This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property, and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.[23] | |||||
|
2016-01-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| With the CTA being barren of jurisdiction to entertain MPC's petition, the Court finds it unnecessary, even inappropriate, to still discuss the main issue of MPC's entitlement to the disputed tax refund. The petition filed by MPC with the CTA instead warrants a dismissal. It is settled that "a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all."[38] | |||||