ZAMORA vs.

CA 183 SCRA 279 FACTS: This case involves a conflict of jurisdiction between the RTC and SEC. The petitioners claim they are suing members of an unregistered association, so under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Private respondents disagree, insisting that they are being sued in an intra-corporate dispute. ISSUE: Whether or not the SEC has jurisdiction over the case. RULING: Yes. It is a rule that jurisdiction over subject matter cannot be changed by agreement of the parties. It follows that as a rule the filing of a complaint with one court which has no jurisdiction over it does not prevent the plaintiff from filing the same complaint later with the competent court. The mere fact that the petitioners first filed their complaint with the SEC did not have the effect of precluding them from filing the same complaint with the CFI if this was the court that was vested with appropriate jurisdiction. MERCADO vs. UBAY GR No. 35830, July 24, 1990 FACTS: Petitioners filed an action for partition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) against Samonte siblings. The defendants filed their answer. CFI rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. Since no appeal was made by any of the defendants, the decision became final and executor. Before the writ of execution could be carried out, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to

annul the writ of execution. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not a court has the authority to annul a final and executory judgment rendered by another branch of the same court. RULING: No. Fundamental principles dictates that the better policy, as a matter of comity or courteous interaction between courts of first instance and branches thereof, the annulment of cases to be tried by the same court or branch which heard the main action sought to be annulled, pursuant to judicial stability, the doctrine of noninterference should be regarded as highly important in the administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. SERDONCILLO vs. BENOLIRAO GR No. 118328, October 8, 1998 FACTS: URTC instituted an action against petitioner for recovery of possession of the subject premises before the RTC, but was dismissed. Petitioner instituted a civil case for the Exercise of Preferential Rights of First Refusal against UCRTC and private respondents. However, the case was dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the CA, but the same it was dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC and CA committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case as an ejectment case. RULING:

No. The jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria. The averments in plaintiffs complain present jurisdictional facts which do not illustrate plaintiffs action as either an action publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria but that of ejectment. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint. CITIBANK N.A. vs. CA GR No. 108961, November 27, 1998 FACTS: Respondent Citibank Guards filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a request for preventive mediation. Petitioner Citibank notify the guards that it will not renew the service agreement. The guards conduct a strike for the mass dismissal of said guards. Petitioner filed with the RTC a complaint for injunction and damages. ISSUE: Whether or not it is the labor tribunal or the RTC that has jurisdiction over the subject matter. RULING: The subject matter of the complaint lies with the RTC. On the basis of the allegations of the complaint, it involved a civil action and not a labor dispute.

It is the basis rule of procedure that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. ISIDRO vs. CA GR No. 105586, December 15, 1993 FACTS: A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner before the MTC. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the land is agricultural land, thus the courts of agrarian relations has the jurisdiction. The RTC, on appeal dismissed the case in toto. ISSUE: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. RULING: Yes. The subject land which used to be an idle, swampy land was converted by the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land. However, the mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso fact make the possessor an agricultural lessee of tenant. There is no tenancy or agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the petitioner and the private respondent. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he was paying rent for the use of the land. In the absence of a tenancy, relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the MTC.