JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASES

1. A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject mater of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.. E cept by reason of laches under !ibonghanoy case. "owever, a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in !ibonghanoy not as the e ception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time#honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. (People vs. Eduarte, G.R. No. !"!, #e$. !%, &''(, & ! SCRA )*( +,t,-. Cal,/l,/ vs. Ra/,re0, No. L1"2"%!, Nov. &', &' !, && SCRA "''3 La+4es is defined as failure or neglect for an unreasonable and une plained length of time, to do that which, by e ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier$ it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonbale time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to asssert has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (People vs. Eduarte, ,$,d3 %ursuant to !ection &&, paragraph '() of *atas %ambansa *lg. 1+,, as amended by -epublic Act .o. (/,1, to wit0 5 ("3 E6e+ut,ve or,.,-al 7ur,sd,+t,o- ,- all +,v,l a+t,o-s 84,+4 ,-volve t,tle to, or possess,o- o9, real propert:, or a-: ,-terest t4ere,- 84ere t4e assesse value o9 t4e propert: or ,-terest t4ere,does -ot e6+eed T8e-t: T4ousa-d Pesos (P!(,(((.((3, P4,l,pp,-e Curre-+t, 6 6.; 1ith due respect, the afore#quoted provision of law is patently inapplicable over the instant action. 2t must be primordially considered that the principal action or remedy sought by the plaintiffs is the annulment of the 3eed of Absolute !ale dated 4une 15, 1,,/. At this point, it is very clear that the title or possession of the subject real property is not an issue. 2nstead, the primary point at issue is 6whether or not the 3eed of Absolute !ale dated 4une 5, 1,,/ is valid or not.7 2t is not all about the title or possession of the land in question is considered. !o, the undersigned counsel reiterates and stands that the action of the plaintiffs is one to be considered as an action not capable of pecuniary estimation, which the -egional Trial 8ourt has e clusive jurisdiction. *y analogy, in the case of 9apitan vs. !candia, +5 !8-A 5(,, rescission of contract is considered an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.

I-+apa$le o9 est,/at,o&'') +ase< A close scrutiny of the amended complaint reveals that it sought to enjoin petitioners from rescinding the contract and taking over the property. 1hile possession was a necessary consequence of the suit, it was merely incidental. The main issue was whether !*:A could rescind the Agreement. *ecause it was a dispute that was incapable of pecuniary estimation, it was within the jurisdiction of the -egional Trial 8ourt. (Su$,+ =a: >etropol,ta- Aut4or,t:, et.al. vs. U-,versal I-ter-at,o-al Group o9 Ta,8a-, et.al. G.R. No. &"&% (, Septe/$er &2, !(((, Pa-.,-$a-, J.3 The 8ourt '!8) held that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained. 2t if it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount of the claim. "owever, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the action is one where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, which cogni;able e clusively by -egional Trial 8ourts. (Rad,o Co//u-,+at,o-s o9 t4e P4,l,pp,-es vs. Court o9 Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. &"%&(', Au.ust &, !((!, ?-ares1Sa-t,a.o, J. +,t,-. t4e +ase o9 Russel, et.al. vs. Vest,l, et.al., ("(2 SCRA )" 3 2t is a iomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. (Rad,o Co//u-,+at,o-s o9 t4e P4,l,pp,-es vs. Court o9 Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. &"%&(', Au.ust &, !((!, ?-ares1Sa-t,a.o, J. +,t,-. t4e +ase o9 Russel, et.al. vs. Vest,l, et.al., ("(2 SCRA )" 3 E amples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance, support or foreclosure of mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price and for resolution which is a counterpart of specific performance. (Russel vs. Vest,l, "(2 SCRA )" 3 La+@ o9 7ur,sd,+t,o-< As a general rule, an appeal is limited to a review of the specific legal issues raised in the petition by the parties. "owever, even if not raised, an error in jurisdiction may be taken up. 9ack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings < even on appeal. (Leo-arda L. >o-sa-to vs. Jesus a-d Teres,ta Aer-a a-d Court o9 Appeals, G.R. No. &2!*(&, De+e/$er ), !((&. Pa-.a-,$a-, J.3

The reason is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, not by the courts or the parties themselves. 1here the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. 2t is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. (Leo-arda L. >o-sa-to vs. Jesus a-d Teres,ta Aer-a a-d Court o9 Appeals, G.R. No. &2!*(&, De+e/$er ), !((&. Pa-.a-,$a-, J.3