This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[31] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that a court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. 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] Indeed, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void.[21] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| While it is true that petitioner had been asking the rehabilitation and appellate courts that it be allowed to participate, contrary to respondents' contention, the same did not amount to estoppel that would bar it from questioning the rehabilitation court's jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the court's jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. 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.[39] In its Opposition to the petition for rehabilitation, petitioner already questioned the court's jurisdiction over UDI. On appeal to the CA, it again raised the same issue, but it failed to obtain a favorable decision. We cannot, therefore, say that petitioner slept on its rights. It is not estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue even at this stage. In any event, even if petitioner had not raised the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court would still not be precluded from ruling on the matter of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Nowhere in the petition is there a statement of the gross value of Moises's estate. Thus, from a reading of the original petition filed, it cannot be determined which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings.[18] The RTC therefore committed gross error when it had perfunctorily assumed jurisdiction despite the fact that the initiatory pleading filed before it did not call for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The RTC should have, at the outset, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Be it noted that the dismissal on the said ground may be ordered motu proprio by the courts.[19] Further, the CA, on appeal, should have dismissed the case on the same ground. Settled is the doctrine that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised by any of the parties or may be reckoned by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.[20] | |||||