Skip to main content

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction in Philippine Remedial Law or Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction

The Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction, also known as the Doctrine of Continuity of Jurisdiction, ensures that once a court validly acquires jurisdiction over a case, it retains that jurisdiction until the case is fully resolved. Even after a judgment becomes final and executory, the court maintains jurisdiction to enforce and execute its ruling.

Key Principles of the Doctrine

📌 Jurisdiction Continues Until Full Resolution ✔ Once a court acquires jurisdiction, it retains authority over the case until it has done everything necessary to resolve it. The principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The doctrine holding that [e]ven the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it [Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96].

📌 Finality of Judgment Does Not Remove Jurisdiction ✔ A court loses the power to amend, modify, or alter a final judgment, but it retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it.

📌 Prevention of Jurisdictional Disruptions ✔ The doctrine avoids unnecessary delays and ensures judicial efficiency by allowing the same court to complete the case process.

📌 Relevant Case: Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (301 SCRA 96)

Legal Basis and Application

📌 Judicial Economy and Stability ✔ Prevents forum shopping and jurisdictional conflicts by ensuring that the court continues handling the case until execution.

📌 Supreme Court Rulings on Jurisdictional Continuity ✔ Philippine jurisprudence consistently applies this doctrine, reinforcing that courts do not lose jurisdiction due to subsequent events.

📌 Relevant Case: Abad vs. RTC Manila

Legal Takeaways on Jurisdictional Adherence

✅ Jurisdiction remains with the court until full case resolution – Even after judgment, courts retain authority to enforce rulings.

✅ Finality of judgment limits modification but not execution – Courts cannot alter final rulings but must ensure compliance.

✅ Prevents unnecessary jurisdictional shifts – Ensures judicial efficiency and prevents disruptions in case proceedings.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction safeguards judicial stability, ensuring that courts retain authority over cases until full resolution. This principle reinforces judicial efficiency and prevents unnecessary procedural complications.

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more