1. ZACARIAS VS. ANACAY G.R. NO. 202354 SEPT.

4, 2014
NATURE OF THE ACTION
The invariable rule is that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the
court which has jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the complaint. 11 In
ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring
the party clearly within the class of cases for which Section 112 of Rule 70 provides
a summary remedy, and must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction
without resort to parol evidence.13 Such remedy is either forcibleentry or unlawful
detainer. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession of his
land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In
illegal detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration
or termination of his right thereto under any contract, express or implied.14

It is the nature of defendant’s entry into the land which determines the cause of
action, whether it is forcible entry or unlawful detainer. If the entry is illegal, then
the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry. If, however, the
entry is legal but the possession thereafter becomes illegal, the case is unlawful
detainer.

Indeed, to vest the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant, it is

necessary that the complaint should embody such a statement of facts as brings the
party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as
these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its
face the court jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.

The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the
complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as
where it does not state how entry was affected or how and when dispossession
started, the remedy should either be an accion publicianaor an accion
reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.

2. BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC VS COURT OF APPEALS AND

LOLITA G. TOLEDO. G.R. NO. 173946 JUNE 19, 2013

ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner’s argument is misplaced, in that, it failed to consider that the concept

of jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject
 matter; (2) jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the
case; and (4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing
which is the subject of the litigation.31

The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of
estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter.

the "objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even if not alleged in
a motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. x x
x Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised anytime, even
for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived x x x
subject, however, to the principle of estoppel by laches."36

Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not
one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9,
such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in
order to prevent a waiver of the defense.37 If the objection is not raised either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person
of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of
the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.38

"lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to waiver, is a personal defense
which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence."39

In the first place, jurisdiction over the person of Manuel was never acquired by the
trial court. A defendant is informed of a case against him when he receives
summons. "Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action
brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over his person."4

INDISPENSABLE V NECESSARY PARTY

An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or

subject matter of a case that a final adjudication cannot be made in his or her
absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. He or she is a party who has not
only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but "an interest of such
nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting that interest or leaving
the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly
inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an
indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination
between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete or
equitable." Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included in an
action before it may properly proceed.

On the other hand, a "person is not an indispensable party if his interest in the
controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so
that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which
does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if
his presence would merely permit complete relief between him or her and those
already parties to the action, or if he or she has no interest in the subject matter of
the action." It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable
party simply because his or her presence will avoid multiple litigations.

MISJOINDER OF A PARTY(SEC.11,RULE 3)

Based on the last sentence of the afore-quoted provision of law, a misjoined party
must have the capacity to sue or be sued in the event that the claim by or against
the misjoined party is pursued in a separate case.

3. SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL VS. MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY G.R. NO.

L-21450 APRIL 15, 1968
True also is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon
the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority
of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings.

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and
for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by
record, and of estoppel by laches.

Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and

unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public

policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims
and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to
be enforced or asserted.

It has been held that a party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86
A.L.R. 79). In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said
that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of
the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is
barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid
and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can not
be tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.

Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and
encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court (Pease vs. Rathbun-Jones etc.,). And
in Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 Wyo. 58, the Court said that it is not right for a party
who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to
secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a
penalty.

COURTS DECISION ON THE CASE:

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on
July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason
of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was
within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so.
Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the
Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative
relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after
an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to
raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We
would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case
since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go
up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent
but revolting.