Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ROBERTO J. CUENCA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 203969 2015-10-21	ERNESTO OPPEN v. ALBERTO COMPAS MENDOZA, J.
It is basic in law that the jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law.[24] The jurisdiction of regional trial courts in land registration cases is conferred by Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529. It expressly provides:Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The material allegations in the Complaint or Petition and the character of the relief sought determine which court has jurisdiction.[80] In private respondents' 44 paragraphs in their Petition for declaratory relief filed before the Regional Trial Court, they alleged:8. On 17 September 2013, without waiting for [Executive Order] No. 140's effectivity on 2 October 2013, the [Bureau of Customs] issued [Customs Personnel Order] No. B-189-2013, signed by [Bureau of Customs] Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon and approved by [Department of Finance] Secretary, Cesar V. Purisima on even date. [Customs Personnel Order] No. B-189-2013 states:
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The material allegations in the Complaint or Petition and the character of the relief sought determine which court has jurisdiction.[80] In private respondents' 44 paragraphs in their Petition for declaratory relief filed before the Regional Trial Court, they alleged:8. On 17 September 2013, without waiting for [Executive Order] No. 140's effectivity on 2 October 2013, the [Bureau of Customs] issued [Customs Personnel Order] No. B-189-2013, signed by [Bureau of Customs] Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon and approved by [Department of Finance] Secretary, Cesar V. Purisima on even date. [Customs Personnel Order] No. B-189-2013 states:
	GR No. 176487 2009-08-25	REPUBLIC v. FAR EAST ENTERPRISES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case before us, the lands in question had long been (almost 20 years) reclassified as residential before the instant case was filed. All those years, no one questioned the ordinance reclassifying the lands. If petitioner would like to have the reclassification of the lands involved changed to agricultural, the just and reasonable way of doing it is to go to the municipal council -- not the courts - that enacted the ordinance and to ask that the lands be reclassified again as agricultural. Technical matters such as zoning classifications and building certifications should be primarily resolved first by the administrative agency whose expertise relates therein.[62] The jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in character."[63] In this manner, we give the respect due to these agencies (the municipal council and the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission [now HLURB]), which unquestionably have primary jurisdiction to rule on matters of classification of lands.
	GR NO. 164934 2007-08-14	HEIRS OF FLORENCIO ADOLFO v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL QUISUMBING, J.
On the issue of jurisdiction, basic is the rule that it is conferred by law and determined by the material averments in the complaint as well as the character of the relief sought.[23] Defenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded, otherwise the question of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant.[24]
	GR NO. 166833 2006-11-30	FELIXBERTO CUBERO v. LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In denying the petition in Islanders, this Court held that while the relationship between the parties was not one of tenancy or agricultural leasehold, the controversy nonetheless fell within the sphere of agrarian disputes, citing, among other authorities, Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca,[25] which held:All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters.[26]