Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIL-ESTATE GOLF v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 138814 2009-04-16	MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE v. MIGUEL V. CAMPOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
If a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, he is regarded as having hypothetically admitted all the averments thereof. The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. The hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the defendant.[5]
	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
The provisions of Rule 32 should also be considered as governing the grant of authority to the Court of Appeals to receive evidence in the present case. Under Section 2, Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, a court may, motu proprio, direct a reference to a commissioner when a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. The order of reference can be limited exclusively to receive and report evidence only, and the commissioner may likewise rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The commissioner is likewise mandated to submit a report in writing to the court upon the matters submitted to him by the order of reference. In Republic, the commissioner's report formed the basis of the final adjudication by the Court on the matter. The same result can obtain herein.[76]
	GR No. 150470 2008-08-06	SPS. FELIPE AND VICTORIA LAYOS v. FIL-ESTATE GOLF CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In a letter dated 8 September 2005 to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,[54] made part of the records of this case, Felipe Layos averred that the conflicting allegations and documents which led this Court and the Court of Appeals in G.R. No. 120958 and CA-G.R. CV No. 50962, respectively, to declare OCT No. 239 spurious, were fraudulently prepared and submitted to the courts in a concerted scheme (which sadly seemed to involve their former counsel, Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre II) to deprive them of the subject property. Now represented by a new counsel, he requested that he be given a chance to prove that the subject property is covered by OCT No. 239 and not OCT No. 242.
	GR No. 139539 2002-02-05	CEROFERR REALTY CORPORATION v. CA PARDO, J.
A defendant who moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, as in this case, hypothetically admits all the averments thereof. The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged the court can render a valid judgement upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. The hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the defendants.[15]
	GR No. 141427 2001-04-20	RAMONITO TANTOY v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
His willful attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction before this Court after his efforts before the original court did not merit immediate response,[9] thereby pursuing simultaneous remedies in two (2) courts based on the same facts and raising the same issues, constitutes forum shopping, no less.
	GR No. 137898 2000-12-15	CHINA ROAD v. CA BELLOSILLO, J.
We agree with private respondent that in a motion to dismiss due to failure to state a cause of action, the trial court can consider all the pleadings filed, including annexes, motions and the evidence on record.[17] 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.
	GR No. 126212 2000-03-02	SEA-LAND SERVICE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Resolving first the issue of failure to state a cause of action, respondent Court of Appeals did not err in reading the Complaint of Florex and respondent AMML's Answer together with the Third Party Complaint to determine whether a cause of action is properly alleged. In Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[9] this Court ruled that in the determination of whether or not the complaint states a cause of action, the annexes attached to the complaint may be considered, they being parts of the complaint.