This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner filed a Petition for Review[14] before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 110427. Petitioner later filed an Amended Petition for Review, with Supplement.[15] She claimed that the RTC erred in affirming the MTCC; that the MTCC and RTC erred in not passing upon the issue of validity of the deeds of sale executed by Atilano in favor of respondent and declaring that said issue should be resolved in Civil Case No. 4162 for declaration of nullity of said deeds of sale, recovery of titles, and accounting before the Palawan RTC Branch 52; that it was necessary to pass upon the validity of the deeds of sale even if the same is the main point of contention in Civil Case No. 4162, because the question of possession in the ejectment case cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership;[16] that while respondent claimed that the subject lots were sold to him, title to the same remains in the name of Atilano even up to this day; and that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over the case. | |||||
|
2007-09-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint. The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define or describe. The designation or caption is not controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint, for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint.[8] In Caniza v. Court of Appeals,[9] we held that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. | |||||
|
2003-07-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Cañiza v. Court of Appeals,[12] it was held that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Moreover, in Singsong v. Isabela Sawmill,[13] we ruled that:In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether the jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts). The reliance of the petitioners on the case of Russell v. Vestil[14] is misplaced. In the said case, petitioners sought the annulment of the document entitled, "Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Confirmation of Previous Oral Partition," whereby respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the late Spouses Casimero and Cesaria Tautho to the exclusion of petitioners. Petitioners brought the action in order for them to be recognized as heirs in the partition of the property of the deceased. It was held that the action to annul the said deed was incapable of pecuniary estimation and the consequent annulment of title and partition of the property was merely incidental to the main action. Indeed, it was also ruled in said case: | |||||