Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DELTAVENTURES RESOURCES v. FERNANDO P. CABATO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 187872 2010-11-17	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
In addition to being conferred by law,[37] it bears emphasizing that the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the case is determined by the allegations in the complaint[38] and the character of the relief sought,[39] irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.[40] Moreover, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799,[41] otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A has been transferred to RTCs designated by this Court as SCCs[42] pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000. Thus, Section 1(a), Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies (Interim Rules) provides as follows: "SECTION 1. (a) Cases covered. -- These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in civil cases involving the following:
	GR No. 180542 2010-04-12	HUBERT NUÑEZ v. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS PEREZ, J.
Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,[19] there can be no gainsaying the fact that ejectment cases fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts[20] by express provision of Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[21] In addition to being conferred by law,[22] however, a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint[23] and the character of the relief sought,[24] irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.[25] In much the same way that it cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties,[26] jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.[27]
	GR No. 170977 2009-04-16	JOSE C. DEL VALLE v. FRANCIS B. DY QUISUMBING, J.
Jurisprudence abound confirming the rule that regular courts have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents arising therefrom, including the execution of decisions, awards or orders.[35] Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor official concerned under the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sanction split jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.[36]
	GR NO. 172813 2006-07-20	IVY JOAN P. REYES-TABUJARA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is clear from the foregoing that the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases. As the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by petitioner before the trial court, the latter has acquired jurisdiction over the petition to the exclusion of all others. To hold otherwise would be to risk instances where courts of concurrent jurisdiction might have conflicting orders.[35] And, jurisdiction once acquired by a court is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.[36]
	GR NO. 146987 2005-10-19	METRO PROPERTIES v. MAGALLANES VILLAGE ASSOCIATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.[5] In Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Cabato,[6] we held:"Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein " a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial."
	GR No. 132358 2002-04-12	MILA YAP SUMNDAD v. JOHN WILLIAM HARRIGAN QUISUMBING, J.
First. The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of the complaint.[27] Therefore, to resolve the issue raised to us, an interpretation and application of the law on jurisdiction, must be made vis-à-vis the averments of the petitioner's complaint.