Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTORINO QUINAGORAN v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 161589 2014-11-24	PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION v. LEY CONSTRUCTION BERSAMIN, J.
As can be seen, the amendments have made the assessed value of the property whose possession or ownership is in issue, or the assessed value of the adjacent lots if the disputed land is not declared for taxation purposes determinative of jurisdiction. The allegation of the assessed value of the realty must be found in the complaint, if the action (other than forcible entry or unlawful detainer) involves title to or possession of the realty, including quieting of title of the realty. If the assessed value is not found in the complaint, the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court is not thereby afforded the means of determining from the allegations of the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court. Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the realty.[22]
	GR No. 180321 2013-03-20	EDITHA PADLAN v. ELENITA DINGLASAN PERALTA, J.
In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.[21] In the case at bar, the only basis of valuation of the subject property is the value alleged in the complaint that the lot was sold by Lorna to petitioner in the amount of P4,000.00. No tax declaration was even presented that would show the valuation of the subject property. In fact, in one of the hearings, respondents' counsel informed the court that they will present the tax declaration of the property in the next hearing since they have not yet obtained a copy from the Provincial Assessor's Office.[22] However, they did not present such copy.
	GR No. 183357 2010-03-15	HONORIO BERNARDO v. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO VILLEGAS PEREZ, J.
As already shown, nowhere in the complaint was the assessed value of the subject property ever mentioned. There is no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC has jurisdiction exclusive of the MTC. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot readily be determined which of the two trial courts had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.[17]
	GR No. 172217 2009-09-18	SPS. LYDIA FLORES-CRUZ AND REYNALDO I. CRUZ v. SPS. LEONARDO AND ILUMINADA GOLI-CRUZ CORONA, J.
There is another reason why petitioners' complaint was not a proper action for recovery of possession cognizable by the RTC. It is no longer true that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lie with the RTC regardless of the value of the property.[21]
	GR No. 180730 2008-12-11	CARLOS GONZALEZ v. JUDGE MERCEDES POSADA LACAP NACHURA, J.
It is axiomatic that the nature of the action, the jurisdiction of the court, and the law to govern the case are determined by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayers for relief, not by the defenses raised in the answer or motion to dismiss, and irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.[18]