This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, petitions for cancellation of issued CLOAs are considered agrarian reform disputes,[78] since they relate to terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian reform beneficiaries, the exclusive original jurisdiction over which is vested with the DARAB.[79] DAR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994, provides that the land with issued CLOAs found to be exempt from CARP coverage may be cancelled only upon the application of the landowner with the DARAB. | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[15] Respondents' complaint did not contain any allegation that would, even in the slightest, imply that there was a tenancy relation between them and the petitioners. We are in full agreement with the following findings of the CA on this point: x x x A reading of the material averments of the complaint reveals that the principal relief sought by plaintiffs-appellants is for the nullification of the supposedly forged deed of sale which resulted in the issuance of TCT No. NT-188664 covering their 8-hectare property as well as its reconveyance, and not for the cancellation of CLOAs as claimed by defendants-appellees. Moreover, the parties herein have no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws. Neither were the CLOA awardees impleaded as parties in this case nor the latter's entitlement thereto questioned. Hence, contrary to the findings of the RTC, the herein dispute is purely civil and not agrarian in nature falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial courts. | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.[59] In Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,[60] we held:We decline to rule on the issue of constitutionality as all the requisites for the exercise of judicial review are not present herein. Specifically, the question of constitutionality will not be passed upon by the Court unless, at the first opportunity, it is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case, adequately argued, and is necessary to a determination of the case, particularly where the issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota presented. x x x[61] Finally, we find that the dismissal of the petition for contempt filed by ABS-CBN is in order. | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Citing our ruling in David v. Rivera[9] and Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,[10] the RTC opined that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the controversy had the character of an "agrarian dispute." The trial court did not find it necessary to rule on the respondents' Demurrer to Evidence and, in fact, no mention of it was made in the assailed Order of May 18, 2007. Hence, this petition raising the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 30, SURIGAO CITY HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CHARGE FOR ESTAFA EVEN IF IT INVOLVES AGRICULTURAL TENANTS OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT; [AND] | |||||
|
2007-02-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The alleged constitutional question raised by respondent, meanwhile, need not detain this Court any longer considering that it is not central to the resolution of the main issue. Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable to settle the controversy.[22] | |||||