MARK Sulo NG Bayan Vs Araneta

G.R. No.
L-31061 August 17, 1976

SULO NG BAYAN INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs.
GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., PARADISE FARMS, INC., NATIONAL
WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, HACIENDA CARETAS, INC, and
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, defendants-appellees.
FACTS: Plaintiff-appellant Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. filed an accion de revindicacion with the Court of
First Instance against defendants-appellees to recover the ownership and possession of a large
tract of land registered under the Torrens System in the name of defendants-appellees'
predecessors-in-interest. plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines, that its membership is composed of natural persons; that the members of the
plaintiff corporation, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, had pioneered in
the clearing of the fore-mentioned tract of land, cultivated the same since the Spanish regime
and continuously possessed the said property openly and public under concept of ownership
adverse against the whole world;
that defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc., through force and intimidation, ejected the
members of the plaintiff corporation from their possession of the aforementioned vast tract of
land; that upon investigation conducted by the members and officers of plaintiff corporation,
they found out for the first time that the land in question "had been either fraudelently or
erroneously included, by direct or constructive fraud, in Original Certificate of Title of the Land
of Records of the province of Bulacan", which title is fictitious, non-existent and devoid of legal
efficacy due to the fact that "no original survey nor plan whatsoever" appears to have been
submitted as a basis thereof and that the Court which issued the decree of registration did not
acquire jurisdiction over the land registration case because no notice of such proceeding was
given to the members of the plaintiff corporation who were then in actual possession of said
properties, that as a consequence of the nullity of the original title, all subsequent titles derived
therefrom, are therefore void.
Defendant-appellee Gregorio Araneta, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
the grounds that (1) the complaint states no cause of action; and (2) the cause of action, if any, is
barred by prescription and laches.
The trial court issued an Order dismissing the amended complaint.
Appellant filed a motion to reconsider the Order of dismissal. This motion was denied by the
trial court in. From the afore-mentioned Order of dismissal and the Order denying its motion
for reconsideration, plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, upon finding that no question of fact was involved in the appeal but only
questions of law and jurisdiction, certified this case to this Court for resolution of the legal issues
involved in the controversy.
ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff corporation (non- stock may institute an action in behalf of its
individual members for the recovery of certain parcels of land allegedly owned by said members;
for the nullification of the transfer certificates of title issued in favor of defendants appellees
covering the aforesaid parcels of land; for a declaration of "plaintiff's members as absolute
owners of the property" and the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title; and for
damages?
RULING: No, It has not been claimed that the members have assigned or transferred whatever
rights they may have on the land in question to the plaintiff corporation. Absent any showing of
interest, therefore, a corporation, like plaintiff-appellant herein, has no personality to bring an
action for and in behalf of its stockholders or members for the purpose of recovering property
which belongs to said stockholders or members in their personal capacities.
It is fundamental that there cannot be a cause of action 'without an antecedent primary legal
right conferred' by law upon a person. Evidently, there can be no wrong without a
corresponding right, and no breach of duty by one person without a corresponding right
belonging to some other person. Thus, the essential elements of a cause of action are legal right
of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, an act or omission of the defendant in
violation of the aforesaid legal right. Clearly, no right of action exists in favor of Plaintiff
Corporation, for as shown heretofore it does not have any interest in the subject matter of the
case which is material and, direct so as to entitle it to file the suit as a real party in interest.

MARK Sulo NG Bayan Vs Araneta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARK Sulo NG Bayan Vs Araneta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARK Sulo NG Bayan Vs Araneta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-31061 August 17, 1976

You might also like