Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    B. 1. Mendoza V Germino

    Uploaded by

    michelle
    Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry in the MTC. When respondent raised the issue of tenancy in his answer, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the DARAB. The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not defenses raised in an answer. As the complaint was for forcible entry, the MTC retained jurisdiction to determine if it could decide the ejectment suit on its merits, rather than the DARAB. A defendant cannot affect jurisdiction through defenses or motions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    B. 1. Mendoza V Germino

    Uploaded by

    michelle
    24 views1 page
    Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry in the MTC. When respondent raised the issue of tenancy in his answer, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the DARAB. The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not defenses raised in an answer. As the complaint was for forcible entry, the MTC retained jurisdiction to determine if it could decide the ejectment suit on its merits, rather than the DARAB. A defendant cannot affect jurisdiction through defenses or motions.

    Original Title

    B. 1. Mendoza v Germino

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry in the MTC. When respondent raised the issue of tenancy in his answer, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the DARAB. The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not defenses raised in an answer. As the complaint was for forcible entry, the MTC retained jurisdiction to determine if it could decide the ejectment suit on its merits, rather than the DARAB. A defendant cannot affect jurisdiction through defenses or motions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    B. 1. Mendoza V Germino

    Uploaded by

    michelle
    Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry in the MTC. When respondent raised the issue of tenancy in his answer, petitioner filed a motion to remand the case to the DARAB. The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not defenses raised in an answer. As the complaint was for forcible entry, the MTC retained jurisdiction to determine if it could decide the ejectment suit on its merits, rather than the DARAB. A defendant cannot affect jurisdiction through defenses or motions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    JOSE MENDOZA -versus- NARCISO GERMINO and BENIGNO GERMINO,

    G.R. No. 165676, THIRD DIVISION, November 22, 2010, BRION, J


    FACTS:
    Petitioner and Aurora C. Mendoza (plaintiffs) filed a complaint with the MTC against
    respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry. After several postponements, the plaintiffs filed
    a motion to remand the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
    Board (DARAB), in view of the tenancy issue raised by respondent Narciso in his answer.
    ISSUE: Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case. (NO)
    RULING:
    It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the
    complaint. Based on the allegations and reliefs prayed, it is clear that the action in the MTC was
    for forcible entry. Although respondent Narciso averred tenancy as an affirmative and/or
    special defense in his answer, this did not automatically divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the
    complaint. It continued to have the authority to hear the case precisely to determine whether it
    had jurisdiction to dispose of the ejectment suit on its merits. After all, jurisdiction is not
    affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to
    dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of
    the defendant

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy