1. Yes.

Execution and satisfaction of judgment is

available after the case is finally decided
It is the enforcement of judgment
It is the fruit as well as the end of the
action
2. Even if the issue of jurisdiction is not
raised by the pleadings
or not even
suggested by counsel,
the court can
still dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
This is because courts are bound to
take notice of the limits of their authority
The court can motu propio dismiss the
complaint
If the court fails to exercise its
jurisdiction, when it can decide the
merits of the case, the decision will be
reversed on appeal
The duty to exercise its jurisdiction
may also be enforced by way of a
mandamus proceeding.

3. Yes
The court can decline to decide a case
Forum non conveniens is the exception to
the rule that it is the courts duty to decide
a case when it has jurisdiction to the
same.
4. Yes
The effect of lack of jurisdiction is that the
decision becomes legally void
Even if the court believes,
in
good faith that it has jurisdiction over a
subject matter,
if by law it has
jurisdiction,
then the decision
rendered is still void

So if the court does not have jurisdiction,

it can dismiss a case for want of
jurisdiction
Another effect pf a vbe the subject of a
collateral attack,
5. Aspects of jurisdiction
S-P-I-R
Subject matter,
parties,
issues
of the case, res or the thing subject of
litigation
6.
It refers to the power of a particular court
to hear the type of case that is before it
or over the class of cases to which
a particular case belongs. jurisdiction
over the subject matter
Examples are real actions, personal
actions or actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation

It also refers to the item with respect to

which the controversy has arisen.
Examples are unlawful detainer, or forcible
entry
So are accion publiciana,
accion
reivindicatoria, partition of property,
foreclosure of mortgage,
expropriation,
habeas corpus, and action for damages,
among others.

7.
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
jurisdiction.

jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case,

and not the decision rendered therein
The errors which the court may commit in the
exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of
judgment which are the proper subjects of an
appeal

8.

Errors of jurisdiction occur when the court

exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon
it by law.
It may also occur
when the court or tribunal although with
jurisdiction, acts in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
Error of judgment is when
the
court has jurisdiction
but
committed mistakes in the appreciation of
the facts and the evidence leading to an
erroneous judgment
an erroneous judgment is not a void
judgment, while judgment
tainted with
error of jurisdiction is a nullity
If a judgment is not a void judgment,
it cannot be collaterally impeached
Such a judgment is binding on the parties
unless it is reversed or annulled in a direct
proceeding
In contrast,
if a judgment is an absolute
nullity, it
confers no right and affords
no protection. It will be pronounces as void
when collaterally attacked
It may be struck down as void,
even
on appeal.
The only exception is when the
party raising the issue is barred by
estoppels

Errors of jurisdiction and errors of

judgment also different
in the manner
by which errors may be corrected. Errors
of judgment are correctible by appeal,
while errors of jurisdiction are
correctible only by the extraordinary writ
of certiorari

Hence, an erroneous judgment cannot

be remedied by a certiorari

As long as the court acted with

jurisdiction, any error committed in the
exercise thereof
is only an error of
judgment,
which may be reviewed or
corrected only by appeal.

9.
There is lack of jurisdiction when the court
or tribunal is not vested by law with
authority or power to take cognizance of a
case. On the other hand, excess of
jurisdiction presupposes the existence of
an authority for the court to assume
jurisdiction over a case but in the process
of the exercise of that authority, it acts
beyond the power conferred upon it
Or
A court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction
if it does not have the legal power to
determine the case; where the
respondent, being clothed with the power
to determine the case, oversteps its
authority as determined by law, it is
performing a function in excess of its
jurisdiction
10.

Jurisdiction is the power or the authority of

a court to hear and determine a cause the
right to act in a case
A cause of action does not refer to the
authority of the court. A cause of action is
the act or omission of a person violative of
the rights of others

11.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is

conferred by law which may be either the
Constitution or a statute
It is the law that confers jurisdiction and
not the rules.
Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on
courts and administrative agencies

Since jurisdiction is only conferred by law,

it cannot be (1) granted by the
agreement of the parties;
(2) acquired,
waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act
or omission of the parties; or
(3)
conferred by the acquiescence of the courts
It cannot be conferred by the
administrative policy of any court

It cannot be conferred by a courts

unilateral assumption of jurisdiction
It cannot be changed by the mere agreement
of the parties
It cannot be the subject matter of a contract
It cannot be conferred by consent or waiver

It cannot be waived by the parties or cured

by their silence, acquiescence or even
express consent

It is neither for the court nor the parties to

violate or disregard the rule, the matter of
jurisdiction being legislative in character

12.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegation in the
complaint
The allegations must comprise of
concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting
the plaintiffs cause of action.

The nature of an action is also based

on the allegations contained in the
complaint
It is the averments in the complaint
and the character of the relief
sought
which will be looked into,
irrespective of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon
all or some of the claims asserted
therein
Once vested by the allegations in the
complaint, jurisdiction also remains
vested

OR

What determines the nature of the action,

as well as the court which has jurisdiction
over the case, are the allegations in the
complaint
The complaint must show enough on its face
to give the court jurisdiction without resort
to parol evidence

The cause of action in a complaint is not

what the designation of the complaint
states, but what the allegations in the body
of the complaint define and describe
The designation or caption is not
controlling,
more than the allegations in
the complaint themselves are,
for the
caption is a dispensable part of the
complaint

13.

14.

No.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not
affected by the pleas or theories set up by
the defendant in an answer or a motion to
dismiss
Jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint

15.

Yes
To ascertaining whether the court has
jurisdiction,
the averments of the

complaint and the character of the relief

sought are to be examined.
16.
No.
The allegations in respondents motion to
dismiss
on the unsound real estate
business practices allegedly committed by
petitioner,
even if proved to be true,
cannot serve to oust the RTC of its
jurisdiction over actions for breach of
contract and damages which has been
conferred to it by law

17.
No.
The defenses and the evidence do not
determine jurisdiction

The courts jurisdiction cannot be made to

depend upon defenses set up in the answer
or in a motion to dismiss. This has to be so
for otherwise, the ends of justice would be
frustrated by making the sufficiency of this
kind of action dependent upon the
defendant in all cases

What determines the jurisdiction of

the court is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the
allegations in the complaint.
The averments therein and the
character of the relief sought are the
ones to be consulted
Or

Jurisdiction is based on the allegations

in the initiatory pleading and the
defenses in the answer are deemed
irrelevant and immaterial in its
determination

OR
Jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations of the complaint and is not
affected by the pleas or theories set
up by the defendant in his motion to
dismiss or answer

18.
No.
The Municipal Trial Court does not lose its
jurisdiction over an ejectment case
by the mere allegation that the
defendant asserts ownership over the
litigated property

Jurisdiction is determined by the

allegations of the complaint and is not
affected by the pleas or theories set
up by the defendant in his motion to
dismiss or answer
However, while the Municipal Trial Court
does not lose its jurisdiction over an
ejectment case by the simple expedient of
a party raising as a defense therein the
alleged existence of a tenancy relationship
between the parties,
yet if after
hearing,
tenancy had in fact been
shown to be the real issue, the court
should dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction
19.

No.

It does not depend on the amount

ultimately substantiated and awarded by
the tried court
It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint

20. No.
The Regional Trial Court did not lose
jurisdiction

The complaint originally filed in RTC was

seeking for the payment of PI million.
It does not matter that after considering the
evidence,
the court rendered a
judgment for only P300,000 which is within
the province of MTC if originally filed there.
it is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint
It does not depend on the amount ultimately
substantiated and awarded by the tried
court

21.
No.
MTC cannot render judgment
Because it turned out that the recoverable
amount is P1M,
which is not within
the province of MTC to resolve.
The complaint was seeking to recover a
loan amounting to P300,000,
originally filed in MTC.

However,
after a consideration of the
evidence,
it turned out the
recoverable amount is P1M.
In this case, MTC cannot render the
judgment since it lacks jurisdiction

22.
No.
This is because it is an ejectment case.
Generally,
in determining whether or
not it has jurisdiction over the complaint
before it,
the court, as a rule, need
not look beyond the allegations of the
complaint
But this rule is not applied with strictly in
ejectment cases
where the
defendant averred the defense of
the existence of a tenancy relationship
between the parties.

OR

While the allegations in the complaint make

out a case for forcible entry, if tenancy is
averred by way of defense
and is proved
to be the real issue,
the case should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
as the
case should properly be filed with the then
Court of Agrarian Relations (now DARAB)

OR

Where tenancy is a defense,

the
court can go beyond the allegations of
the complaint
in determining
jurisdiction.
It can resolve the
motion to dismiss on the ground of lack

of jurisdiction over the subject matter

by requiring the presentation of
evidence to prove or disprove the
defense of tenancy.
After finding the real issue to be
tenancy, the case may be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
OR
No.
The Municipal Trial Court does not

automatically lose its jurisdiction over

ejectment cases by the mere allegation of
the defense of tenancy relationship
between the parties
There must first be a reception of
evidence.
if after hearing,
tenancy had in fact been shown to
be the real issue,
the court should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

23.

NO.
The allegation of tenancy in the
defendants answer did not automatically
deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction
because the jurisdiction of the court over
the nature of the action and the subject
matter thereof cannot be made to depend
upon the defenses set up in the court or
upon a motion to dismiss.

Otherwise, the question of jurisdiction

would depend almost entirely on the
defendant
MCTC does not lose its jurisdiction over
an ejectment case by the simple

expedient of a party raising as defense

therein the alleged existence of a
tenancy relationship between the
parties
It is however, the duty of the court to
receive evidence to determine the
allegations of tenancy. If after hearing,
tenancy had in fact been shown to be
the real issue, the court should dismiss
the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.
There must be evidence to prove
the tenancy relations such that all its
indispensable elements must be
established

24.

No.
courts cannot and will not resolve a
controversy involving a question within
the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially when the question
demands the sound exercise of
administrative discretion
requiring

special knowledge, experience and

services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate
matters of fact

The court cannot arrogate unto itself the

authority to resolve a controversy, the
jurisdiction of which is initially lodged
with the administrative body of special
competence

OR
if a case is such that its determination
requires the expertise, specialized

training, and knowledge of an

administrative body, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding
before resort to the court is had even if
the matter may well be within the latters
proper jurisdiction
25.

Yes.
It is settled that findings of fact of quasijudicial bodies, which have acquired
expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only respect, but
also finality, especially when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals
26.

No,

it will not apply

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction will

not apply where the matter involved is a
purely legal question which will be
ultimately resolved by a court of justice
27.