This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, contrary to the claim of petitioners, the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised by respondents in their Appellant's Brief.[62] And the fact that it was raised for the first time on appeal is of no moment. Under Section 1,[63] Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court, defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription, which must be apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In other words, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. [64] In fact, the court may motu proprio dismiss a complaint at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that lack of jurisdiction exists.[65] | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Heirs of Jose Fernando v. De Belen, it was held that the party raising defenses to the complaint, actively participating in the proceedings by filing pleadings, presenting his evidence, and invoking its authority by asking for an affirmative relief is deemed estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court.[18] | |||||