Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • RULE 9 Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013

    Uploaded by

    KE NT
    73 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. The case involved a motion to dismiss filed by respondents on the grounds that petitioners were not the real parties in interest and had no valid cause of action. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding grave abuse of discretion. The issue was whether the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action was timely filed. The Supreme Court ruled that the motion was not timely filed and was thus waived, as Section 1 of Rule 9 states defenses not raised in a motion to dismiss or answer are deemed waived, except for specific grounds like lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1. RULE 9 Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. The case involved a motion to dismiss filed by respondents on the grounds that petitioners were not the real parties in interest and had no valid cause of action. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding grave abuse of discretion. The issue was whether the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action was timely filed. The Supreme Court ruled that the motion was not timely filed and was thus waived, as Section 1 of Rule 9 states defenses not raised in a motion to dismiss or answer are deemed waived, except for specific grounds like lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    RULE 9 Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013

    Uploaded by

    KE NT
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. The case involved a motion to dismiss filed by respondents on the grounds that petitioners were not the real parties in interest and had no valid cause of action. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding grave abuse of discretion. The issue was whether the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action was timely filed. The Supreme Court ruled that the motion was not timely filed and was thus waived, as Section 1 of Rule 9 states defenses not raised in a motion to dismiss or answer are deemed waived, except for specific grounds like lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VILLACERAN, Kent-Kent R.

    Section JD-E CIVPRO

    1. RULE 9 Pacana-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc. G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013

    Facts:
    Petitioners Rebecca Pacaña-Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña, children of Lourdes Teves Pacaña and
    Luciano Pacaña, filed the present case against Rovila Inc accounting and damages.

    The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds, among others, that the petitioners
    are not the real parties in interest to institute and prosecute the case and that they have no valid cause
    of action against the respondents.

    The RTC denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss as well as respondents’ motion for
    reconsideration. The respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with
    the Court of Appeals, invoking grave abuse of discretion in the denial of their motion to dismiss. The CA
    granted the petition and ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion as the petitioners filed
    the complaint and the amended complaint as attorneys-in-fact of their parents. As such, they are not
    the real parties in interest and cannot bring an action in their own names.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the motion to dismiss in the present case based on failure to state a cause of
    action was not timely filed and was thus waived

    Ruling:
    Yes, the motion to dismiss in the present case based on failure to state a cause of action was not
    timely filed and was thus waived.

    As the respondents’ motion to dismiss was based on the grounds which should be timely
    invoked, material to the resolution of this case is the period within which they were raised.

    Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in
    a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for the following grounds:
    1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
    2) litis pendencia;
    3) res judicata; and
    4) prescription.

    Therefore, the grounds not falling under these four exceptions may be considered as waived in
    the event that they are not timely invoked.

    You might also like