Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. EUSEBIO ABRIN AND JULIANA ABRIN v. VICENTE R. CAMPOS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 198356 2015-04-20	SUPAPO v. SPS. ROBERTO AND SUSAN DE JESUS BRION, J.
Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,[37] the jurisdiction of the RTC over actions involving title to or possession of real property is plenary.[38]
	GR No. 161589 2014-11-24	PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION v. LEY CONSTRUCTION BERSAMIN, J.
The settled rule is that the nature of the action as appearing from the averments in the complaint or other initiatory pleading determines the jurisdiction of a court; hence, such averments and the character of the relief sought are to be consulted.[23] The court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments of ultimate facts in the complaint or other initiatory pleading regardless of whether or not the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[24] The reliefs to which the plaintiff or petitioner is entitled based on the facts averred, although not the reliefs demanded, determine the nature of the action.[25] The defense contained in the answer of the defendant is generally not determinant.[26]
	GR No. 172447 2009-09-18	IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. NATANAEL B. JUANE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court reiterated in Abrin v. Campos[4] that: Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the Court which has jurisdiction over the case, is the allegation made by the Plaintiff in his complaint (Ching v. Malaya, 153 SCRA 412; Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613; Republic v. Sebastian, 72 SCRA 227; Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456; Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303). To resolve the issue of jurisdiction, the Court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction vis-a-vis the averments of the complaint (Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation v. Judge Mendoza, 154 SCRA 548 [1987]). The defenses asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss are not to be considered in resolving the issue of jurisdiction, otherwise the question of jurisdiction could depend entirely upon the defendant (Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456 [1976]).
	GR No. 158121 2007-12-12	HEIRS OF CONCHA v. LUMOCSO PUNO, CJ.
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance[44] of or for cancellation of title[45] to or to quiet title[46] over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."