaint or the
authenticity of any of the documents referred or attached to the Complaint, since these are
deemed hypothetically admitted by the respondent.
o The trial court evidently erred in making findings as to the authenticity of the Deeds of
Assignment executed by Ismael Favila in favor of; and questioning the existence and
execution of the SPA in favor of Ismael Favila by his siblings. These matters may only be
resolved after a proper trial on the merits.
• Article 477 of the Civil Code provides that the plaintiff, in an action to remove a cloud on or to
quiet title, must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property which is the subject
matter of the action.
o Petitioners failed to establish in their Complaint that they had any legal or equitable title
to, or legitimate interest in, the Subject Property so as to justify their right to file an action
to remove a cloud on or to quiet title (that’s why they lacked legal .
o Indeed, petitioners' Complaint filed before the trial court was captioned as an action for
declaration of nullity of respondent's certificates of title.
o However, the caption of the pleading should not be the governing factor, but rather the
allegations therein should determine the nature of the action, because even without the prayer
for a specific remedy, the courts may nevertheless grant the proper relief as may be warranted
by the facts alleged in the Complaint and the evidence introduced.
• The trial court believed that petitioners' action was ultimately one for reversion of the Subject
Property to the public domain. Based on the testimony of the Engineer the case of Nagaño v. A, it
declared that the State, represented by the OSG is the party-in-interest in an action for cancellation of
a certifcate of title illegally issued in the name of a private individual, because the eventual effect of
such cancellation is the reversion of the property to the State.
o SC disagrees: a cause of action for declaration of nullity differs from an action for
reversion
• SC clarified that their action was for a removal of cloud on, or quieting of, title. SC said that
they did not have the legal capacity/personality to sue because they failed to have their Spanish
Title registered under the Torrens System in accordance with PD 892. Therefore, their Spanish
Title may no longer be presented as proof of ownership of land. Without any title to the subject
property, the petitioners lacked the personality to file an action for removal of cloud on, or
quieting of, title.
• Without legal or equitable title to the Subject Property, the petitioners lacked the personality to
file an action for removal of a cloud on, or quieting of, title and their Complaint was properly
dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. In view of the dismissal of the case on this ground, it
is already unnecessary for this Court to address the issue of prescription of the action.

Disposition
Wherefore, this Court DENIES the instant petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the CA and the Order of the
RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 77 dismissing petitioners' Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.