Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 442 views

    Juana Complex Vs Fil Estate

    Uploaded by

    Air Dela Cruz
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that the homeowners' complaint stated a valid cause of action and was properly filed as a class suit. [1] The complaint sufficiently established the homeowners' legal right to use La Paz Road based on over 10 years of use, and that the respondents violated this right by excavating the road. [2] The suit would benefit the numerous commuters and motorists affected by the road closure, and it was impractical to include all of them as parties. [3] The case was remanded to the trial court for full proceedings on the merits of the issues.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Juana Complex Vs Fil Estate

    Uploaded by

    Air Dela Cruz
    442 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that the homeowners' complaint stated a valid cause of action and was properly filed as a class suit. [1] The complaint sufficiently established the homeowners' legal right to use La Paz Road based on over 10 years of use, and that the respondents violated this right by excavating the road. [2] The suit would benefit the numerous commuters and motorists affected by the road closure, and it was impractical to include all of them as parties. [3] The case was remanded to the trial court for full proceedings on the merits of the issues.

    Original Description:

    Juana Complex vs Fil Estate Digest

    Original Title

    Juana Complex vs Fil Estate

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that the homeowners' complaint stated a valid cause of action and was properly filed as a class suit. [1] The complaint sufficiently established the homeowners' legal right to use La Paz Road based on over 10 years of use, and that the respondents violated this right by excavating the road. [2] The suit would benefit the numerous commuters and motorists affected by the road closure, and it was impractical to include all of them as parties. [3] The case was remanded to the trial court for full proceedings on the merits of the issues.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    442 views2 pages

    Juana Complex Vs Fil Estate

    Uploaded by

    Air Dela Cruz
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that the homeowners' complaint stated a valid cause of action and was properly filed as a class suit. [1] The complaint sufficiently established the homeowners' legal right to use La Paz Road based on over 10 years of use, and that the respondents violated this right by excavating the road. [2] The suit would benefit the numerous commuters and motorists affected by the road closure, and it was impractical to include all of them as parties. [3] The case was remanded to the trial court for full proceedings on the merits of the issues.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Juana Complex I Homeowners Association vs. Fil Estate Land, Inc.

    Topic: Rule 2 of the Rules of Court

    Facts:

    On January 20, 1999, Petitioners instituted a complaint for damages, in its own behalf and as a class suit
    representing the regular commuters and motorists of Juana Complex I and neighboring subdivisions who
    were deprived of the use of La Paz Road against respondents.

    The complaint alleged that Petitioners constantly use the entry and exit toll gates of SLEX by passing through
    right-of-way public road known as La Paz Road; that they had been using La Paz Road for more than ten
    (10) years; that in August 1998, Respondents excavated, broke and deliberately ruined La Paz Road that led
    to SLEX so petitioners would not be able to pass through the said road; that La Paz Road was restored by
    the residents to make it passable but Respondents excavated the road again. Petitioners reported the matter
    to the Municipal Government and the Office of the Municipal Engineer but the latter failed to repair the road
    to make it passable and safe to motorists and pedestrians; that the act of Respondents in excavating La Paz
    Road caused damage, prejudice, inconvenience, annoyance, and loss of precious hours to them, to the
    commuters and motorists because traffic was re-routed to narrow streets that caused terrible traffic
    congestion and hazard; and that its permanent closure would not only prejudice their right to free and
    unhampered use of the property but would also cause great damage and irreparable injury. Respondents
    filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that it was
    improperly filed as a class suit.

    The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration filed by Respondents. Not
    satisfied, Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA to annul the said order and
    reiterated its argument that petitioners failed to show that they had a clear and unmistakable right to the use
    of La Paz Road; and further claimed that La Paz Road was a torrens registered private road and there was
    neither a voluntary nor legal easement constituted over it.

    The CA upheld the decision of the RTC denying the motion to dismiss of the respondents. The CA ruled
    that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action when petitioners alleged in their complaint that they
    had been using La Paz Road for more than ten (10) years and that their right was violated when Respondents
    closed and excavated the road. It sustained the RTC ruling that the complaint was properly filed as a class
    suit as it was shown that the case was of common interest and that the individuals sought to be represented
    were so numerous that it was impractical to include all of them as parties. The CA ordered the remand of
    the case to the RTC for a full-blown trial on the merits.

    Hence, these petitions for review.

    Issues:

    In G.R. no. 152272 (filed by petitioners)


    1. W/O honorable court of appeals, in holding that a full-blown trial on the merits is required to determine
    the nature of the La Paz road, had departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
    proceedings as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

    In G.R. No. 152397(filed by respondents)


    1. W/O petitioners Complaint states a cause of action is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence.
    2. W/O petitioners Complaint was properly filed as a class suit is contrary to existing law and
    jurisprudence.

    Rulings:

    Cause of Action issue

    Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission by which a party
    violates the right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it contains three essential elements
    of a cause of action, namely: 1) the legal right of the plaintiff; 2) the correlative obligation of the defendant,
    and 3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. Further, the question of whether
    the complaint states a cause of action is determined by its averments regarding the acts committed by the
    defendant. Thus, it must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the
    plaintiff’s cause of action.

    In the present case, the Court finds the allegations in the complaint sufficient to establish a cause of
    action. First, petitioners’ averments in the complaint show a demandable right over La Paz Road. These
    are: (1) their right to use the road on the basis of their allegation that they had been using the road for more
    than 10 years; and (2) an easement of a right of way has been constituted over the said roads. There is no
    other road as wide as La Paz Road existing in the vicinity and it is the shortest, convenient and safe route
    towards SLEX that the commuters and motorists may use. Second, there is an alleged violation of such right
    committed by Respondents when they excavated the road and prevented the commuters and motorists from
    using the same. Hence, petitioners suffered injury and that a valid judgment could have been rendered in
    accordance with the relief sought therein.

    Class suit issue

    In this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters and motorists who use La Paz Road.
    The subject matter of the instant case, i.e., the closure and excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially shown
    to be of common or general interest to many persons. That numerous individuals have filed manifestations
    with the lower court, conveying their intention to join private respondents in the suit and claiming that they
    are similarly prejudiced by the acts of respondents in closing and excavating the La Paz Road. The individuals
    sought to be represented by private respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to join
    them all as parties.

    The case should be further heard by the RTC so that the parties can fully prove their respective positions on
    the issues. Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

    You might also like