Defenses and objections not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss or answer. The
court shall motu proprio dismiss the claim when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that:
a. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter (lack of jurisdiction) b. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia)
c. The action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata)
d. The action is barred by the statute of limitations (prescription) (Rule 9, Sec. 1, 2nd sentence). [LLRP]
Discussion of individual grounds
The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. The venue Is Improperly laid.
a. Venue of an action depends upon the: (1) nature of the action
(2) residence of the parties (3) stipulation of the parties (4) law
b. Test to determine nature of action
The nature of the action is determined from the allegations of the complaint, the character of the relief, its purpose and prime objective. When the prime objective is to recover real property, it is a real action.
Plaintiff Has No Legal Capacity To Sue
a. Legal capacity to sue means that a party is not suffering from any disability such as minority, insanity, covertures, lack of juridical personality, incompetence, civil interdiction or does not have the character or representation which he claims or with respect to foreign corporation, that it is doing business in the Philippines with a license.
b. In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Dumlao, the Supreme Court held that a person who has no interest in the estate of a deceased person has no legal capacity to file a petition for letters of administration. With respect to foreign corporations, the qualifying circumstances of plaintiffs capacity to sue being an essential element must be affirmatively pleaded. The qualifying circumstance is an essential part of the element of the plaintiffs capacity to sue. The complaint must either allege that it is doing business in the Philippines with a license or that it is a foreign corporation not engaged in business and that it is suing in an isolated transaction.
Pendency Of Another Action Between The Same Parties For The Same Cause (Litis Pendentia)
a. Rationale of the Rule: Like res judicata as a doctrine, litis pendentia is a sanction of public policy against multiplicity of suits. The principle upon which a plea of another action pending is sustained is that the latter action is deemed unnecessary and vexatious.
b. Requisites of Litis Pendentia:
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(3) The identity on the preceding particulars should be such that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
Bar by prior judgment(Res Judicata)
a. Requisites of Res Judicata:
(1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the merits;
(3) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and
(4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.
b. Two aspects of Res Judicata
(1) Bar by Former Judgment when, between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case where the judgment is invoked, there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.
(2) Conclusiveness of Judgment when there is an identity of parties but not cause
of action, the judgment being conclusive in the second case only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and determined, and not as to matters invoked thereon.
c. A judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata and is immediately executory and not appealable. The ultimate test in ascertaining the identity of causes of action whether or not the same evidence fully supports and establishes both the present cause of action and the former cause of action. Only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required for res judicata.
Bar by Statute of Limitations (Prescription of Actions)
An action prescribes by the lapse of time fixed in the Civil Code (Articles 1139 to 1155). 1. Eight years
a. actions to recover movables 2. Thirty years
a. real actions over immovables 3. Ten years
a. written contract
b. obligation created by law c. judgment
4. Six years
a. oral contract b. quasi contract 5. One year
a. forcible entry and unlawful detainer b. defamation
6. Five years
All other actions whose periods are not fixed in the Civil Code or other laws NOTES:
a. Prescription and estoppel cannot be invoked against the State (Delos Reyes vs.
b. Even if the defense of prescription has not been raised in a motion to dismiss or an answer, if the plaintiffs complaint or evidence shows that the action had prescribed, the action shall be dismissed. (Rule 9, Sec. 1)
c. Prescription cannot be invoked as a ground if the contract is alleged to be void
ab initio but where prescription depends on whether contract is void or voidable,
there must be a hearing.
The Claim States No Cause of Action
a. Elements of a Cause of Action
(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 named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an ACT OR OMISSION on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
b. General rule: a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITS the material allegations of the complaint.
Exceptions:
(1) allegations of which the court will take judicial notice are not true (2) legally impossible facts
(3) facts inadmissible in evidence
(4) facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded
(5) matters of evidence
(6) surplusage and irrelevant matters (7) scandalous matters
(8) averments contradicted by more specific averments (9) conclusions or interpretations of law
(10) allegations of fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice (Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302 [1982])
What is the issue in a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action?
Admitting the allegations of the complaint, may the court render VALID JUDGMENT in accordance with its prayer and the law?
NOTE:
a. The insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the FACE OF THE COMPLAINT to sustain a dismissal on that ground.
b. No extraneous matter may be considered nor facts alleged which would require evidence and therefore, must be raised as defenses and await the trial.
The trial court may elect to hold a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses as raised in the answer under Section 6 of Rules 16 of the Rules of Court. Such a hearing is not necessary when
the affirmative defense is failure to state a cause of action, and that it is, in fact, error for the
court to hold a preliminary hearing to determine the existence of external facts outside the complaint. The reception and the consideration of evidence on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, has been held to be improper and impermissible. Thus, in a preliminary hearing on a motion to dismiss or on the affirmative defenses raised in an answer,
the parties are allowed to present evidence except when the motion is based on the ground of insufficiency of the statement of the cause of action which must be determined on the basis
only of the facts alleged in the complaint and no other. (Aquino vs. Quiazon, G.R. No. 201248,
March 11, 2015)
For the ground to be effective, the insufficiency of the complaint must appear on the face of
the complaint, and nowhere else. It will be unfair to the plaintiff, indeed, to determine the
sufficiency of his cause of action from facts outside of those pleaded in the complaint. A complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a certainty, from the face of the complaint, that plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved within the facts alleged therein. (Sotto vs. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014)
LPB
The Claim or Demand Has Been Paid, Waived, Abandoned, or Otherwise Extinguished.
Under Art. 1231 of the Civil Code, obligations are extinguished: (1) by payment or performance;
(2) by the loss of the thing due;
(3) by the condonation or remission of the debt;
(4) by the confusion or merger of rights of debtor and creditor; (5) by compensation; and
(6) by novation
Obligations may also be extinguished by annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition and prescription.
The Claim is Unenforceable Under the Statute of Frauds
The statute of frauds is governed by Art. 1403 (2) of the Civil Code, which provides that a. certain contracts therein enumerated, unless IN WRITING and SUBSCRIBED by the party charged or by his agent,
b. are UNENFORCEABLE and EVIDENCE on the agreement CANNOT BE RECEIVED without the writing or secondary evidence of its contents.
NOTES:
a. Where applied: The statute of frauds applies only to EXECUTORY CONTRACTS and in actions for their SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, not to those which have been totally or partially performed. Performance, which must be proved, takes the contract out of the operation of the principle (Tankiko vs. Cesar, 302 SCRA 559 [1999])
b. Purpose: To prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence on the unassisted memory of witnesses by requiring certain contracts and transactions to be in writing (Claudel vs. CA, 119 SCRA 113 [1999]).
A Condition Precedent For Filing The Claim Has Not Been Complied With
Where a condition precedent for filing the claim in court has not been complied with, the cause of action has not accrued.
A complaint may be dismissed for FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION if:
a. the case is between or among members of the SAME FAMILY and there is no allegation that earnest efforts towards a COMPROMISE has been exerted, or b. the claim is referable to the Katarungang Pambarangay and prior recourse to barangay CONCILIATION has not been made, or
c. the case involves a matter which the law requires that there be EXHAUSTION of ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before a litigant is allowed to resort to court for reliefs, except where the complaint alleges facts which bring the case under any of the exceptions thereto (Sunville Timber Products, Inc. vs. Abad, 206 SCRA 582 [1992]).
Rule 16, Sec. 3. After the hearing, the court may 1) dismiss the action or claim,
2) deny the motion, or
3) order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor.
c. Remedies of plaintiff when the complaint is dismissed
a. APPEAL the order granting the motion or
b. REFILE the complaint, except where grounds for dismissal are:
(1) that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment [res judicata]
(2) that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations [prescription] (3) that the claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished [extinguishment]
(4) that the claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds [statute of frauds] [RPES] (Rule 16, Sec. 5)
d. Remedies of the defendant when the motion to dismiss is denied
a. File his ANSWER (within the balance of the 15 day period to which he was entitled at the time of serving the motion, but not less than 5 days in any event, computed from his receipt of the order of denial Rule 16, Sec. 4) and proceed with the hearing before the trial court.
b. if the decision is adverse, APPEAL therefrom. The denial of the motion to dismiss being interlocutory, cannot be questioned by certiorari; it cannot be the subject of appeal until judgment is rendered (Casil vs. CA, January 28, 1998).
c. Exception: where the court denying the motion acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the defendant may question the denial by petition for CERTIORARI under Rule 65. Reason: it would be unfair to require the defendant to undergo the ordeal and expense of trial under such circumstances because the remedy of appeal then would not be plain and adequate (Drilon vs. CA, March 20, 1997).
***e. Effect of dismissal of complaint on certain grounds
Rule 16, Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal.
Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on paragraphs (f) , (h) and (i) of section 1 hereof shall BAR the refiling of the same action or claim. These are:
(1) that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment [res judicata]
(2) that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations [prescription] (3) that the claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished [extinguishment]
(4) that the claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds [statute of frauds] [RPES] (Rule 16, Sec. 5)
f. When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.
If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
But no hearing if ground is failure to state a cause of action.
g. Bar by dismissal
See e above
h. Distinguished from demurrer to evidence under Rule 33:
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is DENIED, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is GRANTED but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have WAIVED the right to present evidence. (Rules of Court, Rule 33, Sec. 1.)
A demurrer to evidence is differentiated from a motion to dismiss in that the former can be availed of only after the presentation of plaintiffs evidence while the latter is instituted as a general rule before a responsive pleading is filed.
Distinction between motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and to dismiss based on lack of cause of action.
The first is raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16, Sec. 1 (g) before a responsive pleading is filed and can be determined only from the ALLEGATIONS of the pleading and not from evidentiary matters. The second is raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has rested his case and can be resolved only on the basis of the EVIDENCE he has presented in support of his claim(The Manila Banking Corp. vs. University of Baguio, Inc., G.R. No. 159189, February
21, 2007)
When the motion for a demurrer to evidence is granted, the judgment of the court is considered on the merits and so it has to comply with Rule 36, Section 1, regarding the requirement that judgment should clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. If the motion is denied, the order is merely interlocutory. (Nepomuceno vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 60601, December 29, 1983, 126 SCRA 472.)