Lolita Amigo vs Court of Appeals

written by Howard

G.R. No. 102833 – 323 Phil. 452 – 253 SCRA 382 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction; Lack thereof – when may it be raised – Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter vs Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defendant

In July 1977, Jesus Wee Eng filed an action to recover real property against Lolita Amigo. The trial court found in favor of Wee Eng. Amigo appealed but the the Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the appeal on the ground that Amigo failed to submit her appellant’s brief.

Amigo then appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case because it never acquired jurisdiction over Amigo’s person.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal filed by Amigo should be granted.

HELD: No. As a rule, lack of jurisdiction, as a ground for dismissing a case, may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this rule finds proper application in cases where the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Unlike the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter which may be invoked at any stage of the proceedings (even on appeal), the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, however, must be seasonably raised, and it can well be pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer.

In this case, Amigo let the issue of lack of jurisdiction over her person pass until the rendition of judgment. It is now too late in the day for her to assail the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person, a somersault that neither law nor policy will sanction.

Nevertheless, the records show that the court actually acquired jurisdiction over the person of Amigo. Amigo voluntarily submitted herself to the trial court’s jurisdiction when she filed her Answer to Eng’s complaint. Her contention therefore is without merit.

SIDE ISSUE:

The SC also emphasized that once a decision of the lower court is appealed on the ground of “lack of jurisdiction,” the appellant cannot insert any other issue for the Supreme Court to resolve. The SC will just ignore these other issues (especially if raised for the first time) and will solely delve into the issue of lack of jurisdiction.

Read full text.