G.R. No. 187843 June 9, 2014 CAPITOL SAWMILL CORPORATION and COLM!IA WOO" IN"STRI#S CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. CONC#PCION C$A GAW, ANG#LO C$A GAW, JO$N !ARR% C$A GAW, L#ONAR" !RAN"ON C$A GAW and JLITA C. C$A, Respondents. RESOLUTION P#R#&, J.: P#R#&, J.: Doctrine: A complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely s olely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Accordingly, if the allegations furnish allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. Petitioners are pushing the case too far ahead of its limits. They are themselves determining that the issue is whether the properties of the corporation can be included in the inventory of the estate of the decedent when the only question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether based on the evidence, respondents, as already well put in the prior Chua Suy Phen case, have a right to share in the ownership of the corporation.
'ACTS( This case traces its origins to an action for Determination of Shares in and Partiti artition on of the Estate Estate of Deceas Deceased ed Parent arents s ed ed !" Spo#ses Spo#ses $oncep $oncepcio cion n $h#a $h#a %a& and and 'n 'nttoni onio %a& %a& agai agains nstt their heir si! si!in ings gs,, and and pet petiti itione oner corpor corporati ations ons,, $apito $apito Sa&mi Sa&mi $orpor $orporati ation on and $o#m! $o#m!ia ia (ood Ind#st Ind#strie ries s $orporation, !efore the Regiona Tria $o#rt )RT$* of +aen#ea on - #ne /001. In the $ompaint, respondents aeged that deceased Spo#ses $h#a $hin and $han $hi &ho"2o&ned the entire assets of or the o#tstanding investments in $apito Sa&mi $orporation and $o#m!ia (ood Ind#stries $orporation. Therefore, the t&o corporations sho#d constit#te part of the estate of the deceased, &hich in t#rn m#st !e divided among the heirs. Despite demands of respondents, defendants therein ref#sed to coate and partition the entire estate of their deceased parents.
Petitioners co#ntered that the compaint stated no ca#se of action against the petitioner $orporations. D#ring tria, $oncepcion and #ita $h#a testied on the the ae aegat gatio ions ns in thei theirr 'men 'mende ded d $omp $ompa ain int. t. On 3 Dece Decem! m!er er -4 -445 45,, painti6s ed their 7orma O6er of Painti68s Doc#mentar" Evidence. On /- #" -441, petitioners ed a Dem#rrer to Evidence aeging that !ased on the aegations in the 'mended $ompaint and the evidence presented,
the case against them sho#d !e dismissed. $iting the $o#rt8s r#ing in Lim v. $o#rt of 'ppeas, petitioners s#!mitted that the properties of the corporations cannot !e inc#ded in the estate of the decedent. In their Opposition9$omment, respondents opposed the ing of the Dem#rrer to Evidence on the gro#nd of res :#dicata. Respondents caimed that the iss#e raised !" petitioners had aread" !een resoved in $h#a S#" Phen v. $oncepcion $h#a %a&, &herein the $o#rt #phed their ca#ses of action against the t&o corporations and decared that their right to inherit and their right to share in the o&nership of the corporations are matters to !e resoved in the case pending !efore the tria co#rt. On ; Septem!er -44<, the tria co#rt iss#ed an Order den"ing the Dem#rrer to Evidence. The tria co#rt e=po#nded that the Lim case and the instant case are not simiar considering that the instant case invoves determination of shares in and partition of estate of deceased parents. >oreover, the tria co#rt too? note of the r#ing in $h#a S#" Phen &hich vaidates respondents8 ca#ses of action against petitioners. Petitioners ed &ith the $o#rt of 'ppeas a specia civi action for certiorari see?ing to ann# the o&er co#rt@s orders den"ing their dem#rrer to evidence. On // >a" -440, the $o#rt of 'ppeas rendered a decision dismissing the petition, for ac? of merit. The $o#rt of 'ppeas hed that the Lim case &hich r#ed that a corporation cannot !e the proper s#!:ect of and !e inc#ded in the inventor" of the estate of a deceased person is not appica!e in this case. >oreover, the appeate co#rt stated that respondents8 right to inherit and their right to share in the o&nership of petitioner corporations &ere aread" resoved in the case of $h#a S#" Phen. ISS#( /. (hether or not the properties of the corporation can !e the proper s#!:ect of and !e inc#ded in the inventor" of the estate of a deceased person as it had !een resoved in the Lim case and s#ch r#ing is appica!e to them.
-. (hether or not the $o#rt8s prono#ncement in the case of $h#a S#" Phen on" pertained to the iss#e of :#risdiction of the tria co#rt over said case. $#L"( /. NO. (e agree &ith the $o#rt of 'ppeas &hen it decided that the facts in the Lim case are not on a fo#rs &ith the instant case, th#sA
The Lim case sho#d not !e appied in this case !eca#se it is an intestate pro!ate proceeding &hie this case is principa" for the partition and distri!#tion of the estate of the deceased parents. In the Lim case, the properties invoved &ere rea properties registered #nder the Torrens s"stem in the name of severa corporations &hich are
aeged" o&ned !" the decedent, &hereas in this case, the same covers a assets, investments and a other rights, tites and interests eft !" the deceased parents of private respondents &hich are so#ght to !e coated, partitioned and distri!#ted among the ega heirs. It does not invove partic#ar properties &hich are o&ned !" petitioners $apito and $o#m!ia !#t the totait" of investments made !" the deceased parents in the said !#sinesses. 0 The $o#rt in $h#a S#" Phen had aread" #phed the vaidit" of respondents8 ca#ses of action against petitioners. Said case originated from the same action for partition and distri!#tion of the estate of their deceased parents consisting of investments in petitioner corporations. ' motion to dismiss &as ed !" petitioners therein on the gro#nd of ac? of :#risdiction !#t therein respondents arg#ed that Bthe compaint &as for :#dicia determination of the share of the parties, the partition of the entire estate of their deceased parents, and the eC#ita!e distri!#tion of the shares to a the heirs.B -. NO. The RT$ of +aen#ea $it", ranch <1 #phed respondents8 stand and denied the motion to dismiss. (hen eevated to the $o#rt of 'ppeas, it armed the dismissa. The dismissa &as !ro#ght !efore #s !" &a" of petition for revie&. (e r#ed in a Reso#tion dated /F an#ar" /000 that the action &as for coation of the properties comprising the estate of the deceased parents, hence, :#risdiction pertains to the tria co#rt. (e caried that the disp#te stemmed from the e=c#sion of respondents from their inheritance consisting of investments in t&o corporations. >ore pertinent", &e decared that Btheir right to inherit and their right to share in the o&nership of the corporations are matters to !e resoved in the case pending in the tria co#rt.B /4 The said r#ing vaidated in fact the ca#se of action in this case, i.e., that respondents &ere e=c#ded !" petitioners from their right to inherit or share in the o&nership of the t&o corporations. Petitioners in $h#a S#" Phen &ere #ns#ccessf# in having the case dismissed on the gro#nd of ac? of :#risdiction. Petitioners are no& empo"ing another mane#ver to sta the proceedings for determination of shares and partition !efore the tria co#rt. (e are p#tting a stop to the proced#ra o!iC#it" that had the case stra" a&a" from the reso#tion for amost t&o decades. "#CISION( W$#R#'OR#, the instant petition is DENIED for ac? of merit. Let the case !e RE>'NDED to the tria co#rt &hich is directed to act and decide the case &ith dispatch. SO ORDERED.
JOS# PORTGAL P#R#& 'ssociate #stice
