It is the settled 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.
It was however held in Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy that the appellants were barred by laches, considering that it took
the appellants 15 years in raising the issue of jurisdiction (based on the
Judicial Act of 1948) from the filing of the case(January 17, 1948) to the
appeal(January 8, 1963) despite their active participation throughout the case.
The same principle was cited in the case of People vs. Regalario, holding that
parties are estopped from appealing a case after the reglemetary period provided
by law. However, in the latter case, appeal was granted in view of the gravity
of the offense and its penalty. The offense charged, having been murder, and
the penalty, having been reclusion perpetua, the Supreme Court still afforded
the appellants judicial review to avoid miscarriage of justice. A similar
ruling to that of People vs. Regalario was held in the case of People vs.
Fukuzume as opposed to the denial of the court of the appeal in the case of
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. In People vs. Fukuzume, the Court granted the appeal of
the appellant for want of jurisdiction (the proper court, having been Paranaque
RTC and not Makati RTC). The court noted the distinction between the facts
surrounding the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy as a civil case and the facts
surrounding the case of People vs. Fukuzume as a criminal case.
As a general rule, question on
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding or on appeal (people
vs. Fukuzume) but exception to the rule is when the appellant is barred by laches
(Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy). But even when barred by laches, appeal may still be
granted in view of the gravity of the offense and its penalty (People vs.
Regalario).
In all three cases, the issue was
on the timeliness of the raising of the question on jurisdiction, giving due
consideration on the nature of each of the cases.
