This case has been cited 5 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. | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, petitioner's ground in filing his Motion to Dismiss is that he has been openly, continuously and exclusively possessing the subject property in the concept of an owner for more than ten years and that he has explicitly repudiated his co-ownership of the subject property with his co-heirs. Evidence is quite obviously needed in this situation, for it is not to be expected that said ground, or any facts from which its existence may be inferred, will be found in the averments of the complaint.[17] When such a ground is asserted in a motion to dismiss, the general rule governing evidence on motions applies.[18] The rule is embodied in Section 7, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that "[w]hen a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions." | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
|||||
| Respondent's unequivocal admission of the transaction which gave rise to the complaint establishes the applicability of estoppel against it. Rule 129, Section 4[53] of the Rules on Evidence provides that a written admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof. We held in the case of Elayda v. Court of Appeals,[54] that an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him.[55] Thus, our consistent pronouncement, as held in cases such as Merril Lynch Futures v. Court of Appeals,[56] is apropos:The rule is that a party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. And the "doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence applies to foreign as well as to domestic corporations;" "one who has dealt with a corporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity is estopped to deny its existence and capacity." The principle "will be applied to prevent a person contracting with a foreign corporation from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes, chiefly in cases where such person has received the benefits of the contract . . ."[57] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In a number of cases, however, we have held that an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may bring suit in Philippine courts against a Philippine citizen or entity who had contracted with and benefited from said corporation.[44] Such a suit is premised on the doctrine of estoppel. A party is estopped from challenging the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. This doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence and capacity applies to foreign as well as domestic corporations.[45] The application of this principle prevents a person contracting with a foreign corporation from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes chiefly in cases where such person has received the benefits of the contract.[46] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Although each case must be judged in light of its attendant circumstances, jurisprudence has evolved several guiding principles for the application of these tests. For instance, considering that it transacted with its Philippine counterpart for seven years, engaging in futures contracts, this Court concluded that the foreign corporation in Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Lara,[55] was doing business in the Philippines. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Japan Airlines ("JAL"),[56] the Court held that JAL was doing business in the Philippines, i.e., its commercial dealings in the country were continuous despite the fact that no JAL aircraft landed in the country as it sold tickets in the Philippines through a general sales agent, and opened a promotions office here as well. | |||||