512 Phil. 778
For our resolution is the instant petition for review on
certiorari assailing the Decision
[1] and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated November 24, 2000 and May 30, 2001, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 43574.
The facts are:
Spouses
Rafael and Ligaya Bautista, petitioners herein, are the registered
owners of a 3,856-square meter lot located at Natipuan, Nasugbu,
Batangas, as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
P-1436 issued in their names on January 15, 1989 by the Register of
Deeds, same province.
On May 13, 1996, Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc.
(MMCI), respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Nasugbu, Batangas a complaint for cancellation of petitioners' title
and damages, with application for a preliminary injunction, docketed as
Civil Case No. 371. Respondent alleged
inter alia that "without any color of right and through dubious means," petitioners were able to obtain OCT No. P-1436 in their names.
On
May 29, 1996, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that it does not state a cause of action. They averred that
respondent is a private corporation, hence, disqualified under the
Constitution
[2] from acquiring public alienable lands except by lease. Respondent cannot thus be considered a real party in interest.
In
its Order dated August 30, 1996, the trial court granted the motion to
dismiss, holding that since the property is an alienable public land,
respondent is not qualified to acquire it except by lease. Thus, it
has no cause of action.
Respondent then filed a motion for
reconsideration with motion for leave to file an amended complaint for
quieting of title. Respondent alleged that the technical description
in petitioners' title does not cover the disputed lot.
Thereupon,
petitioners filed their opposition, contending that the amended
complaint does not also state a cause of action and if admitted,
respondent's theory of the case is substantially modified.
On
November 18, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying petitioners'
motion to dismiss, thus, reversing its Order of August 30, 1996
dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 371.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for
certiorari
and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43574. They alleged that
the amended complaint does not cure the defect in the original
complaint which does not state a cause of action. Clearly, in
admitting respondent's amended complaint, the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On November 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for
certiorari and prohibition.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution of May 30, 2001.
Hence, the instant petitioner for review on
certiorari.
The
sole issue for our resolution is whether the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting respondent's
amended complaint.
Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
"SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. – A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served."
The above provision clearly shows that
before the filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the
absolute right
to amend his pleading, regardless of whether a new cause of action or
change in theory is introduced. It is settled that a motion to
dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule.
[3]
Records show that petitioners had not yet filed a responsive pleading
to the original complaint in Civil Case No. 371. What they filed was
a motion to dismiss. It follows that respondent, as a plaintiff, may
file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered
dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final,
[4] as in this case.
Verily,
the Court of Appeals correctly held that in issuing the assailed Order
admitting the amended complaint, the trial court did not gravely abuse
its discretion. Hence, neither
certiorari nor prohibition would lie.
As
to petitioners' contention that respondent corporation is barred from
acquiring the subject lot, suffice it to say that this is a matter of
defense which can only be properly determined during the full-blown
trial of the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43574 are
AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.Panganiban, (Chairman), Corona, Carpio Morales, and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 30-42. Per Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with
Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (retired) and Associate Justice
Rodrigo V. Cosico, concurring.
[2] Art. XII, Sec. 3.
[3] Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121397, April 17, 1997, 271 SCRA 286, citing
Prudence Realty and Dev't. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 379 (1994);
Soledad v. Mamangun, 8 SCRA 110 (1963).
[4] Salazar v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 43364, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 247, 250, citing
Paeste and Carpio v, Jaurigue, 94 Phil. 179 (1953),