This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The petition to establish filiation is sufficient in substance. It satisfies Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which requires the complaint to contain a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff bases his claim. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. [28]A complaint states a cause of action when it contains the following elements: (1) the legal right of plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. [29] | |||||
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In the resolution of a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test in cases like these is whether a court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based upon the facts alleged and pursuant to the prayer therein. Hence, it has been held that a motion to dismiss generally partakes of the nature of a demurrer which hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations made in a complaint.[143] The hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the defendants.[144] | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Section 1,[16] Rule 8 of the Rules of Court requires the complaint to contain a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff bases his claim. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, 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 plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.[17] | |||||
|
2005-09-02 |
|||||
| In resolving the issue, it is significant to first consider how the RTC acquired jurisdiction over petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-21191. It is an elementary rule of procedural law that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of a complaint is determined by its allegations regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims asserted therein.[5] Here, as can be gleaned from the allegations of their complaint, petitioners challenged the DARAB Decision fixing the price of the disputed lot at P11,000.00 only, instead of its prevailing market value. In other words, the complaint seeks a final determination by the RTC (sitting as a Special Agrarian Court) of the reasonable cost of the lot pursuant to Section 16(f) of R.A. 6657. | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Cause of action is defined as "the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."[7] It has the following elements: 1) the legal right of the plaintiff; 2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right; and 3) an act or omission of the defendant that violates such right.[8] | |||||
|
2002-08-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| cause of action hypothetically admits all the averments thereof. The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. The hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the defendants.[10] In the case at bar, the complaint sufficiently alleged that "defendant (i.e., petitioner herein) was married to Amado Quiros Daffon" and that "they begot an only son in Joselito Daffon."[11] The complaint further alleged that "Joselito Daffon later got | |||||