SPC FORNEL,Ma. Theresa A.

Subject: Civil Procedure 1

Professor: Judge Janice L. Andrade-Udarbe

Serrano Mahilum v. Spouses Ilano,

G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015
Rule 33 Sec. 1. Demurrer of Evidence: After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his or her
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his or her motion is denied, he or she shall have the right to
present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he or she
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

FACTS

The case concerns on petitioner, Ruby Ruth S. Serrano Mahilum, is the registered
owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85533.In September
2003, petitioner entrusted the original owner's duplicate copy of the title to Teresa Perez, a
real estate broker, who claimed she could assist petitioner in obtaining a loan. Perez failed to
return the title and admitted that it was lost. Thus, in June 2004, petitioner executed an
Affidavit of Loss and caused the same to be annotated upon the origin al registry copy of
TCT 85533 as Entry No. 1668-247 on October 7, 2004. In 2006, petitioner received a letter
from the Registry of Deeds informing her that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT 85533 was
presented by the respondents, Spouses Ilano, who claimed to have purchased the property
covered by the title.
Respondents executed an Affidavit of Non-Loss, which was entered on TCT 85533, instead
of registering the supposed sale in their favor. Petitioner confronted respondents and claimed
that her signatures on the sale documents were forged. The petitioner demanded the return of
TCT 85533, but respondents refused to surrender it, claiming they bought the property from
Perez and an unidentified companion. Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the
agreement and deed of absolute sale, specific performance, and damages against respondents
and Perez.
The trial court denied respondents' demurrer to evidence, stating that the issue of whether
respondents were buyers in good faith can only be resolved after the presentation of evidence.
The Court of Appeals (CA) granted respondents' petition for certiorari, ruling that petitioner's
complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that respondents were
purchasers in bad faith. The CA held that respondents, as innocent purchasers for value, were
protected under the Torrens system.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner was deprived of her property when the court of appeals granted
the demurrer to evidence on the ground that there was no cause of action when one of the
issued[sic] agreed upon by the parties during the pre-trial before the RTC was whether private
respondents were purchasers in good faith.

RULING:
 The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision and reinstated the trial court's denial of
respondents' demurrer to evidence. In granting demurrer, the CA failed to consider that title to
the property remained in petitioner’s name; TCT 85533 was never cancelled, and no new title
was issued in respondents’ name. As a matter of fact, what they did when petitioner annotated
her affidavit of loss upon TCT 85533 was to cause the annotation of an "affidavit of non-loss"
afterward. The Court held that since title to the property remained in petitioner's name and no
new title was issued to respondents, the issue of their good or bad faith was irrelevant. The
Court emphasized that petitioner's case was for the annulment of the agreement and deed of
absolute sale, not the annulment of title. The Court noted that respondents' failure to register
the sale and their ambiguous allegations in their pleadings cast doubt on their claim of being
innocent purchasers for value. The Court concluded that petitioner's action was not
groundless and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

DOCTRINE:
Demurrer of Evidence: After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his or her
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law
the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his or her motion is denied, he or she shall have
the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is
reversed, he or she shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
The Supreme Court agreed on the ruling of the RTC. A demurrer to evidence is
anchored on the claim that "upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief" (Sec. 1, Rule 33, Rules of Court). With respect to the herein case, there is no clear
showing that plaintiffs Sps. Mahilum has no right to the reliefs being sought by them. On the
contrary, and if not opposed by contravening evidence by the defendants, their causes of
action may end up being supported by evidence that may merit rulings in their favor.