This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "The allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for are the determinants of the nature of the action and of which court has jurisdiction over the matter."[14] With this in mind, we examined paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint[15] which provide: That due to the malicious acts of the defendants in cutting-off or closing a portion of the drainage pipe connecting the septic tank of the plaintiff to the village drainage system, that brought about the unwholesome situation above-described, plaintiff suffered from sleepless nights, wounded feelings, anxiety, and worry over the health and physical well-being of his whole family, for which defendants are liable to plaintiff in the amount of ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00) PESOS for and as moral damages; | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is true that judicial admissions, such as matters alleged in the pleadings do not require proof, and need not be offered to be considered by the court. "The court, for the proper decision of the case, may and should consider, without the introduction of evidence, the facts admitted by the parties."[20] The rule on judicial admission, however, also states that such allegation, statement, or admission is conclusive as against the pleader,[21] and that the facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him.[22] In this case, the pleader or the plaintiff who alleged that Reputable is a common carrier was Philippines First. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made conclusive as against Reputable whose nature of business is in question. | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, it is clear that respondents sufficiently alleged in their Complaint the material facts constituting forcible entry, as they explicitly claimed that they had prior physical possession of the subject property since its purchase from petitioner, who voluntarily delivered the same to them. They also particularly described in their complaint how petitioner, together with her two sons and five other persons, encroached upon the subject property and dispossessed them of the same. Respondents' complaint contains the allegations that petitioner, abetting and conspiring with other persons, without respondents' knowledge and consent and through the use of force and intimidation, entered a portion of their land and, thereafter, uprooted and destroyed the fence surrounding the subject lot, as well as cut the trees and nipa palms planted thereon. Unlawfully entering the subject property and excluding therefrom the prior possessor would necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that is necessary.[17] In order to constitute force, the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war.[18] No other proof is necessary.[19] In the instant case, it is, thus, irrefutable that respondents sufficiently alleged that the possession of the subject property was wrested from them through violence and force. | |||||