This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-02-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Clearly then, the allegations in the petition, which axiomatically determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of a particular tribunal,[16] squarely qualify it as a "dispute(s) or controversy(s) over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs" within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the allegations in the complaint, not the defenses set up in the Answer or in the Motion to Dismiss, determine which court has jurisdiction over an action; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant.[18] Moreover, it is well-settled that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it remains with it until the full termination of the case.[19] The said principle may be applied even to quasi-judicial bodies. | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands,[32] petitioner cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party to the marriage celebration which he now insists took place without the requisite marriage license. Petitioner admitted that the civil marriage took place because he "initiated it."[33] Petitioner is an educated person. He is a mechanical engineer by profession. He knowingly and voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his action and be allowed to extricate himself from the marriage bond at his mere say-so when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle. We cannot countenance such effrontery. His attempt to make a mockery of the institution of marriage betrays his bad faith.[34] | |||||