This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Contrary to Modesto's contention, it is not apparent from the complaint that the action had already prescribed. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is the relief based on the facts alleged, and not the relief demanded, which is taken into consideration in determining the cause of action. Therefore, in terms of classifying the deed, whether it is valid, void or voidable, it is of no significance that the relief prayed for was Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale. The issue of prescription hinges on the determination of whether the sale was valid, void or voidable. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the issue of prescription in this case is best ventilated in a full-blown proceeding before the trial court where both parties can substantiate their claims. The trial court is in the best position to ascertain the credibility of both parties.[15] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable.[12] An order denying a motion to dismiss does not finally dispose of the case, and in effect, allows the case to proceed until the final adjudication thereof by the court. As such, it is merely interlocutory in nature and thus, not appealable.[13] Section 1(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides: SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| From the foregoing premises, the trial court erred in finding prescription. Prescription, as a ground for a motion to dismiss, is adequate when the complaint, on its face, shows that the action has already prescribed.[30] Such is not the case in this instance. Respondents have duly averred continuous possession until 1991 when such was allegedly disturbed by Aqualab. Being in possession of the subject lots--hypothetically admitted by Aqualab--respondents' right to reconveyance or annulment of title has not prescribed or is not time-barred. | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.[40] If the party filing the case paid less than the correct amount for the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court.[41] In such a case, the lower court concerned will not automatically lose jurisdiction, because of a party's reliance on the clerk of court's insufficient assessment of the docket fees.[42] As "every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law," the party filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of court's insufficient assessment.[43] However, the party concerned will be required to pay the deficiency.[44] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Thus, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is void, then the action for the declaration of the contract's nullity is imprescriptible. Indeed, the Court has held in a number of cases that an action for reconveyance of property based on a void contract does not prescribe. However, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is merely voidable, then the action would have already prescribed."[15] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||