Anda di halaman 1dari 2

TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY G.R. No.

L-21450 15 April 1968 Facts: Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses Sibonghanoy to recover from them a sum of Php 1T+ with legal interest. A writ of attachment was issued by the court against the defendants properties but the same was soon dissolved. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had become final and executory, the court issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of writ of execution against the Suretys bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without summary hearing. This was denied by the RTC. Surety appealed in the CA, which was against denied. This time, the surety just asked for an extension in order for them to file the motion for reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it file a motion to dismiss saying that by virtue of RA 296 which is the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of t which placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions were the value of the subject matter does not exceed Php 2,000.00 CFI therefore has no jurisdiction over the case. The question of jurisdiction was filed by the Surety only 15 years from the time the action was commence in the CFI. Issue: W/N the case should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Decision: After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusive by law and as the lack of it affect the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstance of the present cases, a party may be barred by laches from involving this plea for the firs time on appeal for the purpose of annulling ever ything done in the case. A party cannot invoke a courts jurisdiction and later on deny it to escape a penalty

PEOPLE VS. REGULARIO G.R. No. 101451 23 March 23, 1993 Facts: Accused together with several others murdered on Menardo Garcia in Lucena. During arraignment, the appellants entered a plea of not guilty however, before the prosecution rested its case, Regalario and his accomplice Pabillar, changed their plea to guilty. After trial, all appellants were found guilty of the offense charged. Appellants counsel filed a motion for th reconsideration on the 14 day of the 15-day period for appeal, which was denied, by the trial court. They then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied for having been filed out of time (10 days after the receipt of the first denial). Issue: W/N the court can still exercise jurisdiction over the case considering that the appeal was filed out of time. Decision: The trial court was correct in rejecting appellants notice of appeal since it was filed beyond the reglamentary period. However, as in People vs.Tamani, although the appeal of the accused was demonstrably filed out of time, to obviate the miscarriage of justice, the court nevertheless reviewed the case and rendered judgment on the merits thereof in view of the fact that the filing of the appeal out of time was due to the inadvertence of the defense counsel. The same may also be granted in the present case adopting the principle of estoppel by laches to bar attack on jurisdiction.

Fukuzume vs People GR. No. 143647November 11, 2005 Facts: Yu went to the house of Fukuzume in Paraaque; that with the intention of selling the subject aluminum scrap wires, the latter pretended that he is are presentative of Furukawa who is authorized to sell the said scrap wires; that based on the false pretense of Fukuzume, Yu agreed to buy the subject a l u m i n u m s c r a p w i r e s ; t h a t Y u p a i d F u k u z u m e t h e i n i t i a l a m o u n t of P50,000.00 of the total agreed price of P290,000.00. that as a result, Yu s u f f e r e d d a m a g e . S u b s e q u e n t l y , Y u f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e N a t i o n a l Bureau of Investigation (NBI).In 1994, an information is filed with the RTC Makati, charged Fukuzume with E s t a f a . T h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d F u k u z u m e g u i l t y a s c h a r g e d w h i c h w a s a l s o affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition. Fukuzume contended that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged since contract of sale of the aluminum scrap wires took place at appellants residence in Paraaque. Contrary to the allegation in the information that crime was committed in Makati. Issues: WON the trial court of Makati has jurisdiction.W ON the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised for thefirst time in the CA SC Held: W e agree with Fukuzumes contention that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the offense charged. From the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove that F u k u z u m e c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e o f e s t a f a i n M a k a t i o r t h a t a n y o f t h e essential ingredients of the offense took place in the said city. Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the crime of estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the filing of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction. It is noted tha t it was only in his petition with the CA that Fukuzume raisedt h e i s s u e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d . Nonetheless, the rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that t h e c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d m a y b e r a i s e d o r considered motu propio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. W hile an exception to this rule was recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy , wherein t h e defense of lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n b y t h e c o u r t w h i c h r e n d e r e d t h e questioned ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the factual circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the departure from the general rule are not present in the instant criminal case