This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-07-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Apparently, the Makati RTC had the erroneous impression that the Manila RTC did not have jurisdiction over the complaint of petitioners because the property involved was situated within the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. Thereby, the Makati RTC confused venue of a real action with jurisdiction. Its confusion was puzzling, considering that it was well aware of the distinction between venue and jurisdiction, and certainly knew that venue in civil actions was not jurisdictional and might even be waived by the parties.[44] To be clear, venue related only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts.[45] In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the power to hear and determine a cause,[46] and is conferred by law and not by the parties.[47] | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It may also be pertinently stressed that "jurisdiction" is different from the "exercise of jurisdiction." Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where a court has jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and the subject matter, as in the case of the courts a quo, the decision on all questions arising therefrom is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment, which does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over the case.[70] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court.[47] As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.[48] It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.[49] This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.[50] | |||||
|
2006-12-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| [16] Platinum Tours and Travel, Inc. v. Panlilio, G.R. No. 133365, September 16, 2003, 411 SCRA 142, 146. | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Further, Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a judgment or final order or resolution in civil actions of the RTC may be annuled only on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the tribunal to hear, try and decide a case. Jurisdiction does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise by the Court of that power or on the correctness of its decision.[26] Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the action. Lack of jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction presupposes that the court should not have taken cognizance of the complaint because the law or the Constitution does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. | |||||