Chap. 4: Jurisdiction – Over the Subject Matter constituting the subject matter of civil case No.
ituting the subject matter of civil case No. 53317, of the Court of First
72 Phil. 514 – Idonah Perkins v. Roxas (June 27, 1941)
Laurel, J.
Eugene Perkins filed a case against BCMC with CFI-Manila for recovery of payment from
dividends payable in shares of stock in Eugene’s name, which BCMC withheld. BCMC
claimed that it withheld payment because of adverse claims of an Idonah Perkins and a
George Engelhard. Eugene included the two in a modified complaint; Idonah filed her answer
with cross complaint alleging that she was already declared sole legal owner of the BCMC
shares of stock in question by a judgment from the SC of the State of NY. She alleged that
the said judgment is res judicata; thus CFI-Manila has no jurisdiction. SC held that CFI has
jurisdiction over the subject matter in both in Eugene’s amended complaint, and Idonah’s
cross complaint.
DOCTRINE
What is meant by jurisdiction of the subject matter is that the nature of the cause of action
and of the relief sought is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court,
and is to be sought for in general nature of its powers, or in authority specially conferred.
The test of jurisdiction is whether or not a tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not
whether its conclusion is right or wrong.
FACTS
1. Eugene Perkins filed a case against Benguet Consolidated Mining. Co. (BCMC) for the
recovery of P71,379, consisting of dividends payable in shares of stock
registered in his name with CFI-Manila.
a. The said payment was withheld by the company.
2. BCMC alleged that it withheld Perkins’ right to disposal and control of the shares
because of adverse claims made by Idonah Perkins and George Engelhard.
3. Eugene filed a modified complaint including Idonah and George, and prayed that the
latter be adjudged without interest in the subject shares of stock.
4. Summons by publication were served upon the nonresident defendants Idonah Perkins
and Engelhard.
5. Idonah Perkins filed her answer with a cross complaint.
a. She set up a judgment allegedly obtained by her against Eugene Perkins,
from the SC of the State of New York.
b. It was declared that she is the sole legal owner and entitled to the possession
and control of the shares of stock in question with all the cash dividends
declared thereon by the BCMC.
6. Eugene filed a reply and an answer in which he sets up several defenses to the
enforcement in this jurisdiction of the judgment of the SC of the State of New York.
7. Idonah filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that "the court has no jurisdiction of the
subject of the action," because the alleged judgment of the SC of the State of New York
is res judicata.
a. Her demurrer was overruled, hence this petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus.
b. She alleges that "the respondent judge is about to and will render judgment
in the above-mentioned case disregarding the constitutional rights of this
petitioner (Eugene); contrary to and annulling the final, subsisting, valid
judgment rendered and entered in this petitioner's favor by the courts of the
State of New York, ... which decision is res judicata on all the questions
Instance of Manila; and which New York judgment the Court of First
Instance of Manila is without jurisdiction to annul, amend, reverse, or
modify in any respect whatsoever”
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N the local court (CFI) has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action (in
view of the alleged judgment entered in favor of Idonah by the SC of New York
and which is claimed by her to be res judicata on all questions raised by Eugene)
– YES
a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: the nature of the cause of action and of
the relief sought, conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the
court, and is to be sought for in general nature of its powers, or in authority
specially conferred.
b. In the present case, the amended complaint filed by Eugene Perkins
alleged the ownership in himself and calls for the adjudication of title to certain
shares of stock of the BCMB and the granting of affirmative reliefs, which fall
within the general jurisdiction of the CFI-Manila.
c. Idonah Perkins, in her cross complaint, brought suit against Eugene Perkins
and BCMC upon the alleged judgment of the SC of the State of New York and
asked the court below to render judgment enforcing that New York judgment,
and to issue execution thereon.
i. This is a form of action recognized by Sec. 309 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (now Sec. 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and which falls
within the general jurisdiction of the CFI- Manila, to adjudicate, settle
and determine.
d. Idonah expresses the fear that the respondent judge may render judgment
“annulling the final, subsisting, valid judgment rendered and entered in this
petitioner’s favor by the courts of the State of New York, which decision is res
judicata on all the questions constituting the subject matter of civil case” and
argues on the assumption that the respondent judge is without jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the cause.
i. W/N the respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will give
validity and efficacy to the New York judgment set up by the Idonah
in her cross-complaint is a question that goes to the merits of the
controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as between
each other, and not to the jurisdiction or power of the court.
ii. The test of jurisdiction is W/N the tribunal has power to enter
upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusion in the course of
its inquiry, is right or wrong.
1. If its decision is erroneous, its judgment can be reversed
on appeal; but its determination of the question, which the
petitioner here anticipates and seeks to prevent, is the
exercise by that court and the rightful exercise of its
jurisdiction.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition DENIED, with costs against the petitioner.
DIGESTER: Liana
1