Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. FEDERICO ATUEL AND SARAH ATUEL AND SPS. GEORGE GALDIANO AND ELIADA GALDIANO v. SPS. BERNABE VALDEZ AND CONCHITA VALDEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 155179 2007-08-24	VICTORINO QUINAGORAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Atuel v. Valdez[28] the Court likewise expressly stated that:Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property." However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property.[29]
	GR No. 161973 2005-11-11	FRANCISCO RAMOS v. STATELAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner's reliance on the respondent's Urgent Motion dated September 23, 1997 in DARAB Case No. 4471 is misplaced. The Court rejects the petitioner's contention that, by filing such motion praying for his eviction from the house, the respondent thereby vested jurisdiction in the DARAB to resolve the issue of whether he had the right to maintain possession of the house. In Atuel v. Valdez,[36] the Court ruled that jurisdiction over the subject matter and the nature of an action may not be conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the party, where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction. It must also be stressed that the active participation of the parties in the proceedings in the DARAB does not automatically vest jurisdiction of the case in the said body, as jurisdiction is conferred only by law. Except in some instances, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to the court or tribunal that has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action.
	GR NO. 166664 2005-10-20	DOMINGO C. SUAREZ v. LEO B. SAUL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Though the parties do not challenge DARAB's jurisdiction, the Court may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The Court has discretion to determine whether DARAB validly acquired jurisdiction over the case since jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law.[32] Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Neither would the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to confer jurisdiction on the DARAB where the latter has none over a cause of action.[33]
	GR NO. 128392 2005-04-29	CESAR MATEO v. CA AZCUNA, J.
1) That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. These requisites for the jurisdiction of DARAB have been reiterated by the Court in a number of cases.[9]
	GR No. 151298 2004-11-17	SPS. MINIANO AND LETA DELA CRUZ v. CA AND SPS. ARCHIMEDES AND MARLYN AGUILA QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, the rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court or agency is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It cannot be made to depend on the defenses made by the defendant in his Answer or Motion to Dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[27] The complaint rests its cause of action on the failure of the respondents to pay the stipulated installments in the contract of the parties. As relief, the complaint sought the cancellation of the contract and the payment of interest, penalties and deficient installments. Clearly, the complaint is well within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
	GR No. 145255 2004-03-30	REPUBLIC v. EDMUNDO L. TAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
That private respondent did not file a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the subject matter, he having instead filed a motion for exclusion as party defendant, is of no moment. Jurisdiction of courts over the subject matter is conferred exclusively by the Constitution and by law.[34] It is determined by the allegations of the complaint and cannot be made to depend on the defenses of private respondent.[35] The Sandiganbayan's lack of jurisdiction over the complaint could not be waived by private respondent or cured by his silence, acquiescence or even express consent.[36]