This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction over the subject matter is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong."[36] This power is conferred by law,[37] which may either be the Constitution or a statute. Since subject matter jurisdiction is a matter of law, parties cannot choose, consent to, or agree as to what court or tribunal should decide their disputes.[38] If a court hears, tries, and decides an action in which it has no jurisdiction, all its proceedings, including the judgment rendered, are void.[39] | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| After this court had rendered the decision in Tijam, this court observed that the "non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction"[69] has been ignored, and the Tijam doctrine has become more the general rule than the exception. In Calimlim v. Ramirez,[70] this court said: A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy]. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. x x x.[71] | |||||