Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction or adherence of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is finally terminated. (Republic vs. Central Surety and Insurance Company, et al, GR No. L-27802, October 26, 1968) This is the doctrine of continuity or adherence of jurisdiction. "The jurisdiction of a court depends upon the state of facts existing at the time it is invoked, and if the jurisdiction once attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached" (Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565, 583 [1971]).

However, when the subject matter jurisdiction of a court was changed, and the change was curative in character, the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction does not apply. Thus, in Lucia Barrameda vda. De Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of Canaman Inc., GR No. 176260, November 24, 2010, the Supreme Court stated:

When a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to final determination of the case is not affected by a new legislation transferring jurisdiction over such proceedings to another tribunal. (Alindao v. Joson, 264 SCRA 211). Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation (Bernate v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 323).

The afore-quoted cases, cited by Lucia to bolster the plea for the continuance of her case, find no application in the case at bench.

Indeed, the Court recognizes the doctrine on adherence of jurisdiction. Lucia, however, must be reminded that such principle is not without exceptions. It is well to quote the ruling of the CA on this matter, thus:

This Court is not unmindful nor unaware of the doctrine on the adherence of jurisdiction. However, the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has exceptions. One of the exceptions is that when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Garcia v. Martinez, 90 SCRA 331 [1979]; Calderon, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 459 [1980]; Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v. Navarro, 149 SCRA 432 [1987]; Abad v. RTC of Manila, Br. Lll, 154 SCRA 664 [1987]).

For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 is curative in character when it declared that the liquidation court shall have jurisdiction in the same proceedings to assist in the adjudication of the disputed claims against the Bank.