This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-02-27 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all of such reliefs.[8] It is also settled that jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy.[9] Thus, 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.[10] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein, the character of the relief prayed for, and the law existing at the time of the filing of the complaint or petition.[40] Jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status on the relationship between the parties, but also the nature of the issues or questions subject of the controversy. If the issue between the parties is intertwined with an issue the resolution of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, it must be resolved by the same body.[41] When the actual issues are evident from the records of the case, then jurisdiction over the subject matter need not depend upon the literal averments in the complaint, but on the law as applied to established facts.[42] As the Court held in Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corporation:[43] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Again, in Monsanto v. Serna,[11] we ruled that the DARAB exercises primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determinate and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, controversies, matters or incidents involving the implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6657 defines an "agrarian dispute" as follows:(f) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2005-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the Acting PNP Chief and the NAB were bereft of jurisdiction to rule on the complaint filed by Catolico, petitioner, at the earliest opportunity, neither raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the PNP Inspectorate Division nor with the NAB but only before the appellate court.[43] Despite the existence of a jurisprudential rule[44] that jurisdictional question may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, an equitable exceptional rule has also been laid down by this Court bars a party from raising jurisdictional question on ground of laches or estoppel.[45] Although the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the action, a party may be estopped from raising such questions if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions, belatedly objecting to the court's jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.[46] | |||||
|
2003-09-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| (6) The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. [12] | |||||
|
2003-07-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Private respondents questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate and prosecute their cases by filing their Motion to Dismiss as soon as they learned of the pronouncement of the Court in Migrino. This case was decided on 30 August 1990, which explains why private respondents only filed their Motion to Dismiss on 8 October 1990. Nevertheless, we have held that the parties may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.[30] Thus, we hold that there was no waiver of jurisdiction in this case. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the parties to an action.[31] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Monsanto v. Zerna,[12] it was held that for DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. | |||||