Practice question
A party seeks annulment under Rule 47 solely for lack of jurisdiction. The record establishes jurisdiction over the person and subject matter at inception; the alleged defect is only a later erroneous order in exercising that jurisdiction. Under the distinction discussed in Mazy's Capital, what must the court avoid?
- Treating every later error as the total jurisdictional absence contemplated by that ground.
- Examining the actual jurisdictional facts.
- Distinguishing annulment from other remedies.
- Requiring the petitioner to identify the proper ground.
- Considering the legal source of the court's authority.
Legal references
- Mazy's Capital v Republic, G.R. No. 259815, August 5, 2024, main decision, jurisdiction and its exercise (not historical monetary amounts): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_259815_2024.html
- Galang v Wallis, G.R. No. 223434, July 3, 2019, main decision, general and special jurisdiction (not historical monetary thresholds): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_223434_2019.html
- Rules of Court, Rule 65 Section 1, certiorari requirements, read with current amendments: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.