FACTS:
The City
of Cebu authorized its mayor by both resolution and city ordinance to
expropriate the property of Merlita Cardeno for the purpose of providing a
socialized housing project for the landless and low-income city residents.
Cardeno
filed a motion to dismiss asseverating that the allegations in the City’s
complaint do no show compliance with the condition precedent of a valid and
definite offer. The allegation states: “that repeated negotiations had been
made with the defendant to have the aforementioned property purchased by the
plaintiff through negotiated sale without resorting to expropriation, but said
negotiations failed.”
The RTC
dismissed the complaint holding that petitioner City of Cebu has not complied
with the condition precedent, hence, the complaint does not state a cause of
action.
The CA
affirmed the ruling of the RTC. According to the CA an allegation of repeated
negotiations made with the private respondent for the purchase of her property
by the petitioner, "cannot by any stretch of imagination, be equated or
likened to the clear and specific requirement that the petitioner should have
previously made a valid and definite offer to purchase." It further added
that the term "negotiation" which necessarily implies uncertainty, it
consisting of acts the purpose of which is to arrive at a conclusion, may not
be perceived to mean the valid and definite offer contemplated by law.
Petitioner
thus filed with the SC a petition for review on certiorari insisting that the
complaint sufficiently states compliance with the requirement of “a valid and
definite offer.” Respondent, on the other hand, argues that, “by definition,
negotiations run the whole range of acts preparatory to concluding an
agreement, from the preliminary correspondence; the fixing of the terms of the
agreement; the price; the mode of payment; obligations of the parties may
conceive as necessary to their agreement." Thus, "negotiations"
by itself may pertain to any of the foregoing and does not automatically mean
the making of "a valid and definite offer."
ISSUE:
WON the City
has complied with the condition precedent of a valid and definite offer
HELD:
YES. The complaint state a cause of action. A
complaint should not be dismissed upon a mere ambiguity, indefiniteness or
uncertainty of the cause of action stated therein for these are not grounds
for a motion to dismiss but rather for a bill of particulars. In other
words, a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears
clearly from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is not entitled to
any relief under any state of facts which could be proved within the facts
alleged therein.
The error
of both the RTC and respondent Court of Appeals in holding that the complaint
failed to state a cause of action stems from their inflexible application of
the rule that: when the motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the
complaint states no cause of action, no evidence may be allowed and the issue
should only be determined in the light of the allegations of the complaint.
However, this rule is not without exceptions. The trial court may consider,
in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in
deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of
action.
All
documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuineness of which
are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of the
complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon. Additionally, the
general rule is that a motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of
the facts alleged in the complaint.
Thus,
Ordinance No.1418, with all its provisions, is not only incorporated into the
complaint for eminent domain filed by petitioner, but is also deemed admitted
by private respondent. A perusal of the
copy of said ordinance which has been annexed to the complaint shows that the
fact of petitioner’s having made a previous valid and definite offer to private
respondent is categorically stated therein.
Thus, the
second whereas clause of the said ordinance provides as follows: “The city government has made a valid and
definite offer to purchase subject lot(s) for the public use aforementioned but
the registered owner Mrs. Merlita Cardeno has rejected such offer.” The
foregoing showed that the petitioner had in fact complied with the condition
precedent of "a valid and definite offer" set forth in Sec. 19 of
R.A. 7160. (
0
Comments
