This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It can be clearly gleaned from the above provisions that in cases of petitions for the suspension of payments, the SEC has jurisdiction over corporations, partnerships and associations, which are grantees of primary franchise or license or permit issued by the government to operate in the Philippines, and their properties. And it is indubitably clear from the aforequoted Sec. 5(d) that only corporations, partnerships and associations--NOT private individuals--can file with the SEC, petitions for declaration in a state of suspension of payments. Thus, it logically follows that the SEC does not have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for suspension of payments filed by parties other than corporations, partnerships or associations. Indeed, settled is the rule that it is axiomatic that jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause, which is conferred by law and not by the policy of any court or agency.[38] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Keeping these factors in mind, the courts have to give much consideration to the fact that actions for ejectment are designed to summarily restore physical possession to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession.[21] It is primarily a quieting process intended to provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to possession without involvement of the title.[22] In Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. Booc,[23] the Court elucidated the purpose of actions for ejectment in this wise:Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a "time procedure" designed to remedy the situation. Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided.[24] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||