G.R. No. 117929 - CORA VERGARA, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CAMILO O. MONTESA, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-MALOLOS, BR. 19 AND SPS. NAZARIO AND ZENAIDA BARRETO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, defendant is hereby directed to file her answer to the complaint within ten (10) days from receipt hereof." [3] Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was filed which was likewise denied in an Order dated March 7, 1994. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which as mentioned at the outset affirmed the above rulings of the RTC. Hence, the instant petition on the following grounds: I RESPONDENT CA ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDERS OF RESPONDENT JUDGE DEFERRING RESOLUTION OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS GROUNDED ON FAILURE TO STATE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF ACTION UNTIL AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS. II RESPONDENT CA ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT JUDGE'S ORDERS SHORTENING PETITIONER'S PERIOD TO ANSWER FROM FIFTEEN (15) DAYS TO TEN (10) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE ORDER DENYING (DEFERRING) THE MOTION TO DISMISS. [4] The petition is devoid of merit. As regards the first issue raised by petitioner, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the court a quo 's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss for the reason that a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint states no cause of action can only be determined by considering the facts alleged in the complaint and no other. [5] In the case of Parañaque King Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [6] , this Court stated thus: "A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (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 defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. In determining whether allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain." [7] Briefly stated, lack of cause of action, as a ground for a motion to dismiss, must appear on the face of the complaint itself, meaning that it must be determined from the allegations of the complaint and from none other. [8] A perusal of the complaint reveals that it sufficiently alleges an actionable breach of an obligation on the part of petitioner. The complaint against herein petitioner as defendant alleges that petitioner's husband loaned a specified sum of money from the private respondents; that a promissory note was executed by the husband in evidence thereof; that upon the death of p