Professional Documents
Culture Documents
9 - Ceroferr V CA
9 - Ceroferr V CA
FIRST DIVISION.
145
145
The Case
1
complaint
complaint
_______________
1
A, Rollo, pp. 2530, Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, J., ponente, Corona IbaySomera and
Eloy R. Bello, Jr., JJ., concurring.
3
In Civil Case No. 9419833, dated May 14, 1996, Petition, Annex H, Rollo,
146
146
147
trial court could proceed to try and decide the case before it since,
under present law, there is now no substantial distinction
between the general jurisdiction vested in a regional trial court
and its limited jurisdiction when acting as a land registration
court, citing Ignacio v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 242 (1995).
10
11
Filed on September 24, 1999. Rollo, pp. 821. On January 17, 2000,
148
The Issues
The issues are: (1) whether Ceroferrs complaint states a
sufficient cause of action and (2) whether the trial court
has jurisdiction to determine the identity and location of
the vacant lot involved in the case.
The Courts Ruling
We grant the petition.
The rules of procedure require that the complaint must
state a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the
essential facts constituting the plaintiff s cause of action. A
fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving
the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A
complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three
indispensable elements, namely: (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
Uy v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140365, July 11, 2001, 361 SCRA 95,
Uy v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140365, July 11, 2001, 361 SCRA 95,
citing San Lorenzo Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA
115 (1998).
14
149
150
17
Torres v. Court of Appeals, 363 Phil. 539, 547 320 SCRA 428 (1999),
302 SCRA 522 (1999), citing Martinez v. De la Merced, 174 SCRA 182
(1989).
151
151
has to be instituted
before an ordinary court of general
19
jurisdiction.
The regional trial court has jurisdiction to determine the
precise identity and location of the vacant lot used as a
jeepney terminal.
The Fallo
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we GRANT the petition.
We
20
REVERSE the decision21of the Court of Appeals and the
order of the trial court dismissing the case. We remand
the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, Quezon
City, for further proceedings.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed. Case remanded to
trial court for further proceedings.
Revised Edition), p. 439, citing Aguilar v. Chiu, 195 Phil. 613 109 SCRA
43 (1981).
20
21
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.