This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred.[20] Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.[21] | |||||
|
2010-11-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Bernardo, and the respondents took possession by strategy and stealth, without their knowledge and consent. In the absence of any allegation of a tenancy relationship between the parties, the action was for recovery of possession of real property that was within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.[42] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same. Otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendants.[30] | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is necessary that the following indispensable elements are established: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[18] It is not enough that these requisites are alleged; these requisites must be shown in order to divest the regular court of its jurisdiction in proceedings lawfully began before it.[19] | |||||
|
2005-11-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal is not affected by the defenses or theories set up by the defendant or respondent in his answer or motion to dismiss.[25] Jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status or the relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy.[26] If the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such dispute must be addressed and resolved by the DARAB.[27] The proceedings before a court or tribunal without jurisdiction, including its decision, are null and void, hence, susceptible to direct and collateral attacks.[28] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| An action for unlawful detainer is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, or Metropolitan Trial Court.[29] Under Section 3, Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, "except in cases covering agricultural tenancy laws or where the law otherwise expressly provides, all actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered shall be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure provided thereunder." An action not involving an agrarian dispute but only for recovery of possession of real property is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.[30] | |||||