Ceroferr v.

Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 139539, 5 February 2002, 376 SCRA 144

FACTS: Petitioner Ceroferr Realty Corporation filed a suit against private respondent Ernesto Santiago
for damages and injunction from dispute over the ownership of a land located in Quezon City. The
complaint alleged that Santiago was occupying, without any right, a portion of a parcel of land belonging
to Petitioner, which was being used by the former as a jeepney terminal. Private respondent, for his
part, countered that he had the legal title to the land, thus, he had the right to utilize the land as such.
During the trial, it was found out that the main issue of the case revolved around the actual bounds of
the land owned by Petitioner. It appears that the title held by Petitioner merely referred to the land by
its lot number, while the title held by private respondent was replete with technical descriptions and
the accompanying metes and bounds of the lot.

Private respondent then filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s complaint, on the ground that the trial
court cannot pass upon the issue of damages without first determining the true ownership of the lot in
question. The trial court then issued an order denying Petitioner’s complaint for lack of cause of action
and lack of jurisdiction, holding that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be the subject of a collateral
attack. Petitioner appealed then to the Court of appeals, insisting that the complaint stated a cause of
action which was determinable on its face. Such appeal was dismissed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner complaint states a sufficient cause of action.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the complaint stated a valid cause of action which was
determinable from the face thereof, and that the trial court proceed to try and decide the case before it
since respondent Santiago may be considered estopped to question the jurisdiction of the trial court for
he took an active part in the case. It was only when a second survey report showed results adverse to his
case that he submitted a motion to dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the court.

The rules of procedure require that the complaint must state a concise statement of the ultimate facts
or the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken
out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of
action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a
breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages.

If these elements are not extant, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the
ground of failure to state a cause of action. These elements are present in the case at bar.