View full case

SAMUEL M. ALVARADO v. AYALA LAND

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the validity of a tax sale conducted by the Quezon City Treasurer. The petitioner, Samuel Alvarado, emerged as the highest bidder and obtained a certificate of sale for a parcel of land owned by Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. The respondents, who are members of the club and an association of lot owners, filed a complaint challenging the tax sale based on alleged anomalies and violations of the Local Government Code and Quezon City Revenue Code. They argued that the sale of the entire parcel of land instead of a portion violated certain provisions.

Another case involved a dispute over the validity of the auction and sale of a property owned by Eustaquio Alvarado. The respondents alleged that Alvarado failed to pay real property taxes, resulting in the auction and subsequent sale to one of the respondents. The sale was challenged due to irregularities and non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Local Government Code and the Quezon City Revenue Code. Alvarado filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and a Motion to Dismiss, which were both denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's rulings, leading to a Petition for Certiorari filed by Alvarado with the Supreme Court.

The third case involved a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after the filing of the complaint. The motion was based on Rule 16, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that a motion to dismiss should be filed before filing the answer. The defendant argued that the grounds for dismissal, such as lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, were not pleaded in the motion or answer and should be deemed waived. However, the Supreme Court clarified that certain grounds, including lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, can still be raised even after the filing of an answer. It was also noted that an action may be dismissed based on a ground discovered after the filing of an answer.

In the fourth case, Obando filed a case to nullify a sale of property made by Eduardo Figueras, even though the probate court had previously denied Figueras' request for authority to sell the property. Obando was later removed from his position as co-administrator by the probate court. Figueras and Amigo then filed a motion to dismiss the nullification case, arguing that Obando had lost legal standing to pursue the case. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case, a decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and upheld by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that a motion to dismiss can still be filed even after the presentation of evidence, depending on the circumstances of the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents should be considered timely even if it was filed after the petitioner finished presenting evidence.

  2. Whether lack of legal capacity and lack of cause of action can be raised in a motion to dismiss filed after an answer has been filed.

  3. Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss should be treated as a plea for the court to hear the grounds for dismissal.

  4. Whether or not the motion to dismiss filed by the petitioner is a negation of the previously pleaded grounds in the Answer.

  5. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case based on the grounds for dismissal stated in the Answer and Motion to Dismiss.

  6. Whether the complainants, as members of Capitol, have standing to challenge the validity of the tax delinquency sale.

  7. Whether the complainants have a right to use and enjoy the entire parcel that was subject to the tax delinquency sale.

  8. Whether Ayala Land, Inc. has a claim of ownership to a smaller parcel that was allegedly consolidated with the parcel purchased by the petitioner.

  9. Whether the City Treasurer had the authority to auction off the 4,108 square meters portion of the parcel.

  10. Whether the sale of the property in question was done in violation of legal requisites and deprived the respondents of the opportunity to protect their rights.

  11. Whether the officers of the Quezon City local government should be held liable for their failure to ensure that the requisites for tax levies and delinquency sales were satisfied.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents was timely. While the general rule is that a motion to dismiss should be filed within the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading, there are exceptions. After an answer has been filed, a defendant may still file a motion to dismiss on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, lack of cause of action, and discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal. These grounds, except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction, can be waived if not raised within the reglementary period. In this case, the ground of lack of legal capacity was raised by the respondents after the petitioner had been divested of his representation of the estates due to his conviction of estafa through falsification. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was considered timely.

  2. Lack of cause of action and lack of legal capacity are distinct grounds to dismiss a case. Lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action, while lack of legal capacity refers to the loss of capacity to sue during the pendency of the case. Lack of cause of action can be pleaded after an answer has been filed, while lack of legal capacity can be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved. The Court held that the grounds pleaded by the petitioner in his motion to dismiss should be given consideration, even if it preceded his answer. Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court considers as waived only those defenses and objections that are not pleaded in the answer. If the grounds for dismissal are pleaded in the answer and thereafter restated in a motion to dismiss, no waiver ensues. Pleading the grounds in the answer is considered sufficient and the motion to dismiss is merely repetitive or superfluous.

  3. The Motion to Dismiss should be treated as a plea for the court to hear the grounds for dismissal. The court should consider the wisdom of immediately dismissing the case and hear the grounds stated in the Motion to Dismiss, just as it would have if a proper motion to dismiss had been filed.

  4. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the petitioner is not a negation of the previously pleaded grounds in the Answer. It is a reiterative manifestation and a prayer to hear the grounds for dismissal that had already been properly pleaded in the Answer.

  5. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case despite the grounds for dismissal stated in the Answer and Motion to Dismiss. The grounds pleaded by the petitioner do not have merit, and the court properly denied the plea to dismiss the Complaint of the respondents.

  6. Yes, the complainants as members of Capitol have standing to challenge the validity of the tax delinquency sale.

  7. Yes, the complainants have the right to use and enjoy the entire parcel as it is essential to their membership and holdings in Capitol.

  8. Yes, Ayala Land, Inc. has a claim of ownership to a smaller parcel consolidated with the parcel purchased by the petitioner.

  9. No, the City Treasurer did not have the authority to auction off the 4,108 square meters portion of the parcel.

  10. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the sale of the property did indeed violate the legal requisites. As a result, the respondents were deprived of the opportunity to protect their rights. The court emphasized that adhering to the proper procedure would have given them a fair chance to maintain the integrity of the property and minimize the consequences they would face.

  11. The officers of the Quezon City local government were found to be liable for their failure to ensure that the required procedures were followed. The court ruled that their act or omission justified the respondents' action and upheld their status as real parties in interest.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A motion to dismiss should generally be filed within the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading, but there are exceptions, such as when the grounds for dismissal are lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, lack of cause of action, and discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal.

  • Lack of cause of action and lack of legal capacity are distinct grounds for dismissal. Lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action, while lack of legal capacity refers to the loss of capacity to sue during the pendency of the case. Lack of cause of action can be pleaded after an answer has been filed, while lack of legal capacity can be raised after the questions of fact have been resolved.

  • A Motion to Dismiss can be treated as a plea for the court to hear the grounds for dismissal.

  • Grounds for dismissal stated in the Answer can be re-stated in a Motion to Dismiss without negating their prior expression.

  • The court may consider all grounds for dismissal permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure, even if not explicitly stated in the Motion to Dismiss.

  • Compliance with conditions precedent, such as the deposit requirement for a tax sale, must be determined before dismissing a case.

  • The court has jurisdiction over a case even if the petitioner claims that the suit was not brought in the name of the real party in interest.

  • Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law and is not contingent on the personal circumstances of the parties.

  • A real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or who is entitled to the avails of the suit.

  • Section 267 of the Local Government Code allows the invalidation of tax delinquency sales when the substantive rights of the delinquent owner or the person having legal interest in the property have been impaired. The right to file an action under Section 267 is not limited to the owner of the property.

  • Members of an organization have standing to challenge acts that affect their rights and interests as members.

  • The right to use and enjoy a property may be protected and asserted by individuals with a legal interest in the property.

  • Ownership claims to specific portions of a property may be recognized and protected.

  • Authorities must have the proper authority and follow legal procedures when conducting auctions and disposing of properties.

  • The failure to adhere to legal requisites in tax levies and delinquency sales can result in the deprivation of a person's right to protect their property interests.

  • Officers of the local government have a duty to diligently ensure that all legal requirements are satisfied in tax levies and delinquency sales.

  • Failure to fulfill this duty may result in their liability for any resulting harm or damage.