This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein, the character of the relief prayed for, and the law existing at the time of the filing of the complaint or petition.[40] Jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status on the relationship between the parties, but also the nature of the issues or questions subject of the controversy. If the issue between the parties is intertwined with an issue the resolution of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, it must be resolved by the same body.[41] When the actual issues are evident from the records of the case, then jurisdiction over the subject matter need not depend upon the literal averments in the complaint, but on the law as applied to established facts.[42] As the Court held in Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corporation:[43] | |||||
|
2006-09-05 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| [29] Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 161973, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 726, 737-738, citing Oca v. Court of Appeals, 378 SCRA 642 (2002). | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Section 50 of Republic Act 6657[7] and Section 17 of Executive Order 229[8] vests in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform.[9] Through Executive Order 129-A,[10] the President of the Philippines created the DARAB and authorized it to assume the powers and functions of the DAR pertaining to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.[11] | |||||