Lawyerly

GR No. 197380

2014-10-08

ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS v. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN**

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[29] If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.[30]

GR No. 191178

2013-03-13

ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK v. HENRY H. FURIGAY

MENDOZA, J.

In all, it is incorrect for ASB to argue that a complaint need not allege all the elements constituting its cause of action since it would simply adduce proof of the same during trial. "Nothing is more settled than the rule that in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations."[28] The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other.[29] Unfortunately for ASB, the Court finds the allegations of its complaint insufficient in establishing its cause of action and in apprising the respondents of the same so that they could defend themselves intelligently and effectively pursuant to their right to due process. It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice are constituted to adjudicate substantive rights. While courts should consider public policy and necessity in putting an end to litigations speedily they must nevertheless harmonize such necessity with the fundamental right of litigants to due process.

GR No. 153829

2011-08-17

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO v. EDUARDO SORIANO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion.[28] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[29] Further, the abuse of the court's discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.[30]

GR No. 190710

2011-06-06

JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS

NACHURA, J.

In a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action and not whether those allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.[30] The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other.[31] The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. [32]

GR No. 164632

2008-10-29

URETHANE TRADING SPECIALIST v. EDWIN ONG

NACHURA, J.

The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion.[22] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[23] Further, the abuse of the court's discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.[24]

GR No. 105608

2008-04-30

TIRSO D. MONTEROSO v. CA

VELASCO JR., J.

Consequently, we are one with the trial and appellate courts that partition is the proper remedy for compulsory or legal heirs to get their legitime or share of the inheritance from the decedent. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved.[27] Also, Sec. 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. -- A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property. (Emphasis ours.)

GR No. 174672

2008-04-16

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF MARCELINA L. SERO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the action is already barred by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. Further, contrary to respondents' claim that a complaint may not be dismissed based on prescription without trial, an allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has prescribed[25] at the time it was filed.

GR No. 174055

2008-02-12

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. WILFREDO and ESTELA ENCINA

TINGA, J,

A cause of action exists if the following elements are present, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (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 violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[7]

GR NO. 143188

2007-02-14

FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA

TINGA, J.

Neither does the affirmative defense of prescription alleged in an answer automatically warrant the dismissal of the complaint under Rule 16. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed.[17] Otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.[18] Pineda's theory that the defense of laches should be treated as an affirmative defense of prescription warranting the dismissal of the complaint is erroneous.

GR NO. 151001

2006-09-08

DR. MELANIO MALICDEM v. ROMEO FLORES

CORONA, J.

The rules of procedure require that the complaint must make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (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 violate of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[38] It might have been true that PSU was under no legal compulsion to renew the contract with respondent. It might have also been true that there was a violation of Sections 531 and 533 of the GAAM due to the absence of public bidding and violation of the two-year limit on a revenue-generating contract. However, nothing is more settled than the rule that, in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. Moreover, the determination is confined to the four corners of the complaint[39] and nowhere else.

	GR No. 197380 2014-10-08	ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS v. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[29] If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.[30]
	GR No. 191178 2013-03-13	ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK v. HENRY H. FURIGAY MENDOZA, J.
In all, it is incorrect for ASB to argue that a complaint need not allege all the elements constituting its cause of action since it would simply adduce proof of the same during trial. "Nothing is more settled than the rule that in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations."[28] The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other.[29] Unfortunately for ASB, the Court finds the allegations of its complaint insufficient in establishing its cause of action and in apprising the respondents of the same so that they could defend themselves intelligently and effectively pursuant to their right to due process. It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice are constituted to adjudicate substantive rights. While courts should consider public policy and necessity in putting an end to litigations speedily they must nevertheless harmonize such necessity with the fundamental right of litigants to due process.
	GR No. 153829 2011-08-17	ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO v. EDUARDO SORIANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion.[28] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[29] Further, the abuse of the court's discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.[30]
	GR No. 190710 2011-06-06	JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS NACHURA, J.
In a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action and not whether those allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.[30] The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other.[31] The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. [32]
	GR No. 164632 2008-10-29	URETHANE TRADING SPECIALIST v. EDWIN ONG NACHURA, J.
The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion.[22] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[23] Further, the abuse of the court's discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.[24]
	GR No. 105608 2008-04-30	TIRSO D. MONTEROSO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Consequently, we are one with the trial and appellate courts that partition is the proper remedy for compulsory or legal heirs to get their legitime or share of the inheritance from the decedent. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved.[27] Also, Sec. 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. -- A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property. (Emphasis ours.)
	GR No. 174672 2008-04-16	MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF MARCELINA L. SERO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the action is already barred by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. Further, contrary to respondents' claim that a complaint may not be dismissed based on prescription without trial, an allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has prescribed[25] at the time it was filed.
	GR No. 174055 2008-02-12	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. WILFREDO and ESTELA ENCINA TINGA, J,
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (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 violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[7]
	GR NO. 143188 2007-02-14	FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA TINGA, J.
Neither does the affirmative defense of prescription alleged in an answer automatically warrant the dismissal of the complaint under Rule 16. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed.[17] Otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.[18] Pineda's theory that the defense of laches should be treated as an affirmative defense of prescription warranting the dismissal of the complaint is erroneous.
	GR NO. 151001 2006-09-08	DR. MELANIO MALICDEM v. ROMEO FLORES CORONA, J.
The rules of procedure require that the complaint must make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (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 violate of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[38] It might have been true that PSU was under no legal compulsion to renew the contract with respondent. It might have also been true that there was a violation of Sections 531 and 533 of the GAAM due to the absence of public bidding and violation of the two-year limit on a revenue-generating contract. However, nothing is more settled than the rule that, in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. Moreover, the determination is confined to the four corners of the complaint[39] and nowhere else.

ULPIANO BALO v. CA