Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MELCHOR HILADO v. ROLANDO CHAVEZ

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 205065 2014-06-04	VERGEL PAULINO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
In these cases, the petition for annulment was based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The rule is that where there is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out are void. It is not a decision in contemplation of law and, hence, it can never become executory. It also follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.[17]
	GR No. 165676 2010-11-22	JOSE MENDOZA v. NARCISO GERMINO BRION, J.
Under the RRSP, the MTC is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary conference[36] and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if such tenancy relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue.[37] The MTC may even opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative defense of the defendant, although under the RRSP, such a hearing is not a matter of right.[38] If it is shown during the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[39]
	GR No. 174975 2009-01-20	LUISA KHO MONTAÑER v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT PUNO, C.J.
We cannot agree with the contention of the petitioners that the district court does not have jurisdiction over the case because of an allegation in their answer with a motion to dismiss that Montañer, Sr. is not a Muslim. Jurisdiction of a court over the nature of the action and its subject matter does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an answer[25] or a motion to dismiss.[26] Otherwise, jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant[27] or result in having "a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple stratagem.[28] Indeed, the "defense of lack of jurisdiction which is dependent on a question of fact does not render the court to lose or be deprived of its jurisdiction."[29]
	GR No. 169691 2008-07-23	PEDRITO SALMORIN v. DR. PEDRO ZALDIVAR CORONA, J.
(6) Salmorin refused to vacate the subject lot without justification. Thus, Zaldivar's complaint concerned the unlawful detainer by Salmorin of the subject lot. This matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The allegation of tenancy in Salmorin's answer did not automatically deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction. In Hilado et al. v. Chavez et al.,[10] we ruled:[T]hat 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. xxx The [MTCC] 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. But it is 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. (emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
	GR No. 150305 2007-11-22	HONOFRE FUENTES v. FELOMINO CAGUIMBAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While it is beyond question that under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, it is the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) that has authority to hear and decide cases when the issue of tenancy is legitimately involved, the MTC does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein.[7] However, it is the duty of the MTC to receive evidence to determine the then allegation of tenancy; and if after hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[8]
	GR NO. 131023 2007-07-17	HEIRS OF LATE FAUSTINA BORRES v. JULIUS L. ABELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void: "x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head." The above ruling was reiterated in Hilado v. Chavez[28] where we also held that no rights can be obtained or divested from a void judgment. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are voId.
	GR NO. 169372 2006-12-06	NARCISO GUIANG v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Considering that the decision sought to be annulled is a void judgment, the fact that the petition for relief from judgment was belatedly filed is irrelevant. As held in Hilado v. Chavez,[50] when the judgment on its face is void ab initio, the limited periods for relief from judgment under Rule 38 are inapplicable. This is so because a void judgment is vulnerable to attack in any way and at anytime, even when no appeal has been taken. When a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, any judgment in the proceedings is a nullity. And considering that a void judgment is in legal effect no judgment by which no rights are divested, from which no rights can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars anyone, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out of are void, and considering further that the decision for want of jurisdiction of the court is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory, it follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.[51]
	GR NO. 144652 2005-12-16	ARCADIO B. DANDOY v. ZACARIAS TONGSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter on the existence of the action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.[12] Such jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[13] Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.[14]
	GR No. 161973 2005-11-11	FRANCISCO RAMOS v. STATELAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court has ruled that when a tenancy is merely averred as a special and affirmative defense to a complaint for unlawful detainer, the MTC does not automatically lose its jurisdiction over the said action. The MTC is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary conference and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if such tenancy relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue. The MTC may even opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative defense of the defendant, although under the Rules on Summary Procedure, such a hearing is not a matter of right.[34] If it is shown during the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[35]