This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Even prescinding from the fact that the parties had admitted the MeTC's jurisdiction,[31] our perusal of the record shows that respondent's 9 January 2004 amended complaint was able to make out a cause of action for forcible entry against petitioner. As the registered owner of the subject parcel, respondent distinctly alleged that, by its representatives and thru its predecessors-in-interest, it had been in possession of the subject parcel and had exercised over the same all attributes of ownership, including the payment of realty taxes and other expenses; that an ocular inspection conducted in October 2003 revealed that petitioner and his co-defendants have succeeded in occupying the property by means of stealth and strategy; and, that its subsequent demands to vacate had been unheeded by said interlopers.[32] Considering that the test for determining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff,[33] we find that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the MeTC had jurisdiction over the case. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There are two reasons why we could not subscribe to the petitioners' submission that their complaint was for unlawful detainer. Firstly, the petitioners' own averment in the complaint "that the defendant constructed a shanty in the lot of the plaintiffs without their consent,"[14] and the relief asked for by the petitioners that the respondent and his wife "pay the amount of P10,000 a month beginning January 2004 as for reasonable rent of the subject premises,"[15] clearly contradict their claim. It must be highlighted that as admitted by the petitioners in their motion for reconsideration[16] before the appellate court, and as evidenced by the TCT No. 262237 annexed to the complaint, the petitioners became owners of the property only on January 6, 2004. By averring that the respondent constructed his shanty on the lot without their consent and then praying that the MeTC direct the respondent to pay them rent from January 2004, or from the inception of the respondent's occupation of the lot, no other conclusion can be made except that the petitioners had always considered respondent's occupation of the same to be unlawful from the very beginning. Hence, the complaint can never support a case for unlawful detainer. "It is a settled rule that in order to justify an action for unlawful detainer, the owner's permission or tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession."[17] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| If only to stress the fundamental principles related to present controversy, jurisdiction over unlawful detainer suits is vested in municipal trial courts.[19] And in ejectment cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations of the complaint.[20] | |||||
|
2005-03-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we must point out that this appeal stemmed from ejectment suits wherein the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint[12] and the character of the relief sought.[13] In their complaint for unlawful detainer, petitioners alleged that the respondent unlawfully withheld possession of the land despite several demands on him to vacate the premises, and that these demands were made after the latter failed to pay the rent. Likewise, in their complaint for forcible entry, petitioners averred that respondent deprived them of physical possession of the land by means of stealth and strategy. Based on the averments in the complaint, the Municipal Trial Court indeed properly acquired jurisdiction over the cases below between herein petitioners and the respondent. | |||||