Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MARCIAL VARGAS and ELIZABETH VARGAS v. SPS. VISITACION and JOSE CAMINAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 186366 2013-07-03	HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO v. REYNALDO DE BELEN PEREZ, J.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings.[15] 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 evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss.[16] So that, whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.[17]
	GR No. 153690 2011-02-15	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM CARPIO MORALES, J.
The assailed August 4, 2009 Resolution cited Vargas v. Caminas[24] on the non-applicability of the Tijam doctrine where the issue of jurisdiction was, in fact, raised before the trial court rendered its decision. Thus the Resolution explained: Next, the Lu Ym father and sons filed a motion for the lifting of the receivership order, which the trial court had issued in the interim. David, et al., brought the matter up to the CA even before the trial court could resolve the motion. Thereafter, David, at al., filed their Motion to Admit Complaint to Conform to the Interim Rules Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies. It was at this point that the Lu Ym father and sons raised the question of the amount of filing fees paid. They also raised this point again in the CA when they appealed the trial court's decision in the case below.
	GR No. 183357 2010-03-15	HONORIO BERNARDO v. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO VILLEGAS PEREZ, J.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings.[18] 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 evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. [19] The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action.[20]
	GR No. 153690 2009-08-04	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM NACHURA, J.
Anent the issue of estoppel, we earlier ruled that the movants are barred from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court because of their participation in the proceedings therein. In passing upon this issue, we take heed from the pronouncement of this Court in the recent case Vargas v. Caminas:[16]
	GR No. 153690 2009-08-04	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM NACHURA, J.
x x x x[7]