Aspects of Jurisdiction FACTS

Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court

On 24 December 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of
money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner, attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Herein
vs. respondent filed an Answer dated 19 March 1998 but on 7 May
COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G. 1998, she filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in
TOLEDO, Respondents. which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-
defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. As a result,
petitioner filed a motion, dated 5 August 1999, to require
G.R. No. 173946
respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. Petitioner then filed a
June 19, 2013 Motion for Substitution, praying that Manuel be substituted by his
Ponente: PEREZ, J. : children as party-defendants. This motion was granted by the trial
court in an Order dated 9 October 2000. 13

On 26 May 2004, the reception of evidence for herein respondent

NATURE OF CASE
was cancelled upon agreement of the parties. On 24 September
Petition for review on certiorari 2004, counsel for herein respondent was given a period of fifteen
days within which to file a demurrer to evidence. However, on 7
BRIEF October 2004, respondent instead filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, (1) that the complaint failed to implead an
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to
indispensable party or a real party in interest; hence, the case must
reverse and set aside: (1) the Decision,1 dated 28 February 2006
be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action; (2) that the
and (2) the Resolution,2 dated 1 August 2006 of the Court of
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88586. The challenged decision
Manuel pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of
granted herein respondent's petition for certiorari upon a finding
Court; (3) that the trial court erred in ordering the substitution of
that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
the deceased Manuel by his heirs; and (4) that the court must also
respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint against her.3 Based
dismiss the case against Lolita Toledo in accordance with Section
on this finding, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the
6, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
Orders, dated 8 November 20044 and 22 December
2004,5respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
The trial court, denied the motion to dismiss for having been
Branch 24.
filed out of time, citing Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of
Court which Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition to the Court of
Appeals alleging that the trial court seriously erred and gravely
abused its discretion in denying her motion. CA granted the The Rules of Court provide:
petition.
RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
ISSUE/s of the CASE
1. W/N the Respondent is already estopped from questioning the
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
trial courts jurisdiction (issue presented by the petitioner which is
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
not relevant to the case based on the facts acc to the SC, I think
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
need pa rin ilagay since nadiscuss pa din yung jurisdiction)
waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court
2. W/N the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the dead (Manuel
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
Toledo) person? (actual issue)
there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the
ACTION OF THE COURT
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute
RTC: denied the motion to dismiss for having been filed out of
of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
time
CA: Reversed the decision of the RTC
RULE 15
SC: Affirmed CA.
MOTIONS
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
Sec. 8. Omnibus motion. Subject to the
provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion
Issue 1 (Issue presented by the petitioner):
attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or
proceeding shall include all objections then
Petitioners argument is misplaced, in that, it failed to
available, and all objections not so included shall
consider that the concept of jurisdiction has several aspects,
be deemed waived.
namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues
Based on the foregoing provisions, the "objection on
of the case; and (4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction
jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even if not alleged
over the res or the thing which is the subject of the
in a motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction
litigation.31
over the subject matter. x x x Lack of jurisdiction over the
The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for the
assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be
subject matter. waived x x x subject, however, to the principle of estoppel by
The principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in laches."
this case. Instead, the principles relating to jurisdiction over
the person of the parties are pertinent herein.
Issue 2:
Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired
through a valid service of summons; trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel Toledo. 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." n
the case at bar, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the person of Manuel since there was no valid service of
summons upon him, precisely because he was already dead
even before the complaint against him and his wife was filed in
the trial court.
There is no basis for dismissing the complaint against
respondent herein. Thus, as already emphasized above, the
trial court correctly denied her motion to dismiss.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 28
February 2006 and the Resolution dated 1 August 2006 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88586 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court dated 8
November 2004 and 22 December 2004, respectively, in Civil
Case No. 97-86672, are REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court,
Branch 24, Manila is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the trial
of Civil Case No. 97-86672 against respondent Lolita G. Toledo
only, in accordance with the above pronouncements of the Court,
and to decide the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
 FACTS
Private respondents are the heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas,
who died intestate on June 27, 1986. During his lifetime,
Requirements of Liberal Construction Guillermo owned agricultural landholdings, all located in Samon
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court and Mayapyap Sur, Cabanatuan city. Guillermo was also the
registered owner of parcel of agricultural land located in San
Ricardo, Talaver, Nueva Ecija having a total area of 4.9993
DAMASO SEBASTIAN and TOMASA hectares, which was tenanted by Manuel Valentin and
CARDENAS, petitioners, WenceslaoPeneyra. The said tenants tilling the said farm lots had
vs. already been issued emancipation patents pursuant to PD No 27.
HON. HORACIO R. MORALES, Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, LEONILA SARENAS1 , The private respondents filed an application with the DAR
JOSEPHINE SARENAS-DAYRIT, EVANGELINE Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, for retention over
SARENAS, ESTRELITA SARENAS TAN, CECILIO the five hectares of the late Guillermos landholdings. Among the
MARCOS SARENAS, MANUEL DEL SARENAS, DAISY lots which the private respondents sought to retain under Section 6
RITA SARENAS, and JOY SARENAS, respondents. of the CARP (RA No. 6657).

On June 6, 1997, The DAR Regional Office in San Fernando,

G.R. No. 141116
February 17, 2003
Ponente: QUISUMBING, J :
NATURE OF CASE
Appeal by certiorari
BRIEF
On appeal by certiorari is the decision2 of the Court of Appeals
dated March 9, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288, which dismissed
petitioners special civil action for certiorari and prohibition on the
ground that petitioners pursued the wrong mode of appeal. Equally
assailed is the resolution3 of the appellate court dated December
10, 1999, which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Pampangan granted the private respondents application.
Petitioner, Sebastian moved for reconsideration of the said
forgoing order before the DAR Regional Director.
The DAR Regional Director found out that the order was contrary
to law violating Section 6 of RA No. 6657 and its implementing
Rules and Regulations. He, the DAR Regional Director, then
issued a new order dated October 23, 1997, which then instead
allowed private respondents to retain a parcel of the said land with
an area of 4.9993 hectares, covered by TCT No. 143564, located
in San Ricardo, Talavera, NuevaEcija.
The private respondents then appealed the order to the DAR
secretary. Hence, this petition.