This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-10-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the RTC's dismissal was triggered by the defenses raised by the respondent in its answer. There was yet to be a trial on the merits but the RTC merely relied on the averments in the complaint and answer and forthwith dismissed the case. On this point, the Court has already ruled that the "affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint, x x x.[23]" While trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription, it may only do so when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred.[24] "If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss."[25] | |||||
|
2012-09-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| [23] Heirs of the Late Fernando S. Falcasantos v. Tan, G.R. No. 172680, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 411, 414. | |||||