Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    de Leon Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Melo Ponce de Leon
    The RTC had jurisdiction over the case filed by De Leon against Inayan. De Leon filed a complaint in RTC seeking termination of the civil law lease between her and Inayan due to Inayan's failure to pay rentals, recovery of possession of the land, recovery of unpaid rentals, and damages. The CA initially affirmed the RTC's decision but later set it aside, finding the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that based on the allegations in De Leon's complaint, the case was not one of unlawful detainer but involved issues beyond mere ejectment that the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    de Leon Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Melo Ponce de Leon
    19 views1 page
    The RTC had jurisdiction over the case filed by De Leon against Inayan. De Leon filed a complaint in RTC seeking termination of the civil law lease between her and Inayan due to Inayan's failure to pay rentals, recovery of possession of the land, recovery of unpaid rentals, and damages. The CA initially affirmed the RTC's decision but later set it aside, finding the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that based on the allegations in De Leon's complaint, the case was not one of unlawful detainer but involved issues beyond mere ejectment that the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Review I - Civil Procedures

    Original Title

    28. De Leon vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC had jurisdiction over the case filed by De Leon against Inayan. De Leon filed a complaint in RTC seeking termination of the civil law lease between her and Inayan due to Inayan's failure to pay rentals, recovery of possession of the land, recovery of unpaid rentals, and damages. The CA initially affirmed the RTC's decision but later set it aside, finding the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that based on the allegations in De Leon's complaint, the case was not one of unlawful detainer but involved issues beyond mere ejectment that the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    19 views1 page

    de Leon Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Melo Ponce de Leon
    The RTC had jurisdiction over the case filed by De Leon against Inayan. De Leon filed a complaint in RTC seeking termination of the civil law lease between her and Inayan due to Inayan's failure to pay rentals, recovery of possession of the land, recovery of unpaid rentals, and damages. The CA initially affirmed the RTC's decision but later set it aside, finding the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that based on the allegations in De Leon's complaint, the case was not one of unlawful detainer but involved issues beyond mere ejectment that the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    96107 June 19, 1995

    DE LEON

    vs.

    HON. COURT OF APPEALS

    (245 SCRA 166)Facts: Jesus Jalbuena entered into a verbal lease contract with Uldarico Inayan, for one
    yearrenewable for the same period. Inayan was allowed to continue with the lease from year to
    year.Corazon Jalbuena de Leon is the daughter of Jesus and the transferee of the subject property.
    Inayanceased paying the agreed rental and instead, asserted dominion over the land. When asked by
    De Leonto vacate the land, he refused to do so, prompting De Leon to file a complaint before the RTC
    for"Termination of Civil Law Lease; Recovery of Possession, Recovery of Unpaid Rentals andDamages.
    Inayan claimed tenancy dispute thus the lower court issued an order adopting the procedure in agrarian
    cases but still rendered decision Declaring the lease contract between plaintiffand defendant as a civil
    law lease, and that the same has already been terminated due to defendant'sfailure to pay his rentals
    from 1983 up to the present.On appeal to the CA, Inayan raised the sole issueof jurisdiction and alleged
    that the lower court, acting as Court of Agrarian Relations, had no jurisdiction over the action. The CA,
    at first affirmed the trial court's decision, but when an MR filed by Inayan it then set aside its earlier
    decision and dismissed the civil case for want of jurisdiction. Inits amended decision, the appellate court
    held that petitioner's complaint below was anchored on

    acción interdictal

    , a summary action for recovery of physical possession that should have been brought before the proper
    inferior court.Issue: Whether or not the RTC then acting as a court of agrarian relations employing
    agrarian procedure had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by De Leon?-Held: Yes. Jurisdiction of the
    court over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or bylaw. It is determinable on
    the basis of allegations in the complaint.In order to determine whether the court below had jurisdiction,
    it is necessary to first ascertainthe nature of the complaint filed before it. A study of the complaint
    instituted by petitioner in thelower court reveals that the case is, contrary to the findings of the
    respondent appellate court, not oneof unlawful detainer.

    Not being merely a case of ejectment, the regional trial court possessed jurisdiction to try and resolve
    the case

    Remedial Review 1 – Melody M. Ponce de Leon Page 1

    You might also like