Malaluan, Alyssa Clarizze E.
ZAIDA RUBY S. ALBERTO,
COURT OF APPEALS, EPIFANIO J. ALANO, CECILIA P. ALANO, YOLANDA P.ALANO, and NATALIA REALTY, INC.,
G.R. No. 119088 June 30, 2000
Petitioner herein, filed a Complaint for the collection of money against therespondent- spouses when they dismiss the case filed by them on which she is their counsel against Natalia Realty based on a retainer agreement between them. The RTCruled in favor of the plaintiff.
However, per Sheriff’s Return,
only P3,500.00 of personalproperties of respondent-spouses were levied because apparently, Natalia Realty, Inc.had sold to private respondent Yolanda Alano, respondent-
23hectares out of the 32.4 hectares given to them as settlement of the SEC case. Thesale was executed on December 28, 1988 or six days before respondent-spousesmoved to dismiss the SEC case on January 3, 1989. This discovery prompted petitioner
to file a complaint, attaching the Deed of Sale as Annex ”C” and thereafter, a second
to declare the deed of sale null and void
on the groundthat the transfer of the subject parcels of land to Yolanda Alano was simulated. The trialcourt, in an Omnibus Order,
dismissed petitioner’s Complaint for insufficiency of cause
of action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint stating that well -settled is the rule that in resolving a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state acause of action, only the averments of the complaint, and no other, are to be consulted.Extraneous matters are irrelevant.
WON annexes to the complaint may be considered in determining whether or not complaint states a cause of action.
Yes, annexes to the complaint may be considered in determining causes of action. The s
ufficiency of petitioner’s cause of action in the second Amended Complaint
is readily apparent. A right in her favor was created by virtue of the retainer agreement