Practice question
A court validly acquires jurisdiction based on the governing law and material allegations. At trial, the claimant proves less than demanded. No special transfer rule applies. Does that evidentiary shortfall alone oust the court's acquired jurisdiction?
- Yes, jurisdiction must be recalculated from every witness answer.
- No; the court generally retains jurisdiction and decides the claim according to the proof.
- Yes, every partial recovery requires a new complaint elsewhere.
- Yes, unless the defendant agrees to stay.
- No, because the court must award the whole demand.
Legal references
- People v Mendez, G.R. Nos. 208310–11 and 208662, March 28, 2023, en banc MAIN decision, adherence and exceptional jurisdictional estoppel: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69095
- RA 11576, Section 4, prospective application to civil cases filed from effectivity: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11576_2021.html
- Vda. de Ballesteros v Rural Bank of Canaman, G.R. No. 176260, November 24, 2010, main decision, adherence and curative-law exception: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_176260_2010.html
- SEC v Bonifacio, G.R. Nos. 198425, 201174 and 244462, January 30, 2024, en banc main decision, material allegations and relief: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_198425_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.