This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is a basic rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. [42] The BCDA's complaints did not contain any allegation that would, even in the slightest, imply that the issue to be resolved in this case involved an agrarian dispute. In the action filed by the BCDA, the issue to be resolved was who between the BCDA and the private respondents and their purported predecessors-in-interest, have a valid title over the subject properties in light of the relevant facts and applicable laws. The case thus involves a controversy relating to the ownership of the subject properties, which is beyond the scope of the phrase "agrarian dispute."[43] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The absence of republication of the notice of auction sale is a factual matter which by the weight of judicial precedents cannot be inquired into by this Court in a petition for certiorari. It is best addressed to the attention of the trial court and taken up in the trial of the case, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The propriety of the auction sale is a matter which the trial court is in the best position to determine. For it is basic that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[40] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction.[41] It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction,[42] not to be used for any other purpose,[43] such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact.[44] Again suffice it to say that the only issue settled here is the propriety of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction pending the final outcome of the case. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In their answer with counterclaim, the defendants alleged, by way of special and affirmative defenses, that the complaint was but a reiteration of Civil Case No. 22276, which had been dismissed by the court for failure to state a cause of action, and which order of dismissal became final[6] following the plaintiffs' failure to make a timely appeal. Moreover, the present case was almost identical to Civil Case No. 22276; as such, the finding of failure to state a cause of action in Civil Case No. 22276 was, likewise, applicable, and was thus a bar to the same case on the ground of res judicata. Finally, the complaint, likewise, failed to state a cause of action for the declaration of the nullity of the deed of sale and reconveyance of the property subject matter thereof. | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| To be sure, certiorari under Rule 65[56] is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop.[57] It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction.[58] It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction,[59] not to be used for any other purpose,[60] such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact.[61] A contrary rule would lead to confusion, and seriously hamper the administration of justice. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. In the instant case, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano are not and do not claim to be the owners of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot where their houses are constructed. They also do not claim ownership to any other portion of the PD 27 Land. They and the Spouses Valdez have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that will bring this controversy within Section 3(d) of RA No. 6657.[31] The instant case is similar to Chico v. CA,[32] where this Court ruled that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over a case which did not involve any tenurial or agrarian relations between the parties. Since the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, it should not have taken cognizance of the Spouses Valdez's complaint for recovery of possession. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.[33] Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property."[34] 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.[35] Moreover, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. | |||||
|
2002-10-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal.[9] For certiorari to prosper, it is not enough that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as alleged by petitioners. The requirement that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law must likewise be satisfied.[10] We must stress that the remedy of appeal was then available to petitioners, but they did not resort to it. And while this Court in exceptional instances allowed a party's availment of certiorari instead of appeal, we find that no such exception exists here. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 28, 2000 and its Resolution dated April 19, 2001 in CA GR-SP No. 56656 are AFFIRMED. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| allegations therein that determine the nature of the action.[26] The appellate court was not precluded from granting relief as warranted by PLDT's allegations in the petition and the evidence it had presented to support the petition. A perusal of the petition before the CA discloses the following: First, under the heading "Nature of the Action", the PLDT averred it was "a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated December 1, 1997 and Order dated July 10, 1998 of | |||||