This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thus, because this issue has already been settled, we are certainly not bound to litigate the same anew as petitioners would have us do. If at all, we must only emphasize that even with the confirmation of respondent's retention rights over Lot No. 38, petitioners' leasehold rights to the land have not been extinguished. In other words, while indeed petitioners are deemed owners of Lot Nos. 37 and 39 by operation of P.D. No. 27, the placing of Lot No. 38 under respondent's retention limits have made them lessees only on Lot No. 38. Their status as such is protected by Section 7[42] of R.A. 3844, which afford them security in their tenurial rights. Sarne v. Maquiling,[43]citing Hidalgo v. Hidalgo,[44] Endaya v. Court of Appeals[45] and Bernardo v. Court of Appeals,[46] is instructive on this point, to wit: x x x [T]he Land Reform Code forges by operation of law, between the landowner and the farmer -- be a leasehold tenant or temporarily a share tenant -- a vinculum juris with certain vital consequences, such as security of tenure of the tenant and the tenant's right to continue in possession of the land he works despite the expiration of the contract or the sale or transfer of the land to third persons, and now, more basically, the farmer's pre-emptive right to buy the land he cultivates under section 11 of the Code, as well as the right to redeem the land, if sold to a third person without his knowledge, under section 12 of this Code. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| This argument is likewise bereft of merit. Indeed, as aptly pointed out by respondents and as borne out by the antecedent facts, respondent Ilao, Jr. could not have acted otherwise. It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint.[40] The nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,[41] not by the defenses asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss.[42] Given that respondent Salenga's complaint and its attachment clearly spells out the jurisdictional allegations that he is an agricultural tenant in possession of the fishpond and is about to be ejected from it, clearly, respondent Ilao, Jr. could not be faulted in assuming jurisdiction as said allegations characterize an agricultural dispute. Besides, whatever defense asserted in an answer or motion to dismiss is not to be considered in resolving the issue on jurisdiction as it cannot be made dependent upon the allegations of the defendant. | |||||
|
2002-09-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| cause of action, there being a pending case before the Makati Court and an appeal from the dismissal by the Biñan Court (Branch 24) of Civil Case No. B-2828.[4] Petitioners elevated their case to the Court of Appeals[5] when their motion for reconsideration was denied by the Biñan Assisting Court on January 26, 1994.[6] On March 23, 1995, the Clerk of Court of the Biñan Assisting Court transmitted to the appellate court the records of the case together with indices of exhibits and minutes and transcript of stenographic notes.[7] It was noted in the transmittal (Index of | |||||
|
2002-09-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| who were actively pursuing the completion and reconstitution of the missing exhibits. When respondents filed their motions/manifestations requesting for a conference so that their copies of the missing exhibits may be identified, petitioners, who were duly notified,[24] did not even lift a finger to acknowledge or respond to the motions/manifestations, and instead, relegated unto respondents the duty that was theirs. Petitioners did not even comply with the appellate court's Resolution requiring them to comment on respondents' manifestation regarding the TSNs taken by stenographer R. Nemes.[25] Clearly, such gross inaction by petitioners to take appropriate steps with reasonable diligence to ensure that the missing exhibits were reproduced and seasonably transmitted to the appellate court warrants dismissal of their appeal. We cannot accept petitioners' lame excuse that they had difficulty in getting copies of the missing exhibits. Such excuse would have been plausible had respondents been unable to get copies of the missing exhibits. Records show that respondents' counsel was able to get copies | |||||
|
2002-09-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| from their client as well as from the Makati Court where Civil Case No. 88-321 is pending.[26] Had petitioners been zealous and diligent enough, they would have likewise thought of getting such copies from respondents' sources. Moreover, petitioners could have earlier manifested during the completion of the records that the missing exhibits may be dispensed with. But they did not. Instead, they bided their time, unreasonably wasting the court's time and resources, not to mention the efforts exerted | |||||