San Roque Realty vs. Republic DigestFull description
Uncategorized stuff from my 2011 Bar Examinations Commercial Law folder (yup, too lazy to organize the stuff. Sorry!)Full description
Case DigestFull description
Pangan vs. CA
Art. 1229 of the Civil CodeFull description
Credit digestFull description
CEROFERR CEROFERR REALT REALTY CORPORAT CORPORATION ION
COURT COU RT OF APPEA APPEALS LS and ERNEST ERNESTO O D.
Key Doctrine: If Doctrine: If the allegations in the complaint furnish suicient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the defendants. Plaint Plaintif if (Cero (Ceroerr err Realty Realty Corpor Corporati ation) on) led led wit with h the RTC, RTC, a compla complaint int i against against deendant deendant Ernesto Ernesto D. antiago (antiago), (antiago), or damages damages and in!"nction, in!"nction, with preliminary in!"nction. #n the complaint, Ceroerr prayed that antiago and his agents $e en!oined rom % claiming possession and ownership o&er 'ot o. * o the Tala Estate Estate "$di& "$di&isi ision, on, +"eon +"eon City City,- that that ant antia iago go and and his his agen agents ts $e pre&ented rom maing "se o the &acant lot as a !eepney terminal- that antiago $e ordered to pay Ceroerr P/0.00 daily as lost income or the "se o the lot "ntil possessio possession n is restored to the latter- and that antiago antiago $e directed directed to pay plaintif plaintif Ceroerr moral, act"al and e1emplary damages and attorney2s ees, pl"s e1penses o litigation. Facts acts::
#n his answer, deendant antiago alleged that the &acant lot reerred to in the complaint was within 'ot o. 30 o the Tala Estate "$di&ision and that he had the legal right to ence since this $elonged to him. #n the co"rse o the proceedings, there was a &erication s"r&ey, ollowed $y a relocation s"r&ey, where$y it wo"ld appear that the &acant lot is inside 'ot o. *. The o"tcome o the s"r&ey, howe&er, was &igoro"sly o$!ected to $y deendant who insist insisted ed that that the area area is inside inside his lot. lot. Deend Deendant ant,, in his manie maniesta statio tion n dated dated o&em$ o&em$er er 4, 5336, 5336, ad&ert ad&erted ed to the report report o a geodet geodetic ic engine engineer er.. 7arian 7ariano o 8. 9lotildes, to the efect that the disp"ted portion is inside the $o"ndaries o 'ot o. 30 o the Tala Estate "$di&ision which is separate and distinct rom 'ot o. *, and that the two lots are separated $y a concrete ence. Deend Deendant ant led led a motion motion to dismis dismiss s the compla complaint int premis premised ed primar primarily ily on his contention that the trial co"rt cannot ad!"dicate the iss"e o damages witho"t passing o&er the con:icting claims o ownership o the parties o&er the disp"ted portion. Trial co"rt dismissed the case or lac o ca"se o action and lac o !"risdiction. The co"rt held that plaintif was in efect imp"gning the title o deendant which co"ld not $e done in the case or damages damages and in!"nction in!"nction $eore it. #t concl"ded concl"ded that it co"ld not proceed to decide plaintifs claim or damages and in!"nction or lac o !"risdiction $eca"se its !"dgment wo"ld depend "pon a determination o the &alidity o deendants title and the identity o the land co&ered $y it. 9rom this r"ling, plaintif appealed to this co"rt insisting that the complaint stated a &alid ca"se o action which was determina$le rom the ace thereo Issue:
;hether Ceroerrs complaint states a s"ficient ca"se o action
The r"les o proced"re re="ire that the complaint m"st state a concise statement o the "ltimate acts or the essential acts constit"ting the plaintifs ca"se o action. > act is essential i it cannot $e stricen o"t witho"t lea&ing the statement o the ca"se o action inade="ate. > complaint states a ca"se o action only when it has its three indispensa$le elements, namely? (5) a right in a&or o the plaintif $y whate&er means and "nder whate&er law it arises or is created- (4) an o$ligation on the part o the named deendant to respect or not to &iolate s"ch right- and (@) an act or omission on the part o s"ch deendant &iolati&e o the right o plaintif or constit"ting a $reach o the o$ligation o deendant to the plaintif or which the latter may maintain an action or reco&ery o damages. # these elements are not e1tant, the complaint $ecomes &"lnera$le to a motion to dismiss on the gro"nd o ail"re to state a ca"se o action. These elements are present in the case at $ar. The complaint alleged that petitioner Ceroerr owned 'ot * co&ered $y TCT o. RT%30400 (@@6///). Petitioner Ceroerr "sed a portion o 'ot * as a !eepney terminal. The complaint "rther alleged that respondent antiago claimed the portion o 'ot * "sed as a !eepney terminal since he claimed that the !eepney terminal was within 'ot 30 owned $y him and co&ered $y TCT o. RT%A*5 50 (@/@*) iss"ed in his name. Despite clarication rom petitioner Ceroerr that the !eepney terminal was within 'ot * and not within 'ot 30, respondent antiago persisted in his plans to ha&e the area enced. Be applied or and was iss"ed a encing permit $y the "ilding ficial, +"eon City. #t was e&en alleged in the complaint that respondent% antiago was pre&enting petitioner Ceroerr and its agents rom entering the property "nder threats o $odily harm and destroying e1isting str"ct"res thereon. > deendant who mo&es to dismiss the complaint on the gro"nd o lac o ca"se o action, as in this case, hypothetically admits all the a&erments thereo. The test o s"ficiency o the acts o"nd in a complaint as constit"ting a ca"se o action is whether or not admitting the acts alleged the co"rt can render a &alid !"dgement "pon the same in accordance with the prayer thereo. The hypothetical admission e1tends to the rele&ant and material acts well pleaded in the complaint and inerences airly ded"ci$le thererom. Bence, i the allegations in the complaint "rnish s"ficient $asis $y which the complaint can $e maintained, the same sho"ld not $e dismissed regardless o the deense that may $e assessed $y the deendants. #n this case, petitioner Ceroerrs ca"se o action has $een s"ficiently a&erred in the complaint. # it were admitted that the right o ownership o petitioner Ceroerr to the peace"l "se and possession o 'ot * was &iolated $y respondent antiagos act o encroachment and encing o the same, then petitioner Ceroerr wo"ld $e entitled to damages.