Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.

173946, June 19, 2013

In the case at bar, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel since there
was no valid service of summons upon him, precisely because he was already dead even before the
complaint against him and his wife was filed in the trial court.

2) that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court;

However, x x x it is well-settled that issue on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceeding, even for the first time on appeal. By timely raising the issue on jurisdiction in her motion
to dismiss x x x respondent is not estopped from raising the question on jurisdiction.

A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling; it is resorted only
to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. Its function is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve
persons from arbitrary acts – acts which courts or judges have no power or authority in law to
perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions made by the courts.
(Emphasis supplied

On whether or not respondent is estopped from

questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court

Petitioner’s argument is misplaced, in that, it failed to consider that the concept of jurisdiction has
several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) jurisdiction over the parties; (3)
jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and (4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res
or the thing which is the subject of the litigation

The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches
is jurisdiction over the subject matter.

the Supreme Court barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned over the
subject matter of the case based on estoppel by laches, declaring that parties cannot be allowed to
belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a court to which they
submitted their cause voluntarily.35

Here, what respondent was questioning in her motion to dismiss before the trial court was that
court’s jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel. Thus, the principle of estoppel by laches
finds no application in this caseR

RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. – Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
Sec. 8. Omnibus motion. – Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a
pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all
objections not so included shall be deemed waived.

Based on the foregoing provisions, the "objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even
if not alleged in a motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. x x x
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for the first time on
appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived x x x subject, however, to the principle of
estoppel by laches

As the question of jurisdiction involved here is that over the person of the defendant Manuel, the
same is deemed waived if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss. In any case, respondent
cannot claim the defense since "lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to waiver, is a
personal defense which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence."39

Roldan vs. Sps. Barrios, G.R. No. 214803

jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law and an objection based on this
ground cannot be waived by the parties.   To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the
12

subject matter of a case, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the
relief sought

## In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action
or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, 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, this Court has considered such actions
as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance, support,
or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment; also actions questioning the validity of a
mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission,
which is a counterpart of specific performance.

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law
specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed
value of the real property involved does exceed ₱20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or ₱50,000.00, if
located elsewhere. If the value exceeds ₱20,000.00 or ₱50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the
Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2). However, the subject matter of the
complaint in this case is annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS
AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION. 20

Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while civil actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is not for
recovery of money, the court's jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property
involved.
Iniego vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 166876
It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, that what must be
determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the
subject matter of the action.9 A cause of action is "the delict or wrongful act or omission committed
by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff." 10 On the other hand, the "subject
matter of the action" is "the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and
the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed by the
defendant."11

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action
or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
first instance [now Regional Trial Courts] would depend on the amount of the claim. However, 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 like suits to have the
defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for
annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this court has considered such actions as
cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by courts of first instance [now Regional Trial Courts].

the subject matter of actions for damages based on quasi-delict is capable of pecuniary estimation.

The amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds
of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for
damages arise from the same or from different causes of action.

Despite our concurrence in petitioner’s claim that actions for damages based on quasi-delict are
actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation, we find that the total amount of damages claimed
by the private respondent nevertheless still exceeds the jurisdictional limit of P400,000.00 and
remains under the jurisdiction of the RTC

. All claims for damages should be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court regardless
of whether they arose from a single cause of action or several causes of action

where the claims in all such joined causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction

Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005

First Sarmiento Property Holdings v. PBCom, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29

Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, 7-14-2008

Calimlim v. Ramirez, 204 Phil 25; 118 SCRA 399

Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, G.R. No. 143951, 10-25-2005

Frianela v. Banayad, Jr., G.R. No. 169700, 7-30-2009

Duero v. CA, G.R. No. 131282, January 4, 2002

Velasquez, Jr. vs. Lisondra Land, G.R. No. 231290

Manchester Dev. Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-75919, May 7, 1987

Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989

United Overseas Bank v. Ros, et al., G.R. No. 171532, August 7, 2007; 556 Phil. 178;

Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. v. RTC Negros Occidental, G.R. No. 179878, December 24,
2008

General v. Claravall, 195 SCRA 623

Manuel v. Judge Alfeche, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 115683, July 26, 1996

Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, September 23, 2005;

Villaflor v. CA, 280 SCRA 297, 327

Star Special Corporate Security Management, Inc. vs. COA, G.R. No. 225366, September 01, 2020