This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The trial court may indeed elect to hold a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses as raised in the answer under Section 6 of Rules 16 of the Rules of Court. It has been held, however, that such a hearing is not necessary when the affirmative defense is failure to state a cause of action,[36] and that it is, in fact, error for the court to hold a preliminary hearing to determine the existence of external facts outside the complaint.[37] The reception and the consideration of evidence on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, has been held to be improper and impermissible.[38] Thus, in a preliminary hearing on a motion to dismiss or on the affirmative defenses raised in an answer, the parties are allowed to present evidence except when the motion is based on the ground of insufficiency of the statement of the cause of action which must be determined on the basis only of the facts alleged in the complaint and no other.[39] Section 6, therefore, does not apply to the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The trial court, thus, erred in receiving and considering evidence in connection with this ground. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' argument runs counter to one of the most fundamental and oft-repeated doctrines of remedial law. The nature of the action on which depends the question of whether a suit is within the jurisdiction of the court is determined solely by the allegations in the complaint.[9] Only facts alleged in the complaint can be the basis for determining the nature of the action and the court's competence to take cognizance of it.[10] One cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to determine the nature of the action thereby initiated. | |||||