Motion to Dismiss

Grounds Requisites/ inter. Remedy of the plaintiff if MD is Remedy of the Defendant if Example:
granted the MD is denied
*The order of denial, being
interlocutory is not appealable
by express provision of Sec
1[c], Rule 41. *

-La Naval Drug Corp. vs CA, -MR File his answer Manotoc vs CA
The court has no jurisdiction 1994: The Supreme Court
over the person of the held that while lack of *Special Civil Action of
defending party jurisdiction over the person of Certiorari if the dismissal is
the defendant may be duly tainted with grave abuse of
and seasonably raised, his discretion amounting to lack of
voluntary appearance in court jurisdiction
is a waiver of such defense. (Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Furthermore, even if he Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
challenges the jurisdiction of 2005)*
the court over his person, as
by his reason of absence or
defective summons, and he
also invokes other grounds for
the dismissal of action under
Rule 16, he is not deemed to
be in estoppels or to have
waived his objection to
jurisdiction of his person.
=The presentation of all
objections then available
subserves the omnibus motion
rule and the concomitant
policy against multiplicity of
suits

-Magay v. Estadian: -file to the correct court File his answer A filed an action for recovery
The court has no jurisdiction jurisdiction over subject matter -MR of a lot with the assessed
over the subject matter of the is determined by the *Special Civil Action of value of P19,000 in the RTC.
claim allegations in the complaint Certiorari if the dismissal is RTC-no jurisdiction over the

The venue is improperly laid;
The plaintiff has no legal
capacity to sue
There is another action
pending between the same
parties and for the same
cause (litis pendentia)
regardless of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein
-De Suan vs Cusi, 1983:
where the plaintiffs filed the
action in a court of improper
venue and thereafter
submitted to its jurisdiction, the
issue of venue was thereby
waived and they are in
estoppel to repudiate or
question the proceedings in
said court.
-Fernandez vs. ICB: An
objection to improper venue
must be made before a
responsive pleading is filed,
otherwise is deemed waived.
-Lunsod vs Ortega: no legal
capacity to sue means that the
plaintiff is either not in the
exercise of his civil rights or
does not have the character or
representation he claims.
=Requisites:
1. Identity of the parties, or
at least such as
representing the same
interests in both actions
2. Identity of rights asserted
and reliefs prayed for, the
relief being founded on
tainted with grave abuse of subject matter of the claim
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
2005)*
-MR File his answer
-Refile the comlaint to the
proper venue *Special Civil Action of
-Prohibition (Sec 2, Rule 65) Certiorari if the dismissal is
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
2005)*
-MR File his answer
No relief. No legal standing.
*Special Civil Action of
Certiorari if the dismissal is
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
2005)*
-MR File his answer =Priority in time rule:
=more appropriate action
*Special Civil Action of rule:An action for declaratory
Certiorari if the dismissal is relief to interpret a lease
tainted with grave abuse of contract was filed before an
discretion amounting to lack of ejectment case. SC: ejectment
jurisdiction case is more appropriate
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes action.
 the same facts Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23, =interest of Justice rule
3. The identity of the 2 2005)*
cases such that judgment
in one regardless of
which party is successful,
would amount to res
judicata in the other.
(Film dev council of the
PH vs SM prime
holdings)
=Priority in time rule: the case
that was filed later should be
abated (he who is first in time
is the better in right-qui prior
est tempore, potior est jure)
=more appropriate action rule:
=interest of Justice rule:
determination of which court
would be in a better position to
serve the interest of justice
considering: a. nature of
controversy; b. comparative
accessibility of the court to the
parties; c. other similar factors.

Res Judicata: -MR Prescription:

The cause of action is barred
by a prior judgment (res
judicata) or by the statute of
limitations (prescription)
1. Claim preclusion/ Bar
by former judgment:
effect of a judgment as
a bar to the prosecution
of a 2nd action upon
some
claim/demand/cause of
action
Elements: a. the
existence of a former
judgement that must be
final; b. rendered by a
court having jurisdiction
Appeal from the order of File his answer W filed in the RTC
dismissal- dismissal c
prejudice-considered final. No *Special Civil Action of
other remedy Certiorari if the dismissal is
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
2005)*
 over the subject matter
and the parties; c. it
must be a judgment/
order on the merits; d.
there must be between
1st and 2nd action,
identity of the
parties/subject
matter/causes of action
2. Issue preclusion/
Conclusiveness of
judgment: precludes the
relitigation of a
particular fact of issue
in another action
between the same
parties on a different
claim/ cause of action
Prescription
-40 days: redhibitory action
based on defects of animals
-6 mos: redxn of price for
recission of contract/ for
warranty against hidden
defects
-1 yr: axn for defamation,
recission, for damages if
immovable sold is
encumbered with servitude
-4 yrs: axn redxn/revocation of
donation/ axn
replevin/annulment of voidable
contracts
-5yrs: axn for legal
separation/annulment/ claim
legitimacy of child
-6yrs: axn upon oral contracts
-8 yrs: replevin (bf)
-10 yrs: axn reivindicatoria/

The pleading asserting the
claim states no cause of action
The claim or demand set forth
in the plaintiff‘s pleading has
been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise
extinguished
mortgage contract
-Casimiro vs Roque: plaintiff is -MR File his answer
not the real party in interest -Refile the complaint clearly
-determined from the facts stating the cause of action *Special Civil Action of
alleged in the complaint Certiorari if the dismissal is
-Test of sufficiency of a Cause tainted with grave abuse of
of Action: whether accepting discretion amounting to lack of
the veracity of the facts jurisdiction
alleged in the complaint, the (Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
court can render a valid Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
judgment upon the same in 2005)*
accordance with the prayer in
complaint
Failure to state a cause of
action/ no cause of action
vs.lack of cause of action
(refer to last page)
-Pineda vs Heirs of Guevarra -MR
(2007): The language of the -Appeal from the order of File his answer
rule, particularly on the relation dismissal
of the words abandoned and *Special Civil Action of
otherwise extinguished to the Certiorari if the dismissal is
phrase claim or demand tainted with grave abuse of
deemed set forth in the discretion amounting to lack of
plaintiffs pleading is broad jurisdiction
enough to include within its (Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
ambit the defense of bar by Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
laches. However, when a party 2005)*
moves for the dismissal of the
complaint based on laches,
the trial court must set a
hearing on the motion where
the parties shall submit not
only their arguments on the
questions of law but also their
evidence on the questions of
fact involved.

The claim on which the action
is founded is unenforceable
under the provisions of the
statute of frauds; and
A condition precedent for filing
the action has not been
complied with.
Deals with the enforcement
and requirements in particular
circumstances. It is descriptive
of statutes which require
certain classes of contracts to
be in writing (Art 1403 NCC)
1. Exhaustion of administrative
remedies
2. Compliance with earnest
efforts between or among
members of the family
3. Barangay conciliation
-MR A orally sold a ring for 700
Appeal from the order of File his answer pesos to B.
dismissal A contract entered into by two
*Special Civil Action of unemancipated minors without
Certiorari if the dismissal is parental consent.
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
2005)*
-MR File his answer
Fulfill the conditions first
*Special Civil Action of
Certiorari if the dismissal is
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
(Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes
Nabua, Gr 161309, Feb. 23,
2005)*

Failure to state a cause of action/ no cause of action lack of cause of action

Insufficiency of allegations Insufficiency of factual basis
Raised only in a motion to dismiss before responding to a complaint Can be raised anytime
Allows dismissal at the early stages of the action Allows dismissal after questions of fact have been resolved after evidence is
presented or stipulations/admission are had

Q: may a ground previously invoked in a motion to dismiss be invoked anew?

A: the ground may still be invoked. “…the denial of a motion to dismiss does not preclude any future reliance on the grounds relied thereupon.” ( sps. Rasdas vs
Sps. Villa, 477 SCRA 538, 546)