This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is significant to point out, at this juncture, the well-entrenched doctrine that the jurisdiction of a tribunal over the subject matter of an action is conferred by law.[17] Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action.[18] The Family Courts Act of 1997, which took effect on November 23, 1997.[19] Section 5 (a) of R.A. 8369 clearly provides that Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. In the present case, there is no dispute that at the time of the commission of the alleged offense on June 2, 2001, private respondent, who is also the private complainant, was a minor. Hence, the case falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts. | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Apart from the doctrine that the jurisdiction of a tribunal over the subject matter of an action is conferred by law, it is also the rule that the court's exercise of jurisdiction is determined by the material allegations of the complaint or information and the law applicable at the time the action was commenced. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, by acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. Thus, the jurisdiction of a court over the nature of the action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.[32] | |||||