This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that respondents' complaint sufficiently stated, under the premises, a cause of action. Not lost on us is the fact that the RTC dismissed the complaint of respondents on the grounds of prescription and in the finding that Aqualab is an innocent purchaser for value of the subject lots. Quoting Philippine Bank of Communications v. Trazo,[39] the Court said in Bayot v. Court of Appeals[40] that: A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. 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.[41] | |||||