NEMENCIO C. EVANGELISTA, PASCUAL G. QUINTO, LUIS B. BUENA, EUSEBIA V. TABLADA, CANUTO G. TISBE, DAVID R. CARULLO, SOFONIAS E. COLEGADO, FELIX B.

BUENA, TORIBIO C. EVANGELISTA, LEBRADA A. NICOLAS, ALECIA J. RAMOS, MILA G. DELOS REYES, SALVADOR I. DE LA TORRE, MOISES CRUZ, RUFINO INFANTE, ALICIA
ASTROLOGO, TRINIDAD LUMIQUED, LUZMINIDA QUINIQUINI, & TEODORA C. TEMERAS, petitioners, vs. CARMELINO M. SANTIAGO, respondent.
Issue Facts Rulling
Whether the lower court’s dismissal Petitioners alleged that they occupied and possessed parcels of land, Without legal or equitable title to the Subject Property,
of the petitioners’ complaint should located in Sitio Panayawan, Barangay San Rafael, Montalban (now the petitioners lacked the personality to file an action for
be proscribed by the rules of Rodriquez), Province of Rizal (Subject Property), by virtue of several removal of a cloud on, or quieting of, title and their
evidence it Deeds of Assignment, dated 15 April 1994 and 02 June 1994, executed by Complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state a
a certain Ismael Favila y Rodriguez. cause of action.
Whether an action for quieting of
title, specifically where petitioners Petitioners came by information that respondent was planning to evict Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is
are in possession of subject land, can them from the Subject Property. Two of the petitioners had actually not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does not have the
be subject of prescription received notices to vacate. Their investigations revealed that the Subject necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not
Property was included in Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCTs) No. 53028, have the character or representation he claims. On the
No. 281660, No. N-39258 and No. 205270, all originating from OCT No. other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to
670, and now in the name of respondent. sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-
interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of
Petitioners filed with the trial court, on 29 April 1996, an action for action.
declaration of nullity of respondent’s certificates of title on the basis that
OCT No. 670 was fake and spurious. Among the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the
Rules of Court are lack of legal capacity to sue and that
After the trial court denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in its the complaint states no cause of action. Lack of legal
Order, dated 20 July 1999, 18 petitioners appealed both Orders of the capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the
trial court to the Court of Appeals. exercise of his civil rights, or does not have the necessary
qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision, dated 29 July 2002, 19 affirmed the character or representation he claims. On the other
Order of the trial court, dated 05 February 1999, dismissing petitioners’ hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue
Complaint. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ Motion for upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-
Reconsideration in its Resolution, dated 14 February 2003. interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of
action.
Supreme Court denied the instant petition and affirms the Decision of the
Court of Appeals, dated 29 July 2002, and the Order of the Regional Trial
Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 77, dated 05 February 1999, dismissing
petitioners’ Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.