LACK OF JURISDICTION V.

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

CASE DIGEST CIV PRO:

Statement of the Case: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals that declared that a petition for annulment of judgment cannot be availed of when the
petitioner had already filed an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners are Heirs
of Maura So, namely, Yan Lam Lim, Jimmy So Lim, and Ferdinand So Lim. The respondents are
Lucila Jomoc Obliosca, Elvira Jomoc Gardinab, and Heirs of Abundia Jomoc Balala, namely, Rosita
Balala Acenas, Evangeline Balala Baaclo, Oliver Jomoc Balala, and Perla Balala Condesa.
Facts: Jomocs heirs sold a parcel of land they inherited from Pantaleon Jomoc to
Petitioners. After petitioners have made partial payment thereto, said heirs
executed another sale in favour of Sps. Lim. Petitioners sought the delivery of the
instruments of conveyance to which the lower court granted. Respondents now
invoke their right to legal redemption on the ground that they did not sell their
shares to the parcel of land hence, they remain co-owners thereof and are entitled
to recover entire property from Petitioners. Respodents successfully recovered the
property. Petitioners now files a petition for review under rule 45 assailing the award
given by the trial court and subsequently files a petition for annulment of judgment,
both before the CA.
Issue/s: Did the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it rendered the Resolution which recognized
respondents right to redeem the property because this, in effect, amended the Decision of the
Supreme Court which sustained the sale of the property to Maura So?
Ruling: Yes, Petitioners clearly confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the
exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered
therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors which the court
may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject
of an appeal.21 The error raised by petitioners pertains to the trial courts exercise of its jurisdiction,
not its lack of authority to decide the case. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack
of authority to hear and decide the case. On this basis, there would be no valid ground to grant the
petition for annulment of judgment.