This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-09-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In opposition to the CIR's motion to dismiss, AIA submitted the following evidence to prove the filing and the receipt of the protest letter dated August 29, 2004: (1) the protest letter dated August 29, 2004 with attached Registry Receipt No. 3824;[13] (2) a Certification dated November 15, 2005 issued by Wilfredo R. De Guzman, Postman III, of the Philippine Postal Corporation of Olongapo City, stating that Registered Letter No. 3824 dated August 30, 2004 , addressed to the CIR, was dispatched under Bill No. 45 Page 1 Line 11 on September 1, 2004 from Olongapo City to Quezon City;[14] (3) a Certification dated July 5, 2006 issued by Acting Postmaster, Josefina M. Hora, of the Philippine Postal Corporation-NCR, stating that Registered Letter No. 3824 was delivered to the BIR Records Section and was duly received by the authorized personnel on September 8, 2004;[15] and (4) a certified photocopy of the Receipt of Important Communication Delivered issued by the BIR Chief of Records Division, Felisa U. Arrojado, showing that Registered Letter No. 3824 was received by the BIR.[16] AIA also presented Josefina M. Hora and Felisa U. Arrojado as witnesses to testify on the due execution and the contents of the foregoing documents. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The rule is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.[59] Once vested by law, on a particular court or body, the jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature through the enactment of a law. | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
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] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The contention of petitioner has no merit. The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action was filed irrespective of whether he is entitled to all or only some of such relief.[37] As gleaned from the averments of the complaint, the action of respondents was one for quieting of title under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 476 of the New Civil Code. The latter provision reads: Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. | |||||
|
2005-10-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| [7] Barangay Piapi vs. Ignacio Talip, G.R. No. 138248, September 7, 2005 at 5, citing Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. vs. Dimaculangan, id. | |||||