Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin words: 1.) JURIS law; 2.)
DICO to speak, or to say. So, in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally
translated, it means, I speak by the law. It means that you are saying I speak
with authority because when you invoke the law, then your act is authorized.
So when you say, I speak by the law you mean I will do it in the name of the
law. It connotes authority or power.
Test of Jurisdiction
Since jurisdiction refers to power or authority to hear, try and decide a case, it
cannot depend on the correctness or rightfulness of the decision made.
(Century Insurance Co. v. Fuentes, 2 SCRA 1168 [1961])
Correctness or rightfulness of the decision relates to the exercise of and not to
the authority itself.
The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the
inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25
Phil. 245)
The only recourse for the court, absent jurisdiction, is to dismiss the case
motu proprio or on motion for without authority it cannot act.
The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered, is what makes up
jurisdiction. It does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power
or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over
the person and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in the
case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)
JBD 8
EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused, Ken Sur,
files a motion to quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder.
But the court denied the motion to quash. Meaning, the judge has decided to
assume jurisdiction. What is the error committed?
When the court without authority assumes authority over the case that is
called ERROR OF JURISDICTION the court committed an error of jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court
has jurisdiction. But in the course of the trial, it committed mistakes like the court
misinterpreted or misapplied the provision of the RPC or the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. What error is committed?
Obviously the RTC has the authority to hear and decide the case and therefore
acted with authority or jurisdiction. There is no error of jurisdiction.
2.) When the court acts without authority (error of jurisdiction) such act would
be null and void or at least voidable, but if the court has authority but
commits a mistake in the exercise of such authority (error of judgment)
such mistake will bind unless corrected
JBD 9
3.) .ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by the extraordinary writ of
certiorari; whereas, ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.
They are distinguished thus: the respondent court or tribunal acts without
jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case; where the
respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its
authority as determined by law, it is performing a function in excess of its
jurisdiction (Vette Industrial Sales Company Inc. vs. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532).
EXAMPLE:
The RTC of Cebu City is composed of several branches 22 all in all. But
technically, there is only one court the RTC of Cebu City.
Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can that case later be
transferred and continued in Branch 9?
A: YES, because you never left the same court. You are still in the same court.
This is because jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is with the court itself.
But there is only one branch of RTC-Bogo, can RTC-Cebu City take jurisdiction
over its cases?
No because they are different courts and jurisdiction is attached to the court.
JBD 10
TYPES OF JURISDICTION:
Types of jurisdiction:
1.) Based on cases tried: General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited
Jurisdiction;
2.) Based on the nature of the cause: Original Jurisdiction and Appellate
Jurisdiction; and
3.) Based on the nature and extent of exercise: Exclusive Jurisdiction and
Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction;
4.) Based on situs; Territorial jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Example:
In criminal cases, the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses where the penalty
imposable does not exceed 6 years while beyond 6 years they are triable before
the RTC.
If you examine the jurisdiction of the MTC, it has a limit but none for the RTC.
Exclusionary Principle
The court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes all others.
JBD 12
Examples: Writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are
enforceable only within the region where the issuing court is
located; while a writ of execution can be enforced even outside said
territory.
In your study of criminal procedure where you also studied the law on
jurisdiction, we studied the authority of the court over the cases as determined
by the imposable penalty; its authority to bind the accused and the prosecution;
its authority to grant the relief which is either acquittal or conviction and over
the place where the offense charged is alleged to have been committed.
In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the action. In criminal
cases you have light, less grave and grave offenses. In civil cases we have such
actions as actions for sum of money, actions not capable of pecuniary estimation,
real and personal actions, action in rem, action in personam etc. This is what we
call the NATURE or classification OF THE ACTION.
When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto are to be
immediately resolved by the court on its own are:
a.)What is the nature of the action filed?
b.) Does the court have authority to try and determine that class of actions to
which the one before it belongs?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not to be confused with the term
subject matter of the action.
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the proper ground for a motion
to dismiss. This is broad enough to include the nature of the action. The term
should not be confused with the terms subject or subject matter of the action
which refer to the physical facts, the things real or personal, the money, lands
or chattels and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted and not the
delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
So if you talk about declaration of nullity of marriage the subject matter of the
action is the marriage of the parties involved not any other contract but the
nature of the action is that it is not capable of pecuniary estimation; if it is for
foreclosure of mortgage, the thing or subject of the action is the property
mortgaged, in specific performance or rescission of contract, it is the contract
involved that is the subject matter of the action.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action acquired?
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, which may be
either the Constitution or a statute(Tysons Super Concrete, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 461 SCRA 435; de la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103; Guy vs. CA, December
10, 2007), and is never acquired by consent or submission of the parties or by
their laches. This is a matter of legislative enactment which none but the
JBD 14
legislature can change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar vs. Vinson, L-
18023, May 30, 1962) It cannot be acquired by an agreement of the parties,
waiver, or failure to object (silence).
The law that confers jurisdiction refers to substantive law, not a procedural
law. It likewise does not refer to an administrative order or circular (Malaloan vs.
CA, 232 SCRA 249).
Q: Suppose I will file a case against you in a wrong court. Actually what you
should do is file a motion to dismiss (or in criminal cases a motion to quash.) but
you did not. Since you did not object, you did not file a motion to dismiss, you
did not file a motion to quash, did the wrong court acquire jurisdiction over the
case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by silence of
the parties or by waiver. Estoppel or waiver or silence or failure to object cannot
vest jurisdiction in the wrong court because jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law. And when the court has no jurisdiction, the court by itself or
motu propio has the power to dismiss.
It does not depend upon the pleas or defenses of the defendant in his answer
or motion to dismiss. (Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J.
Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965; Serrano vs. Muoz Motors, L-
25547, Nov. 27, 1967)
JBD 15
Examples:
A case of Serious Physical Injuries was alleged in the information filed with
the CFI which was then vested with jurisdiction over this type of cases, even if
the medical certificate attached to the records shows that the injuries are only
slight which falls under the jurisdiction of the municipal court. The CFI may
convict for slight physical injuries. Jurisdiction was determined from the
allegations in the information. (People v. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218[1978])
In a civil case for collection of sum of money where the complaint alleges that
the totality of the demand is P350,000.00, the case is properly filed with the RTC
even if the defendant is able to prove that it is only P50,000.00 for jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint not the
defense or evidence presented.
The general rule is not applied with rigidity in ejectment cases in which the
defendant averred the defense of the existence of tenancy relationship
between the parties.
In Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan (42 SCRA 89), it was held, that while the
allegations in the complaint make out a case of forcible entry, where tenancy is
averred by way of defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the case should properly be filed with the
then Court of Agrarian Reform (now DARAB) (De la Cruz vs. CA 510 SCRA 103)
In Ignacio and other ejectment cases (Salandanan vs. Tizon 62 SCRA 388;
Concepcion vs. CFI of Bulacan 119 SCRA 222), where tenancy was the defense,
the court went beyond the allegations of the complaint in determining
jurisdiction over the subject matter and required the presentation of evidence
to prove or disprove the defense of tenancy. After finding the real issue to be
tenancy, the cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In Salmorin vs. Zaldivar, GR No. 169691, July 23, 2008, the plaintiff entered into
an agreement with the defendant designating him as administrator of a lot with a
monthly salary of P150. The defendant allegedly did not comply with the terms
of the agreement when he failed to till the vacant areas as agreed. This compelled
the plaintiff to terminate his services and eject him from the lot. When the
defendant refused to vacate the property, the plaintiff filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against him in the MCTC.
The Court ruled that from its material allegations, the complaint concerned the
unlawful detainer by the defendant of the subject lot, a matter which is properly
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
All these requisites are necessary to create tenancy relationship, and the
absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto
tenant. All these elements must concur. It is not enough that they are alleged.
The statement that jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law is not accurate because
only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law. Jurisdiction
over the parties, issues and res is governed by procedural laws.
JBD 17
No Retroactive Effect of Law on Jurisdiction
The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it
finally disposes of the case (De La Rosa vs. Roldan, 501 SCRA 34).
Thus, when RA No. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first level courts, said
courts acquired jurisdiction over cases that under BP 129 were originally within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. But cases pending already with the RTC at the time
of the effectivity of the law were not affected by such new law unless the parties
by agreement, pursuant to Sec. 7 therein, agreed to transfer the pending cases
from the RTC to the lower courts especially those which have reached the pre-
trial stage.
If the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the time it was filed, that
jurisdiction to resolve the motion continues until the matter is resolved and is not
lost by the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal. (Asmala vs. Comelec, 289
SCRA 746)
JBD 18
The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case involving a public official
by the mere fact that said official ceased to be in office during the pendency of
the case (Flores vs. Sumaljag, 290 SCRA 568). Also, the jurisdiction that the court
had at the time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent judge ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case (Victory
Liner vs. Bellosillo, 425 SCRA 79).
Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of
jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses if the power to amend, modify
or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court
retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, 301
SCRA 96; Republic vs. Atlas Farms, 345 SCRA 296).
Read also Atlas Fertilizer vs. Hon. Exaltacion Navarro, 149 SCRA 432)
Under this doctrine, courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question
which is within its jurisdiction and also of an administrative tribunal,
especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
JBD 19
discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in
determining technical and intricate matters of fact. (Villaflor vs. CA, GR No.
95694, Oct. 8, 1997).
Where a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical
matters or intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must be obtained in
an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the
claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have
been placed within the special competence of an administrative body, in such
case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view. (US v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 US
59; Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 184 SCRA 426)
Example: Damages is claimed arising from the collision between the claimant's
vessel and that of another. Such claim can of course be determined by the courts.
But in order to enforce such claim before the courts, there must be a
determination of which vessel is at fault. This is issue is placed within the special
special competence of the Maritime Industry Authority or Philippine Coast
Guard which administrative body regulates sea travel. Under this situation
courts should defer to the jurisdiction of such administrative body for it has the
competence to determine which vessel is at fault. Its finding then can serve as
basis or premise for the legal consequences to be then defined by the court.
In Far East Conference v. US 342 US 570 (1952) the Court defined the primary
jurisdiction doctrine as:
A principle, now firmly established, that in cases raising issues of fact not within
the conventional expertise of judges or cases requiring the exercise of
administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject
matter should not be passed over. This is even though the facts after they have
been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal
consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the
regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the
limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by
preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances
underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by
specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible
procedure.
JBD 20
Since the inception of the doctrine courts have resisted creating any fixed rules
or formulas for its application, in every case the question is whether the
reasons for the existence of the doctrine are present and whether the
purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular
litigation. As the origin and evolution of the primary jurisdiction doctrine
demonstrate, the reasons for the existence and the purposes it serves are
two-fold: the desire for the uniformity and the reliance on administrative
expertise. Thus, in determining whether to apply the primary jurisdiction
doctrine, we must examine whether doing so would serve either of these
purposes.
These same tests were applied by our courts in the determination of whether or
not to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Spouses Jose Abejo and Aurora
Abejo, et a., v. Hon. Rafael de la Cruz, etc. et al., 149 SCRA 654, citing Pambujan
Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., In., 94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954])
In Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 the Court said that enforcement of forestry laws,
rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest
lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. By the
very nature of the functions, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed
by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its
jurisdiction. The assumption therefore of the replevin suit by the trial court
filed by the private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into
the domain of the administrative agencys prerogative.
Quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better equipped in handling cases
involving the employment status of employees of those in the civil service
since it is within the field of its expertise. (Paloma v. Mora GR No. 157783,
Sept. 23, 2005)
Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine all questions relative to
the matters brought before it, regulate the manner in which a trial shall be
conducted, determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may be
heard, direct the disposition of money deposited incourt in the course of the
proceedings, appoint a receiver an grant an injunction, attachment or
garnishment.
General rule:
JBD 21
No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of
another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much
less declare as unjust a judgment of another court. (Industrial Enterprises, Inc.
vs. CA GR No. 88550, April 18, 1990)
Exception:
The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where a third party claimant is
involved. (Santos vs. Bayhon, GR No. 88643, July 23, 1991).
The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may
ex mero motu take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case
and has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction (Fabian vs.
Desierto, 295 SCRA 470). When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,the court shall
dismiss the same (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court)
Under the Omnibus Motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to
dismiss, shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8 Rule 15). The defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not barred by the
failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion
to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party
may, when he files an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative
defense because this defense is not barred under the omnibus motion rule
Thus, the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
(Calimlim vs. Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399; Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip 469
SCRA 424).
The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
on appeal. In fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by
the parties. There is thus no reason to preclude the Court of Appeals, for
example, from ruling on this issue even if the same has not yet been resolved
by the trial court below (Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. vs. GR No.
163445, Dec. 18, 2007).
Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may
dismiss a claim or a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the
JBD 22
evidence on record that any of those ground exists, even if they were not raised
in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. That the issue of lack of jurisdiction was
raised only by the defendants in their memorandum filed before the trial court
did not render them in estoppel (Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR
No. 174346 Sept. 12, 2008).
When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, should it refer or forward the case to another court with the proper
jurisdiction? It is submitted that the court should not do so. Its only authority is
to dismiss the complaint and not to make any other order.
Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by which you have misled
another while laches means abandonment of a right for failure to assert it for a
long time.
Gen. Rule: You can raise your objection on jurisdiction over the subject matter
even for the first time on appeal.
In this case, a complaint for collection cognizable by the inferior court was
filed in the CFI. The jurisdiction was not questioned. The CFI issued a writ of
preliminary attachment but was dissolved when the defendant filed a
counterbond thru a surety. After trial, the court rendered a judgment against the
defendants. That decision became final and a motion for execution was filed and
granted. When implemented, the writ of execution was unsatisfied so the
plaintiff moved that the writ be executed against the counterbond. The surety
filed an opposition and sought to be relieved from liability. The motion was
denied on ground that the surety was not notified. Plaintiff then filed a second
motion for execution against the counterbond notifying the surety this time.
Since the surety failed to oppose the motion was granted. The surety moved to
quash the writ against the counterbond but was denied. The surety went to the
Court of Appeals which affirmed the order. The surety filed a motion for
extension of time to file a motion to for reconsideration which the CA granted.
However, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration the surety filed this time
a motion to dismiss on ground that the CFI did not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Instead of deciding the CA certified the case to the Supreme
Court because the issue raised is purely legal.
The Court emphatically declared: The facts of the case show that from the
time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the
question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take
cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which,
JBD 23
according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction
of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings,
in the court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts
to obtain affirmative reliefs and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the
merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it
finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such
conduct on its part we would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings
had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the
judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and
unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.
In other words, while jurisdiction as a rule, may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings (Panganiban vs. CA, 321SCRA 51, 59 [1999]), a party may be
stopped from raising such questions if he has actively taken part in the very
proceedings which he questions, belatedly objecting to the courts jurisdiction in
the event that the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.
(Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, 350 SCRA 113, 120 [2001]).
The fact pattern common among those cases wherein the Court invoked
estoppel to prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction is a partys active
participation in all stages of a case, including invoking the authority of the
court in seeking affirmative relief and questioning the courts jurisdiction only
after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case for the purpose of
annulling everything done in the trial in which he has actively participated. As
clearly pointed out in Lao vs. Republic 479 SCRA 439: A party who has
invoked the jurisdiction of the court over a particular matter to secure
affirmative relief cannot be permitted to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction
to escape liability.
The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting ones
case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.
ALS Management and Development Corporation, 427 SCRA 564).
In Tijam, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a
motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost fifteen (15) years after the
questioned ruling had been rendered. At several stages of the proceedings, in the
court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety invoked the jurisdiction
of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for final
adjudication on the merits. It was only when the adverse decision was rendered
by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of
jurisdiction (Regalado vs. Go, GR No. 167988, February6, 2007)
Inspite of Tijam and subsequent cases which invoked it, the rule that the lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, still remains the prevailing rule and Tijam should
be confined only to situations prevailing in a particular case viewed in the light
of the special circumstances surrounding it.
Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; (2) by service of the warrant of arrest; or (3) by
his voluntary surrender.
JBD 25
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person?
In civil cases, it is also a must that the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the parties. The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over
the parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.
As to Plaintiff
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by his/her filing of the
complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits himself/herself to the
jurisdiction of the court. (Davao Light & Power Co. Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343,
348 [1991])
Example:
As to Defendant
The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant
applies to both ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful
detainer cases (Bar 1994).
The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is through a service upon him of the appropriate court process which
in civil law is called service of summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of
arrest in criminal procedure.
So if the defendant was never served with summons, any judgment rendered
by the court will not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the case, judgment
cannot be enforced because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.
The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A court cannot try and
convict an accused over whose person the court never acquired jurisdiction. In
criminal cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person through the
issuance and service of a warrant of arrest. The warrant cannot have its effect
even if it was issued, if the same had not been served, i.e. by effecting the arrest
of the accused by virtue of a warrant.
Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused even if the
accused is not arrested is through VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no
more need for the warrant, the court will recall the same.
JBD 27
In civil cases, it is the voluntary submission of the defendant to the
jurisdiction of the court.
This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter wherein the case could be
dismissed upon filing in the wrong court. The SC said that when you remained
silent despite the defects, your silence has cured the defect. Meaning, the
jurisdiction over your person was acquired by waiver, or consent, or lack of
objection.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be cured by
waiver, consent, silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over the
subject matter cannot be cured by failure to object or by silence, waiver or
consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
JBD 28
6.) when the defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the
courts jurisdiction over his person (Navale v. CA, 253 SCRA 705, 709,
710, 709-712 [1996])
If a motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection to the lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant must be pleaded in the same motion where
such ground is available at the time the motion is filed, otherwise it is deemed
waived pursuant to the omnibus motion rule. The defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not one of those defenses
which are not deemed waived if not raised in the motion to dismiss. Only lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata and
prescription are not waived (Sec. 1 Rule 9 in relation to Sec. 8 Rule 15).
Effect of pleading additional defenses aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant
Under the former procedure, if the defendant raises the objection of lack of
jurisdiction over his person in a motion to dismiss, the motion must rely only on
that particular ground. If the defendant appears in court, objects to its
jurisdiction over his person and at the same time alleges other grounds, the
appearance would be deemed a general appearance which was in effect a
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Republic vs. Kerr 18 SCRA
207; WANG Laboratories VS. Mendoza 156 SCRA 44).
The above rule was re-examined in La Naval Drug Corporation vs. CA 236
SCRA 78). The pronouncements in said case are now embodied in Sec. 20 of
Rule 14 which provides: ****The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall
not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
RES is the Latin word for thing. It is applied to an object, subject matter
(not nature of the action), status, considered as the defendant in the action or
as the object against which, directly, proceedings are taken. (Blacks 5 th Ed.,
1172)
JBD 29
A: Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority of the court over the
thing or property under litigation. (Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186, 190 [1939])
It is the power to bind the thing.
How is it acquired?
It is acquired either by the (a) the seizure of the property under legal
process whereby it is brought into actual or constructive custody of the court
or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective. (Macahilig vs. Heirs of Grace M.
Magalit, GR No. 141423, Nov. 15, 2000)
JBD 30
In Land Registration cases or probate proceedings, jurisdiction is acquired
by compliance with procedural requisites, such as publication.
In a petition for change of name, the title of the petition must be complete
by including the name sought to be adopted; otherwise, the court acquires no
jurisdiction over the proceedings. (Telmo vs. Republic, 73 SCRA 29 (1976).
Meaning of Issue
In order to determine whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the issue or
issues of the case, one must examine the pleadings.
JBD 31
turn file an answer to the counterclaim where he will state his defense/s as
regards the claim contained in the counterclaim.
Based on their allegations and counter-allegations the court will know what
issues are to be resolved.
So, if X says that Y borrowed money, and never paid him, while Y, in
answer states that he did borrow but already paid it, what issue is being
presented to be resolved by the court?
Q: Let us suppose that after the trial, the court said in its decision that the
obligation has been extinguished by condonation. Will that bind?
A:No, because the parties did not raise condonation as the issue. So the court
decided that issue over which it never acquired jurisdiction.
In other words, the court should only rule on what the parties raised in their
pleadings. That is what we call jurisdiction over the issue.
Jurisdiction over the issue is, therefore, conferred and determined by the
pleadings of the parties.
Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by the pleadings and by the express
(stipulation) or implied (failure to object to evidence) consent of the parties
because an issue not duly pleaded may be validly tried and decided by the court
as long as there is no objection from the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred by law and cannot be subject to the agreement of the parties.
(Vda de Victoria v. CA, GR No. 147550, Jan. 26, 2005)
JBD 32
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and try a
particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to resolve legal
questions involved in the case;
2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon filing of the
complaint, while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired upon filing of the
answer which joins the issues involved in the case.
Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is acquired after
defendant has filed an answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues is
acquired when the accused enters a plea of not guilty or pleads guilty but seeks
to prove a mitigating circumstance.
For a decision to be effective, the court must acquire the jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the person, the res in case the defendant is not around, and the
last is jurisdiction over the issue.
JBD 33