The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a particular action is determined by the plaintiff’s

allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the
jurisdiction of courts. In this case, TRY Foundation is actually seeking to recover the possession and
ownership of the subject property from PWCTUI and not merely the cancellation of PWCTUI’s TCT. As
such, recovery of possession and ownership of the subject property cannot be settled by filing a mere
petition for cancellation of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. PHILIPPINE WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN
TEMPERANCE UNION, INC. vs. TEODORO R. YANGCO 2ND AND 3RD GENERATION HEIRS FOUNDATION,
INC. G.R. No. 199595, April 2, 2014, J. Reyes Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly
provided that the dismissal of the complaint due to failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his case is
"without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action." Since petitioner’s counterclaim is compulsory in nature and its cause of action survives
that of the dismissal of respondent’s complaint, then it should be resolved based on its own merits and
evidentiary support. AIDA PADILLA vs. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, FILMAL
REALTY CORPORATION, DELFIN S. LEE and DEXTER L. LEE G.R. No. 207376, August 6, 2014, J. Villarama,
Jr. Where the plaintiff does not prove her alleged tolerance of the defendant's occupation, the
possession is deemed illegal from the beginning. Hence, the action for unlawful detainer is an improper
remedy. But the action cannot be considered as one for forcible entry without any allegation in the
complaint that the entry of the defendant was by means of force, intimidation, threats, strategy or
stealth. FE U. QUIJANO vs. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE G.R. No. 164277, October 8, 2014, J. Bersamin In
an earlier ruling, the Court had stated that a pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the
rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of
law. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair, and reasonable, are mere
conclusions of law. Likewise, allegations that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or
against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidity, are mere conclusions of law. Hence,
when the petitioner merely stated a legal conclusion, he amended complaint presented no sufficient
allegation upon which the Court could grant the relief petitioner prayed for. ELIZA ZUNIGA-SANTOS,*
represented by her Attorney-in Fact, NYMPHA Z. SALES vs. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** and
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014, J. PERLAS-BERNABE