This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At the outset, let us be clear that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time the action is commenced, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. It cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[24] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, a tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder.[22] There being supposedly a legal relationship, the intent of the parties and their agreement were important.[23] Petitioner's honest belief and impression that he was the tenant of the land did not necessarily make him one.[24] The actual meeting of the minds of the parties (i.e. the landowner and the tenant) to establish a landowner-tenant relationship for the purpose of agricultural production and with the objective to share harvests was necessary. | |||||
|
2008-07-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the Court of Appeals that estoppel in pais arose in this case. Generally, estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a person from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude, or action if it will result in injury to another.[24] One who, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, can no longer deny the existence of such fact as it will prejudice the latter.[25] | |||||