Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 201248 2015-03-11	LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO v. CESAR B. QUIAZON MENDOZA, J.
The test for determining the existence of a cause of action was amply discussed in Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation,[19] citing Perpetual Savings Bank v. Fajardo,[20] to wit:The familiar test for determining whether a complaint did or did not state a cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, a judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint. In Rava Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court elaborated on this established standard in the following manner:
	GR No. 183308 2012-04-25	INSULAR INVESTMENT v. CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES CORP. MENDOZA, J.
To ascertain whether IITC was able to adequately state an alternative cause of action against PDB in its Amended Complaint, the Court refers to Perpetual Savings Bank v. Fajardo[70] where the test for determining the existence of a cause of action was extensively discussed: The familiar test for determining whether a complaint did or did not state a cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, a judge may validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint. In Rava Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court elaborated on this established standard in the following manner: