This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-09-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined not by the pleas set up by the defendant in his answer[85] but by the allegations in the complaint,[86] irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to favorable judgment on the basis of his assertions.[87] The reason is that the complaint is supposed to contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.[88] | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Unhappy with the delays in the resolution of their case, Zorayda and Adib moved to submit the case for decision[23], reasoning that Estrellita had long been delaying the case. Estrellita opposed, on the ground that she has not yet filed her answer as she still awaits the outcome of GR. No. 126603.[24] | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In her appeal,[31] Estrellita argued that she was denied her right to be heard as a the RTC rendered its judgment even without waiting for the finality of the Decision of the Supreme Court in GR. No. 126603. She claimed that the RTC should have required her to file her answer after the denial of her motion to dismiss. She maintained that Sen. Tamano is capacitated to marry her as his marriage and subsequent divorce with Zorayda is governed by the Muslim Code. Lastly, she highlighted Zorayda's lack of legal standing to question the validity of her marriage to the deceased. | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In its September 13, 2005 Resolution,[33] the CA denied Estrellita's Motion for Reconsideration/Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration where it debunked the additional errors she raised. The CA noted that the allegation of lack of they public prosecutor's report on the existence of collusion in violation of both Rule 9, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court[34] and Article 48 of the Family Code[35] will not invalidate the trial court's judgment as the proceedings between the parties had been adversarial, negating the existence of collusion. Assuming that the issues have not been joined before the RTC, the same is attributable to Estrellita's refusal to file an answer. Lastly, the CA disregarded Estrellita's allegation that the trial court erroneously rendered its judgment way prior to our remand to the RTC of the records of the case ratiocinating that GR. No. 126603 pertains to the issue on the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, and not to the issue of the validity of Estrellita's marriage to Sen. Tamano. | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Reiterating her arguments before the court a quo, Estrellita now argues that the CA erred in upholding the RTC judgment as the latter was prematurely issued, depriving her of the opportunity to file an answer and to present her evidence to dispute the allegations against the validity of her marriage. She claims that Judge Macias v. Macias[36] laid down the rule that the filing of a motion to dismiss instead of an answer suspends the period to file an answer and, consequently, the trial court is obliged to suspend proceedings while her motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction has not yet been resolved with finality. She maintains that she merely participated in the RTC hearings because of the trial court's assurance that the proceedings will be without prejudice to whatever action the High Court will take on her petition questioning the RTC's jurisdiction and yet, the RTC violated this commitment as it rendered an adverse judgment on August 18, 1998, months before the records of GR. No. 126603 were remanded to the CA on November 11, 1998.[37] She also questions the lack of a report of the public prosecutor anent a finding of whether there was collusion, this being a prerequisite before further proceeding could be held when a party has failed to file an answer in a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage. | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano's prior marriage to Zorayda has been severed by way of divorce under PD 1083,[52] the law that codified Muslim personal laws. However, PD 1083 cannot benefit Estrellita. Firstly, Article 13(1) thereof provides that the law applies to "marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines." But we already ruled in GR. No. 126603 that "Article 13 of PD 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites."[53] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, the jurisdiction of the court below cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint.[36] Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[37] In the instant case, private respondents' petition[38] in Civil Case No. 102-97 sufficiently alleged the concurrent original jurisdiction of the SDC. | |||||