108 OG No. 27, 3257 (July 2, 2012)
"Wherefore, the instant complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of cause of action."[2]On 7 February 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed a Complaint (With Application for TRO and/or Writ of Injunction) for Specific Performance, Prohibition and Injunction, containing the following allegations:[3]
In lieu of an Answer, defendants-appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss[5] on 28 February 2005 based on the following grounds: a) lack of jurisdiction; b) failure to pay the proper docket fees; and c) failure to state a cause of action under Section 1(g) of the Rules of Court.[6]* * * * * *
2 - That the plaintiffs are the common and registered owners and in actual physical possession and enjoyment of that certain commercial and residential parcel of land known as Lot No. 3-D-3-C of the Subdivision Plan, situated at 27 Yanga Street, Maysilo, Malabon, M.M. Containing an area of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR (1,464) SQUARE METERS, more or less, covered by and embraced in TCT No. M-10298, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A", issued by the Register of Deeds of Malabon, M.M. Which is more particularly described as follows:* * * * * *
where they actually reside and conduct their business or manage their factory for the production of feed meals for commercial purposes and where their various equipments (sic) vehicles and different kinds of merchandise and/or articles of value are stored or stacked, plan and/or Sketch of the above property is shown in Annex "B" hereof.
3 - That, as indicated under Annex "B" hereof, all the defendants are the owners and/or in possession of and have their respective houses where they reside in, separate parcels of land that are adjacent to, an/or abut, above-described property of the herein plaintiffs who, themselves also have their respective residential houses; however, the defendants berting mendoza, ma. TERESA YUMUL, ROMERO FRANSISCO, GERRY LLANTO, buddy tan, ernesto suerte, in particular, have constructed fences and enclosed their respective residential lots, more than One (1) Year Ago, intruding, encroaching and occupying portions of the plaintiffs' above-described property, to the extent, as follows:BERTING MENDOZA = 9.88 Square Meters.and, despite repeated demands, the above-named defendants had refused, failed and refused to remove their fences and refuse to transfer the same on the boundary line between plaintiffs and said defendants' property in the manner, and as portrayed and demonstrated, in a Relocation (sic) Survey Plan which herein plaintiffs had caused to be conducted by a competent Geodetic Engineer, in the premises, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "C", copies of plaintiffs' written demands upon the said defendants are hereto attached as Annexes "D", "E", "F", "G", "H" and "I".
MA. THERESA YUMUL = 7.8 Square Meters.
ROMERO FRANSISCO = 6.88 Square Meters.
GERRY LLANTO = 7.99 Square Meters.
BUDDY TAN = 11 Square Meters.
ERNESTO SUERTE = 16.88 Square Meters.
4 - That, as can be seen from the said Sketch Plan, Annex "B", and/or Relocation Survey, Annex "C", plaintiffs' property is shaped in such a manner that the larger or BIGGER portion thereof is located and is bounded by a Creek (sic) ( Sapang Maysilo) on the EAST and, it is on this BIGGER portion of their land that their residential houses, feed mills factory, vehicles, equipments (sic), and many other valuable things and articles are found, piled (sic) stacked, stored and housed and plaintiffs (sic) only way or lane for, or only means of, egress and ingress into, the said BIGGER portion of their property is the SMALLER portion thereof leading to the public road towards the WEST ( Please see Annexes "B" and "C" hereof ) which some of the defendants, namely: LAURENCE DEMORTE, CRIS DOULITTLE, LENNIE MENDOZA, JOSE ANDRES, LUCILA villegas and mely capatan ma. by tolerance of the plaintiffs, also use as their way, ingress and egress towards the same public road.
5 - That, due to the various acts of trespasses, thieveries and intrusions of many suspicious characters and dangerous elements, into the above-described LARGER portion of plaintiffs' (sic) which, not only threaten the plaintiffs' peace of mind, sense of security, and rights to privacy, adversely affecting their exclusive rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property described above, but also resulting to many losses of their equipments (sic) and various valuable things and articles therein, the said plaintiffs had to enclose and put up a steel fence at the gate or entrance abutting the public road on the WESTERN SMALLER portion of their property, but for no justifiable cause or reason, the said defendants, conspiring and confederating with one another, intimidated and threatened the plaintiffs with serious bodily harm and destruction on their property if they persist in putting or constructing any fence, or barricade in the said portion of their property above-described, constraining herein plaintiffs to institute the instant action and, in the process, are compelled to engage the services of counsel at an agreed attorney/s (sic) fees in the amount of P100,000.00 in addition to the sum of P3,000.00 as allowance per day of his appearance in Court in connection with this case apart from incurring actual and litigation expenses in the amount of no less than P50.000, to all of which the defendants must be ordered to recompense and pay to the plaintiffs.
6 - That, unless the defendants are immediately restrained, prohibited and stopped from preventing the herein plaintiffs in fencing and enclosing their own property, the latter will suffer damages, incapable of pecuniary estimation which can not (sic) be compensated by any monetary standard, arising not only from being unduly deprived and/or from being unable to exercise their basic and constitutional and human rights to property, peaceful enjoyment thereof, but also from the losses on account of thieveries, threats to their own safety and peace of mind and undue intrusion of criminal elements into their own property"[4]
"* * *, however, the defendants * * * have constructed fences and enclosed their respective residential lots, more than One (1) Year Ago. intruding, encroaching and occupying portions of the plaintiffs' above-described property, to the extent as follows:"[16] (Underscoring and emphasis supplied.)The lower court should have just confined itself to the allegations in the complaint to determine the existence of a cause of action and not the title of the complaint and plaintiffs-appellants' persistent assertion that the complaint was for specific performance.[17] The rule is that only the allegations in the complaint may properly be considered in ascertaining the existence of a cause of cause.[18]