This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the other assigned errors in the instant petition dwell on issues which are matters of defense on the part of petitioner. The questions of whether or not there is an implied or express trust and whether the said trust is null and void are assertions that go into the merits of the main case and still need to be proven or disproven by the parties and resolved by the RTC. In the same manner, the issues on prescription and estoppel raised in petitioner's Opposition to Manifestation/Motion with Supplemental Motion to Dismiss,[20] as well as in its Motion for Reconsideration or to Dismiss the Amended Complaint,[21] are matters of defense not proper in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. They should be pleaded in the answer, to be resolved after the trial on the basis of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties. As jurisprudence holds, so rigid is the norm prescribed that if the court should doubt the truth of the facts averred, it must not dismiss the complaint but require an answer and proceed to hear the case on the merits.[22] This dictum is in line with the policy that motions to dismiss should not be lightly granted where the ground invoked is not indubitable, as in the present case.[23] In such a situation, the objections to the complaint must be embodied in the answer as denials or special and affirmative defenses and threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits.[24] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute.[3] It is settled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the petition irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims or reliefs asserted.[4] | |||||