Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    Lucio Dimayuga V Antonio Dimayuga

    Uploaded by

    Laura R. Prado-Lopez
    Lucio Dimayuga filed a case against Antonio Dimayuga to obtain possession of a parcel of land. Antonio filed three motions to dismiss arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action, which were all denied. The court proceeded with the hearing despite Antonio's request to postpone. The court then ruled in favor of Lucio. Antonio appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CFI properly tested the sufficiency of the complaint based solely on the allegations in the complaint, without considering other potential facts, and correctly determined the allegations were sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lucio Dimayuga V Antonio Dimayuga

    Uploaded by

    Laura R. Prado-Lopez
    137 views1 page
    Lucio Dimayuga filed a case against Antonio Dimayuga to obtain possession of a parcel of land. Antonio filed three motions to dismiss arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action, which were all denied. The court proceeded with the hearing despite Antonio's request to postpone. The court then ruled in favor of Lucio. Antonio appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CFI properly tested the sufficiency of the complaint based solely on the allegations in the complaint, without considering other potential facts, and correctly determined the allegations were sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    Original Description:

    Dimayuga v Dimayuga, Civ Pro

    Original Title

    Lucio Dimayuga v Antonio Dimayuga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lucio Dimayuga filed a case against Antonio Dimayuga to obtain possession of a parcel of land. Antonio filed three motions to dismiss arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action, which were all denied. The court proceeded with the hearing despite Antonio's request to postpone. The court then ruled in favor of Lucio. Antonio appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CFI properly tested the sufficiency of the complaint based solely on the allegations in the complaint, without considering other potential facts, and correctly determined the allegations were sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    137 views1 page

    Lucio Dimayuga V Antonio Dimayuga

    Uploaded by

    Laura R. Prado-Lopez
    Lucio Dimayuga filed a case against Antonio Dimayuga to obtain possession of a parcel of land. Antonio filed three motions to dismiss arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action, which were all denied. The court proceeded with the hearing despite Antonio's request to postpone. The court then ruled in favor of Lucio. Antonio appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CFI properly tested the sufficiency of the complaint based solely on the allegations in the complaint, without considering other potential facts, and correctly determined the allegations were sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Lucio Dimayuga v Antonio Dimayuga

    GR No. L-6740, 29 April 1955


    Nature: appeal from judgment of the CFI of Batangas
    Ponente: Bautista Angelo, J.

    Topic: Test of sufficiency of action

    FACTS:
    - Lucio Dimayuga filed an action in the CFI, Batangas against Antonio
    Dimayuga praying that Antonio be ordered to deliver the possession of a
    parcel of land in Sto Tomas Batangas.
    - Antonio filed a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint
    does not state a cause of action which Lucio opposed hence the dismissal of
    the motion. A 2nd motion to dismiss based on the same ground was filed and
    was also dismissed thus the defendant filed an answer. Lucio amended his
    complaint which was accepted by the court, to which Antonio likewise filed a
    motion to dismiss with the same grounds as his previous motions to dismiss.
    The court once again denied this motion. (Basically, Antonio filed 3 MTDs
    based on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of
    action, all of which were denied)
    - The case was set for hearing however 4 days prior to the hearing Antonio
    filed a motion to postpone since they needed time to prepare their responsive
    pleading. No action was taken on this motion but come the date of the
    hearing It was denied and ordered Lucio to present his evidence. Neither
    Antonio nor his counsel was present during the hearing hence the Court
    rendered judgment as prayed for in Lucios complaint, thus, this appeal.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI erred in dismissing the complaint for want of cause of
    action.

    HELD: No, the CFI did not err.


    - Defendant argued that the condition on their contract did not appear in the
    complaint which was the basis of his motion to dismiss. The Court ruled that
    as a ground for dismissal being that the complaint does not state a cause of
    action, the facts that may be considered to test its sufficiency are only those
    alleged therein, and no other.
    - The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a petition, to constitute a
    cause of action, is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could
    render a valid judgment upon the same facts in accordance with the prayer of
    the petition. If the court finds that allegations to be sufficient but doubts
    their veracity, it must deny the motion to dismiss and require the defendant
    to answer and proceed to try the case on the merits.
    - Such was the action of the CFI: it tested the sufficiency of the complaint
    based on the factual allegations and found them to be sufficient to constitute
    a cause of action thus the CFI did not err in its decision to deny the motion to
    dismiss. Judgment is affirmed.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy