This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that the nature of the action as appearing from the averments in the complaint or other initiatory pleading determines the jurisdiction of a court; hence, such averments and the character of the relief sought are to be consulted.[23] The court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments of ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory pleading regardless of whether or not the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[24] The reliefs to which the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled based on the facts averred, although not the reliefs demanded, determine the nature of the action.[25] The defense contained in the answer of the defendant is generally not determinant.[26] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In any event, petitioner contends that even assuming arguendo that he is guilty of laches, the case had not prescribed, he citing Mariategui v. Court of Appeals[21] which held:x x x Corollarily, prescription does not run against private respondents with respect to the filing of the action for partition so long as the heirs for whose benefit prescription is invoked, have not expressly or impliedly repudiated the co-ownership. In other words, prescription of an action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co-owner. | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The marriage contract presented by the prosecution serves as positive evidence as to the existence of the marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes, which should be given greater credence than documents testifying merely as to absence of any record of the marriage, especially considering that there is absolutely no requirement in the law that a marriage contract needs to be submitted to the civil registrar as a condition precedent for the validity of a marriage. The mere fact that no record of a marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.[19] There is no evidence presented by the defense that would indicate that the marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes lacked any requisite for validity, apart from the self-serving testimony of the accused himself. Balanced against this testimony are Villareyes' letter, Ancajas' testimony that petitioner informed her of the existence of the valid first marriage, and petitioner's own conduct, which would all tend to indicate that the first marriage had all the requisites for validity. | |||||