University of the Philippines College of Law | Remedial Law Review

Topic in Poli Law Cause of Action (Rule 2)

/ Subtopic
Case Name Dolores Macaslang v. Renato Zamora
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011
Ponente Bersamin

RELEVANT FACTS

1. March 10, 1999 – respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the MTCC alleging that petitioner sold
them a residential land located in Sabang, Danao and that she requested to be allowed to live in the house,
promising to vacate as soon as she finds a new residence. Furthermore, despite their demand after a year,
petitioner failed or refused to vacate.
2. Summons and a copy of the complaint were duly served but petitioner did not file an answer. The MTCC declared
her in default upon respondents’ motion and received the respondents’ oral testimony and documentary
evidence.
3. September 13, 1999 – The MTCC rendered judgment against the petitioner, ordering defendant to vacate the
property, to pay attorney’s fees of P10,000 and monthly rental of P5,000 starting from December 1997 until she
vacates the subject properties.
4. On appeal to the RTC, petitioner averred extrinsic fraud and that there was no sale at all because the absolute
deed of sale was a patent nullity, with her signature having been procured through fraud and trickery.
5. May 18, 2000 – RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action but allowed the refiling of the
case in the same court, by alleging the plaintiff’s cause of action, if any. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Execution of
Judgment of the lower court was rendered moot by this judgment.
6. July 3, 2002 - CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, reinstating the MTCC decision. An MR from the
petitioners was subsequently denied.

Issue Ratio
1. Does the complaint YES
state a valid cause of
action?
2. Was there a lack of YES
cause of action?
1. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint
based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for; only ultimate facts are
considered in applying this test.
2. First, the complaint averred that the petitioner possessed the subject
property by the respondents’ mere tolerance.
3. Second, respondents demanded that she vacate the property, making her
possession illegal.
4. Third, she remained in possession of the property despite this demand.
5. Finally, respondents instituted the complaint well within a year after the
demand was made around September 1998.
1. Yet, even as we rule that the respondents' complaint stated a cause of
action, we must find and hold that both the RTC and the CA erroneously
appreciated the real issue to be about the complaint's failure to state a
cause of action. It certainly was not so, but the respondents' lack of cause of
action. Their erroneous appreciation expectedly prevented the correct
resolution of the action.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Remedial Law Review
2. Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are different
from each other. On the one hand, failure to state a cause of action refers
to the insufficiency of the pleading and is a ground for dismissal under Rule
16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause of action refers to
a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in
the pleading.
3. Regalado: What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of
action which is provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of
insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule 10, which was also included as
the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation where
the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is, therefore, a matter of
insufficiency of evidence. Failure to state a cause of action is different from
failure to prove a cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for
dismissal of the pleading, while the remedy in the second is to demur to the
evidence, hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this
section. The procedure would consequently be to require the pleading to
state a cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial,
to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.
4. A complaint states a cause of action when three elements are present: a)
the plaintiff’s legal right, b) the defendant’s correlative obligation and c) the
act or omission of the defendant in violation of the right.
5. If the complaint’s allegations do not aver the concurrence of all these
elements, the complaint is vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action. Evidently, it is not the lack or absence of
a cause of action that is a ground for dismissal but the fact that the complaint
states no cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at
the earliest stages of an action through a motion to dismiss; lack of cause of
action may be raised at any time after the questions of fact have been
resolved based on the stipulations, admissions or evidence presented.

Ruling / Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, we grant the petition for review on certiorari; set aside the decision promulgated on July 3, 2002 by the
Court of Appeals; and dismiss the complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of a cause of action.

The respondents shall pay the costs of suit.