Perkins vs.

Roxas

FACTS:

1. Arthur Perkins filed a complaint in the CFI Manila against Benguet Consolidated Mining
for the recovery of P71,379 .
a. ALLEGATION: it was the dividends which have been declared and made
payable on 52,000++ shares of stock registered in his name.
b. ANSWER: 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 Perkins and George Engelhard.
2. Arthur Perkins amended his complaint
a. COMPLAINT: included Idonah and George, as parties herein.
b. AMENDED PRAYER: Idonah and George be adjudged without interest in the
shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert thereon.
3. Idonah Perkins filed an answer with cross-claim after the trial court overruled her
objection to the complaint for want of jurisdiction over her person.
a. CLAIM: judgment obtained by Idonah against Arthur from the SC of the State of
New York wherein it declared that the former is the sole legal owner and entitled
to the possession and control of the said shares of stock in question.
4. Arthur further rebuts Idonahs claim by filing an answer which sets up several defenses to
the enforcement in this jurisdiction of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of
New York.
5. Subsequently, Idonah filed a demurrer
a. GROUND: the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action
b. WHY: alleged judgment of SC State of New York is res judicata.
c. COURT: Denied.
6. Idonah filed a petition for certiorari, prohib and mandamus.
a. ALLEGATION: respondent judge is about to render a judgment which will
possibly contradict and consequently annul the final, subsisting and valid
judgment rendered by New York court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the local court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case taking
into consideration the New York court judgment.

HELD: YES

RATIO:
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.

In the present case, the amended complaint filed by the respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, in the
court below alleged the ownership in himself of the conjugal partnership between him and his
wife, Idonah Slade Perkins and that defendant Benguet Consolidated Mining Company be
required and ordered to recognize the right of the plaintiff to the control and disposal of said
shares so standing in his name to the exclusion of all others

Thus respondent's action, therefore, calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of
the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, and the granting of affirmative reliefs, which fall
within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
In Idonahs cross-claim, she wishes to enforce a foreign judgment within the Philippnes, to which
is allowed by sec 309 of Civil Procedure and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, to adjudicate, settled and determine.

The inquiry as to whether or not the Judge will give validity to the foreign judgment rendered in
favor of the petitioner 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.