1. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 168979 December 2, 2013
REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS and ROSALIE PACAÑA, Petitioners,
vs.
ROVILA WATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL U KOKSENG, LILIA TORRES, DALLA P. ROMANILLOS and
MARISSA GABUYA, Respondents.
Under the present Rules of Court, this provision was reflected in Section 1, Rule 9, and we
quote:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either
in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim. [underscoring supplied]
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties they shall
be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these
issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to
amend does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial
on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the
action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a
continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
[ G.R. Nos. 217126-27. November 10, 2015 ]
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER,
VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,
RESPONDENTS.
While courts will not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised
in the pleadings, the rule has been recognized to admit of certain exceptions. It does not
preclude a court from inquiring into its own jurisdiction or compel it to enter a judgment
that it lacks jurisdiction to enter. If a statute on which a court's jurisdiction in a
proceeding depends is unconstitutional, the court has no jurisdiction in the proceeding,
and since it may determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, it necessarily follows that
it may inquire into the constitutionality of the statute.
![Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 168979 December 2, 2013
REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS and ROSALIE PACAÑA, Petitioners,
vs.
ROVILA WATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL U KOKSENG, LILIA TORRES, DALLA P. ROMANILLOS and
MARISSA GABUYA, Respondents.
Under the present Rules of Court, this provision was reflected in Section 1, Rule 9, and we
quote:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either
in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim. [underscoring supplied]
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties they shall
be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these
issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to
amend does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial
on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the
action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a
continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
[ G.R. Nos. 217126-27. November 10, 2015 ]
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER,
VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,
RESPONDENTS.
While courts will not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised
in the pleadings, the rule has been recognized to admit of certain exceptions. It does not
preclude a court from inquiring into its own jurisdiction or compel it to enter a judgment
that it lacks jurisdiction to enter. If a statute on which a court's jurisdiction in a
proceeding depends is unconstitutional, the court has no jurisdiction in the proceeding,
and since it may determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, it necessarily follows that
it may inquire into the constitutionality of the statute.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/juris-230104022636-64464007/85/juris-docx-1-320.jpg)
