It is well to point out that the plaintiff’s cause of actionshould not merely be “stated” but, importantly, thestatement thereof should be “sufficient.”This is whythe elementary test in a motion to dismiss on suchground is whether or not the complaint alleges factswhich if true would justify the relief demanded.As acorollary, it has been held that only ultimate facts andnot legal conclusions or evidentiary facts areconsidered for purposes of applying the test.This isconsistent with Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Courtwhich states that the complaint need only allege theultimate facts or the essential facts constituting theplaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if theycannot be stricken out without leaving the statement ofthe cause of action inadequate. Since the inquiry is intothe sufficiency, not the veracity, of the materialallegations, it follows that the analysis should beconfined to the four corners of the complaint, and noother.A judicious examination of petitioner’s AmendedComplaint readily shows its failure to sufficiently statea cause of action. Contrary to the findings of the CA,the allegations therein do not proffer ultimate factswhich would warrant an action for nullification of thesale and recovery of the properties in controversy,hence, rendering the same dismissible.While the Amended Complaint does allege thatpetitioner was the registered owner of the subjectproperties in dispute, nothing in the said pleading or itsannexes would show the basis of that assertion, eitherthrough statements/documents tracing the root ofpetitioner’s title or copies of previous certificates oftitle registered in her name.Instead, the certificates oftitle covering the said properties that were attached tothe Amended Complaint are in the name of Gran. Atbest, the attached copies of TCT Nos. N-5500 and N-4234 only mention petitioner as the representative ofGran at the time of the covered property’s registrationwhen she was a minor. Nothing in the pleading,however, indicates that the former had become any ofthe properties’ owner. This leads to the logicalconclusion that her right to the properties in question –at least through the manner in which it was alleged inthe Amended Complaint – remains ostensiblyunfounded.Indeed, while the facts alleged in thecomplaint are hypothetically admitted for purposes ofthe motion, it must, nevertheless, be remembered thatthe hypothetical admission extends only to the relevantand material facts well pleaded in the complaint aswell as to inferences fairly deductible therefrom. Verily,the filing of the motion to dismiss assailing thesufficiency of the complaint does not hypotheticallyadmit allegations of which the court will take judicialnotice of to be not true, nor does the rule ofhypothetical admission apply to legally impossiblefacts, or to facts inadmissible in evidence, or to factsthat appear to be unfounded by record ordocument included in the pleadings.