Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MA. CARMEN L. JAVELLANA AND VICTOR JAVELLANA v. PRESIDING JUDGE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164789 2009-08-27	CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY v. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO AND PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO BRION, J.
Obviously, where it is not clear from the allegations in the complaint that the property involved is a subdivision lot, as in Javellana v. Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 30, Manila,[25] the case falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts and not the HLURB. Similarly, in Spouses Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals,[26] we held that the RTC had jurisdiction over a case where the conflict involved a subdivision lot buyer and a party who owned a number of subdivision lots but was not himself the subdivision developer.
	GR No. 169095 2008-12-08	HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO. v. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court agrees with petitioner that the main issue of the petition for certiorari filed before the CA undoubtedly involved a question of jurisdiction as to which between the RTC and the CIAC had authority to hear the case. Whether the subject matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial agency is a question of law.[40] Thus, given the circumstances present in the case at bar, the non-filing of a motion for reconsideration by petitioner to the CIAC Order should have been recognized as an exception to the rule.
	GR No. 180394 2008-09-29	MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION TINGA, J.
In Javellana v. Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 30, Manila,[22] the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint for accion publiciana and sum of money on the ground that the complaint did not allege that the subject lot was part of a subdivision project but that the sale was an ordinary sale on an installment basis. Even the mere assertion that the defendant is a subdivision developer or that the subject lot is a subdivision lot does not automatically vest jurisdiction on the HLURB. On its face, the complaint must sufficiently describe the lot as a subdivision lot and sold by the defendant in his capacity as a subdivision developer to fall within the purview of P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No. 1344 and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.[23]
	GR NO. 165973 2005-06-29	LACSON HERMANAS v. HEIRS OF CENON IGNACIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Although the invocation of this Court's jurisdiction is available to petitioner on the ground that this case raises a pure question of law, specifically, the issue of jurisdiction,[10] the proper recourse is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,[11] which should have been filed within 15 days from notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration[12] on October 22, 2004. Even if we treat the instant petition as an appeal under Rule 45, the same will not prosper having been filed only on November 30, 2004, way beyond the 15 day reglementary period.