This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[10] In this regard, the Court, in Russell v. Vestil,[11] wrote 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 jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim." But 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, hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation. These cases are cognizable exclusively by RTCs.[12] | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that where, as in the present case, the Court En Banc entertains a case for its resolution and disposition, it does so without implying that the Division of origin is incapable of rendering objective and fair justice. The action of the Court simply means that the nature of the cases calls for en banc attention and consideration. Neither can it be concluded that the Court has taken undue advantage of sheer voting strength. It was merely guided by the well-studied finding and sustainable opinion of the majority of its actual membership- that, indeed, subject cases are of sufficient importance meriting the action and decision of the whole Court. It is, of course, beyond cavil that all the members of this highest Court of the land are always embued with the noblest of intentions in interpreting and applying the germane provisions of law, jurisprudence, rules and Resolutions of the Court- to the end that public interest be duly safeguarded and rule of law be observed.[11] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A case for breach of contract is a cause of action either for specific performance or rescission of contracts.[13] An action for rescission of contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific performance, is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.[14] In the present case, the averments in the complaint show that Payoyo sought the cancellation of the contracts and refund of the downpayments since Villena failed to comply with the obligation to deliver the appliances and install the kitchen cabinets subject of the contracts. The court then must examine the facts and the applicable law to determine whether there is in fact substantial breach that would warrant rescission or cancellation of the contracts and entitle the respondent for a refund. While the respondent prayed for the refund, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the rescission or cancellation of the contracts. | |||||
|
2006-12-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Here, the primary reliefs prayed for by respondents in Civil Case No. MAN-4045 is the cancellation of the real estate and chattel mortgages for want of consideration. In Bumayog v. Tumas,[12] this Court ruled that where the issue involves the validity of a mortgage, the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation. In the more recent case of Russell v. Vestil,[13] this Court, citing Bumayog,[14] held that an action questioning the validity of a mortgage is one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Petitioner has not shown adequate reasons for this Court to revisit Bumayog and Russell. Hence, petitioner's contention can not be sustained. Since respondents paid the docket fees, as computed by the clerk of court, consequently, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. MAN-4045. | |||||