Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

STA. CLARA HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION THRU ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPOSED OF ARNEIL CHUA v. SPS. VICTOR MA. GASTON AND LYDIA GASTON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171763 2009-06-05	MARIA LUISA PARK ASSOCIATION v. SAMANTHA MARIE T. ALMENDRAS QUISUMBING, J.
Consequently, in Sta. Clara Homeowners' Association v. Gaston[14] and Metro Properties, Inc. v. Magallanes Village Association, Inc.,[15] the Court recognized HIGC's "Revised Rules of Procedure in the Hearing of Home Owner's Disputes," pertinent portions of which are reproduced below: RULE II
	GR NO. 146987 2005-10-19	METRO PROPERTIES v. MAGALLANES VILLAGE ASSOCIATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Sta. Clara Homeowners' Association vs. Gaston,[9] we held: "The HIGC exercises limited jurisdiction over homeowners' disputes. The law confines its authority to controversies that arise from any of the following intra-corporate relations: (1) between and among members of the association; (2) between any and/or all of them and the association of which they are members; and (3) between the association and the state insofar as the controversy concerns its right to exist as a corporate entity."
	GR No. 154187 2004-04-14	MONDRAGON LEISURE v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK PANGANIBAN, J.
The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a petition is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court may render a valid judgment upon them in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[19] If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants.[20] If the trial court finds the allegations to be sufficient, but doubts their veracity, it must deny the motion to dismiss and then require the defendant to answer, and proceed to try the case on the merits.[21]
	GR No. 136821 2002-10-17	ROVELS ENTERPRISES v. EMMANUEL B. OCAMPO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
correlative obligation of the defendant to respect such right, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of plaintiff's right.[31] The test is whether the material allegations of the complaint, assuming them to be true, state ultimate facts which constitute plaintiff's cause of action, such that plaintiff is entitled to a favorable judgment as a matter of law.[32] The pertinent portions of Rovels petition filed with the SEC read: