Jurisdiction v. Exercise of jurisdiction

What is the difference between "jurisdiction" and "exercise of jurisdiction"?

Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision in all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. The errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.

The errors raised by petitioners in their petition for annulment of judgment assail the content of the decision of the trial court and not the court’s authority to decide the suit. In other words, they relate to the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, but petitioners failed to show that the trial court did not have the authority to decide the case. (Tolentino vs. Leviste, 2004)

We note that petitioners’ arguments to support their stand that the trial court did not have jurisdiction actually pertain to the substance of the decision. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. The errors raised by petitioners in their petition for annulment assail the content of the decision of the trial court and not the court’s authority to decide the suit. In other words, they relate to the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, but petitioners failed to show that the trial court did not have the authority to decide the case. (G.R. No. 156118; November 19, 2004)