Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case.[1] In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.[2] It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.[3] Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.[4][1] Spouses Genato v. Viola, 625 Phil. 514, 527 (2010), citing Zamora v. CA, 262 Phil. 298, 304 (1990).
[2] See id. at 527-528, citing Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corp., 556 Phil. 822, 836 (2007).
[3] See Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, January 24, 2012, 663 SCRA 514, 569, citing Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. v. Villon, 482 Phil. 894, 900 (2004).
[4] Katon v. Palanca, Jr., 481 Phil. 168, 182 (2004), citing Zamora v. CA.

Popular Posts