This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-04-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102 into SC-46 for the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in a block covering approximately 2,850 square kilometers offshore the Tañon Strait.[8] | |||||
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora,[41] the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government. The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.[42] The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisions. | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[27] The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right; and (c) an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant.[28] Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.[29] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Equally important, a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as having hypothetically admitted all the averments thereof.[53] The general rule is that the facts asserted in the complaint must be taken into account without modification although with reasonable inferences therefrom.[54] However, all the pleadings filed may be considered, including annexes, motions and the other evidence on record, to wit: However, in so doing, the .trial court does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a finding of lack of cause of action based on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents. Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not questions of fact.[55] Section 2, Rule 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. SEC. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a) "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in essence to be affected by the judgment as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.[56] A real party in interest-plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violate the legal right of the former.[57] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with the ruling of the CA that the Heirs of Juan Sanga had a cause of action against petitioners for quieting of title and nullification of the Free/Sale Patents issued to them by District Lands Officer Braulio C. Darum and the OCTs issued by the Register of Deeds. A cause of action consists of these elements: (1) the existence of a legal right with the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect the right of the plaintiff; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant violative of plaintiff's right.[50] In the present case, the spouses Juan Sanga were the owners of the property subject of the complaint below. Petitioners were aware of the claim of ownership of the property by the spouses Juan Sanga because they were the defendants in Civil Case No. B-541 before the RTC and Civil Case No. 170 in the MTC. Despite the pendency of said civil cases, and without the knowledge of Juan Sanga, petitioners were able to secure patents, through actual fraud and trickery, and apparently in connivance with personnel from the Bureau of Lands. The said spouses had a pre-existing right of ownership over the property even before the grant of the patents in favor of petitioners.[51] A free patent which purports to convey land to which the government no longer has title at the time of its issuance does not vest title with the patentee as against the lawful owner. Private property cannot be a subject of a free patent. Such lands are beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. Such patents are null and void and have no legal effects whatsoever. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other which causes the latter injury. The essential elements of a cause of action are the following: (1) the existence of a legal right of the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect one's right; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's right.[11] A cause of action should not be confused with the remedies or reliefs prayed for. A cause of action is to be found in the facts alleged in the complaint and not in the prayer for relief. It is the substance and not the form that is controlling.[12] A party may have two or more causes of action against another party. | |||||
|
2003-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Neither can herein petitioners invoke our ruling in Millenium to support their position for said case is not on all fours with the instant case. We must stress that Millenium was decided when the 1964 Rules of Court were still in force and effect, unlike the instant case which falls under the new rule. Hence, the cases[15] cited by petitioners where we upheld the doctrine of substantial compliance must be deemed overturned by Villarosa, which is the later case. | |||||
|
2002-12-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| regarding the same subject matter, in which case, the conclusiveness of judgment shall be only with regard to the questions directly and actually put in issue and decided in the first case.[32] A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other that causes the latter injury.[33] It is determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts alleged.[34] The first | |||||