1

I.

JURISDICTION

The most important subject matter in Civil Procedure is the issue on

jurisdiction, because a lot of remedial law problems may be resolved
through the principles of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the sun of remedial
law. All issues revolve around jurisdiction. Sometimes, questions are
presented as if theres no issue on jurisdiction when in truth and in fact,
it is just but a question of [jurisdiction].
Illustrations:
(1)
A (lessor) filed a case against B (lessee) for unlawful detainer
due to non-payment of rentals. A filed it with the RTC. (issue: proper
forum)
(2)
A files a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (issue:
hierarchy of courts)
What is JURISDICTION? It is the authority [of the court] to hear and
determine a case. This must be distinguished from exercise of
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority while its exercise will result
into a judgment. (Brondial)
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and
decide a case. It has reference to the power of the court over the subject
matter, over the res or property in contest, and to the authority of the
court to render the judgment or decree it assumed to make. (Riano)
Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision
rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the
subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is
but an exercise of the jurisdiction. (Riano)
By the authority to hear and determine a case, does it mean ANY case?
No. Only a justiciable case. A non-justiciable issue is beyond the ambit of
jurisdiction and therefore, beyond the power of the court. Political issues
are non-justiciable. If it is a political issue, it must be resolved by the
sovereignty.

Justiciable Question - matter of legality

Political Question - matter of policy

Note: Political questions refer to considerations affecting the wisdom,

efficacy, or practicability of a law
Which has the authority to hear and determine a case? It is the court
which is a part and parcel of jurisdiction. This pertains to the regular
courts and other quasi-judicial bodies.
What are the regular courts? The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1, Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)
1.
2.
3.
4.

Supreme Court (divisions)

Court of Appeals (divisions)
Regional Trial Courts (branches)
Lower Courts:
a. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC)
b. Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
c. Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)
d. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)
5.
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA; now a regular court pursuant to RA
9282 which elevated its status) -- remove from Rule 43
6.
Sandiganbayan - not a constitutional court but only a
constitutionally-mandated court; therefore, it is a creation specifically,
PD 1606**
*Rule 43
old-Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial

Agencies to the Court of Appeals

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

2
new-Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of

Appeals
**The applicable law now vis-a-vis the Sandiganbayan is RA 7975, as
amended by RA 8249.

There are other quasi-judicial bodies under Sec. 1, Rule 43.

1.
Civil Service Commission
2.
Central Board of Assessment Appeals
3.
Securities and Exchange Commission
4.
Office of the President
5.
Land Registration Authority
6.
Social Security Commission
7.
Civil Aeronautics Board
8.
Bureau of Patents
9.
Trademarks and Technology Transfer
10.
National Electrification Administration
11.
Energy Regulatory Board
12.
National Telecommunications Commission
13.
Department of Agrarian Reform under RA 6657
14.
Government Service Insurance System
15.
Employees Compensation Commission
16.
Agricultural Inventions Board
17.
Insurance Commission
18.
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
19.
Board of Investments
20.
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
21.
voluntary arbitrators authorized by law
No need to memorize because the listing provided is not exclusive.
Every now and then, the President would create bodies with quasijudicial functions and they become quasi-judicial bodies, i.e., COSLAP
(Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems), DARAB
(Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board), HLURB (Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board), which are not stated in Sec. 1, Rule 43.

How about military courts? They are not really courts because they
are under the Executive Branch. They are under the President. They
were created only to emphasize the function of the President as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. But for purposes of
prohibition of Congressmen, Senators, and other public officers from the
practice of law, military courts are considered as such. It is only for this
purpose that they are deemed courts. When you file a case against a
military officer and you file it with the military court, it is not governed
by the rules.
Pursuant to RA 1038 is the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM). There might be certain amendments to the judicial functions
of the Shariah Courts. Currently. These only function in the ARMM and
covering only Muslims.
*possible bar question because of the pending Bangsamoro law
There are three (3) Shariah Courts:
1.
Appellate Shariah Courts
2.
District Shariah Courts
3.
Shariah Circuit Courts
Regarding their jurisdiction over the subject matter, generally its about
family and property relations between and among muslims.
Ex-1. Consider if a muslim is staying in Quiapo. Does he have to go to
Zamboanga in order to file a case? No. Thats optional. They can file it
with the regular courts here.
Ex-2. Suppose they are married under the muslim law and they want to
seek divorce. Even if they are residents of Manila, they have to go the
ARMM in order to get a divorce.
Classification of Jurisdiction
1.
Original Jurisdiction v. Appellate Jurisdiction

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

What is original jurisdiction? It is the authority of the court that takes

cognizance of a case for the first time. As such, it is an exercise of
original jurisdiction. Therefore, if the court takes cognizance of a case for
the second, third, or fourth time, then it is an exercise of appellate
jurisdiction.
There are certain courts which are courts of original jurisdiction ONLY.
An example is the MTC. But there are also courts which are both of
original and appellate jurisdiction. Prominent among them, which must
be emphasized, is the Sandiganbayan.
The exercise of original jurisdiction may either be exclusive or
concurrent. Thus we classify original jurisdiction into:
1.
exclusive original jurisdiction
2.
original concurrent jurisdiction

3
Original Concurrent Jurisdiction: This means that a justiciable issue
may be taken cognizance of by more than one court. Ordinarily,
concurrent jurisdiction pertains to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts. When they exercise
concurrent jurisdiction, a petitioner will have to file it in any of these
courts. But simply because they have authority, it does not mean that the
petitioner has the absolute option where to file it. One must comply with
certain principles under concurrent jurisdiction. These are already wellsettled by jurisprudence.

What are the three (3) most important principles of concurrent

jurisdiction?

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction: Only a specific subject matter may be

taken cognizance of by a particular court.

1.
Hierarchy of Courts
see: Liga ng mga Barangay v. Atienza and Agan v. PIATCO

The Supreme Court also has exclusive original jurisdiction but limited
only to five (5) tribunals:
1.
Court of Appeals
2.
Sandiganbayan
3.
Court of Tax Appeals (en banc)
4.
Commission on Audit (pursuant to Rule 64)
5.
Commission on Elections (pursuant to Rule 64)

When you plan to file a case, the subject matter of which is cognizable in
the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, you have to go to the lowest court.
Hence, instead of going to the Supreme Court, you go to the RTC. You
cannot go to the Supreme Court directly by virtue of this principle.

When you come from these five (5) tribunals, you have nowhere else to
go except to the Supreme Court. All the rest, it is to the Court of
Appeals.
Another constitutional body which is the Civil Service Commission is
not under the Supreme Court for purposes of appeal. Appeal therefrom,
which is on the level of COA and COMELEC, must be brought to the
Court of Appeals.

2.

Transcendental Importance

This is an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts and is

precisely the doctrine illustrated in Agan v. PIATCO. The case should
have been filed with the lower court but the Supreme Court took
cognizance of it because of its transcendental importance which could
mean that it is of national (or international) importance; a matter of
urgency hence the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the case. The
most fundamental principle that you must never forget is that the
Supreme Court is not governed by the Rules.
3.

Supreme Court Not a Trier of Facts

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

4
This is the rationale under Rule 45 which is a mode of review. Section 1
thereof specifically provides that you can raise to the Supreme Court
only questions of law, never a question of fact.
When do you know that it is a question of fact? The basic test is what
you call the evidence test rule. If it requires presentation of evidence, it
is a question of fact. If it does not, it is a question of law.
Hence, if you raise to the Supreme Court both questions of fact and of
law, the Supreme Court will not remand that to the lower court because
pursuant Section 2 of Rule 50, that should already be dismissed. No
more transmittal and remand but rather, immediate dismissal, if you
avail of the wrong remedy.
In appellate jurisdiction, is there also a classification? No, because
there is only one (1) court in which you have to appeal. You cannot
appeal to two (2) courts. You also follow the hierarchical presentation of
your appeal -- from the MTC, the only appeal will be to the RTC; from
the RTC, the only appeal will be to the CA, and so on. Hence, appellate
jurisdiction is not classified anymore because you go up to only one. If a
petitioner sought the wrong court, that would be subject to outright
dismissal.
Ex. If a sergeant of an army is sued before the RTC for violation of RA
3019 and he was convicted, you do not appeal to the CA. Rather, it is to
the Sandiganbayan because that falls under their [appellate] jurisdiction
(public officers). You cannot file that directly to the Sandiganbayan either
because the sergeant of an army is not from salary grade 27 (or above).
The Sandiganbayan therefore exercises appellate jurisdiction.
2.

As to nature, jurisdiction may either be a jurisdiction over the:

a. subject matter
b. persons of the parties
c. issues
d. res
e. territory

Territory: This is not applicable in civil cases because territoriality in

civil cases is a matter of venue, not a matter of jurisdiction. Thus the
principle that venue is jurisdictional. (Note: This was asked in the 2009
bar exams.)
True or False. Venue is jurisdictional. (A: False)
Res: This literally means the thing which is the object of the action.
Note that the object of an action is not always property. It can be status.
In annulment of marriage or legal separation, the object is the status.
Should jurisdiction over the res be acquired? No. It is not necessary
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. As long as the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, even if it does not
acquire jurisdiction over the res, the case can continue.
When should a court acquire jurisdiction over the res? Precisely, if the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if it
wants to continue [with the case], it has to at least acquire jurisdiction
over the res. If it is an action for recovery of property, the court must
acquire jurisdiction over the property. Otherwise, the case cannot
continue. But if and when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant for one reason or another, then it must at least
acquire jurisdiction over the res so that the case continues.
Suppose the res is the status of a person and the case is annulment of
marriage, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the res? Not
necessarily by summons. Under the new rules, it can also be by
publication, etc. (see Rule 14).
Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are
unknown. In any action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown
and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of
court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

5
Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. When any
action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within
the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of
court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding
section.

(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his

property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or

For the court to have jurisdiction over the res, ordinarily you apply Rule
57 (Preliminary Attachment). You have to attach the property.

The application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment may

be done at the commencement of the action or at anytime before entry of
judgment. This time frame is quite long because when the action is on
appeal, there is no entry of judgment yet. Similarly, when the action is
under a petition for review, there is is no entry of judgment yet.

Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. At the

commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a
plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party
attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or
damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising
from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party
who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his
creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently
misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer
of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the
course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary
capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or
fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property, or any
part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its
being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is
brought, or in the performance thereof;

(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.

The enumeration of Section 1, Rule 57 is EXCLUSIVE. Beyond these six

(6) grounds, you cannot apply for a writ of preliminary attachment.
This is simply to illustrate the second point of jurisdiction which is
jurisdiction over the res.
When the subject matter of the case is real property and the court
acquires jurisdiction over that property, the case goes on; but the only
limitation there is when you try to execute the judgment, you are limited
to the res. You cannot go beyond that. You cannot use Rule 39
(Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments). You are limited to the
res because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person. Hence,
you can only execute on the res. Since Rule 39 is not available, you apply
levy on attachment. You do not proceed to levy anymore because you
already levied through attachment at the commencement of the action.
Therefore, when you win the case as an attaching creditor, you dont go
anymore to Rule 39. You immediately proceed to sale on attachment.
When the attached property is sold, the proceeds therefrom will answer
or satisfy the judgment. Suppose the judgment is for P1M and the
property sold was for P800K only, you have a deficiency of P200K. Can
you go Rule 39? No. You can only collect up to P800K because the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the person. It only acquired jurisdiction

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

over the res. But at least the case continued; and ordinarily, in actual
practice, you do not attach less than the debt.
Issues: The principle is that jurisdiction over the issues is determined by
the allegations in the pleading. Hence, that which is not included in the
pleading, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over that issue.
Example: Rule 70 (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer)
What is the only issue in unlawful detainer? Possession de facto. It has
nothing to do with ownership. But when ownership is raised in the
pleading, pursuant to Section 16, Rule 70, the court is not divested of its
jurisdiction but must resolve the issue of ownership only to resolve the
issue of possession. This is so because the court acquired jurisdiction
over the issue of ownership, even if it is not an issue in a case of unlawful
detainer; since the pleader asserts it in the pleading. But that which is
not asserted in the pleading, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over
such issue.
Section 16. Resolving defense of ownership. When the defendant
raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership,
the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession.
If the court nonetheless renders a judgment, involving that issue which
was not raised in the pleading, as a general rule, it will be null and void
had you objected. If you did not object, it is deemed a waiver because
thats already on trial.
Example: In an action for sum of money in the amount of P100K, A is
the creditor and B is the debtor. There was no allegation whatsoever
regarding demand to pay. In the course of the trial, plaintiff now is on
the witness stand and his counsel was asking him, Mr. Witness, when
defendant failed to pay, what did you do? Plaintiff respondent, I wrote

6
him three (3) demand letters. That was never alleged in the pleading.
Defendant never objected. Therefore, that forms part of evidence.
Further, under Section 5, Rule 10 (Amended and Supplemental
Pleadings), the court must sustain the objection because it is valid.
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if
they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings
as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to
raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time,
even after judgment; but failure to amend does not effect the result of the
trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground
that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may
allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial
justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to
enable the amendment to be made.
What then should counsel for the plaintiff do? The plaintiff must invoke
Section 5, Rule 10 regarding amendment to conform to the evidence.
Under Rule 6 (Kinds of Pleadings) in relation to Rule 8 (Manner of
Making Allegations in Pleadings), when you speak of allegations in the
pleading, it is stated that you only have to allege ultimate facts.
Evidentiary matters are not part of the pleadings -- thats part of trial,
when you start presenting evidence. As such, your pleading must only
allege ultimate facts which is the cause of action or right of action, as the
case may be. If you do not allege that, the court does not acquire
jurisdiction.
You tie this up with Section 1(g), Rule 16 regarding insufficiency of cause
of action as a ground for Motion to Dismiss; although it is not really
insufficiency because it is correctible by amendment, it is rather lack of
cause of action.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

By making the amendment, plaintiff will do the reverse by conforming

to the evidence to supplement his allegations.
Persons of the Parties: In civil cases, there are only five (5) parties to the
maximum: plaintiff, defendant, co-defendant, 3rd (4th)-party defendant,
and intervenor, pursuant to Rule 19 (Intervention).
Legend:
A - plaintiff
B - defendant
C - co-defendant
D - third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant
E - intervenor
How does the person acquire jurisdiction over the person of A?
1)
filing of the complaint
2)
timely payment of correct docket fees
Cases on docket fees:
II-1 Alday v. FGU Insurance
II-2 Korea Technologies v. Lerma
II-3 Mercado v. CA
II-4 Proton Pilipinas v. Banque Nationale de Paris
II-5 Ruby Shelter v. Formaran
II-6 St. Louis University v. Cobarrubias
What is now the law on docket fees? Per jurisprudence, it is Alday v.
FGU Insurance (no more Korea Technologies v. Lerma which has been
overturned by Mercado v. CA which reinstated the doctrine in Alday). In
Korea Technologies, the court ruled that payment of docket fees applies to
filing of counterclaims, regardless of whether they are compulsory or
permissive. By virtue of Mercado, however, the prevailing doctrine is that
payment of docket fees applies only to permissive counterclaims.
Payment of docket fees is not limited to filing of initiatory pleadings.

7
Sidebar: May a plaintiff be declared in default? Yes, because pursuant to
counterclaims, the plaintiff becomes a defendant and such counterclaims
require an answer such that if this is not filed, the then plaintiff may be
declared in default. This is so even if Section 3, Rule 9 only speaks of the
defendant having failed to file an answer within the prescriptive period.
St. Louis University v. Cobarrubias: Cobarrubias was an employee of St.
Louis University who was discharged from service and so she filed a
case of illegal dismissal which she won. St. Louis University appealed it
and it was reversed. Cobarrubias went up to the SC which St. Louis
University questioned because she did not pay docket fees on time. The
SC said that St. Louis University is correct. The payment of docket fees is
out of time; therefore, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
appeal.
Brgy. of Legaspi City v. Imperial (not in the outline): This case was
about an appeal. Legaspi City is in Bicol and the appeal was filed by
mail. Included in the mail was the postal money order for appellate
docket fees. When the CA received that, it notified the petitioner that the
docket fee is deficient by P2.25 which was substantial at the time. The
lawyer said that he followed the Rules so he did not comply with the
deficiency. The next order that he then received is a dismissal of the
appeal. He then went up to the SC and filed a certiorari. The SC said that
the court did not acquire jurisdiction because the docket fee is incorrect.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of B?

1)
valid service of summons
2)
voluntary appearance
Note: The same goes for C and D.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of E? It is
upon approval of the motion for leave to admit intervention. Under Rule
19 (Intervention), intervention can only be granted upon leave of court.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

Hence, when a motion for leave of court is filed and it is approved, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor.
Subject Matter: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.
The exception is the Supreme Court because its jurisdiction is not
conferred by law but by the Constitution (Sec. 5, Art. VIII). This is a
detailed enumeration of the power of judicial review and it has
something to do with jurisdiction. *for purposes of jurisdiction, at least
memorize the first two (2) paragraphs*
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in:
a.
All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b.
All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
c.
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
in issue.
d.
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
e.
All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as
public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall

8
not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar,
and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance
with the Civil Service Law.
[Supreme Court]
Par. 1: original jurisdiction
*may be exclusive or concurrent
With regard to certiorari, prohibition, etc., that is concurrent

jurisdiction.
But where certiorari, prohibition, etc. are brought before the

following courts, the SC has exclusive jurisdiction.

a. Court of Appeals
b. Sandiganbayan
c. Court of Tax Appeals (en banc)
d. Commission on Audit (pursuant to Rule 64)
e. Commission on Elections (pursuant to Rule 64)

[Supreme Court]
Par. 2: appellate jurisdiction
Coverage: review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

This may be exercised pursuant to Rule 45 (mode of appeal) or

Rule 65 (Special Civil Action).

Rule 45 is the remedy against an error of judgment while Rule 65

is the remedy against an error of jurisdiction so that the grounds in

Rule 45 and Rule 65 are different.
Grounds of Rule 65 :

lack
of jurisdiction

excess of jurisdiction
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the CA over the subject matter
This is now conferred by law, originally by BP 129, as amended by RA
7691 which is the prevailing law on the matter but only as far as CA,
RTC, and MTC are concerned. As regards marriage and marital
relations, read this in relation to RA 8369 because the Family Courts are
separate and distinct from the Regional Trial Courts. Special Criminal
Courts, Commercial Courts, Intellectual Property Courts, are mere
creations of SC circulars; but the Family Court is a creation of law (RA
8369). Those which are under the jurisdiction of the Family Courts are
no longer under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.
The CA pursuant to RA 7691 has only one (1) exclusive original
jurisdiction and that is annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts
pursuant to Rule 47 (Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and
Resolutions). All the rest, the CA exercises original concurrent
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter
*refer to RA 7691
What is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation? It is a kind of
action which is not determinable in terms of money. Even if ultimately,
the reward will be money, that is only incidental to the action. Hence, it
is still incapable of pecuniary estimation.

9
How do you determine whether an action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation? You look at the prayer in the pleading. If the prayer is for
money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. If money is only incidental,
it is incapable [of pecuniary estimation].
But there are some borderline cases relative thereto. Suppose the prayer
uses the conjunctive and so that the prayer in the complaint is,
defendant must finish the construction of my house AND pay me
P150,000.00. Is it capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation? It is
INCAPABLE because the payment is only incidental to finishing the
house.
If you change the word and to or, it is already capable of pecuniary
estimation because there is already an option on the part of the
defendant which is to finish the house or pay the stated amount.
Therefore, the jurisdiction of that will depend on the amount claimed.
Another subject matter are actions involving title to or possession of real
properties where the assessed value of the property is more than
P20,000.00 outside Metro Manila or P50,000.00 within Metro Manila.
Take note of the word assessed value, because the value of the
property may be zonal, it may be market value, but the word here is
assessed value. Look at the determinant: more than P20,000.00 or more
than P50,000.00, as the case may be.
How about unlawful detainer and forcible entry? See the landmark
case of Vda. de Barreira which actually changed the provision on assessed
value and also the case of Malana v. Tappa.
Vda. De Barreira: Unlawful detainer and forcible entry are exclusively
cognizable by the MTC (Rule 70). But Rule 70 involves title or possession
of property pursuant to RA 7691 so that the determinant is assessed
value. This case speaks of accion publiciana which is not necessarily
cognizable by the RTC. Another issue here is the settlement of estate
which is now cognizable either by the RTC or the MTC, depending on
the gross value of the estate which is above P300,000.00 or above

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

10
P400,000.00, as the case may be, whether outside Metro Manila or within
Metro Manila, it is cognizable by the RTC. Lower than that, it is with the
MTC. Admiralty cases follow the same jurisdictional amount: more than
P300,000.00, more than P400,000.00, as the case may be.

2.

there is no trial: in lieu of trial is the submission of position

papers, affidavits, depositions, and all other documents in support of
your position; there is also no examination (direct, cross, etc.) that is
why if you tie this up with Evidence, that is an exception to offer as
a requirement for admissibility; hence, the general rule is that any
evidence that is not offered is inadmissible and the exception is
summary procedure because on the basis of position papers, etc.,
judgment can be rendered by the court

3.

there are prohibited pleadings: an example is a motion to

dismiss except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and
compliance with barangay conciliation procedure; there are about 13
prohibited pleadings (Sec. 19, Rules of Summary Procedure, p. 144,
Riano); take note that demurrer to evidence is NOT a prohibited
pleading even if it is a kind of a motion to dismiss

How about an action for a sum of money? The determinant is the

principal amount: above P300,000.00 or above P400,000.00, as the case
may be.
Take note of the phrase exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
Bar Question: The demand letter states, you owe me P250,000.00 plus
interest of P100,000.00 plus damages of P50,000.00 plus attorneys fees of
P400,000.00. The debtor failed to comply so a case was filed stating in
detail the breakdown thus mentioned. Where should the action be file?
It should be filed with the RTC, because even if the principal amount is
only P250,000.00 cognizable by the MTC, the action is already breach of
contract which is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
It would now be easy to distinguish the jurisdiction of the MTC from the
RTC because if it involves money, you just look at the jurisdictional
amount of P300,000.00 or P400,000.00, as the case may be. If it is
P300,000.00 and below outside Metro Manila, it is with the MTC. If it is
P400,000.00 and below within Metro Manila, it is with the MTC.
Jurisdiction of the MTC over the subject matter
The problem here is that the MTCs are governed by two (2) rules: the
ordinary/regular rules of civil procedure and summary procedure.
RULES OF SUMMARY PROCEDURE:
1.
it is only applicable in the MTC: there is no summary
procedure before the RTC; if ever you call it summary it is not under
the rules on summary procedure but rather it is an ex parte
presentation of evidence

note: jurisdiction over the issue is waivable; jurisdiction over the res is not even
required; jurisdiction over the territory does not even apply
4.

the periods are shorter: the time to answer is only ten (10) days
as against the regular procedure which is fifteen (15) days; the time to
submit the case for decision is only thirty (30) days and the time to
render judgment is thirty (30) days from submission -- in regular
procedure, it is ninety (90) days from submission

What is the subject matter of summary procedure? The rule so

provides: violation of traffic rules, violation of the rental law.
Take note that in Metro Manila, any claim for money which does not
exceed P200,000.00 is summary. Outside Metro Manila, when it does not
exceed P100,000.00 it is likewise summary. There would be a confusion
regarding summary procedure in the small claims suit. Under the small
claims suit, it is also P100,000.00. Which then are you going to comply
with or what are you going to avail of? There is no rule that gives this
choice. But for purposes of the bar, if you are presented a problem where

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

the amount claimable is P100,000.00 and below, which are you going to
apply? You will find that there are salient factors in point under the
small claims suit that you do not find in summary procedure. An
example is that lawyers are not allowed under the small claims suit.
Therefore, if it is filed by counsel, that cannot be small claims. It has to be
summary. Another point, you dont file an Answer but instead, a
Response. You dont file a complaint but rather an application.
Jurisdiction of the Family Courts over the subject matter
The Family Courts, pursuant to RA 8369, what you have to remember
that all cases involving marriage and marital relations are lodged
exclusively with the Family Courts -- i.e., annulment of marriage, legal
separation, custody of children, guardianship (special proceedings),
these are all under Family Courts.
What is a possible bar problem regarding the jurisdiction of Family
Courts? It would be the parties. When any of the parties in a case is a
minor, automatically it will be with the Family Court, even if it is the
accused, or the private complainant, or the plaintiff, or the defendant, as
long as it involves a minor, it will be with the Family Court.
Note: VAWC (RA 9262) is also under jurisdiction of Family Courts.
Habeas corpus, a special proceeding, is cognizable by the RTC. However,
if it is habeas corpus in relation to guardianship and custody of children,
it is the Family Court which has jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the subject matter
*PD 1606
In studying the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, you have to answer
three (3) questions:
1)
What offense was committed?
2)
Who committed the offense?
3)
How was the offense committed?

11
What offenses are under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
pursuant to RA 1606, as amended?
1)
RA 3019 - Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
2)
RA 1379 - Ill Gotten Wealth Law
3)
RPC, Bribery
4)
EOs 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG cases)
5)
added by
jurisprudence (read Hannah
Serana v.
Sandiganbayan*):
Estafa
Falsification
*G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008
Hannah Serrana amended the rule of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Read also Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia v. Sandiganbayan (not in the outline).
Who committed the offense? It must be a public officer with Salary
Grade 27. In identifying who these officers are, you refer to the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 which is cited in
the case of Hannah Serana. See also the case of Escobal v. Garchitorena
where the case was dismissed because the petitioner is a Police Senior
Inspector, with salary grade "23."
How was the offense committed? It must have been committed in
relation to ones office.
These principles have been amended or modified by the Hannah Serana.
Hannah Serana v. Sandiganbayan: Hannah Serana was a student of UPCebu and she made it to the membership to the Board of Regents. As a
representative of the student body, she started soliciting money for the
renovation of the Vinzons Hall of UP Diliman. She was able to solicit, in
millions, from then President Joseph Estrada. She promised that after
the renovation, they are going to change the name to Joseph Estrada
Hall. However, nothing happened on the renovation and so when her
term ended, the succeeding student body reported her and filed a case

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

before the Office of the Ombudsman for Estafa and said office filed it
with the Sandiganbayan. Serana filed an MTD on the ground that estafa
is not among the cases cognizable by the Sandiganyan and even if it is
so, she is not a public officer; and even if she were a public officer, she is
not from Salary Grade 27; and even if she does, she did not commit the
alleged crime in relation to her office. The Supreme Court decided this
way: estafa having been committed, is now part of the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, if committed by a public officer. Serana, being a member
of the Board of Regents, performs public functions. Since UP is a state
university, she is considered similar to presidents, directors of
government-owned and controlled corporations. These officers are not
salary graded, yet if they commit those offenses, it is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. Finally, in relation to ones office, this means that the
public office must be an ingredient of the offense. As long as the public
function facilitated the commission of the crime, such person falls under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
This case amended the doctrine laid down in Exec. Sec. v. Lacson which is
the kuratong baleleng case -- a landmark case in Criminal Procedure,
together with the case of Sanchez v. Demetrio.
In Sanchez, the accused argues that he should be tried before the
Sandiganbayan which was rejected because one does not need to be a
mayor to commit the crime of rape.
In Lacson, Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
pursuant to RA 7975 which is the law prevailing at the time. According
to Lacson, said law provides that if any of the principal accused has
Salary Grade 27 but in the Kuratong Baleleng case, not one of the
principal accused has Salary Grade 27. Therefore, he claimed that he
should be charged before the regular courts. At the time, however,
Congress was trying to pass another law to amend RA 7975 which is
now RA 8249. In that law, Congress simply removed the word
principal thus covering all public officers with Salary Grade 27. The
Supreme Court denied Lacsons arguments. However, Lacson was tried
before the regular courts because of the third requirement. The Supreme

12
Court said that in relation to ones office, Lacson did not commit the
crime.
Other Kinds of Jurisdiction
What is primary jurisdiction? Under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a
question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
when the question demands the sound exercise of administrative
discretion requiring special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of
fact. The court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy, the jurisdiction of which is initially lodged with the
administrative body of special competence. (Riano)
This doctrine was first laid down in the case of Omictin v. CA. It means
the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in compliance with the principle
of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Examples:
If it is a case between a subdivision owner and a developer, the

primary jurisdiction is with the HLURB.

If it is a case of a tenant and a landlord, the jurisdiction is with

the DARAB.
If it is between the construction company and a subcontractor,

the jurisdiction is with the CIIC (Construction Industry).

If its about squatters, you can bring it before the COSLAP.

This is the exercise of primary jurisdiction. But this concept has been
somehow changed. When you speak of jurisdiction, we simply deal with
courts. But this time, the jurisdiction using the word primary is now
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Remember that the Ombudsman is
not part of the Judicial Branch of the government but is a
constitutionally-created body. Neither is the DOJ which is under the
Office of the President. At any rate, these two entities came up with a
MoA which provides, among others, that in cases involving public

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

officers cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original

jurisdiction, preliminary investigation must be conducted by the
Ombudsman in the exercise of primary jurisdiction so that even if the
case is already under investigation by the DOJ, the Office of the
Ombudsman can take it from the DOJ and continue the investigation.
What is delegated jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the MTC in
taking cognizance of land registration and cadastral cases when the
subject property is assessed at more than P100,000.00 and there are no
oppositors.
When the MTC rendered a cadastral judgment, where should you
appeal? It is to the Court of Appeals and not to the RTC. This is
exceptional and the only instance when a judgment of the MTC goes on
appeal to the CA and not to the RTC.
The regular jurisdiction of land registration and cadastral cases is the
RTC, but if it is delegated to the MTC, that is what you call delegated
jurisdiction and an appeal therefrom is to the CA and not to the RTC.
What is a special jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the MTC in taking
cognizance of bail applications and writ of habeas corpus. In the absence
of RTC judges.
How about limited jurisdiction? Limited jurisdiction is actually a
misnomer because courts are really used in a very limited sense.
Example, the probate court exercises limited jurisdiction. This means
that even if it is a petition for allowance/disallowance of a will, it will be
filed with the RTC and the RTC exercises limited jurisdiction which is
only to discuss the authenticity and due execution of the will. But you
know
from
your
special
proceeding
that
after
the
allowance/disallowance of the will, the settlement of estate is not over. It
has just started. Hence, this does not mean that you have to file another
case because the same probate courts resolves the matter. Another
example will be unlawful detainer or forcible entry. You only entertain

13
the issue of possession and never ownership. But again there is an
exception under Sec. 16, Rule 70.
What is residual jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the trial court in
taking cognizance of a case even after it has lost jurisdiction over the
subject matter. This is why it is called residual because it remains with
the trial court. Do not confuse this with residual prerogative. Read the
case of Katon v. Palanca where the Supreme Court discussed the latter
principle.
What is residual prerogative? Under the Katon case, it is the authority of
the appellate court in dismissing a case motu proprio on the ground of
that provided under Sec. 1, Rule 9 (defenses and objections not pleaded:
lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, litis pendentia, and prescription).
The basic distinction between residual jurisdiction and residual
prerogatives: The first is with the trial court while the second is with the
appellate court.
When does a court lose jurisdiction over the subject matter? It is only
after expiration of the period to appeal, file a motion for reconsideration,
or file a motion for a new trial. Before that, it has still jurisdiction. Refer
to Sec. 9, Rule 41.
Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. A party's appeal by
notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the
notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with
respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on
appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of
the time to appeal of the other parties.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed
in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record
on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation
of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by
the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants,
order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and
allow withdrawal of the appeal.
There are two (2) issues under this provision.
1)
perfection of appeal
2)
loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter

14
When does the court lose jurisdiction over the subject matter? It is
after January 30, because the last person (defendant Z) who may appeal
has until that date. Hence, the expiration of the period of appeal is after
January 30 because the defendants received the copy of the judgment on
different days.
When the court loses jurisdiction over the subject matter, it can still
entertain certain matters in the exercise of residual jurisdiction. An
example is a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. This is filed
with the trial court, provided, under jurisprudence, the records of the
case have not been transmitted to the appellate court. Once they are
transmitted [to the appellate court], said motion becomes an execution
pending appeal under Sec. 2, Rule 39 which is no longer an exercise of
residual jurisdiction.

In perfection of appeal, Sec. 9 provides that the trial court loses

jurisdiction over the subject matter upon expiration of the period to
appeal. But perfection appeal is upon the filing of a notice of appeal.
Illustration: If A files a case against X, Y. and Z. Judgment was rendered
in favor of A. The defendants (X, Y, and Z) received a copy of the
judgment on January 5, 10, and 15, respectively.
When may each defendant appeal? X may appeal up to January 20 (15
days from receipt). In the case of Y, he has to appeal that up to January
25. Z, on the other hand, has until January 30 within which to appeal.
If upon receipt on January 5 by X, he files a notice of appeal on January
8. When is appeal perfected? The answer is in Sec. 9, Rule 41. Appeal is
perfected as to X, on January 8 when he filed the notice of appeal.
When is appeal perfected as to Y and Z? It will never be perfected
because they never filed a notice of appeal. Hence, it is only perfected as
to X upon filing thereof.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015