1/20/2016

G.R.No.L48652

TodayisWednesday,January20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L48652September16,1942
LUCIABERNABE,ETAL.,plaintiffsappellees,
vs.
DOMINGOL.VERGARA,defendantappellant.
Dantis,Rivera&Vergaraforappellant.
HarmogenesConcepcionforappellees.
MORAN,J.:
ThiscasehasbeencertifiedtothisCourtbyaresolutionoftheCourtofAppealswhichreadsasfollows:
Enlademandaentabladaenesteasuntosepidelaanulaciondelasubastapublicaquerealizoelsheriff
de Nueva Ecija para dar cumplimiento a una parte de la sentencia dictada por el Juzgado de Primera
InstanciadeaquellaprovinciaenelasuntocivilNo.5714,parterelativaalpagodelacantidaddeP350con
susintereseslegalesdesdeel22defebrerode1917,montandotodoelloalasumadeP747porlaquese
remataron los bienes embargados y vendidos. Despues de enjuciar el presente pleito, el Juzgado dicto
sentenciaanulandolasubasta,conformealopelidoenlademanda,porcausadevariasirregularidades
cometidasporelsheriffenlatramitaciondelasdiligenciaconcernientesadichasubasta.Contraelfalloasi
dictado, la parte demandada, es decir, la parte a quien beneficio la subasta, ha interpuesto la presente
apelacion.
Alrevisarlosautosdeesteasuntohemosnotadoquelosdemandantesyapelados,alarguirafavordela
sentenciadelTribunalinferior,nosolamenteinvocanlasirregularidadesdelasubasta,sinoquesuscitan
unacuestiondejurisdiccionocomptencia,ladelJuzgadoquedictolasentenciaenelpleitoanterior,osea,
elreferidoasuntocivilNo.5714.Segunlosapelados,enaquelasuntolaunicacuestionplanteadaerala
particiondeciertosbienesinmuebles,lapartedemandadaentonces,queloestambienenesteasunto,no
reclamabaningunacantidaddedineroensuescritodealegaciones.Sinembargo,elJuzgado,aldictarsu
sentencia,condenoalosdemandantesapagaralosdemandadoslacantidaddeP350,maslosintereses
legales.AlhacerestosostienenlosapeladoselJuzgadoobrosinjurisdiccionnicompetencia(alegato
delosapelados,pags.22ysiguientes).Yestacuestiondejurisdiccionaadenpuedesuscitarseen
cualquierestadodeljuicio,seaenesteoenelprimerasunto.
Porloexpuestosyenobedienciaalaleyquerigenuestrasactuaciones,ordenamosqueesteexpediente
seelevealTribunalSupremoporserdesuincumbenciaelenjuiciarloyresolverlo.
Civil case No. 5714, as we have examined it, was an action for partition of an inheritance left by the deceased
Victoriano Zafra. He was survived by three children: Benito Apolonia and Dominga, all surnamed Zafra. Benito
and Apolonia died, the first leaving a daughter named Irinea, and the second, three children named Lucia,
Hipolito,andBarbara.TheplaintiffintheactionforpartitionweretheheirsofBenitoandApoloniaZafraandthe
defendants were Dominga Zafra and the persons to whom she sad sold her share in the common property
namely,BrigidaMartinez,AmadeoLandichoandMarcelinaLandicho.DomingaZafra,inheranswer,pleadeda
counterclaim, alleging that she had paid certain debts contracted by Apolonia Zafra, the deceased mother of
plaintiffs Lucia, Hipolito, and Barbara. These debts constituted an equitable lien upon the property left by said
deceased Apolonia Zafra. (Suiliong & co. vs. ChioTaysan, 12 Phil., 13 Lopez vs. Enriquez , 16 Phil., 336
Montinolavs.Villanueva,49Phil.,528.)Atthetrial,evidencewaspresentedastosuchdebts,andthetrialcourt
in its decision awarded the plaintiffs Lucia, Hipolito, and Barbara onethird of the common property and, at the
same time, ordered them to pay the debts of their deceased mother, Apolonia Zafra, in the amount of P350.
Appealwasinterposedbythemfromthisjudgment,andinthisCourtnoquestionwasraisedastothejurisdiction
of the trial court to render a judgment in the said amount of P350. This Court accordingly assumed jurisdiction
overthecaseandaffirmedthejudgment.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1942/sep1942/gr_48652_1942.html

1/3

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L48652

Thequestionnowraisedbytheplaintiffsappelleesastowhetherornotthetrialcourthadjurisdictiontorenderits
judgmentforthesumofmoneyabovementionedisunsubstantial.Therecanbeabsolutelynodoubtthatthetrial
had such jurisdiction not only because there was a counterclaim wherein the amount adjudged was within the
amountpleaded,butbecausetheproceedingwasinthenatureofoneforliquidationandpartitionofinheritance
whereindebtsleftbythedeceasedancestorsmaybedeterminedandorderedpaidifthecreditorsareparties,as
wasthecase.Plaintiffsappelleesknewthatthetrialcourthadsuchjurisdictionasisshownbytheiromissionto
raiseanyquestionwithrespecttheretointheirappealtothisCourt.Andsuchquestionmaybedeemedtohave
beenpasseduponimpliedlybythisCourtwhenitactedonthecaseanddecidedthesameonthemerits.
And,furthermore,thequestionofjurisdictionattemptedtoberaisedinthiscaseisnotthekindofquestionthat
confersjurisdictionuponthisCourt.Thejurisdictioninvolvedisnotoneoverthesubjectmatterbutatmostover
theissueoroverthepersonsoftheparties.ACourtofFirstInstancehasjurisdictionoverthecaseinvolvingP200
or more, and therefore the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija had jurisdiction to render judgment in the
amount of P350. The question of whether or not there was a proper issue raised in the pleading as to said
amount,isnotaquestionofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,butjurisdictionovertheissue.Inthisregardwe
reiteratewhatwehavesaidinReyesvs.Diaz,G.R.No.48754,November26,1941:
ThereisinourConstitutionorinthelawaforecitednothingwhichmaylendtheword"jurisdiction"therein
used a broader meaning than jurisdiction over the subjectmatter. On the contrary, having due regard to
themanifestpurposeofthelaw,whichistoconfinetheappellatejurisdictionofthisCourttocasesofvital
importance involving questions of fundamental character, such, for instance, as the question validity of
statute, treaty or ordinance, or the legality of any tax, import or assessment which may affect the very
existenceofthegovernment,orcriminalcaseswhereinlifeimprisonmentordeathpenaltyisimposed,we
areoftheopinionandsohold.,thattheissueofjurisdictionwhichconfersappellatepowersuponthisCourt
inagivencaseisnotsuchquestionasisdependentexclusivelyuponminormattersoffactoruponamere
constructionofthepleadings,butthatwhichhasreferencetothemoreimportantquestionofjurisdictionof
thetrialcourtoverthesubjectmatterasdeterminedbylaw.
Jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteristhepowertohearanddeterminecasesofthegeneralclasstowhich
the proceedings in question belong (C. J. S. p. 36) and is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organizesthecourtanddefinesthecourtanddefinesitspowers(BancoEspaolFilipinovs. Palanca, 37
Phil.,921Perkinsvs.Dizon,40OffGaz.,No.7,3rdSup.,p.,216NgSiChokvs.Vera,G.R.No.45674).
Thequestion,thereforeofwhetheracourthasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,callsforinterpretation
and application of the law of jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts in
thePhilippinesandsincetherulingonthematterisoffarreachingconsequences,affecting,asitmay,the
verylifeandstructureofourjudicialsystem,thelawhasdeemeditwisetoplacethepowerandauthorityto
actthereoninthehighestcourtoftheland.
xxxxxxxxx
...Whethercertainballotsareorarenotpertinenttotheissueraisedinthepleadings,ismerelyaquestion
of relevancy of evidence. It may be true that the court by an erroneous ruling on such question may
enrcroachuponissuescompletelyforeigntothosedefinedinthepleadings,butinsuchcasethequestion
ofjurisdictionthatmayarisewouldnotbeoneofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterbutofjurisdictionover
theissue.Inorderthatacourtmayvalidlytryanddecideacase,itmusthavejurisdictionoverthesubject
matterandjurisdictionoverthepersonsoftheparties(BancoEspaolFilipinovs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921
Perkinsvs. Dizon, 40 Off. Gaz., No. 7, 3d Sup., p., 216.) But in some instances it is said that the court
shouldalsohavejurisdictionovertheissue(15C.J.,734Huttsvs.Martin,134Ind.,58733N.E.,676),
meaning thereby that the issue being tried and decided by the court be within the issues raised in the
pleadings.Butthiskindofjurisdictionshouldbedistinguishedfromjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,the
latterbeingconferredbylawandtheformerbythepleadings.Jurisdictionovertheissue,unlikejurisdiction
over the subjectmatter, may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. (Rule 17,
sec.4,RulesofCourt.)Althoughanissueisnotdulypleadeditmayvalidlybetriedanddecidedifnotimely
objectionismadetheretobytheparties.Thiscannotbedonewhenjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteris
involved. In truth, jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction
over the persons of the parties. Where, for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the
defendant cannot be said to have been served with process as to that issue. (Cf. Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs.
Domingo, 44 Phil., 680.) At any rate, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is a
question that requires nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such
importanceastocallfortheinterventionofthiscourt.
Weholdtherefore,thatthequestionofjurisdictionraisedintheinstantcaseisnotonlyunsubstantialbutisalso
not the kind of question that may deprive the Court of Appeals of its appellate jurisdiction over the case. It is
herebyorderedthatthiscasebereturnedtotheCourtofAppealsforhearinganddecisiononthemerits.
Yulo,C.J.,Ozaeta,BocoboandGeneroso,JJ.,concur.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1942/sep1942/gr_48652_1942.html

2/3

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L48652

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1942/sep1942/gr_48652_1942.html

3/3