Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF DOMINGO VALIENTES v. REINERIO B. RAMAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173241 2015-03-25	SILICON PHILIPPINES v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The second sentence of the foregoing provision does not only supply exceptions to the rule that defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, it also allows courts to dismiss cases motu proprio on any of the enumerated grounds (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) litis pendentia; (3) res judicata; and (4) prescription provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record.[20]
	GR No. 181836 2014-07-09	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CIR CARPIO, J.
If the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense. In Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas,[16] we ruled that the CA may motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of prescription despite failure to raise this ground on appeal. The court is imbued with sufficient discretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case.[17] More so, when the provisions on prescription were enacted to benefit and protect taxpayers from investigation after a reasonable period of time.[18]
	GR No. 185922 2014-01-15	HEIRS OF DR. MARIANO FAVIS v. JUANA GONZALES PEREZ, J.
It was in Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas[14] cited in P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corporation[15] where we noted that the second sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9 does not only supply exceptions to the rule that defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, it also allows courts to dismiss cases motu propio on any of the enumerated grounds. The tenor of the second sentence of the Rule is that the allowance of a motu propio dismissal can proceed only from the exemption from the rule on waiver; which is but logical because there can be no ruling on a waived ground.
	GR No. 166462 2012-10-24	P. L. UY REALTY CORPORATION v. ALS MANAGEMENT VELASCO JR., J.
Under this provision of law, the Court may motu proprio dismiss a case when any of the four (4) grounds referred to therein is present. These are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription of action. Thus, in Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas,[36] the Court ruled: Secondly, and more importantly, Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides:
	GR No. 160446 2012-09-19	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. DOLORES HILARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas,[30] we observed that "[Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court] also allows courts to dismiss cases motu proprio on any of the enumerated grounds (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) litis pendentia; (3) res judicata; and (4) prescription provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record." Such a dismissal may be ordered even on appeal.