Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EAST ASIA TRADERS v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187326 2011-06-15	PHILIPPINE ARMY v. SPS. MAJOR CONSTANCIO PAMITTAN AND LEONOR PAMITTAN CARPIO, J.
Generally, a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint and in order to sustain a dismissal based on lack of cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint.[10] However, this rule is not without exception. Thus, a motion to dismiss "does not admit allegations of which the court will take judicial notice are not true, nor does the rule apply to legally impossible facts, nor to facts inadmissible in evidence, nor to facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded."[11] Indeed, in some cases, the court may also consider, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties and the annexes or documents appended to it.[12]
	GR NO. 155688 2007-11-28	NATIVIDAD FIGURACION v. SPS. CRESENCIANO AND AMELITA LIBI AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In a similar situation in East Asia Traders, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines,[34] we held:We reviewed very carefully respondent's allegations in its complaint. In a nutshell, respondent alleged that the defendants (herein petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest) procured their lot [which] is inalienable because the DENR investigation disclosed that it was intended by the government for the construction of a national road; that defendants' titles are null and void and should be cancelled and, therefore, Lot 4355 should be reverted to the State. These allegations are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for reversion. (Emphasis supplied) Even the decisions of the RTC and the CA were ultimately for reversion of the subject lot to the dominion of Cebu City. In declaring null and void Resolutions No. 330 and No. 2345 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu, the deed of sale, the amended deed of sale, and TCT No. 122309 issued in the name of petitioners, both courts virtually restored to Cebu City title over the subject lot; only, they omitted ordering the reinstatement of TCT No. 49454 in the name of Cebu City. Furthermore, in not granting the claim of respondents for payment of damages for the alleged demolition of their structures on the subject lot, the lower courts did not recognize the right of respondents to erect and maintain structures on said property.
	GR NO. 142255 2007-01-26	SAMAHAN NG MASANG PILIPINO SA MAKATI v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VELASCO, JR., J.
Sixth, of greater import is the basic tenet that neither prescription nor laches runs against the State. Thus, even granting arguendo that the subject lands had been erroneously issued titles in favor of third parties, which is definitely not the case; neither prescription nor estoppel by laches applies against the State. In a catena of cases, we have consistently reiterated this hornbook doctrine. Thus, in East Asia Traders, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines,[27] we reiterated the doctrine citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals:[28]
	GR NO. 151001 2006-09-08	DR. MELANIO MALICDEM v. ROMEO FLORES CORONA, J.
The special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioners with the Court of Appeals was not the proper remedy to assail the denial by the trial court of the motion to dismiss. The order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss was merely interlocutory. It neither terminated nor finally disposed of the case as it still left something to be done by the court before the case was finally decided on the merits.[30] This being so, the general rule applied: the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as it is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[31]
	GR NO. 142424 2006-07-21	JOSE A. BERNAS v. SOVEREIGN VENTURES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Let it be stressed at this point the basic rule that when a motion to dismiss is denied by the trial court, the remedy is not to file a petition for certiorari, but to appeal after a decision has been rendered. In East Asia Traders, Inc. v. Republic,[4] this Court held:Petitioner basically contends before the Court of Appeals that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. CT-98-001.