JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND ITS SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE DEFENSES SET FORTH IN AN ANSWER OR A MOTION TO DISMISS

 Jurisdiction of a court over the nature of the action and its subject matter does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an answer (Salas v. Castro, G.R. No. 100416, December 2, 1992, 216 SCRA 198, 204) or a motion to dismiss (Hilado v. Chavez, G.R. No. 134742, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 623, 641).

Otherwise, jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant or result in having "a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple stratagem. Indeed, the "defense of lack of jurisdiction which is dependent on a question of fact does not render the court to lose or be deprived of its jurisdiction" (Salas v. Castro, supra). 

The same rationale applies to an answer with a motion to dismiss (Mamadsual v. Moson, G.R. No. 92557, September 27, 1990, 190 SCRA 82, 87 cited in MONTAÑER vs. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT, G.R. No. 174975, January 20, 2009, First Division, Puno, C.J.).