Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181842 2010-02-05	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
On Metrobank's raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the complaint for respondent's failure to pay the correct docket fees, apropos is the ruling in National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals: [12]
	GR No. 156078 2008-03-14	MARASIGAN v. MARASIGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even petitioners' argument that non-payment of appropriate docket fees by private respondents deprived the RTC of jurisdiction to partition the entire Hacienda Sta. Rita[38] deserves scant consideration. In National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[39] the Court ruled:x x x while the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of an action, nevertheless, the party raising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions and he only objects to the court's jurisdiction because the judgment or the order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.
	GR No. 139539 2002-02-05	CEROFERR REALTY CORPORATION v. CA PARDO, J.
While the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of an action, nevertheless, the party raising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions and he only objects to the court's jurisdiction because the judgment or the order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.[18]