Test of the Sufficiency of a Cause of Action
[2] Test by Exclusion of Extraneous Matters. To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered but the court may consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records (Zepeda v. China Banking Corp., GR 172175, Oct. 9, 2006).
[3] No-Preliminary Hearing Rule. In determining whether or not a cause of action is sufficiently stated in the complaint, the statements in the complaint may be properly considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or to hold preliminary hearings to determine its existence (Diaz v. Diaz). The sufficiency of the statement of the complaint must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations of the complaint, consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances not being allowed (Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Roxas).
[4] Test of Entitlement to Reliefs Sought. The test of sufficiency of a complaint is whether or not, assuming the truth of the facts that plaintiff alleges in it, the court can render judgment granting him the judicial assistance he seeks. Judgment would be right only if the facts he alleges constitute a cause of action that consists of three elements:
(a) The plaintiff‘s legal right in the matter;
(b) The defendant‘s corresponding obligation to honor or respect such right, and;
(c) The defendant‘s subsequent violation of the right.
Statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action (Del Rosario vs. Donato).
[5] No-Legal Conclusion Rule. A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. It is well to point out that the plaintiff‘s cause of action should not merely be "stated" but, importantly, the statement thereof should be "sufficient." This is why the elementary test in a motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. As a corollary rule, it has been held that only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts are considered for purposes of applying the test. This is consistent with Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which states that the complaint need only allege the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff‘s cause of action. A fact is essential if they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. Since the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations, it follows that the analysis should be confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other. (Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran).
[5] Defendant Cannot Determine Sufficiency of Cause of Action. A complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Accordingly, if the allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. Petitioners are pushing the case too far ahead of its limits. They are themselves determining that the issue is whether the properties of the corporation can be included in the inventory of the estate of the decedent when the only question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether based on the evidence, respondents, as already well put in the prior Chua Suy Phen case, have a right to share in the ownership of the corporation. (Capitol Sawmill Corporation v. Chua Gaw).
