VITANGCOL vs.

NEW VISTA
Docket Number: GR 176014 Date: Sept. 17, 2009 Ponente: VELASCO, Jr., J.
Topic: RULE 16 (Motion to Dismiss) Created by: Lance
Petitioners Respondents
ALICE VITANGCOL and NEW VISTA PROPERTIES, INC., MARIA ALIPIT, REGISTER OF
NORBERTTO VITANCOL DEEDS OF CALAMBA and CA
Facts of the Case
 Maria Alipit executed an SPA constituting Milagros De Guzman to sell their property in Calamba, Laguna.
 On the other hand, Milagros executed a DOAS conveying the property to New Vista Properties, Inc. (New
Vista).
 In should be noted that the property delivered to and occupied by New Vista was denominated in the SPA as
Lot. No. 1735 covered by TCT No. (25311) 2538, while in the DOAS in favor of New Vista the object of the
purchase is described as Lot No. 1702 covered by TCT No. (25311) 2528.
 A decade later, New Vista learned that the subject property was being claimed by Sps. Vitangcol on the
strength of a DOAS for Lot No. 1702 under TCT no. (25311) 2528 entered into by and between the Vitangcols
and Maria Alipit.
 New Vista filed a Notice of Adverse Claim over the property, followed by commencing a suit for quieting of title
before the RTC
 Sps. Vitangcols moved to dismiss the complaint but New Vista opposed.
 Before Sps. Vitangcols could answer, New Vista filed an amended complaint, appending thereto a copy of the
1989 DOAS Milagros (as authorized agent of Maria Alipits) executed in its favor.
 Thereafter, Sps. Vitangcol filed a motion to dismiss.
 RTC INITIAL ORDER:
o Denied Vitangcol’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
o The amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action.
 Vitangcol sought Reconsideration, RTC granted it and issued the DECEMBER 21, 2004 RTC ORDER:
o Dismissed the amended complaint filed by New Vista.
o Finding that the Amended Complaint states no cause of action pursuant to Rule 16, Sec. 1, paragraph
(g) and (i) of the ROC.
 New Vista appeal before the CA:
o CA reversed the DECEMBER 21, 2004 RTC ORDER
o Reinstated New Vista’s amended complaint for quieting of title, and directing Vitangcol to file their
respective Answers thereto.
o CA faulted the RTC for dismissing the amended complaint, stating that it was absurd for the RTC ro
require a copy of the SPA which was not mentioned in the amended complaint.
o That the amended complaint superseded the original complaint, hence, the original complaint and all
document appended thereto (such as the SPA) may no longer be taken cognizance of in determining
whether the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action.
Issues Ruling
 W/N the RTC acted without discretion when it considered Milagros’ SPA relative to the motion to
NO
dismiss the amended complaint.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
 Lack of cause of action is not a valid ground for a dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss under
Rule 16, ROC for the determination of a lack of cause of action can only be made during and/or after trial.
 What is dismissal through a motion to dismiss is the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action as
provided under Sec. 1(g), Rule 16, ROC.
 The rule is that a motion to dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admit the truth of the material allegations of the
ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff’s complaint. When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to
state a cause of action, a ruling thereto should be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.
 However, this principle of hypothetical admission admits of exceptions. Among other, there is no hypothetical
admission of conclusions or interpretation of laws which are;
o False;
o Legally impossible facts;
o Facts inadmissible in evidence;
o Facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded;
 o Allegations which the court will take judicial notice are not true; and
o Where the motion to dismiss was heard with submission of evidence which discloses facts sufficient to
defeat the claim.
 New Vista’s contention the Milagros De Gusman’s SPA to sell should not be considered for having been
incorporated as part of its amended complaint is INCORRECT since Vitangcol duly submitted that piece of
document in court in the course of the June 7, 2004 hearing on the motion to dismiss.
 Thus the RTC acted within its discretion in considering the SPA relative to the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Disposition
WHEREFORE,