principal issue
No similarity in rights and reliefs prayed for Also a difference in jurisdiction
Judgment in one will not amount to res judicata; Judgment in SEC prohibiting the ultra vires act will not settle the issue in the RTC, those of possession, validity, and damages
3. Case before the DARAB for declaration of tenancy, accounting, recovery of sum of money plus damages, pendency of such is a bar to an action for forcible entry involving the same parties, identity of rights asserted, relief founded on the same facts (Tirona v. Alejo)
4. Where the 1st action is for collection of mortgage
indebtedness, while the 2nd action was to annul mortgage,
the 2nd case should be dismissed (Marcelo v. Merchant
Banking)
5. Where the 1st action is for recovery of land and the 2nd is
for quieting of title, the 2nd case should be dismissed
(Francisco v. Vda. De Blas)
The cloud sought to be removed in the 2nd case, which
is the issue of ownership, had already been raised in the 1st case
6. As to counterclaims, it must be a compulsory one (Valencia v. CA)
SIXTH GROUND
RES JUDICATA AND PRESCRIPTION Requisites of Res Judicata
1. Previous final judgment or order
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties by the court rendering it
3. Judgment upon the merits
4. There must be identity of parties, of the subject matter, and of cause of action between the first and second actions Note: There could be res judicata without a trial, such as in:
1. Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34) 2. Summary Judgment (Rule 35)
3. Order of dismissal under Sec. 3, Rule 17 Jurisprudence:
1. The trial court can take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment previously decided by it and the fact that the same case is now pending before it, the defeated party having refilled the same (Baguio v. Jalagat, et al.) Prescription – A motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription will be given due course only if the complaint shows on its face that the action has already prescribed
Prescription v. Laches
PRESCRIPTION LACHES
It is concerned with the fact of
delay It is concerned with the effect of delay It is a matter of time It is a matter of equity
Statutory Non-statutory
Applies at law Applies in equity Based on fixed time Not based on fixed time Jurisprudence
1. Defense of prescription is waived and cannot be considered on appeal if not raised in the trial court (Ramos v. Osorio)
a. However, if the allegations of the complaint, or evidence presented, clearly indicate that the action has prescribed, or where there is no issue in fact as to prescription, defense of prescription is not deemed waived by failure to allege the same (Chua Lamko v.
Dioso)
2. Estoppel and prescription cannot be invoked against the State (Republic v. CA)
3. A motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription will be given due course only if the complaint shows on its face that the action has already prescribed (Sison v. McQuaid) a. If it does not so appear, the determination of the
motion to dismiss must be deferred until trial (Cordova v. Cordova)
See however, Sec. 3 which prohibits deferment of the resolution of the motion
b. So since deferment is no longer allowed:
(1) Evidence may be received in support of the motion under Sec. 2, Rule 16; or
(2) The motion to dismiss should be denied without prejudice to the complaint’s dismissal if evidence disclose that the action had already prescribed (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
4. Prescription cannot be invoked as a ground if the contract is alleged to be void ab initio (Ruiz v. CA)
a. But where the prescription depends on whether the contract is void or voidable, there must be a hearing (Landayan v. Bacani)
5. Petition for quieting of title although essentially reconveyance should not be dismissed on the ground of prescription where it is alleged that plaintiff is in possession of the property (Faja v. CA)
6. Action for annulment of contract on the ground that it is null and void for lack of consent does not prescribe (Castillo v. Heirs of Madrigal)
a. But action for damages arising therefrom prescribes SEVENTH GROUND
NO CAUSE OF ACTION
Complaint States No Cause of Action – When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action, such fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the complaint. Note: It is the FAILURE to state a cause of action and not LACK or ABSENCE of a cause of action that is a ground for a motion to dismiss - The former means that there is insufficiency in the
allegations in the pleading
- The latter means that there is insufficiency in the factual basis of the action
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
under whatever law it arises or is created
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages Rule: The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants, if, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein.
141
Test of Sufficiency
- It is axiomatic under this ground that the defendant is regarded as having admitted all the averments in the complaint, hypothetically
- Test of sufficiency of the facts found in the petition, as constituting a cause of action, being whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer In determining the sufficiency of statements, only
those statements in the complaint may properly be considered
- The insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint
- Note, however, that ambiguities and lapses in the language of these allegations may be understood or clarified through a recourse to the annexes, related pleadings, or other submissions of plaintiffs
Doubtful Veracity is NOT a Ground
If the motion assails directly or indirectly the veracity of the allegations, it is improper to grant the motion upon the assumption that the averments therein are true and those of the complaint are not.
- Sufficiency should be tested on the strength of the allegations of facts contained in the complaint, no other - The SC has uniformly ruled that the court may not inquire
into the truth of the allegations, and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the merits
- If the court finds the allegations to be sufficient but doubts their veracity, it is incumbent upon the court to deny the motion and require defendant to answer
- Veracity of assertions should be asserted at trial on merits When Other Facts May be Considered – Other facts not alleged in the complaint may be considered where:
1. The motion to dismiss was heard with submission of evidence; or
2. If documentary evidence admitted by stipulation disclose facts sufficient to defeat the claim (Tan v. Dir. Of Forestry) 3. Or those admitted during hearing on preliminary injunction (Santiago v. Pioneer Savings and Loan Bank) Note:
- Other pleadings may be considered
- All documents attached must also be considered Jurisprudence
1. Even if the complaint stated a valid cause of action, a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of cause of action will be granted if documentary evidence admitted by stipulations discloses facts sufficient to defeat the claim and enables the court to go beyond the complaint. (Tan v.
Dir. Of Forestry)
2. Courts should exercise utmost care and circumspection in passing upon motions to dismiss based on this ground (Militante v. Antero et al.)
3. Where the facts alleged to make out the principal cause of action and relief are insufficient, the case should be dismissed and plaintiff cannot rely on ancillary matters in the complaint to make out a cause of action.
a. When the action is for cancellation of defendant’s title but the allegations therein are inadequate, plaintiff cannot lean on his allegations of supposed improvements made on the land as these are purely ancillary to the principal relief sought (Gabila v.
Barriaga)
b. Neither can such defect be cured by allegations in a complaint in intervention filed by a third party (Nacar v. Nistal et al.)
4. Where a complaint does not contain all facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action, it is subject to a motion to dismiss.
a. However, if defendant permits evidence to be introduced, without objection, which supplies necessary allegation in such defective complaint, this evidence cures the defects of such complaint which may no longer be dismissed on that account (Pascua
v. CA, et al.)
5. An action cannot be dismissed on the ground that the complaint is vague or indefinite. The remedy of the defendant is to move for a bill of particulars or avail of the proper mode of discovery (Galeon v. Caleon, et al.)
EIGHTH GROUND
WAIVER, ABANDONMENT, EXTINGUISHMENT See Art. 1231, CC; See ObliCon Notes
NINTH GROUND
UNENFORCEABILITY UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS See Art. 1403, CC; See ObliCon Notes
Unlike a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, a motion invoking the Statute of Frauds may be filed even if the absence of a cause of action does not appear on the face of the complaint. Such absence may be proved during the hearing of the motion to dismiss on said ground. (Yuviengco et al. v.
Dacuycuy, etc., et al.)
TENTH GROUND
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION PRECEDENT Some Relevant Provisions:
1. Art. 222 – No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Art. 2035 2. Art. 2035 – No compromise upon the following questions
shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation (3) Any ground for legal separation
(4) Future support
(5) The jurisdiction of courts (6) Future legitime
The Rule is Not Applicable:
1. Where there could be no valid compromise
This is a mere condition precedent that may be cured by amendment
2. The rule does not apply where one of the parties is a stranger
The phrase “between members of the same family” should be construed in the light of Art. 150 FC 3. The rule is applicable only in ordinary civil actions and is
not applicable in special proceedings
4. Where the agreement contains an arbitration clause, it is premature to file a third party complaint (Sea-Land
142
5. No need of prior referral to DAR to determine Existence of Tenancy Relationship
Note that PD 316 and 1038, which require a preliminary determination of the existence of a tenancy relationship have already been expressly repealed by RA 6657
Jurisprudence:
1. Where the plaintiff has not exhausted all administrative remedies, the complaint not having alleged the fact of such exhaustion, the same may be dismissed for lack of cause of action (Pineda v. CFI Davao, et al.)
a. If this objection is not raised at a proper time, it is waived and the court can try the case (CN Hodges v.
Mun. Board, etc., et al.)
2. Where the complaint does not state that it is one of the excepted cases, or it does not allege prior availment of conciliation process, or it does not have a certification that no conciliation or settlement had been reached under P 1508, case should be dismissed on motion (Morata v. Go,
et al.)
3. Where the defendant had participated in the trial court without any invocation of PD 1508, and the judgment therein had become final and executory, but said defendant thereafter sought the annulment of the decision for alleged lack of jurisdiction, the same was denied under the doctrine of estoppel and laches (Royales, et al., v. IAC) 4. Non-compliance with PD 1508 only results in lack of cause
of action or prematurity (Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy) a. This objection, not being jurisdictional in nature, is
deemed waived if not raised in a motion to dismiss (Ebol v. Amin, et al.)
5. The fact that the suit is exclusively between members of the same family is a ground for dismissal if no earnest efforts at compromise had been made (Art. 222 CC, Art. 151, FC)
a. But this is not available where a compromise of the controversy is not permitted by law (Art. 2035 CC) b. Failure to allege in the complaint that earnest efforts
at compromise had been made is not a ground for a motion to dismiss if one of the parties is a stranger (Magbatela v. Gonong)
c. Or where the suit is between collateral relatives who are not brothers or sisters, and, therefore, not members of the same family (Mendez v. Bionson)
SECTION 2 - Hearing of motion.—At the hearing of the motion, the
parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved except those not available at that time. Should the case go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same. (n)
Breakdown of Provision:
A. At the hearing of the motion the parties shall submit: 1. Their arguments on the questions of law 2. Their evidence on the questions of fact involved
a. EXCEPT those not available at the time
B. Should the case go to trial, evidence presented during hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same
The hearing should be conducted as in ordinary hearings
- Parties should be allowed to present evidence and the evidence should be taken down
- EXCEPT: when the motion is based on the ground of insufficiency of cause of action which must generally be
determined on the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint
Lack of formal hearing of a motion to dismiss is not fatal where the issues raised were fully discussed in the motion and opposition. (Castillo v. CA)
SECTION 3 - Resolution of motion.—After the hearing, the court
may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. (3a)
The Court may:
1. Dismiss the action; 2. Deny the motion; or
3. Order the amendment of the pleading
Note: In resolving the motion to dismiss, the court is required to give reasons for its resolution.
- The resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons - It proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily
dismissing the motion for lack of merit
- Prohibits minute resolutions; it requires that the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor
Now, the motion to dismiss must be granted or denied. Resolution thereof cannot be deferred (National Irrigation Administration v.
CA)
Jurisprudence:
1. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable (Harrison Foundry & Machinery, et al. v.
Harrison Foundry Workers Assoc.)
a. But if the denial was with grave abuse of discretion or is without or in excess of jurisdiction, prohibition will lie (Moreno v. Macadaeg)
b. Certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies from such order of denial (Alban v. Madarang, et al.) 2. An order granting a motion to dismiss is final and
appealable (Monares v. CNS Enterprises)
3. However, if the order of the dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits, as where the venue is improperly laid, that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue, litis pendentia, that the complaint states no cause of action or that a condition precedent for filing the suit has not been complied with, such dismissal is not a bar to another action when the circumstances change and warrant the refiling and prosecution of the same.
4. Where the defect is curable by amendment as where the complaint states no cause of action, and the court refuses to allow amendment the same is reversible error (Macapinlac v. Repide)
a. However, the plaintiff must move for leave to amend the complaint before dismissal order becomes final (Constantino v. Reyes)