Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180269 2013-02-20	JOSE Z. CASILANG v. ROSARIO Z. CASILANG-DIZON REYES, J.
Under Section 3 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the Summary Procedure governs the two forms of ejectment suit, the purpose being to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of the property. They are not processes to determine the actual title to an estate. If at all, inferior courts are empowered to rule on the question of ownership raised by the defendant in such suits, only to resolve the issue of possession and its determination on the ownership issue is not conclusive.[33] As thus provided in Section 16 of Rule 70: Sec. 16. Resolving defense of ownership. When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
	GR No. 171586 2009-07-15	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON BRION, J.
A basic jurisdictional rule, essentially based on fairness, is that a party cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief and, after failing to obtain the requested relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.[11] Moreover, a remand would be unnecessary, as we find the CBAA's and the CTA en banc's denial of NPC's claims entirely in accord with the law and with jurisprudence.
	GR NO. 172242 2007-08-14	PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. v. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It is determinable on the basis of allegations in the complaint.[23]
	GR NO. 165027 2006-10-16	PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the instant case, petitioner argues that since the filing of the criminal cases was anchored on the alleged conspiracy among accused public officials, including the corporate officers, regarding the anomalous and illegal transfer of four TCCs from Devmark to petitioner and the latter's subsequent use of three TCCs in paying their customs duties and taxes to the detriment of the government, the civil case regarding collection of unpaid customs duties and taxes was deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan, being the civil aspect of the criminal cases. To buttress its assertion, petitioner quoted the last paragraph of Section 4, Republic Act No. 8249, which states that: Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: x x x. It is a truism beyond doubt that the jurisdiction of the court over a subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law.[14] In addition, it is settled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[15]
	GR No. 152992 2005-07-28	LEONARDO DAVID v. NELSON TINGA, J.
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. Jurisdiction of the court, as well as the nature of the action, is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[36] An error in jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time on appeal.[37]