This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A similar dearth of merit may be said of petitioners' contention that the CA erred in discounting the MTC's jurisdiction over the complaint instituted a quo. Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,[34] ejectment cases concededly fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts[35] by express provision of Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[36]Considering that the same is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,[37] the rule is equally settled that jurisdiction in ejectment cases cannot be made to depend upon the defences set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.[38] | |||||
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,[19] there can be no gainsaying the fact that ejectment cases fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts[20] by express provision of Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[21] In addition to being conferred by law,[22] however, a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint[23] and the character of the relief sought,[24] irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.[25] In much the same way that it cannot be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties,[26] jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.[27] | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The strict adherence to the reglementary period prescribed by the RSP is due to the essence and purpose of these rules. The law looks with compassion upon a party who has been illegally dispossessed of his property. Due to the urgency presented by this situation, the RSP provides for an expeditious and inexpensive means of reinstating the rightful possessor to the enjoyment of the subject property.[43] This fulfills the need to resolve the ejectment case quickly. Thus, we cannot reward the petitioner's late filing of her position paper and the affidavits of her witnesses by admitting them now. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, petitioners in their defense should show that they are entitled to possess Lot 1227. If they had any evidence to prove their defenses, they should have presented it to the MCTC with their position papers and affidavits. But they ignored the court's order and missed the given opportunity to have their defenses heard, the very essence of due process.[29] Their allegations were not only unsubstantiated but were also disproved by the plaintiff's evidence. | |||||