Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PELTAN DEVELOPMENT v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 156375 2011-05-30	DOLORES ADORA MACASLANG v. RENATO BERSAMIN, J.
In resolving whether the complaint states a cause of actionor not, only the facts alleged in the complaint are considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for.[16] Only ultimate facts, not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, are considered for purposes of applying the test.[17]
	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is a well-settled rule that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In the resolution of a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test in cases like these is whether a court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based upon the facts alleged and pursuant to the prayer therein. Hence, it has been held that a motion to dismiss generally partakes of the nature of a demurrer which hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations made in a complaint.[143] 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.[144]
	GR No. 174672 2008-04-16	MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF MARCELINA L. SERO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.[12] The existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[13] Thus, in the resolution of a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test in cases like these is whether a court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based upon the facts alleged and pursuant to the prayer therein. Hence, it has been held that a motion to dismiss generally partakes of the nature of a demurrer which hypothetically admits the truth of the factual allegations made in a complaint.[14]
	GR NO. 143896 2005-08-08	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is a well-settled rule that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[8] In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for.[9] Indeed, the elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place, are considered for purposes of applying the test.[10]
	GR No. 143896 2005-07-08	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is a well-settled rule that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[8] In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for.[9] Indeed, the elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place, are considered for purposes of applying the test.[10]
	GR NO. 151037 2005-06-23	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. TROY FRANCIS L. MONASTERIO QUISUMBING, J.
However, we note that the cause of action in the complaint filed by the respondent before the RTC of Naga was not based on the EWA, but concern services not enumerated in the EWA. Records show also that previously, respondent received a separate consideration of P11,400 for the cashiering service he rendered to SMC. Moreover, in the amended complaint, the respondent's cause of action was specifically limited to the collection of the sum owing to him for his cashiering service in favor of SMC. He already omitted petitioner's non-payment of warehousing fees. As previously ruled, allegations in the complaint determines the cause of action or the nature of the case.[21] Thus, given the circumstances of this case now before us, we are constrained to hold that it would be erroneous to rule, as the CA did, that the collection suit of the respondent did not pertain solely to the unpaid cashiering services but pertain likewise to the warehousing services.[22]
	GR NO. 140777 2005-04-08	ANTONIO ABACAN v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for.[26] Indeed, the elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place, are considered for purposes of applying the test. [27]