Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Christopher Village, L.P. v. United States, 360 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed.Cir. 2004). "In most circumstances a judgment may not be collaterally attacked on the ground that the original tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction, even if the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was not litigated in the first action”; Id. at 1329-30 (citing Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n. 9, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982))(explaining that principles of res judicata apply to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and that "[a] party that has had an opportunity to litigate the question of subject matter jurisdiction may not ... reopen that question in a collateral attack upon adverse judgment.”); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 12 (1982) . Here, res judicata applies because the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing this texas rule
B. recognizing this rule
C. recognizing this as the general rule
D. recognizing a split of authority on this issue
E. recognizing exceptions to this rule when allowing the judgment to stand would substantially infringe the authority of another tribunal or agency of government which is not applicable in this situation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.