This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently held that the affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.[13] Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.[14] | |||||
|
2013-10-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the RTC's dismissal was triggered by the defenses raised by the respondent in its answer. There was yet to be a trial on the merits but the RTC merely relied on the averments in the complaint and answer and forthwith dismissed the case. On this point, the Court has already ruled that the "affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint, x x x.[23]" While trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription, it may only do so when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred.[24] "If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss."[25] | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The established rule, as reiterated in Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs. Fil-Estate Management, Inc.,[6] is that "the elements of laches must be proven positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings x x x."[7] Evidence is of utmost importance in establishing the existence of laches because, as stated in Department of Education, Division of Albay vs. Oñate,[8] 'there is "no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances." x x x Verily, the application of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court as its application is controlled by equitable considerations.[9] | |||||