AMIGO VS.

CA

FACTS:

Petitioners leased the subject lot from Mercedez and constructed their houses on the said lot.

However, Mercedez later sold the subject lot to Juan and Jesus.

Then, Juan sold to Jesus his rights and interests over the subject lot to Jesus.

Jesus then filed a complaint against petitioners for recovery of the subject property.

Then petitioners filed their answer.

Respondent then sought an amendment of his complaint to include abatement of nuisance.

In their amended answer, petitioners denied the material allegations of the amended complaint.

During the pendency of the case, petitioners were designated census-beneficiaries of their respective areas.

The trial court rendered its decision ordering the petitioners to vacate the portions of land and ordered the
demolition of their houses.

Petitioners appealed the decision to the CA but the same was dismissed.
Petitioners filed with the CA an action for the annulment of the trial courts decision contending that the
judgment rendered by the lower court was void for want of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioners.

HELD: YES.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil action is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court
and his submission to its authority or by service of summons.
In this case, by their filing of an answer and later an amended answer, petitioners must be deemed to have formally
an defectively appeared before the lower court.

A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in whatever form, without
expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person. An appearance may be made by simply filing a formal motion or plea or answer.

The issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be seasonably raised, and it can well be pleaded in
a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer.

The records bear out the fact that petitioners have allowed the issue of jurisdiction to pass unquestioned until the
rendition of the judgment. It is now too late in the day for petitioners to assail the jurisdiction of the lower court
over their person, a somersault that neither law nor policy will sanction.