G.R. No. 135885 - SPOUSES JUAN J. DIAZ AND ELIZABETH L. DIAZ, VS. JOSE DIAZ AND COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, in Remitere , we found that the complaint failed to allege any connection between the plaintiffs and the deceased Gregorio Remitere, their claim to the properties, the manner by which their rights or interests were affected by the sale of said properties as well as facts and circumstances upon which the nullity of the public auction was predicated. In the case at bar, the connection which petitioners seek can readily be found by an examination of the Complaint in its entirety. In his Complaint, private respondent alleged that he was entitled to receive P15,000.00 as his share in the sales proceeds of the Mandaluyong property. He thereafter claimed that, with his knowledge and without his objection, the same P15,000.00 was used by his brother in paying for the Greenhills property. Having allowed his brother to use his money, private respondent demanded the return of the present equivalent of his contribution following the sale of the Greenhills property but said demand was rejected. Hypothetically admitting these allegations, private respondents Complaint satisfies all the elements of a cause of action. Petitioners argue that private respondents invocation of Article 1452 of the Civil Code is a mere conclusion of law which is not allowed to be alleged in the Complaint. Petitioners also dispute the applicability of Article 1452 as there was never any agreement between the parties for the purchase of the Greenhills property and for registration of the title in their name. We agree with petitioners that private respondents invocation of Article 1452 is a conclusion of law. However, the inclusion thereof does not render the Complaint infirm since statements of law made by parties to a case are not binding on the courts. Similarly, doubtful veracity of the allegations in the Complaint is not a ground for granting a motion to dismiss. The existence or non-existence of an agreement between petitioners and private respondent is a matter that should be threshed out during the trial of the case. Petitioners further contend that private respondents vacillating cause of action indicated an inability to allege an actionable cause which should have impelled the Court of Appeals to grant their Motion to Dismiss. Petitioners ask this Court to take notice of the fact that private respondent first cited the implied trust provisions of Article 1452 of the Civil Code in his Complaint then shifted to implied trust under Article 1455 in his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and finally, co-ownership in his Comment before the Court of Appeals. Petitioners correctly pointed out that in determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in a complaint may properly be considered, and that it is error for the courts to take cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to determine its existence. [21] Petitioners will, however, concede that private respondents Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Comment are extraneous ma