578

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez
*

G.R.No.138497.January16,2002.

IMELDA RELUCIO, petitioner, vs. ANGELINA MEJIA

LOPEZ,respondent.
Remedial Law; Actions; A cause of action is an act or omission
of one party the defendant in violation of the legal right of the
other; Elements of.A cause of action is an act or omission of one
partythedefendantinviolationofthelegalrightoftheother.The
elementsofacauseofactionare:(1)arightinfavoroftheplaintiff
bywhatevermeansandunderwhateverlawitarisesoriscreated;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or
not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of
such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiffforwhichthelattermaymaintainanactionforrecoveryof
damages.
Same; Same; To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of
action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not
exist, rather than that a claim has been merely defectively stated or
is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.A cause of action is
sufficientifavalidjudgmentmayberenderedthereonifthealleged
facts were admitted or proved. In order to sustain a motion to
dismissforlackofcauseofaction,thecomplaintmustshowthatthe
claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been
merelydefectivelystatedorisambiguous,indefiniteoruncertain.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Roco, Buag, Kapunan & Migallosforpetitioner.
Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for private
respondent.
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

579

VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002
Relucio vs. Lopez
PARDO,J.:

579

The Case
1

Thecaseisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari
seekingtoset
2
aside the decision of the Court of Appeals that denied a
petition for certiorari assailing the trial courts order
denyingpetitionersmotiontodismissthecaseagainsther
inclusionaspartydefendanttherein.
The Facts
Thefacts,asfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,areasfollows:
OnSeptember15,1993,hereinprivaterespondentAngelinaMejia
Lopez (plaintiff below) filed a petition for APPOINTMENT AS
SOLE ADMINISTRATRIX OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF
PROPERTIES, FORFEITURE, ETC., against defendant Alberto
Lopez and petitioner Imelda Relucio, docketed as Spec. Proc. M
3630, in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141. In the
petition, privaterespondent alleged that sometime in 1968,
defendant Lopez, who is legally married to the private respondent,
abandoned the latter and their four legitimate children; that he
arrogateduntohimselffullandexclusivecontrolandadministration
oftheconjugalproperties,spendingandusingthesameforhissole
gainandbenefittothetotalexclusionoftheprivaterespondentand
their four children; that defendant Lopez, after abandoning his
family,maintainedanillicitrelationshipandcohabitedwithherein
petitionersince1976.
It was further alleged that defendant Lopez and petitioner
Relucio, during their period of cohabitation since 1976, have
amassed a fortune consisting mainly of stockholdings in Lopez
owned or controlled corporations, residential, agricultural,
commercial lots, houses, apartments and buildings, cars and other
motorvehicles,bankaccountsandjewelry.Theseproperties,which
are in the names of defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio singly
or jointly or their dummies and proxies, have been acquired
principally if not solely through the actual contribution of money,
property
_______________
1UnderRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
2 In CAG.R. SP No. 34398, promulgated on May 31, 1996, Petition,

Annex A, Rollo, pp. 2839. IbaySomera, J., ponente, Lipana Reyes+

andAgcaoili,JJ.,concurring.
580

580

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez

and industry of defendant Lopez with minimal, if not nil, actual

contributionfrompetitionerRelucio.
In order to avoid defendant Lopez obligations as a father and
husband, he excluded the private respondent and their four
children from sharing or benefiting from the conjugal properties
and the income or fruits there from. As such, defendant Lopez
either did not place them in his name or otherwise removed,
transferred, stashed away or concealed them from the private

respondent. He placed substantial portions of these conjugal

propertiesinthenameofpetitionerRelucio.
It was also averred that in the past twentyfive years since
defendant Lopez abandoned the privaterespondent, he has sold,
disposed of, alienated, transferred, assigned, canceled, removed or
stashed away properties, assets and income belonging to the
conjugal partnership with the privaterespondent and either spent
the proceeds thereof for his sole benefit and that of petitioner
Relucio and their two illegitimate children or permanently and
fraudulently placed them beyond the reach of the private
respondentandtheirfourchildren.
OnDecember8,1993,aMotion,toDismissthePetitionwasfiled
by herein petitioner on the ground that private respondent has no
causeofactionagainsther.
An Order dated February 10, 1994 was issued by herein
respondentJudgedenyingpetitionerReluciosMotiontoDismisson
the ground that she is impleaded as a necessary or indispensable
party because some of the subject properties are registered in her
nameanddefendantLopez,orsolelyinhername.
Subsequently thereafter, petitioner Relucio filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to the Order of the respondent Judge dated
February 10, 1994 but the same was likewise denied in the Order
3
datedMay31,1994.

OnJune21,1994,petitionerfiledwiththeCourtofAppeals
a petition for certiorari
assailing the trial courts denial of
4
hermotiontodismiss.
On May 31, 1996, the Court
of Appeals promulgated a
5
decisiondenyingthepetition. OnJune26,1996,petitioner
filedamotion
_______________
3Rollo,pp.2839,atpp.2831.
4 Docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 34398. Petition, Annex A, CA Rollo,

pp.1819.
5Petition,AnnexA,Rollo,pp.2839.

581

VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002

581

Relucio vs. Lopez

6

forreconsideration. However,onApril6,1999,theCourtof
7
Appealsdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.
8
Hence,thisappeal.
The Issues
1. Whether respondents petition for appointment as
sole administratrix of the conjugal property,
accounting, etc. against her husband Alberto J.
Lopez established a cause of action against
petitioner.
2. Whetherpetitionersinclusionaspartydefendantis
essential in the proceedings
for a complete
9
adjudicationofthecontroversy.

The Courts Ruling

Wegrantthepetition.Weresolvetheissuesin seriatim.
First issue: whether a cause of action exists against
petitionerintheproceedingsbelow.Acauseofactionisan
actoromissionofonepartythedefendantinviolationofthe
10
legalrightoftheother. Theelementsofacauseofaction
are:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means
andunderwhateverlawitarisesoriscreated;
(2) anobligationonthepartofthenameddefendantto
respectornottoviolatesuchright;and
(3) anactoromissiononthepartofsuchdefendantin
violationoftherightoftheplaintifforconstitutinga
breach
_______________
6CARollo,pp.114119.
7Petition,AnnexB.Rollo,p.40.
8FiledonJune18,1999,postedbyRegisteredMail.Rollo,pp.1027.

On September 15, 1999, the Court gave due course to the petition
(Rollo,pp.8687).
9Memorandum,Rollo,pp.113137,atp.120.
10Far

East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, 341 SCRA

486,490(2000);Centeno v. Centeno,343SCRA153,160(2000).
582

582

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez
oftheobligationofthedefendanttotheplaintifffor
which the latter may
maintain an action for
11
recoveryofdamages.

A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be

rendered
thereon if the alleged facts were admitted or
12
proved.
Inordertosustainamotiontodismissforlackofcauseof
action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief
does not exist, rather than that a claim has been merely
13
defectivelystatedorisambiguous,indefiniteoruncertain.
Hence,todeterminethesufficiencyofthecauseofaction
alleged in Special Proceedings M3630, we assay its
allegations.
In Part Two on the Nature of [the] Complaint,
respondentAngelinaMejiaLopezsummarizedthecausesof
actionallegedinthecomplaintbelow.
The complaint is by an aggrieved wife against her
husband.
Nowhere in the allegations does it appear that relief is
sought against petitioner. Respondents causes of action
wereallagainstherhusband.
The first cause of action is for judicial appointment of

respondentasadministratrixoftheconjugalpartnershipor
absolutecommunitypropertyarisingfromhermarriageto
Alberto J. Lopez. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this
causeofaction.Article128oftheFamilyCoderefersonlyto
spouses,towit:
Ifaspousewithoutjustcauseabandonstheotherorfailstocomply
withhisorherobligationstothefamily,theaggrievedspousemay
petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of
property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the
conjugalpartnershipproperty
xxx

The administration of the property of the marriage is

entirelybetweenthem,totheexclusionofallotherpersons.
Respondent alleges that Alberto J. Lopez is her husband.
Therefore, her first cause of action is against Alberto J.
Lopez.Thereisnorightduty
_______________
11Centeno

v. Centeno, supra,Note10.

12Racoma

v. Fortich,148APhil.454,460;39SCRA520(1971),citing

Amedo v. Rio,92Phil.214(1952).
13Dulay

v. Court of Appeals,243SCRA220(1995).
583

VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002

583

Relucio vs. Lopez

relation between petitioner and respondent that can
possiblysupportacauseofaction.Infact,noneofthethree
elementsofacauseofactionexists.
The second cause of
action is for an accounting by
14
respondent husband. The accounting of conjugal
partnershiparisesfromorisanincidentofmarriage.
Petitionerhasnothingtodowiththemarriagebetween
respondentAlbertoJ.Lopez.Hence,nocauseofactioncan
existagainstpetitioneronthisground.
Respondentsalternativecauseofactionisforforfeiture
of Alberto J. Lopez share in the coowned property
acquired during15 his illicit relationship and cohabitation
with[petitioner] and for the dissolution of the conjugal
partnershipofgainsbetweenhim[AlbertoJ.Lopez]andthe
[respondent].
The third cause of action is essentially for forfeiture of
Alberto J. Lopez share in property coowned by him and
petitioner.Itdoesnotinvolvetheissueofvalidityoftheco
ownership between Alberto J. Lopez and petitioner. The
issue is whether there is basis in law to forfeit Alberto J.
Lopezshare,ifanytherebe,inpropertycoownedbyhim
withpetitioner.
RespondentsassertedrighttoforfeitextendstoAlberto
J. Lopez share alone. Failure of Alberto J. Lopez to
surrender such share, assuming the trial court finds in
respondents favor, results in a breach of an16obligation to
respondentandgivesrisetoacauseofaction. Suchcause
of action, however, pertains to Alberto J. Lopez, not

petitioner.
The respondent also sought support. Support cannot be
compelledfromastranger.
The action in Special Proceedings M3630 is, to use
respondent Angelina M. Lopez own words,
one by an
17
aggrieved wife against her husband. References to
petitionerinthecommonandspecificallegationsoffactin
thecomplaintaremerelyincidental,toset
_______________
14Rollo,pp.4262,atp.44.
15Ibid.,p.44.
16Kramer,

Jr. v. Court of Appeals,170SCRA518(1989).

17Rollo,p.43.

584

584

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Relucio vs. Lopez

forthfactsandcircumstancesthatprovethecausesofaction
allegedagainstAlbertoJ.Lopez.
Finally,astothemoraldamages,respondentsclaimfor
moraldamagesisagainstAlbertoJ.Lopez,notpetitioner.
To sustain a cause of action for moral damages, the
complaint must have the character of an action for
interferencewithmaritalorfamilyrelationsundertheCivil
Code.
Arealpartyininterestisonewhostandstobebenefited
18
or injured by the judgment of the suit. In this case,
petitionerwouldnotbeaffectedbyanyjudgmentinSpecial
ProceedingsM3630.
Ifpetitionerisnotarealpartyininterest,shecannotbe
an indispensable party. An indispensable party is one
without
whom there can be no final determination of an
19
action. PetitionersparticipationinSpecialProceedingsM
3630 is not indispensable. Certainly, the trial court can
issue a judgment ordering Alberto J. Lopez to make an
accountingofhisconjugalpartnershipwithrespondent,and
givesupporttorespondentandtheirchildren,anddissolve
AlbertoJ.Lopezconjugalpartnershipwithrespondent,and
forfeitAlbertoJ.Lopezshareinpropertycoownedbyhim
andpetitioner.Suchjudgmentwouldbeperfectlyvalidand
enforceableagainstAlbertoJ.Lopez.
Nor can petitioner be a necessary party in Special
Proceedings M3630. A necessary party as one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as party if
completereliefistobeaccordedthosealreadyparties,orfor
acompletedeterminationorsettlementoftheclaimsubject
20
of the action. In the context of her petition in the lower
court, respondent would be accorded complete relief if
Alberto J. Lopez were ordered to account for his alleged
conjugal partnership property with respondent, give
supporttorespondentandherchildren,turnoverhisshare
in the coownership with petitioner and dissolve his
conjugalpartnershiporabsolutecommunitypropertywith
respondent.

_______________
18

Rule 3, Section 2, Revised Rules of Court. Salonga v. Warner

Barnes & Co., Ltd.,88Phil.125(1951);Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 203

SCRA310(1991).
19Rule3,Section7,RevisedRulesofCourt.
20Rule3,Section8,RevisedRulesofCourt.

585

VOL.373,JANUARY16,2002

585

People vs. Escordial

The Judgment
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition
and
21
REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
Court DISMISSES Special Proceedings M3630 of the
Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 141 as against
petitioner.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed.
Note.A complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient
notice of the cause of action even though the allegations
may be vague or indefinite. (Cometa vs. Court of Appeals,
301SCRA459[1999])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.