Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDDIE HERRERA v. TEODORA BOLLOS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 170916 2007-04-27	CGR CORPORATION HEREIN v. ERNESTO L. TREYES CARPIO MORALES, J.
The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases thus refer to "rents" or "the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises" or "fair rental value of the property" and attorney's fees and costs.[13]
	GR NO. 169793 2006-09-15	VICTORIANO M. ENCARNACION v. NIEVES AMIGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Well settled is the rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[15] On its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.[16]
	GR No. 143976 2003-04-03	SPS. OSCAR AND HAYDEE BADILLO v. ARTURO G. TAYAG AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC PANGANIBAN, J.
In Herrera v. Bollos,[44] the trial court awarded rent to the defendants in a forcible entry case. Reversing the RTC, this Court declared that the reasonable amount of rent could be determined not by mere judicial notice, but by supporting evidence:"x x x. A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy. The court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Before taking such judicial notice, the court must 'allow the parties to be heard thereon.' Hence, there can be no judicial notice on the rental value of the premises in question without supporting evidence.[45] In the instant cases, the RTC has already declared that there is no evidence on record to support the MTC's award of rent. We find no cogent reason to disturb this pronouncement.
	GR No. 148303 2002-10-17	UNION OF NESTLE WORKERS CAGAYAN DE ORO FACTORY v. NESTLE PHILIPPINES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
the RTC has jurisdiction. Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[4] The pertinent allegations of petitioners' amended complaint read: