Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OSCAR C. REYES v. RTC OF MAKATI

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 181416 2013-11-11	MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. ROBERT H. CULLEN PERALTA, J.
In determining whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy, the Court uses two tests, namely, the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test.[21]
	GR No. 171855 2012-10-15	FE V. RAPSING v. JUDGE MAXIMINO R. ABLES PERALTA, J.
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[14] As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.[15]
	GR No. 175301 2012-08-15	EDITO GULFO v. JOSE P. ANCHETA BRION, J.
Under the controversy test, the dispute must be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, and must refer to the enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code, as well as the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation,[25] in order to be an intra-corporate dispute. These are essentially determined through the allegations in the complaint which determine the nature of the action.
	GR No. 168757 2011-01-19	RENATO REAL v. SANGU PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
And, while Tabang was promulgated later than Mainland Construction Co., Inc., the "better policy" enunciated in the latter appears to have developed into a standard approach in classifying what constitutes an intra-corporate controversy. This is explained lengthily in Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br. 142,[21] to wit: Intra-Corporate Controversy
	GR No. 187872 2010-11-17	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
However, the unqualified application of the relationship test has been modified on the ground that the same effectively divests regular courts of jurisdiction over cases for the sole reason that the suit is between the corporation and/or its corporators. It was held that the better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.[33] Under the nature of the controversy test, the dispute must not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must also refer to the enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code as well as the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation.[34] The combined application of the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test has, consequently, become the norm in determining whether a case is an intra-corporate controversy or is purely civil in character.
	GR No. 185226 2010-02-11	CORAZON M. GREGORIO v. ATTY. JOSE R. MADARANG CARPIO MORALES, J.
The facts obtaining in the present case, however, do not call for the probate court to make a provisional determination of ownership of Lot 829-B-4-B. It bears stress that the question is one of collation or advancement by the decedent to an heir over which the question of title and ownership can be passed upon by a probate court.[13]