IDONAH SLADE PERKINS vs. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941

FACTS:

Respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins filed a complaint against Benguet Consolidated Mining Company
for the recovery of dividends but it was withheld by the corporation because of the demands made by the
petitioner Idonah Perkins and George Englehard. Respondent then amended the complaint and included the
herein petitioner. Summons by publication were then served upon the non-resident Defendants, Idonah and
Englehard. Petitioners contended that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter because
there was already a judgment of the SC of New York declaring that she was the legal owner of the questioned
shares and the trial court cannot amend, annul, modify or reverse the same because it was already res judicata.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the local court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in said case in
view of the alleged judgment rendered by the foreign court entered in petitioner’s favor.

HELD:

The Court ruled in the affirmative.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter means the nature of the cause of action which is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court. In the case at bar the respondent’s action calls for the
adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the corporation and the granting of affirmative reliefs which
fall within the general jurisdiction of the CFI of Manila. 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.