Pacana-Contreras V Rovila Water Supply
Pacana-Contreras V Rovila Water Supply
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
220
221
222
223
BRION, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of
the
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 9-30.
224
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 31-43; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Ramon M.
Bato, Jr.
3 Id., at pp. 44-45.
4 Id., at pp. 58-60; penned by Presiding Judge Antonio T. Echavez.
5 Id., at pp. 66-67.
6 Docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-25327; Id., at p. 32.
225
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 13-14.
8 Id., at p. 15.
9 Id., at p. 34.
10 Ibid.
11 Id., at p. 35.
12 Ibid.
13 Supra note 4.
14 Supra note 6.
226
_______________
15 Rollo, pp. 35-36.
16 Id., at p. 83.
17 Id., at pp. 59, 66-67.
227
_______________
18 Id., at p. 66.
19 CA Rollo, p. 10.
20 Id., at p. 11.
21 Ibid.
22 Rollo, pp. 37-39.
23 98 Phil. 880 (1956).
24 Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario, 363 Phil. 393, 397-398; 304
SCRA 18, 22 (1999); Litam, etc., et al. v. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364, 378 (1956);
and Solivio v. Court of Appeals, 261 Phil. 231, 242; 182 SCRA 119, 128
(1990).
228
_______________
25 Rollo, p. 35.
26 379 Phil. 939; 322 SCRA 853 (2000).
27 Rollo, p. 41.
28 Id., at p. 42.
29 Id., at pp. 20-21.
229
_______________
30 Id., at pp. 22, 126.
31 Id., at pp. 21, 26, 126.
32 Id., at p. 131.
33 100 Phil. 64 (1956).
34 Rollo, p. 130.
35 Id., at pp. 78-79.
36 Id., at pp. 79-80.
230
_______________
37 Id., at pp. 75-76.
38 521 Phil. 53, 59-60; 486 SCRA 555, 562 (2006).
39 Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman et al., 538 Phil. 326, 334; 508
SCRA 469, 481 (2006); Tankiko v. Cezar, 362 Phil. 184, 194-195; 302
SCRA 559, 570 (1999), citing Lucas v. Durian, 102 Phil. 1157-1158 (1957);
Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio, 104 Phil. 126, 128-129
231
_______________
(1958); Gabila v. Barriga, 148-B Phil. 615, 618-619; 41 SCRA 131, 135
(1971); Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. v. CA, 276 Phil. 219,
224; 199 SCRA 205, 209 (1991).
40 Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario, supra note 23; and
Filipinas Industrial Corp., et al. v. Hon. San Diego, et al., 132 Phil. 195; 23
SCRA 706 (1968).
232
233
_______________
41 Remedial Law, Volume I, 2007 Ed., pp. 794-795.
234
_______________
42 Section 1. Grounds.—Within the time for but before filing the
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss
may be made on any of the following grounds[.]
43 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.—Defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
235
_______________
44 Rollo, p. 22.
45 Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities
Corp., G.R. No. 183308, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 112, 125; and Conrada
O. Almagro v. Sps. Manuel Amaya, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 179685, June 19,
2013, 699 SCRA 61.
46 CA Rollo, p. 6.
47 Id., at p. 118.
236
_______________
48 Id., at p. 112.
49 Id., at pp. 133, 136.
50 Id., at p. 83.
51 Id., at pp. 73-77.
52 Section 2. Nature and purpose.—The pre-trial is mandatory. The
court shall consider: xxx (g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the
pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing
237
_______________
the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist; xxx (i) Such
other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
53 Sps. Mercader v. Dev’t Bank of the Phils. (Cebu Br.), 387 Phil. 828,
843; 332 SCRA 82, 95-96 (2000).
54 Supra note 25.
238
_______________
55 Id., at p. 946.
56 G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 106-107, citing Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Ninth Revised Ed. (2005), p. 182.
239
der Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause
[of] action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove
the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a
recognized commentator on remedial law, has explained the
distinction:
xxx What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state
a cause of action which is provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16.
This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of
Rule 10, which was also included as the last mode for
raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation where
the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is,
therefore, a matter of insufficiency of evidence. Failure to
state a cause of action is different from failure to prove a
cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for
dismissal of the pleading, while the remedy in the second is
to demur to the evidence, hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule
10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would
consequently be to require the pleading to state a cause of
action, by timely objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial,
to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.
[italics supplied]
240
_______________
57 538 Phil. 319, 333-334; 508 SCRA 469, 482 (2006).
241
_______________
58 Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012, 665
SCRA 367, 392.
59 540 Phil. 289, 301-303, 305-306; 511 SCRA 268, 279-280 (2006).
60 G.R. No. 194024, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 461, 475-478, 482.
61 G.R. No. 183105, July 22, 2009, 593 SCRA 468, 503.
62 345 Phil. 250, 275; 280 SCRA 20, 45 (1997).
63 G.R. No. 182819, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 585, 597.
64 417 Phil. 303, 318; 364 SCRA 812, 822 (2001).
242
_______________
65 G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686, 692-693.
66 G.R. No. 183059, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 519, 525.
67 G.R. No. 169276, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 224, 236.
68 502 Phil. 816, 822; 464 SCRA 591, 596 (2005).
69 556 Phil. 711, 720; 530 SCRA 58, 67 (2007).
70 G.R. No. 177429, November 24, 2009, 605 SCRA 259, 266.
71 453 Phil. 1060, 1147-1149, citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 376,
469 (1995).
243
244
_______________
72 549 Phil. 595, 610; 521 SCRA 85, 98 (2007).
73 466 Phil. 235, 266; 421 SCRA 468, 484 (2004).
74 G.R. No. 109910, April 5, 1995, 243 SCRA 239.
75 Lagunilla v. Velasco, supra; and Plasabas v. Court of Appeals, supra.
76 Nocom v. Camerino, et al., G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, 578
SCRA 390, 413.
245
246
_______________
77 Article 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which
the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the
inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or
others either by his will or by operation of law.
78 Article 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent.
79 501 Phil. 482, 490-492; 463 SCRA 180, 188 (2005).
——o0o——