This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint. It cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant. Neither can it be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties. The test for determining the sufficiency of those allegations is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff.[12] | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A similar dearth of merit may be said of petitioners' contention that the CA erred in discounting the MTC's jurisdiction over the complaint instituted a quo. Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,[34] ejectment cases concededly fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts[35] by express provision of Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[36]Considering that the same is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,[37] the rule is equally settled that jurisdiction in ejectment cases cannot be made to depend upon the defences set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[38] | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioners' contention, the issue in this case is not the ownership of the lots. It should be stressed that the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine the nature of the action and the court with jurisdiction over it.[13] The defenses set up in an answer are not determinative of jurisdiction.[14] The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties.[15] Thus:In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties. However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. We stress, however, that this adjudication is only an initial determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto. The lower court's adjudication of ownership in the ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of ownership x x x.[16] | |||||