Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. JORGE J. HUGUETE AND YOLANDA B. HUGUETE v. SPS. TEOFEDO AMARILLO EMBUDO AND MARITES HUGUETE-EMBUDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 180321 2013-03-20	EDITHA PADLAN v. ELENITA DINGLASAN PERALTA, J.
To reiterate, where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.[23] Since the amount alleged in the Complaint by respondents for the disputed lot is only P4,000.00, the MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action. Therefore, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void.[24]
	GR NO. 163021 2007-04-27	PATRICIO A. VILLENA v. PATRICIO S. PAYOYO QUISUMBING, J.
In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends on the amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by the RTCs.[10]
	GR NO. 171277 2007-02-15	ALMARIO BEJAR v. MARICEL CALUAG SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We are guided by the elementary principle that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[7]
	GR NO. 138248 2005-09-07	BARANGAY PIAPI v. IGNACIO TALIP REPRESENTING HEIRS OF JUAN JAYAG
The contention is bereft of merit. This case is analogous to Huguete vs. Embudo.[6]There, petitioners argued that a complaint for annulment of a deed of sale and partition is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and thus falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. However, we ruled that "the nature of an action is not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs, like petitioners herein, is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof."
	GR NO. 136325 2005-08-29	MANUEL M. SERRANO v. EUGENIO C. DELICA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We agree with petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred in issuing such ruling. It should have considered the allegations of the complaint and the character of the reliefs sought, the criteria in determining the nature of an action.[7]
	GR No. 136325 2005-07-29	MANUEL M. SERRANO v. EUGENIO C. DELICA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We agree with petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred in issuing such ruling. It should have considered the allegations of the complaint and the character of the reliefs sought, the criteria in determining the nature of an action.[7]