ACUÑA, Kaisser John P.

20180200515
Kenneth O. Nadela (Nadela)
vs
The City of Cebu and Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP)
(G.R. No. 149627, September 18, 2003)

FACTS:
In 1962, there was a parcel of alienable and disposable land in Brgy.
Inayawan, Cebu City which was owned by Spouses Bacalso, and thereby
transferred to Nadela Agro- Industrial Development Corporation owned by
Nadela in April 22,1989, and owned the land property for 30 years, having
an assessed value of 6,000 php. Thenafter, MCDP, started dumping
garbage on the land of petitioner but the latter tolerated such act. However,
in January 1997, the respondent started filling garbage with filling materials
causing them to do earthwork which, eventually, causes the takeover of the
petitioner’s alleged land. Moreover, respondent blocked the approval of the
property’s survey plan alongside with DENR, and thereby placing security
on the subjected land for the sake of preventing Nadela on entering, and
exercising his right to possession.
Due to this incident, Petitioner prayed for a writ of preliminary
injunction for directing the respondents’ security to leave the premises of
the subjected lot, for declaring Nadela as the owner of the parcel of land,
and for damages amounting to 550,000 php and attorney’s fees costing
100,000 php.
On the part of the respondent, they filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the suit was against the state and there was no consent under
the state immunity doctrine, the case was premature for Nadela admitted
that he is an owner of a unregistered land, and He also failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.
The RTC of Cebu ruled in favor of the respondents thus dismissing
the case filed for the subjected land was considered as part of the public
domain for it is unregistered. Dissatisfied, Nadela appealed before the CA,
and it was dismissed hence, this petition for certiorari before the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, RTC erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the
ground of no cause of action.
RULING:
No. petitioner’s allegations are insufficient to be established as a
cause of action. A cause of action exists if the following elements are
present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or
omission on the part of such 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.
 In the case provided, earliest records on the property started from
1962, and petitioner alleged his right to possession of his “unregistered”
land in April 22, 1989 basing from sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
However, it was amended by P.D. 1073 that the provisions under the act
applies to those alienable and disposable lands acquired since June 12,
1945. Having that being said, petitioner cannot be presumed to have
performed to acquire such government grant to possess such property
causing as a ground of failure to state such cause of action for he is not
covered with the provisions of the act.
Thus, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.