Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    Tacay Vs RTC of Tagum

    Uploaded by

    aish_08
    This case involves two separate lawsuits filed by Godofredo Pineda against three defendants, Antonia Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay, seeking recovery of possession of 790 square meters of land. The defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not specify damages amounts. The motions were denied but damages claims were removed. The defendants then filed a petition challenging jurisdiction, which the court denied, stating jurisdiction in recovery of possession cases depends on the nature of the action, not property value or accompanying damages claims.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tacay Vs RTC of Tagum

    Uploaded by

    aish_08
    118 views1 page
    This case involves two separate lawsuits filed by Godofredo Pineda against three defendants, Antonia Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay, seeking recovery of possession of 790 square meters of land. The defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not specify damages amounts. The motions were denied but damages claims were removed. The defendants then filed a petition challenging jurisdiction, which the court denied, stating jurisdiction in recovery of possession cases depends on the nature of the action, not property value or accompanying damages claims.

    Original Title

    Tacay vs RTC of Tagum

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two separate lawsuits filed by Godofredo Pineda against three defendants, Antonia Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay, seeking recovery of possession of 790 square meters of land. The defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not specify damages amounts. The motions were denied but damages claims were removed. The defendants then filed a petition challenging jurisdiction, which the court denied, stating jurisdiction in recovery of possession cases depends on the nature of the action, not property value or accompanying damages claims.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    118 views1 page

    Tacay Vs RTC of Tagum

    Uploaded by

    aish_08
    This case involves two separate lawsuits filed by Godofredo Pineda against three defendants, Antonia Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay, seeking recovery of possession of 790 square meters of land. The defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not specify damages amounts. The motions were denied but damages claims were removed. The defendants then filed a petition challenging jurisdiction, which the court denied, stating jurisdiction in recovery of possession cases depends on the nature of the action, not property value or accompanying damages claims.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tacay vs RTC of Tagum GR Nos.

    88075-77December 20, 1989 Facts: These were 2 separate cases originally filed by Godofredo Pineda at the RTC of Tagum for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) against 3 defendants, namely: Antonia Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay. Pineda was the owner of 790 sqm land evidenced by TCT No. T-46560. The previous owner of such land has allowed the 3 defendants to use or occupy the same by mere tolerance. Pineda, having himself the need to used the property, has demanded the defendants to vacate the property and pay reasonable rentals therefore, but such were refused. The complaint was challenged in the Motions to Dismiss filed by each defendant alleging that it did not specify the amounts of actual, nominal, and exemplary damages, nor the assessed value of the property, that being bars the determination o f t h e R T C s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n d e c i d i n g the case. The Motions to Dismiss were denied but the claims for damages in the complaint were expunged for failure to specify the amounts. Thus, the defendants filed a Joint Petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and temporary restraining order against the RTC. Issue: Whether or not the amount of damages claimed and the assessed value of the property are relevant in the determination of the courts jurisdiction in a case for recovery of possession of property? Decision: Determinative of the courts jurisd iction in a recovery of possession of property is the nature of the action (one of accion publiciana) and not the value of the property, it may be commenced and prosecuted without an accompanying claim for actual, nominal or exemplary damages and such action would fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. The court acquired jurisdiction upon the filing of the complaint and payment of the prescribed docket fees

    You might also like