This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-11-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioner's asseveration, what is prohibited by the second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 16 of the same Rules is the deferment until trial of the resolution of the motion to dismiss itself.[20] Under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the assailed Orders of the RTC may not be construed as tantamount to deferring action on the motion to dismiss until trial is conducted. | |||||
|
2007-06-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The issue of prescription in this case is not as simple as petitioner would have us believe. Prescription as a ground for a motion to dismiss is adequate when the complaint on its face shows that the action has already prescribed.[9] This is not the case here. Contrary to petitioner's contention, it is not apparent from the complaint that the action has already prescribed. In this case, the issue of prescription hinges on the determination of whether the sale of the parcels of land is voidable or void. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the issue of prescription in this case is best ventilated in a full blown proceeding before the trial court where both parties can substantiate their claims. The trial court is in the best position to ascertain the credibility of both parties. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On the matter of prescription cited by the petitioners as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint, it is noteworthy that the motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners did not ipso facto establish prescription. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed;[28] otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.[29] | |||||