Naoaki Hirakawa represented by Erica M. Shibamura Vs.

Lopzcom
Realty Corporation and Atty. Gari M. Tiongco
G.R No. 213230, December 5, 2019

Lazaro-Javier, J.

Case Doctrine: Allegations in the body of the pleading or the complaint,

and not its title or nomenclature, determine the nature of an action,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the
claims asserted.

Facts: Lopzcom Realty Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in

realty development while Atty. Gari Tiongco is its President and Chariman.
Naoaki Hirakawa is a Japanese National represented by his agent Erica
Shibamura. Hirakawa alleged that sold to Lopzcom for Php 100,000,000 a
92-hectare subdivision project (Windfields Subdivision) in Cebu City. As
payment, Tiongco delivered to Sakai 9 Westmont Bank postdated personal
checks. Sakai assigned, transferred and conveyed to Hirakawa all his
rights and interest on the 4 out of 9 checks, total of Php 65,000,000. Upon
encashment of the first check, Hirakawa requested Lopzcom and Tiongco
to replace remaining checks with new ones to which they acceded, drawn
against Tiongco’s personal account in PDCP. When it became due, the
checks were dishonored because the account was already closed. On
February 9, 1999, Lopzcom executed the Deed of Assignment of a golf
course project in favor of Hirakawa. After 3 years. Hirakawa discovered that
the golf course was never developed. He was compelled to demand that
Tiongco pay their outstanding obligation wherein 2 PNB postdated checks
were issued but it remained unfunded.

On March 22, 2010, Hirakawa served respondents a final Notice of

Demand for Payment amounting to Php 60,000,000 but they still failed to
pay. Hirakawa sued them for Breach of Contract and Attachment before the
Regional Trial Court. RTC issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary
attachment. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the said writ.
Subsequently, they filed an undated Motion to Dismiss the complaint ont
grounds that not being a party to subject contract, Hirakawa had no cause
of action against them and that he had no legal capacity to file suit.

Issue: Whether or not CA gravely err in dismissing the complaint due to

Hirakawa’s lack of cause of action against respondents

Held: Yes. The cause or causes of action ultimately seeks payment of

respondent’s indebtedness and claim for damages allegedly suffered by
Hirakawa because of respondents’ failure or refusal to settle their
obligation. Allegations in the body of the pleading or the complaint, and not
its title or nomenclature, determine the nature of an action, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claims asserted.
Although the complaint was erroneously denominated as breach of
contract, the allegations and the relief sought are plainly for collection of
sum of money. Hirakawa is simply asking for the payment of the calue of
the checks assigned to him and does not ask for rescission of contrat or
restoration of things. Rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a party
of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with
the process required.