This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-09-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In addition, the failure of a party to comply with a condition precedent is not a jurisdictional defect.[6] Such defect does not place the controversy beyond the court's power to resolve. If a party fails to raise such defect in a motion to dismiss, such defect is deemed waived.[7] Such defect is curable by amendment as a matter of right without leave of court, if made before the filing of a responsive pleading.[8] A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.[9] More importantly, an amendment alleging compliance with a condition precedent is not a jurisdictional matter. Neither does it alter the cause of action of a petition for habeas corpus. We have held that in cases where the defect consists of the failure to state compliance with a condition precedent, the trial court should order the amendment of the complaint.[10] Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and to present the real controversies between the parties.[11] | |||||
|
2001-10-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The policy in this jurisdiction is that amendments to pleadings are favored and liberally allowed in the interests of substantial justice. Thus, amendments of the complaint may be allowed even if an order for its dismissal has been issued so long as the motion to amend is filed before the order of dismissal acquired finality.[13] Note, however, that it is not a hard and fast rule. An amendment is not allowed where the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court,[14] or where the action originally pleaded in the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the court.[15] We have carefully perused petitioners' proposed amendments and found them to include the allegation that petitioners were in prior physical possession of the disputed fishponds before said possession was allegedly disturbed. Clearly, the purpose is to sidestep the RTC ruling that MeTC had no jurisdiction over their complaints and allow the inferior court to acquire jurisdiction. This we cannot allow. Where the court of origin had no jurisdiction over the original complaint in the first place, amendments may not be had. It is axiomatic that before an amendment can be permitted, the trial court must have acquired jurisdiction over the case in the first instance.[16] | |||||