Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARCIANA SERDONCILLO v. SPS. FIDEL AND EVELYN BENOLIRAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180765 2009-02-27	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MANUEL N. DOMINGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss; for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[9] Accordingly, the issues in the instant case can only be properly resolved by an examination and evaluation of respondent's allegations in his Complaint in Civil Case No. 06-0200-CFM.
	GR No. 174414 2008-03-14	ELMER F. GOMEZ v. MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.[24] The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[25] The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[26] Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[27]
	GR NO. 166975 2006-09-15	HEIRS OF BASILISA HERNANDEZ v. BERNARDO VERGARA GARCIA, J.
Moreover, the CA's citation of the case of Sedoncillo vs. Benolirao, [9] and its reliance on the ruling of Refugia vs. Court of Appeals,[10] are utterly misplaced.
	GR No. 94996 2001-01-26	ALEMAR’S v. CA PARDO, J.
It is a basic rule of procedure that "jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitle to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The jurisdiction of the court can not be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant."[8] "What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted."[9]