Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDITHA PADLAN v. ELENITA DINGLASAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181284 2015-10-20	LOLOY UNDURAN v. RAMON ABERASTURI PERALTA, J.
In resolving the pivotal issue of which between the RTC and the NCIP has jurisdiction over the respondents' amended complaint, foremost in the Court's mind is the principle in "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 plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein."[15]
	GR No. 210055 2015-06-22	ESTATE OF LATE JUAN B. GUTIERREZ v. HEIRS OF SPOUSE JOSE PERALTA, J.
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. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, regardless of whether or not he is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[6] Here, the action which the Spouses Cabangon filed was one for specific performance, well within the jurisdiction of the Cotabato RTC.
	GR No. 190901 2014-11-12	AMADA COTONER-ZACARIAS v. SPS. ALFREDO REVILLA AND HEIRS OF PAZ REVILLA LEONEN, J.
In Padlan v. Dinglasan,[60] this court reiterated that "[w]hat determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint [and] [t]he averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted."[61]
	GR No. 173386 2014-02-11	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. TRINIDAD VALLEY REALTY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint.[35] Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character.[36] The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[37]