This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioners' contention, the principal relief sought by petitioners is the nullification of the subject Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale entered into by and between some of their co-heirs and respondents, insofar as their individual shares in the subject property are concerned. Thus, the recovery of their undivided shares or interest over the disputed lot, which were included in the sale, simply becomes a necessary consequence if the above deed is nullified. Hence, since the principal action sought in respondents' Complaint is something other than the recovery of a sum of money, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, thus, cognizable by the RTC.[20] Well entrenched is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the party is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.[21] | |||||
|
2013-10-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The prematurity in filing, unlike the late filing, of the judicial claim cannot serve to deprive the CTA of its jurisdiction as it is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of courts is determined by law.[27] The discretion is, therefore, with the CTA to dismiss without prejudice, upon proper motion, a judicial claim prematurely filed by a taxpayer. This Court cannot, contrary to RA 1125 which vested upon the CTA its jurisdiction, declare the immediate deprivation of such jurisdiction to consider and evaluate the legitimacy of a taxpayer's claim on the feeble ground that the taxpayer has failed to patiently await the lapse of the period given to the CIR to act. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that the evidence relative to the possession upon which the alleged prescription is based, must be clear, complete and conclusive in order to establish the prescription.[25] In the present case, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA in holding that petitioners failed to present competent evidence to prove their alleged good faith in neither possessing the subject lot nor their adverse claim thereon. Instead, the records would show that petitioners' possession was by mere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors-in-interest. | |||||