Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SERGIO BARBOSA v. PILAR HERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195477 2016-01-15	SPS. HERMINIO E. ERORITA AND EDITHA C. ERORITA v. SPS. LIGAYA DUMLAO AND ANTONIO DUMLAO BRION, J.
Citing Barbosa v. Hernandez,[4] the CA held that this case involves an action for possession of real property and not unlawful detainer.
	GR No. 199133 2014-09-29	ESPERANZA TUMPAG v. SAMUEL TUMPAG BRION, J.
Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction.[20] There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party's substantial right.[21] In Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, [22] we allowed the RTC to consider, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. In Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, et al., [23] we held that the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts.
	GR No. 160239 2009-11-25	ANGELINA SORIENTE v. ESTATE OF LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
To make out a case of unlawful detainer under Section 1,[27] Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the Complaint must allege that the defendant is unlawfully withholding from the plaintiff the possession of certain real property after the expiration or termination of the former's right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied, and that the action is being brought within one year from the time the defendant's possession became unlawful.[28]
	GR No. 172217 2009-09-18	SPS. LYDIA FLORES-CRUZ AND REYNALDO I. CRUZ v. SPS. LEONARDO AND ILUMINADA GOLI-CRUZ CORONA, J.
It is axiomatic that the nature of the action - on which depends the question of whether a suit is within the jurisdiction of the court - is determined solely by the allegations in the complaint[13] and the law at the time the action was commenced.[14] Only facts alleged in the complaint can be the basis for determining the nature of the action and the court's competence to take cognizance of it. [15] One cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to determine the nature of the action thereby initiated.[16]