GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner,
vs. ANTONIO P. OLISA, respondent. [G.R. No. 126874. March 10, 1999]
“x x
x.
It
is significant to note that respondent Olisa can obtain complete judicial relief even without the GSIS being joined as
a party to the case. If the court sustains respondent's view, the court shall
simply order defendant Vicente Francisco who now has the title to the property
to reconvey the same to respondent Olisa. After all, he is in actual possession
of the subject lot.
On
the other hand, GSIS is not privy in any way to the contract between respondent
Olisa and heirs of Benjamin Rivera for the transfer of rights to the lot in
question. Actually this is a prohibited
transaction in the original award to Benjamin Rivera. The GSIS had nothing to
do with the subsequent sale of the lot between the Riveras and Vicente
Francisco. The only participation that GSIS had with respect to the subject property
was issuance of the title to heirs of the original awardee, Benjamin Rivera,
which was a matter of compliance with the contract after full payment of the
purchase price of the lot. Since, according to the record of the GSIS,
respondent Olisa had not been substituted in place of the original awardee, GSIS was bound to honor the contract
with the original awardee. Indeed, the
payments were continued in the name of the original awardee.
Surely,
for complying with the terms of its contract, GSIS can not be faulted.
However,
in the complaint below, respondent alleged that he filed with the GSIS an
application to be substituted as awardee in place of the late Benjamin Rivera,
the original awardee. He failed to attach any document to support such claim. The
GSIS could not have approved such transfer of rights, which is prohibited in
the terms of the award in favor of Rivera. We have held that "facts which
appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded"
are not deemed admitted by a motion to dismiss."[1]
In a
similar case, this Court held that "In the first place, there can be no
question that petitioners purchased the property in question from the De los
Reyes spouses by virtue of a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage of the
property without the previous consent of the respondent GSIS. Petitioners
thereby took a calculated risk knowing as they did that under the mortgage
contract of De los Reyes with the GSIS, its previous consent must be secured in
transactions of this nature."[2]
Consequently,
any error of the trial court in its ruling dismissing the complaint as against
GSIS is one of procedure, not of jurisdiction, which may be corrected only by
appeal.[3]
X x
x.”
