Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case Digests

Case Digests

Ratings: (0)|Views: 196 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Alyssa Clarizze Malaluan on Jun 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Malaluan, Alyssa Clarizze E.
ZAIDA RUBY S. ALBERTO,
petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, EPIFANIO J. ALANO, CECILIA P. ALANO, YOLANDA P.ALANO, and NATALIA REALTY, INC.,
respondents.FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 119088 June 30, 2000
 
 YNARES-SANTIAGO,
.:FACTS:
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,
5
 only P3,500.00 of personalproperties of respondent-spouses were levied because apparently, Natalia Realty, Inc.had sold to private respondent Yolanda Alano, respondent-
spouses’ daughter,
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
 Amended Complaint
7
 to declare the deed of sale null and void
ab initio
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.
ISSUE:
WON annexes to the complaint may be considered in determining whether or not complaint states a cause of action.
HELD:
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
 
executed between her and respondent-spouses. When petitioner moved for theissuance of a writ of execution, she discovered to her dismay that respondent-spouseshad no more leviable properties except a few personal properties amounting to onlyP3,500.00. In fact, by making it appear that it was Natalia Realty, Inc. which soldrespondent-
spouses’
23 hectares to respondent Yolanda P. Alano, petitioner not onlyhad a cause of action against respondent-spouses but likewise against Yolanda P. Alano. Clearly, all these instances which were alleged and enumerated in the second Amended Complaint constitute a sufficient cause of action on the part of petitioner. Thetrial court and the Court of Appeals should not have been too rigid in applying the rulethat in resolving a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action,only the averments in the complaint and no other are to be consulted. The rule admits of exceptions. All documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuinenessof which are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of thecomplaint without need of introducing evidence thereon. Attached to the second Amended Complaint is the Deed of Sale the due execution andgenuineness of which were never denied by respondents. So long as those attachedpleadings are procedurally responsive to the complaint, then they may be considered inevaluating the sufficiency of the cause of action in the complaint. In addition, since thedismissal of a complaint by virtue of a motion to dismiss for failure to state or for insufficiency of cause of action would be tantamount to a summary judgment, the lower court should at least have considered the attached documents and pleadings as amatter of due process. It must be remembered that the complaint itself is accompaniedby documentary evidence attached as annexes. The responsive pleadings, in addition,though not attachments to the complaint, clarify its merits since they are already part of the records of the case and should therefore be considered.
 
Malaluan,Alyssa Clarizze E.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JOEL SARTAGODA y BOCANEGRA, JIMMY BASCUÑA y LAZARTE, VICENTESTA. ANA y GUTIERREZ and JOHN DOE
, accused-appellants.SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 97525. April 7, 1993.Campos, JR., J p:FACTS:
It was the evening of July 2, 1988 while Rogelio de Belen, his two daughtersand his sister Vilma de Belen were sleeping in their house at Calamba, Laguna, whenappellant broke in and woke him up, poking a knife at him. They tied up his hands andmade him lie flat on his stomach and asked for the key to his cabinet. Fearing for his lifeand that of his companions, he reluctantly told them where the key was kept. Just onthe other room was Vilma, who heard whispers (kaluskos) but simply played possum.When the three saw her on the bed, they approached her. One covered her mouth asanother poked a knife at her neck. They threatened to kill her if she should make anoutcry and successively raped her. After the three men left, Rogelio, with his hands andfeet still tied up, tried to get up from the bed and switched the lights on and called to hisneighbors for help. Vilma, meanwhile, had lost consciousness due to shock.The Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 36, Calamba, Lagunaconvicted all three accused-appellants in its decision. The accused-appellants fault thetrial court of ignoring the fingerprint examination report submitted by the CrimeLaboratory of the PC/INP Camp Crame which stated that none of the specimen latentfingerprints were found to be positive. It is their contention that since their fingerprintswere not found in the objects found in the scene of the crime they cannot be held guiltyof the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->