This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case.[32] In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.[33] It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.[34] Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.[35] | |||||
|
2014-09-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Besides, it cannot be said that the issuance and implementation by the individual respondents of the writ of execution pending appeal is a contemptible disregard of the CA's jurisdiction over CA-G.R. CV No. 86451. Apparently, the trial court had the authority to grant execution pending appeal on February 1, 2006 and issue the writ on February 15, 2006. The record of Civil Case No. 69213 was transmitted to the CA only on February 27, 2006. Prior to the transmittal of the original record, the trial court may order execution pending appeal.[21] "The 'residual jurisdiction' of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal."[22] | |||||
|
2010-12-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the Court herein already declared that the RTC not only lacked the jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary injunction against MERALCO, but that the RTC actually had no jurisdiction at all over the subject matter of the Petition of BF Homes and PWCC in Civil Case No. 03-0151. Therefore, in addition to the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC, the Court also deems it appropriate to already order the dismissal of the Petition of BF Homes and PWCC in Civil Case No. 03-0151 for lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the same. Although only the matter of the writ of preliminary injunction was brought before this Court in the instant Petition, the Court is already taking cognizance of the issue on the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the Petition. The Court may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The Court has discretion to determine whether the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 03-0151 since, to reiterate, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Neither would the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to confer jurisdiction on the RTC where the latter has none over a cause of action.[29] Indeed, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.[30] | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the appellate court may motu proprio dismiss an action for having prescribed, even if the case has been elevated for review on different grounds, where prescription clearly appears from the complaint filed with the trial court.[12] | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Katon v. Palanca, Jr.,[18] we held that where prescription, lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a cause of action clearly appears from the complaint filed with the trial court, the action may be dismissed motu proprio, even if the case has been elevated for review on different grounds. However, while the case should indeed be dismissed insofar as Atty. Luna is concerned, the same is not necessarily true with respect to Monzon. Other than respondents' prayer that the amount due to respondents be delivered by Atty. Luna to them, they also pray for a judgment declaring Monzon liable for such amounts. Said prayer, as argued by Monzon herself, may constitute a cause of action for collection of sum of money against Monzon. | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Before We begin to consider the issues hoisted by petitioner, the Court takes cognizance of a pivotal question of jurisdiction. We resolve this issue motu proprio, even if it was not raised by the parties nor threshed out in their pleadings.[23] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In a case for annulment of title, the plaintiff must allege two essential facts: (1) that plaintiff was the owner of the land, and (2) that the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the property. Absent either of these allegations, the plaintiff is considered not the proper party to cause the cancellation of the title of the defendant.[29] | |||||
|
2007-03-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Before we even begin to consider the foregoing issues, the Court takes cognizance of a pivotal question of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, a deficiency patent on the face of the records. We resolve this issue motu proprio, even if it was not raised by the parties nor threshed out in their pleadings,[31] for to let it pass would result in the conferment of jurisdiction to the HLURB by the mere oversight of the parties, the agency concerned and the CA.[32] | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (5) To allow withdrawal of the appeal.[40] | |||||