Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CRISTINO O. ARROYO v. EDUARDO A. TADURAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Plaintiffs further pray for such other reliefs and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.[53] (Emphasis supplied). While the complaint does not categorically state reconveyance as the specific relief desired, it does contain a general prayer "for such other reliefs and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises." In BPI Family Bank v. Buenaventura,[54] this Court ruled that the general prayer is broad enough "to justify extension of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought."[55] Even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.[56] The court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.[57] The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs equitable and just in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for.
	GR No. 170049 2008-03-14	GENEROSO A. JUABAN and FRANCIS M. ZOSA v. RENE ESPINA and CEBU DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTIES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We hold that the issuance by the Court of Appeals of a permanent injunction prohibiting petitioners from exercising acts of ownership is included in respondent's prayer for such orders as may be just and equitable under the circumstances. Such a prayer in the complaint justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for.[25] More importantly, we have ruled that it is the allegations in the pleading which determine the nature of the action and the Court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and proof even if no such relief is prayed for.[26] It is the material allegations of the fact in the complaint, not the legal conclusions made in the prayer, that determine the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.[27] If respondents were seeking to enjoin the sale of the subject properties, in effect, to prevent the transfer of ownership of the subject properties to others, then such prayer must be deemed to logically and reasonably include the prayer to enjoin others from exercising rights of ownership over the subject properties, for if the ownership of the subject properties are not transferred to any one else, then no one else has the right to exercise the rights appurtenant thereto.
	GR No. 172651 2007-10-02	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ROSEMOOR MINING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, to void the foreclosure sales and not the mortgage contracts would only result in absurdity when it is palpable from the body of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 215-M-02 that Rosemoor Mining's challenge of the foreclosure sales was rooted in the defective mortgage contracts. If at all, Rosemoor Mining's failure to particularly pray for the nullification of the Real Estate Mortgages was merely an oversight on its part that is deemed cured when it asked from the court a quo for such other reliefs and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.[44]
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The argument against the sufficiency of the signatures is further bolstered by Alternative Law Groups, Inc., which submitted copies of similarly worded certifications from the election officers from Zamboanga del Sur[95] and from Compostela Valley.[96] Alternative Law Groups, Inc., further assails the regularity of the verification process as it alleged that verification in some areas were conducted by Barangay officials and not by COMELEC election officers. It filed with this Court copies of certifications from Sulu and Sultan Kudarat showing that the verification was conducted by local officials instead of COMELEC personnel.[97]
	GR NO. 167379 2006-06-27	PRIMELINK PROPERTIES v. MA. CLARITA T. LAZATIN-MAGAT CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, we agree with petitioners that respondents did not specifically pray in their complaint below that possession of the improvements on the parcels of land which they contributed to the JVA be transferred to them. Respondents made a specific prayer in their complaint that, upon the rescission of the JVA, they be placed in possession of the parcels of land subject of the agreement, and for other "reliefs and such other remedies as are just and equitable in the premises." However, the trial court was not precluded from awarding possession of the improvements on the parcels of land to respondents in its decision. Section 2(c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify the relief sought but it may add as general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just and equitable. Even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.[50] The court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.[51] The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs equitable and just in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for.[52]