This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A similar dearth of merit may be said of petitioners' contention that the CA erred in discounting the MTC's jurisdiction over the complaint instituted a quo. Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,[34] ejectment cases concededly fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts[35] by express provision of Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[36]Considering that the same is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,[37] the rule is equally settled that jurisdiction in ejectment cases cannot be made to depend upon the defences set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[38] | |||||
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,[19] there can be no gainsaying the fact that ejectment cases fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts[20] by express provision of Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[21] In addition to being conferred by law,[22] however, a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint[23] and the character of the relief sought,[24] irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.[25] In much the same way that it cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties,[26] jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.[27] | |||||