Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II COOPERATIVE v. VIRGILIO S. DAVID

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 152272 2012-03-05	JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE LAND MENDOZA, J.
The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of said complaint.[22] Stated differently, 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 asserted by the defendant.[23]
	GR No. 168394 2008-10-06	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. LORETO G. NICOLAS REYES, R.T., J.
The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[28] That in determining sufficiency of cause of action, the court takes into account only the material allegations of the complaint and no other, is not a hard and fast rule. In some cases, the court considers the documents attached to the complaint to truly determine sufficiency of cause of action.[29]
	GR No. 164517 2008-06-30	BF CORPORATION v. MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
A close reading of the aforecited portions of the second amended complaint discloses that the rights of BF that have allegedly been violated are those contained in the Consortium agreement. A scrutiny of the agreement, however, would readily show that there is nothing in it that would constitute acts or omissions of MIAA that violate BF's rights. Even if BF wrote MIAA and called the latter's attention to the contract violations of Tokyu and asked MIAA to persuade Tokyu to remit to BF its 20% share in the down payment; enjoin Tokyu from illegally hiring subcontractors to do BF's part of the project; and expel Tokyu from the Consortium, these facts are insufficient to constitute the bases of BF's cause of action against MIAA. The test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged; the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[11] Even if we assume that the facts alleged were true, we still cannot grant any of BF's prayers against MIAA as we would have no basis to do so in fact and in law.
	GR NO. 159648 2007-07-27	FLUOR DANIEL v. E.B. VILLAROSA QUISUMBING, J.
It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff a right to file an action in court for recovery of damages or other relief.[13] The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[14] That in determining sufficiency of cause of action, the court takes into account only the material allegations of the complaint and no other, is not a hard and fast rule. In some cases, the court considers the documents attached to the complaint to truly determine sufficiency of cause of action.[15]