1.

PARANAQUE KINGS VERSUS CA

FACTS: Paranaque Kings the petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC of Makati
on March 19, 1991 against respondents Catalina Santos and David Raymundo for an
alleged breach of the contractual right of first option or priority to buy. It can be
deduced from the facts that Catalina Santos is the owner of the parcels of land to
which the petitioner Paranaque Kings has been an assignee by Lee Ching Bing, the
former lessee of the parcels of land. That Catalina Santos instead of offering those
lands first to the lessee Pranaque Kings pursuant to the lease contract which
specifically provides for the first option to buy sold it to David Raymundo. Thus,
Paranaque Kings filed this complaint. Instead of filing their respective answers,
Santos and Raymundo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of
action. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents thus dismissing the
complaint for lack of a valid cause of action. Appeal to the CA, the trial courts ruling
was affirmed. According to the respondents, the petition should be denied for not
raising a question of law as the issue involved is purely factual, therefore states no
valid cause of action.
ISSUE: W/N the issue involved in this case is purely factual?
HELD: NO. The principal legal question as stated is whether the complaint filed by
Paranaque Kings in the lower court states a valid cause of action. Since such
question assumes the facts alleged in the complaint as true, it follows that the
determination thereof is one of law and NOT OF FACTS. There is a question of law in
a given case when the doubt of difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as
to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts