Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZAIDA RUBY S. ALBERTO v. . CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 168394 2008-10-06	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. LORETO G. NICOLAS REYES, R.T., J.
We have ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its attachments that plaintiff is entitled to relief.[30] The converse is also true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is obvious from the complaint and its annexes that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
	GR NO. 159648 2007-07-27	FLUOR DANIEL v. E.B. VILLAROSA QUISUMBING, J.
We have ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.[16] The converse is also true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
	GR NO. 153514 2005-06-08	SPS. LAZARO M. ZULUETA AND PERLA SUCAYAN-ZULUETA v. JOSE WONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
For their part, the respondents allege that, in arguing their cause, the petitioners thereby admitted that the instant complaint raised the factual or evidentiary issue of the consideration of the sale, and in effect, sustained the decision of the CA. They posit that the issue of the presence or absence of consideration is evidentiary, and should be threshed out in a full- blown trial. The respondents invoke the ruling of this Court in Alberto v. Court of Appeals,[19] where it was held that "a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action unless it appears from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under any state of facts which could be proved within the facts alleged therein." Additionally, the respondents cite Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[20] to bolster their claim that the petition at bench should be dismissed.
	GR No. 138777 2004-09-22	JOY G. TAN v. SALIC B. DUMARPA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Paras vs. Baldado[11] and Alberto vs. Court of Appeals,[12] we ruled that "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. x x x (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed."
	GR No. 151833 2003-08-07	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALANT MARITIME SERVICES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Paras vs. Baldado[11] and Alberto vs. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court held that "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. x x x (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed."
	GR No. 131889 2001-03-12	VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN v. RICHARD G. YOUNG PANGANIBAN, J.
Under the third, fourth and fifth causes of action of the Complaint, there are allegations of breach of trust and confidence and usurpation of business opportunities in conflict with petitioners' fiduciary duties to the corporation, resulting in damage to the Corporation. Under these causes of action, respondents are asking for the delivery to the Corporation of possession of the parcels of land and their corresponding certificates of title. Hence, the suit necessarily affects the title to or right of possession of the real property sought to be reconveyed. The Rules of Court[17] allows the annotation of a notice of lis pendens in actions affecting the title or right of possession of real property.[18] Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the SEC Order for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens.