Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 212 views

    Perkins V Roxas Digests

    Uploaded by

    Dorian Joba
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that the petition for certiorari would not prosper. While Idonah Slade Perkins argued that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to nullify or modify the New York judgment, which she claimed was res judicata, the lower court in fact had general jurisdiction over cases involving the enforcement of foreign judgments. Whether the lower court ultimately recognizes the validity of the New York judgment is a question of the merits that does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Perkins V Roxas Digests

    Uploaded by

    Dorian Joba
    212 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that the petition for certiorari would not prosper. While Idonah Slade Perkins argued that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to nullify or modify the New York judgment, which she claimed was res judicata, the lower court in fact had general jurisdiction over cases involving the enforcement of foreign judgments. Whether the lower court ultimately recognizes the validity of the New York judgment is a question of the merits that does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Original Title

    Perkins+v+Roxas+Digests

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that the petition for certiorari would not prosper. While Idonah Slade Perkins argued that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to nullify or modify the New York judgment, which she claimed was res judicata, the lower court in fact had general jurisdiction over cases involving the enforcement of foreign judgments. Whether the lower court ultimately recognizes the validity of the New York judgment is a question of the merits that does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    212 views2 pages

    Perkins V Roxas Digests

    Uploaded by

    Dorian Joba
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that the petition for certiorari would not prosper. While Idonah Slade Perkins argued that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to nullify or modify the New York judgment, which she claimed was res judicata, the lower court in fact had general jurisdiction over cases involving the enforcement of foreign judgments. Whether the lower court ultimately recognizes the validity of the New York judgment is a question of the merits that does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Perkins v. Roxas G.R. No.

    47517, June 27, 1941 Facts: The private respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for the recovery of the sum of P71,379.90, consisting of dividends which have been declared and made payable on 52,874 shares of stock registered in his name, payment of which was being withheld by the company, and for the recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. To the complaint, the company filed its answer, alleging, by way of defense, that the withholding of plaintiff's right to the disposal and control of the shares was due to certain demands made with respect to said shares by the petitioner herein. Idonah Slade Perkins (ISP), and by one George H. Engelhard (GHE). Respondent amended his complaint to implede ISP and GHE as additional defendants. ISP filed an answer saying that there was a previous judgment in New York saying that she is the owner of the shares, and such is res judicata. Now, ISP files this petition for certiorari saying the respondent judge is about to and will render judgment in the above-mentioned case disregarding the constitutional rights of this petitioner; 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 constituting the subject matter of civil case No. 53317, of the Court of First 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.

    Issues: Whether or not the petition for certiorari will prosper? Held: No. By jurisdiction over the subject matter is meant the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought, and this 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. Idonah Slade Perkins in her cross-complaint brought suit against Eugene Arthur Perkins and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company upon the alleged judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York and asked the court below to render judgment enforcing that New York judgment, and to issue execution thereon. This is a form of action recognized by section 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila, to adjudicate, settled and determine.

    The petitioner 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 No. 53317," and argues on the assumption that the respondent judge is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause. Whether or not the respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will give validity and efficacy to the New York judgment set up by the petitioner 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. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong. If its decision is erroneous, its judgment case 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.

    You might also like