Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 198745 2016-01-13	BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK v. SUNNYSIDE HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REYES, J.
Under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 648, which reorganized the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission in 1981, the regulatory and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, later renamed as HLURB under E.O. No. 90.[30] In the cases reaching this Court, the consistent ruling has been that the HLLJRB has jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer, or those aimed at compelling the developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations.[31]
	GR No. 171855 2012-10-15	FE V. RAPSING v. JUDGE MAXIMINO R. ABLES PERALTA, J.
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[14] As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.[15]
	GR No. 192828 2011-11-28	RAMON S. CHING v. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ REYES, J.
In Marjorie Cadimas v. Marites Carrion and Gemma Hugo,[37] the Court declared: It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.
	GR No. 164789 2009-08-27	CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY v. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO AND PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO BRION, J.
Thus, in the cases of Fajardo Jr. v. Freedom to Build, Inc.,[22] and Cadimas v. Carrion,[23] we upheld the RTC's jurisdiction even if the subject matter was a subdivision lot since it was the subdivision developer who filed the action against the buyer for violation of the contract to sell.