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.