Civil Procedure Pre Mid Transcript

CIVIL PROCEDURE
PREMID | ATTY. GALEON | EH 408 S.Y. 2019-2020
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

FOUR COMPONENTS OF REMEDIAL LAW Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by
1. Civil Procedure !"#"$% &'()*+,'*% -% .(+/% (0% $12% law.
2. Criminal Procedure )(3)*'3*+% 2"45% 45*% 6*45(+78%
3. Special Proceedings 9'()*+,'*7%13+%9'1)4")*7
4. Rules on Evidence "3%)"#"$%$"4":14"(3;% When it comes to enforcement of rights and
obligations created or provided for under substantive
COMPONENTS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: law almost always, in the enforcement thereof, entail
the filing of the appropriate action.
1. Ordinary Civil Actions (Rules 1 - 56)
2. Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 - 61) Example: Breach of obligation. Obligation in a
3. Special Civil Actions (Rules 61 - 71) contract of sale involving a car. Payment of the buyer
but non-delivery of the seller gives rise to a cause of
REMEDIAL LAW v. SUBSTANTIVE LAW action (action for rescission with damages or specific
performance with damages) under the law on sales.
Substantive law - that which creates, defines,
and/or regulates rights and obligations involving life, But before you can enforce any of these causes of
liberty, and property. action, you need to file the appropriate action in court.
Of course you cannot file an action unless there is a
Example: Obligations and contacts, Property, case in court.
Persons and Family Relations, Political Law (Bill of
Rights) TAKE NOTE: The Supreme Court being the only
Constitutional Court (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987
Remedial law – does not create rights or obligations; Constitution), all the other courts - from the Court of
prescribes or lays down the procedures or methods Appeals down to the first level courts like MTC - are
for the enforcement, protection, or giving effect of the nothing but creations of Congress.
rights and obligations created by substantive law.
In other words, it is Congress which enacts
Example 1: How to file petitions, what to allege, substantive law and it is also Congress which
where to file actions. creates the court (other than the Supreme Court)
through which you can seek the enforcement of your
Example 2: Criminal law does not teach us how to substantive rights.
conduct litigation of criminal cases. But these things
were taught in Criminal Procedure. CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DEFINE,
PRESCRIBE, AND APPORTION THE
SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS ENACTED BY JURISDICTION OF THE VARIOUS COURTS
CONGRESS PURSUANT TO ITS LEGISLATIVE
POWER Section 2, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
The Congress shall have the power to define,
Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
The legislative power is vested in Congress, which various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
shall consist of the Senate and the House of Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Representatives except to the extent reserved to the Section 5 hereof.
people by the provision on initiative and referendum. It is Congress also which has the power to define,
Substantive law which creates rights and obligations prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
is undoubtedly enacted by Congress pursuant to its various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
legislative power. Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 hereof.
CONGRESS CREATES THE COURTS OTHER
THAN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE CASES OVER WHICH THE CONGRESS CANNOT
ENFORCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS DEPRIVE THE SUPREME COURT OF
Atienza • Barrientos • Calamohoy • Elpa • Espiritu • Garnace • Hidalgo • Ibrahim • Kho • Lucero • Lumapas • Montilla • Moscoso • Peña • Reyes • Rodelas •
Rongcales • Samonte • Villanueva
1
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Congress has the power to define, prescribe and all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but subject increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
to some limitations with respect to the jurisdiction of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
the Supreme Court or cases mentioned under shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Section 5, Article VIII 1987 Constitution. Supreme Court.
Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Act 7691, is the manifestation of this power by
and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, Congress.
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
B.P. 129 was promulgated by the Old Congress
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on (Batasang Pambansa) whereas RA 7691 which
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court expanded the jurisdiction of the first level courts is
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower undoubtedly enacted by the Congress of the
courts in: Philippines.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS ENACTED BY

validity of any treaty, international or executive CONGRESS WHILE REMEDIAL LAW IS
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question. The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate
and enact remedial law pursuant to its rule-making
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, power, under Section 5 (5), Article VIII 1987
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed Constitution.
in relation thereto
Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
lower court is in issue.
xxx
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
(e) All cases in which only an error or to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
question of law is involved. assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
stations as public interest may require. Such all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
without the consent of the judge concerned. procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid Supreme Court.
a miscarriage of justice.
Examples of Rule-making Power:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and 1. The promulgation of the Rules of Court,
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, including:
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission - Circular prescribing for the issuance
to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal of the Writ of Amparo governing
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall forced disappearances
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
2
CIVIL PROCEDURE
-
Issuance of Writ of Habeas Data – the “(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
issue in the case involving St Therese forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That
College when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
- Procedures governing issuance of the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the
Writ of Kalikasan question of possession cannot be resolved without
2. Revised Rules on Summary Procedure deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the
All these things are promulgated by the Supreme issue of possession; and
Court pursuant to its rule-making power under
Section 5 (5), Article VIII 1987 Constitution. “(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property,
TAKE NOTE RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the lower courts – first level courts (MeTC, MTCC, the property or interest therein does not exceed
MTC, MCTC). While it is Congress which enacted Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
RA 7691 expanding the jurisdiction of the first level actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
courts, it is the Supreme Court which enacted does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 which implemented exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
amendatory provisions of RA 7691. attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for
Republic Act No. 7691 taxation purposes, the value of such property shall
SEC. 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
amended to read as follows: lots.”
“SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 09-94
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial June 14, 1994
Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE
Courts shall exercise: IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691.
“(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions

1. The new jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
including the grant of provisional remedies in proper
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil
cases, where the value of the personal property,
and original cases, and in cadastral and land
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
registration cases, under Section 19, 32, 33 and
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
34 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate,
7691 was effective on April 15, 1994, fifteen (15)
or amount of the demand does not exceed Two
days after the publication in the Malaya and in
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of
the Times Journal on March 30, 1994, pursuant
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
to Section 8 of the R.A. No. 7691.
litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation Example: RA 7691 which amended BP 129 confers
expenses, and costs shall be included in the upon the first level courts, MTC among others,
determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, jurisdiction over cases such as forcible entry and
That where there are several claims or causes of unlawful detainer cases.
actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the EXAMPLES ON HOW CONGRESS ENACTS
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the SUBSTANTIVE LAW BUT IS GIVEN TEETH BY
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes SC’S RULE MAKING POWER:
of action arose out of the same or different
transactions; Example 1:
3
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RA 7160, Sec. 408 - Subject Matter for Amicable Facts: RA 9165, Sec. 22 (substantive law) provided
Settlement; Exception Thereto. – The lupon of each that plea bargaining is not applicable in dangerous
barangay shall have authority to bring together the drugs cases.
parties actually residing in the same city or
municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes Ruling: Sec. 22 of said law is unconstitutional for
except: encroaching on the rule making powers of the SC
xxxx under Sec. 5(5), Art VIII, 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 408 is a substantive law being a mere LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE MAKING POWER OF
component of a law enacted by Congress. THE SC:
But it is the SC which gave this provision footing by Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
providing under Sec. 18 of the Revised Rules of following powers:
Summary Procedure, that non-referral to the Lupon
Tagampamayapa in cases where amicable (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
settlement is applicable, is a ground for dismissal of enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
the action, without prejudice to reviving the case as practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
soon as this requirement is satisfied. to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. — Cases requiring provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
there is no showing of compliance with such shall not diminish, increase, or modify
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
and may be revived only after such requirement shall courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
have been complied with. This provision shall not effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
apply to criminal cases where the accused was Court.
arrested without a warrant.
Indeed, SC can promulgate such rules on pleadings
Example 2: and practice, but in no way can such rules diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights.
Before, under PD 902-A, SEC had jurisdiction over
intra-corporate disputes and petitions for corporate PLEA BARGAINING
rehabilitation. But RA 8799, a substantive law,
jurisdiction over the same was transferred to the WHAT IS PLEA BARGAINING?
appropriate RTC. An arrangement between a prosecutor and a
defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a
This transfer was provided for under a substantive lesser charge in the expectation of leniency.
law but it is the SC who designated which RTCs will
act as such special court. PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE?
As per Estipona v. Lobrigo, it is procedural. It hinges
More importantly, it is the SC who gave the interim more on the rule-making power of the SC.
rules that governs intra-corporate controversies and
corporate rehabilitation. Atty. G: Isn’t it that once a court practices its rule-
making power, it cannot in any way diminish,
Example 3: increase, or modify substantive rights? So, the
question now, is the ruling in the case of Estipona
Estipona v. Lobrigo sound or does it rather contravene on the rule
GR NO. 226679 making power of the SC?
SC said it is more on the rule-making power.
4
CIVIL PROCEDURE
I have a different take on that. For me, plea Such MR was filed by the plaintiffs on the 15th day
bargaining is more of a substantive right. Kana bitaw following the receipt of the order dismissing the case.
sa mga child in conflict with the law providing for a
penalty lesser by as much as 2 degrees, that’s more Under Sec. 3, Rule 41 ROC, an appeal had to be
of a substantive right than a procedure and that is filed within 15 days from notice of judgement/ final
provided for by law. But in the case of Estipona, plea order.
bargaining, as said by the supreme court, is a matter
of procedural right. I concur with the result. It is Neypes filed a motion for reconsideration from the
favorable to the accused. For me, Sec. 23 of RA order dismissing the case on the 15th day. But then
9165 should be unconstitutional not because it the motion for reconsideration was denied by the
contravenes the rule-making power of the SC but RTC and 5 days following the receipt of the plaintiffs
because of equal protection. of the order denying the motion to dismiss, they
eventually filed a notice of appeal.
RULE MAKING POWER INCLUDES
The rule-making power necessarily carries with it the So 14 days plus 5 days is already 19 days. Hence,
power to amend, repeal, abrogate, relax, or suspend the RTC said that the notice of appeal will have to be
the operation of such rules. denied due course because it was already time
barred.
Through this, the SC made amendments to its own
1997 Rules on Civil procedure: Admin. Circ. No. 19- Under the old rules which was applicable in this case,
10-20. Section 3 of Rule 41, a notice of appeal must be filed
within 15 days and in the case of Neypes, it was filed
some 19 days from receipt of their copy of the
decision.
League of Cities Neypes went to the CA but the latter upheld the
ruling of the RTC further holding that the filing of a
SC flip flopped its decision 4 times. SC did that motion for reconsideration would only interrupt the
notwithstanding the clear provision under the rules running of the prescriptive period for filing of a notice
that a 2nd motion for reconsideration is considered of appeal.
(prohibited?). But in this case, the SC reopened,
revisited, and even abandoned its own decision Neypes argued that the filing of a motion for
which had already attained finality. SC appeared to reconsideration would have the effect of giving them
have emasculated the roots which the SC even a fresh period of 15 days to file a notice of appeal.
promulgated itself. It proved that it can, as a source
of these rules relax or suspend the application Again, the RTC said the rule is very clear that the
thereof in the name of substantive/ procedural due filing of an MR merely tolls the running of the
process. prescriptive period. Hence, Neypes only had 1 day
remaining to file a notice of appeal after filing their
MR.
Neypes v. CA
469 SCRA 633 Ruling: Neypes’ argument is impressed with merit.
Notwithstanding the provision of Sec. 3, Rule 41 of
Facts: petitioners - Napes, et. al. file a complaint the Rules of Cour, SC said that the filing of such MR
before the RTC for nullification of judgement over would have the effect of giving the movant a fresh
land titles/ reconveyance of property. Some of the period of 15 days to file a notice of appeal which will
defendants of the civil action filed a motion to dismiss be reckoned from the time of receiving the order
on the ground of prescription of action. denying his motion for consideration.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss such
Atty. G: What’s the basis for this ruling?
that it issued an order dismissing the case.
Pursuant to the rulemaking of the SC which
Aggrieved, Complainants filed a motion for
necessarily carries with it the power likewise not only
reconsideration of the order dismissing the case.
5
CIVIL PROCEDURE
to amend and repeal but also to relax the application (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another
of the rules and procedures it promulgated. for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)
After all, in the oft-cited case of Alonzo vs Villamor,
GR no. L-2352, July 26, 1910: A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both
are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions,
A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle civil action. (n)
art of movement and position, entraps and destroys
the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each (b) A criminal action is one by which the State
contending party fully and fairly lays before the court prosecutes a person for an act or omission
the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly punishable by law. (n)
trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done (c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a
upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
won by a rapier's thrust. particular fact. (2a, R2)
TAKE NOTE SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF

Atty said that we should memorize the doctrine COURT IN CERTAIN CASES
above in Alonzo vs Villamor by heart because if we
become legal practitioners, we may invoke said The Rules shall not entirely be applicable in cases
doctrine whenever we commit procedural blunders. filed in administrative bodies and quasi-judicial
bodies like:
CASES WHERE THE RULES OF COURT ARE a. COMELEC
INAPPLICABLE b. CSC
c. Board of Medicine
d. DARAB
Sec 4, Rule 1
e. RARAD
In what cases not applicable.- These rules shall
f. NLRC for labor cases
not apply to the following cases:
a. Election cases
These administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
b. Land registration cases
bodies promulgate their own respective rules.
c. Cadastral cases
d. Naturalization proceeding.
Ordinarily, admin bodies have a provision wherein
e. Insolvency proceedings
the ROC can be applied suppletorily. This provision
f. And other cases not herein provided for,
will be applicable when the rules of procedure of that
except by analogy or in a suppletory
body are insufficient, obscure or silent. But primarily,
character and whatever practicable and
the disposition in the hearing for administrative
convenient.
bodies and quasi-judicial bodies will have to be
governed by the rules of procedures promulgated by
ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS GOVERNED BY these administrative bodies or agencies
THE RULES OF COURT
Example 1:
ROC is applicable to labor cases but only in a
Sec 2. Rule 1
suppletory manner because NLRC promulgates their
In what courts applicable- these rules shall apply in
own rules and procedure.
all courts, except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court.
Sec 3, Rule 1, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
Suppletory application of the Rules of Court - In the
Section 3, Rule 1 absence of any applicable provision in these
Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the Rules, and in order to effectuate the objectives of
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal the Labor Code, the pertinent provisions of the
and special proceedings.
6
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rules of Court of the Philippines may, in the

WHY ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
interest of expeditious dispensation of labor justice
BODIES CAN PROMULGATE THEIR OWN RULES
and whenever practicable and convenient, be
OF PROCEDURE: LEGAL BASIS
applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and
effect.
Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
(5) x x x Rules of procedure of special courts and
NLRC does this pursuant to the so called power of quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
subordination (couldn't hear it properly). This can disapproved by the Supreme Court.
be applied when properly invoked by congress.
CONSTRUCTION ON THE RULES OF COURT
EXAMPLE 2:
In civil and criminal cases, when an affidavit is
introduced as evidence without the adverse party Sec. 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
being given the opportunity to cross examine the Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally
affiant, the said affidavit is deemed as mere hearsay construed in order to promote their objective of
and is therefore inadmissible as evidence. securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding.
The same is not true in labor cases, evidence such
as an affidavit is admissible even without the party General rule: The Rules of Civil Procedure must be
given the opportunity to cross examine. observed notwithstanding the above provision.
Cross and direct examinations are procedures Despite the ruling in the case of Alonzo v. Villamor,
observed in civil and criminal cases. Labor cases are that is no excuse for you to be remiss in applying and
decided by the position paper submitted by the in observing the Rules of Civil Procedure.
parties and the affidavit attached.
Exception: Abandonment or relaxation thereof can
Further, in Civil and criminal cases, evidence must only be done in the most exceptional circumstances.
be authenticated to identify its validity and
authenticity. Signatures must be verified and a mere ATTY. G: Ayaw mo pagsalig anang Alonzo v.
photocopy is not admissible. Villamor because it’s not a sure thing that the court of
law will sustain the invocation of the Alonzo case on
In labor cases there is no need to identify the relaxation of the rules because the general rule
signature. Ergo, not applicable in admin bodies and remains to be that rules of procedure must be
quasi-legislative agencies. observed and that relaxation thereof is only the
exception. Ayawg baliha. Akoy pasanginlan ninyo
EXAMPLE 3: ana. That is rather the exception. Last recourse ra
So kaso mo sa DARAB or COMELEC, ay mog gyud kung ma disgrasya.
palabig basa sa Civil Procedure, that is not
necessarily applicable. You read the rules JUST ABIDE BY THE RULES: So if the rules say we
enunciated or promulgated by NLRC, COMELEC as need to make a notice of appeal within 15 days or
the case may be. you’re given a grace period of 15 days, ayaw pag
salig. Better you file your notice of appeal within 15
In filing an answer in civil cases, you are given a days. Ayaw anang 16th or 17th day then mu invoke
period before its expiration. In labor cases, you need ra mog Alonzo v. Villamor.
to file your motion within 15 days.
MAS MAAYO MANGHINUBRA KAYSA KUWANG:
If filed lapas 15 days, shock jud ka, desisyonan na If the rules say that your pleading should be verified,
ang kaso. you should verify your pleading. Do not simply rely
on the relaxation of the rules enunciated in the case
of Alonzo v. Villamor. In fact the rule is, if you’re not
sure if the pleading needs to be verified, it’s better for
you to have it verified. Mas maayo manubra kaysa
7
CIVIL PROCEDURE
magkulang. So, that again, is the substantial
intangible because they are
proposition that the general rule remains to be that
physically present in the
rules of procedure must be observed and the
court
relaxation or abandonment thereof is nothing but the
exception and should only happen in the most Jurisdiction attaches to Jurisdiction does not
exceptional circumstances. the Court attach to the judge
THE CONCEPT OF COURTS: WHAT IS A COURT?
That explains why the continuity of the court, the
What people usually picture out when we say the efficacy of its judgments, orders, and processes, is
word “Court” is the courtroom. Most people picture not necessarily affected by the death, resignation, or
the place where proceedings are taken up as well as removal of a judge from service.
an officer in a black robe who presides the same.
So, if the judge renders a judgment, and after that,
You see the witness stand, the court interpreter, and the judge dies, his judgement will not be rendered
the lawyers. But this is not actually the court. This is invalid.
nothing but the courtroom.
ATTY’S PERSONAL EXAMPLE:
Court I was one of the defense lawyers in a criminal case.
The court is an organ of the government belonging to Then there was this ruling that was adverse to us. So,
the judicial department whose function is to apply the we thought of filing a petition for certiorari to question
laws to a legal controversy pending before it as well the judge’s decision. But then, one of the defense
as administration of justice. lawyers filed a motion for the inhibition of the judge,
which was also granted. So, the case was raffled to
Basically, we can liken the court to a corporation as a another sala. One of the defense lawyers opined that
juridical person. They are nothing but legal fiction. he would no longer pursue the certiorari since the
order lost its validity because the case was
EXAMPLE: transferred to another sala.
Ayala Corporation does not refer to the mall itself
since this is the mere building of the corporation. Of course, that idea is wrong.
There are employees working under the corporation Reason: The continuity of the court and the efficacy
(e.g. CEO, Managers, Employees, etc.) but these of its judgement is not affected by the death,
people are merely running the affairs of the resignation, or removal of the judge. Judges come
corporation. They are not the corporation itself and go, but the courts remain.
because a corporation is merely legal fiction. It is
intangible and abstract and the court is like that. Therefore, the judge and the court are completely
different things. However, in practice, lawyers often
COURTS DIFFERENTIATED FROM COURT address the judge as the court.
JUDGES
EXAMPLE:
When there is an order issued by the judge, lawyers
COURT JUDGE often say “the order issued by the honorable court”.
We do not say the order of the judge. So sometimes
Merely the tribunal that The one who presides
we equate one with the other but that should not be
is organized or created over the proceedings
the case because the court is actually different from
by law. conducted in the
the judge.
particular court or
tribunal.
CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS
It is the office Is the public officer
manning it 1. Constitutional Courts v. Statutory Courts
2. Courts of Original jurisdiction v. Courts of
Merely legal fiction, You can sue him/her Appellate jurisdiction
3. Superior Courts v. Inferior Courts
8
CIVIL PROCEDURE
4. Civil Courts v. Criminal Courts SECTION 2 (2), ARTICLE VIII, 1987
5. Courts of Law v. Courts of Equity CONSTITUTION
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
CONSTITUTIONAL V. STATUTORY COURTS
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Constitutional Courts – a court that is made by the Members.
Constitution.
TAKE NOTE: The only way to abolish the Supreme
SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION Court is to amend the Constitution.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be SUPERIOR COURTS V. INFERIOR COURTS
established by law.
TAKE NOTE: The ONLY Constitutional court here in

the Philippines is the Supreme Court.
The rest, the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court,

first level courts like MTC, MCTC, among others, are
statutory courts being a creation of a law.
Such provision, however, does not provide that the

Supreme Court is the number one court, and that the
other ones are inferior to it. It simply says, it should
be vested in “one Supreme Court.” Superior Court - one with controlling authority over
other courts, and with an original jurisdiction of its
Statutory Courts - courts that are created by the law
own.
or statutes enacted by Congress
Example: CA, RTC, and First-level courts (MTC, Inferior Court - one which is subordinate to another
MetC, MCTC, MTCC) court, the judgment of which may be reviewed by a
higher tribunal.
CAN WE CHARACTERIZE SANDIGANBAYAN AS
A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT? In our jurisdiction, we observe the hierarchy of courts.
There is division of labor and division of judicial
No, Section 5, Article XIII, 1973 Constitution merely power. The cases are divided such that there are
called for the creation of the Sandiganbayan by the cases which may only be taken cognizance of lower
Congress (then the Batas Pambansa). Therefore, the courts or higher courts, and there are cases that are
Sandiganbayan was created by a law and was filed before the superior court.
enacted by Marcos who was the President at that
time. Marcos issued PD 1486, creating the EXAMPLE: In Criminal Procedure, where the penalty
Sandiganbayan. imposable for the offense is imprisonment of 6 years,
1 day and up, then its jurisdiction is vested with the
CAN CONGRESS ABOLISH STATUTORY RTC. On the other hand, if the penalty imposable is
COURTS? lower than 6 years, then the case is cognizable by
the first level courts like MTC, among others.
There is a proposition that the statutory courts may
also be abolished by Congress because what the If you want to file an ejectment case, that does not
Congress can create, Congress also can abolish. give you the license to go directly to the Supreme
Court because you need to observe the hierarchy of
However, that proposition is of doubtful validity. courts.
9
CIVIL PROCEDURE
PURPOSE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
To prevent a situation where a particular court is
overloaded with cases. There is sharing of caseload, xxx
just like the way you eat pizza (bahin2 og slices).
Thus, there is division of power. (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
TAKE NOTE: In the general sense, a court is may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
superior or inferior in relation to another court. When
we say that the court is inferior or superior, we can xxx
only do that by comparing a court with the other
courts. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
The first level courts are MTC, MeTC, MTCC or
MCTC. The Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are located People v. Mateo
in far flung areas and are taking cognizance of the
cases of the nearby municipalities. In this case, SC made it clear that although it can
review such cases where penalty imposed is
The reason why there is a Municipal Circuit Trial reclusion perpetua or death, there must be an
Court is because they cannot afford to build intermediate review to be conducted by CA —
although before it was not in the rules.
Municipal Courts for each Municipality.
So that's why pursuant in the ruling, amendments
If you compare MTC with the RTC, we can say that were made to the Rules on Criminal Procedure to
MTC is inferior to the RTC because the decisions of pave way for intermediate review of those cases first
the MTC may be raised on appeal or may be by the CA then eventually by the SC.
reviewed, modified, or affirmed in toto by the RTC.
The case of Mateo is a good example where there is
EXAMPLE: If you file a case for ejectment in the a strict observance of the hierarchy of courts.
MTC and there is an adverse ruling, then you can
elevate the case to the RTC. Thus, we can say that Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General
MTC is inferior to the RTC because the latter may
reverse the ruling of the MTC. In this case, Falcis III filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus before and directly with the Supreme
While the RTC is said to be superior compared to Court seeking for the declaration of provisions Art. 1
& 2 of The Family Code unconstitutional.
MTC, RTC is inferior to the Court of Appeals
because the decision rendered by the RTC either in Falcis contended that same-sex marriage should be
the exercise of its original jurisdiction or appellate allowed in this jurisdiction. But take note that petition
jurisdiction, may be elevated on appeal or even for certiorari may be taken cognizance of by the RTC,
reverse its decision. In that context, CA is superior to it may also be taken cognizance of by the CA.
the RTC. However, the CA is inferior to the Supreme
Court because the latter can also reverse, modify, or Although Art. VIII Sec. 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution
mentions that certiorari is cognizable by the Supreme
affirm, either on appeal or on certiorari, the decisions
Court under its original jurisdiction, it does not say
rendered by the CA. that certiorari falls under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the SC. Jurisdiction over such petition
However, the first level courts are considered to be is therefore shared and concurrent by the RTC, CA,
co-equals, not one is superior over the other. and SC.
1987 Constitution Art. VIII Sec. 5(2)(d)
10
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Falcis filed it directly with the SC. The Supreme The RTC, when reviewing the decision of the first
Court said that this is a petition for certiorari, indeed, level courts, is considered a court of appellate
this falls under our jurisdiction but it would appear jurisdiction. So it is both a court of original and
that what Falcis filed partakes of the nature of appellate jurisdiction.
declaratory relief. In that context the SC said it
THE COURT OF APPEALS PRIMARILY AN
should have been filed first with the RTC.
APPELLATE COURT
The decisions of RTC may be elevated further on
SC, therefore, enjoined Mr. Falcis to observe the so
appeal or on certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The
called hierarchy of courts.
name of this court, “APPEALS”, suggests that it is
primarily an appellate court.
Courts of Original Jurisdiction and Courts of
Appellate Jurisdiction
THE COURT OF APPEALS AS A COURT OF
Courts of Original Jurisdiction - It refers to the ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
courts where the case is commenced, where the The Court of Appeals is also considered as a court
case is filed at the first instance.
having original jurisdiction because Petitions for
Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction - It is a kind of Certiorari, Habeas Corpus, applications for the
court which somehow decides a case on appeal or issuance of the Writ of Amparo, and applications for
brought to it on appeal or on certiorari. Courts of the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan, among others,
Appellate jurisdiction have the power to review are filed directly to the CA.
decisions rendered by courts below.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals, just like the RTC,
TAKE NOTE: The first level courts in Metropolitan are both courts of original jurisdiction and appellate
Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and
jurisdiction.
Municipal Trial Courts are no doubt courts of original
jurisdiction because the cases filed there are filed
directly and at first instance. In fact where what you file is a petition for annulment
of judgement (not merely raising it on appeal) of the
But where a decision is already rendered therein, Regional Trial Court, the case should be filed directly
and is brought on appeal to the RTC then in the to the Court of Appeals.
instance, the RTC is exercising its appellate
jurisdiction. EXAMPLE: Regional Trial Court renders a decision
and it was rendered with extrinsic fraud, you can
RTC AS A COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
directly file with the Court of Appeals for annulment
A criminal case with an imposable penalty of
imprisonment higher than 6 years falls under the of judgment of the Regional Trial Court. When the
original jurisdiction of the RTC. judge was bribed – do not file an appeal but rather
an annulment of judgment. It is as if that judge acted
A civil case wherein the subject matter is not capable without jurisdiction. File it before the CA.
of pecuniary estimation, is to be filed directly with the
RTC. THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter or the court of
TAKE NOTE: Singsong v. Isabella Sawmill.
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary last resort. It is undoubtedly a court of appellate
estimation are those for specific performance, jurisdiction and court of original jurisdiction.
support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of
judgment; also actions questioning the validity of a Section 5(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
and to recover the price paid and for rescission, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and
which is a counterpart of specific performance.
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
RTC AS AN APPELLATE COURT quo warranto and habeas corpus.
11
CIVIL PROCEDURE
settlement.
The first level courts only have the original
jurisdiction. They do not have appellate jurisdiction
because there is no more court below them. It is a provision which provides that the disputes
involving residents of the same locality, barangay,
THE LUPON TAGAPAMAYAPA city must first be referred to the office of the
barangay captain and the lupong tagapamayapa. It
Sec. 408 of Local Government Code
does not make the office of the barangay captain or
(RA 7160)
the lupong tagapamayapa a court.
Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception
Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have
TAKE NOTE: The cases there are not for purposes
authority to bring together the parties actually
of adjudication but for purposes of mediation and/or
residing in the same city or municipality for
reconciliation.
amicable settlement of all disputes except:
Even if the case is eventually filed with the first level
(a) Where one party is the government, or any
courts, if there is no mediation then, that does not
subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
make the first level courts, courts of appellate
jurisdiction.
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee,
and the dispute relates to the performance of his
TAKE NOTE: Where MTC may consider a case on
official functions;
appeal - When a decision is rendered by a public
officer it may be brought to MTC by way of an appeal.
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment
Such as when one is applying for a permit to conduct
exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five
a rally in a public place before the Mayor. If denied, it
thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
may be reviewed by the MTC. This is an isolated
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended case and does not make the MTC an appellate court.
party;
CRIMINAL COURT vs. CIVIL COURT
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties
located in different cities or municipalities unless Criminal Court - decides criminal cases only
the parties thereto agree to submit their differences Civil Court - decides civil cases only.
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
CHARACTERIZATION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities, BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL COURTS
except where such barangay units adjoin each
All Philippine courts hearing civil cases are also
other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
empowered to hear criminal cases. Our courts, even
differences to amicable settlement by an the Supreme Court, are both civil and criminal courts
appropriate lupon; trying civil and criminal cases.
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the Circuit Criminal Court
President may determine in the interest of Justice In the past, there was a specialized court called
or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Circuit Criminal Courts which would only hear and try
Justice. criminal cases. With the advent of BP 129, this court
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling had been abolished and its jurisdiction has been
within the authority of the lupon under this Code transferred to the RTC. There is no more Circuit
are filed may, at any time before trial motu propio Criminal Court today.
refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable
12
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Sandiganbayan he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to
Cases filed before the Sandiganbayan generally deny the existence of such facts.
involve public officers committing criminal offenses
such as violations of the Anti-Graft and Corruption
Act (RA 3019) and of Arts. 210-212 of the RPC.
However, it is characterized as both a criminal and a Laches
civil court. Its civil aspect being its authority to decide Laches is an unreasonable delay in the bringing of a
forfeiture cases such as those involving ill-gotten cause of action before the courts of justice. The rule
wealth (RA 1379). of mirisi applies. If you sleep on your rights, that
already forfeits your right to institute your case.
TAKE NOTE: Art. 100 of the RPC, in conjunction
with Rule 111 of the ROC, validate the proposition Solutio indebiti (Payment by mistake)
that our courts are both criminal and civil courts. Said principle provides that if something is received
There is no such thing as 100% civil court or 100% when there is no right to demand it, and it was
criminal court. unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to
return it arises. No one should unjustly enriched
ART. 100 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE himself at the expense of another.
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.
- Every person criminally liable for a felony is also TAKE NOTE The fact that our courts are both courts
civilly liable. of law and equity is bolstered by Art. 9 of the NCC.
RULE 111 OF THE RULES OF COURT Art. 9, New Civil Code

Prosecution of Civil Action No judge or court shall decline to render judgment
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — by reason of the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil of the laws.
action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the offended party waives the WHAT TO APPLY
civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Apply the customs of the place or as long as the
same is not contrary to public law, morals or public
policy as that apply some equitable principles. Hence
COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY the principle of the maxim “equity follows the law”. So
even in the absence of law or even if there is a law
Courts of law are courts that apply the provisions of but it is insufficient or probably obscure, the judge
the law. On the other hand, courts of equity decide ought to render a verdict by applying equitable
cases applying equitable principles, such as principles.
principles of fairness, of fairplay, etc.
Pepsi Co. v. NLRC
Our courts are both courts of law and of equity. More In the Labor Code, if the employee will be
often than not, equitable principles are found in terminated from office with a justifiable cause; the
principles of law. Examples are the principles of employee is not entitled to a separation pay. But
laches, estoppel, and solutio indebiti which are all applying equitable principles, Supreme Court said
written in the Civil Code. that even if the employee is terminated for cause
but as long as such cause does not affect his
Estoppel in pais moral character, or does not include moral
The principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein one, turpitude, or affect his integrity, coupled with the
by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his employee’s long years of service, then he may be
own silence when he ought to speak out, awarded financial assistance in a form of
intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces separation pay.
another to believe certain facts to exist and such
other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that
13
CIVIL PROCEDURE
That is not in the Labor Code because it only

states that when if the employer was terminated Regulus Development Corp. CA
illegally then he may be entitled to separation pay
and for authorized causes. But let us say he was Equity Jurisdiction - Aims to provide complete justice
terminated for theft then he should not be given a in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its
separation pay. But if one is terminated for habitual judgments to the special circumstances of a case
absenteeism he may be terminated for cause but because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law
he may demand for separation pay. That is not in is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the
the letter of the Labor Code. Equitable Principles exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to
were applied here. Indeed, when the law is silent prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
or obscure then does not prohibit in rendering
judgment—it has to apply some equitable The way I understand it (Beulah): Strictly speaking, a
principles. law may be applicable to a certain case, but this very
same case may have certain details that are beyond
the contemplation of the letter of the supposed
applicable law. So, if the courts do not adjust its
Adoption of Stephanie Astorga application based on what if equitable, they would
frustrate rather than facilitate justice.
Facts: It is about a father adopting his own
illegitimate child. The petition was granted, but
then he filed for a motion for reconsideration David-Chan v. CA
asking the trial court to allow the child to use the Equity is applied only in the absence of, and never
maiden family name of the mother as the child’s against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.
middle name. But the trial court denied the motion Equitable arguments cannot prevail over the legal
for reconsideration because the judge said there is findings.
no law allowing that kind of relief. Thus, the father
went to the Supreme Court. Inherent Powers of The Court
Issue: W/N the child can use the maiden name of The Court also has inherent powers which need not
the child’s mother despite the silence of the law be granted by laws. These rules are written under
Rule 135, Sec. 5, of the Rules of Court which
Held: Yes, she can use the maiden name of her
provides for the Powers and Duties of Courts and
mother as her middle name.
Judicial Officers. This rule enumerates the inherent
powers of every court.
The judge is correct when he said that there is no
law for the relief but there is also no law in
1. Power of the Court to issue and preserve
prohibiting the same. It is customary for Filipinos
order in its immediate presence.
that we have a middle name. Equity was applied.
Sec. 5 (a), Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court
TAKE NOTE Equity is applied in situations where no To preserve and enforce order in its immediate
law is applicable or even if there is a law the law is presence
silent or obscure. But if the law is very clear, equity
can hardly be applied.
We all know that trials are conducted in public except
EXAMPLE: Congress reimposed death penalty. You those cases involving minor or rape which should be
are the judge. A case was filed before your court for held in closed-door.
a case for a heinous crime. Then after the trial, you
will impose a death penalty. If you are the judge you Pursuant to this power, the court may hold people in
have to impose the appropriate penalty as prescribed contempt of court.
by law. There is no way that you will apply equity.
You cannot say that you will not impose death Baculi v. Belen
penalty because it is against your religion. Dura Lex Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority,
Sed Lex. justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends
14
CIVIL PROCEDURE
to bring the authority and administration of the law 3. Power to Compel Obedience to its Judgement
into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties,
litigant or their witnesses during litigation. Sec. 5 (c) , Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court
To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of
direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct court, in a case pending therein
contempt is committed when a person is guilty of
misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as
EXAMPLE 1: You file a case for ejectment before a
to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
first level court, the judgment was affirmed on appeal
same, including disrespect toward the court,
before the RTC, so the records will be remanded to
offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be
the court of origin and expect that there will be a writ
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an
of execution.
affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.
Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that The writ of execution is directed at enforcing the
which is committed out of the presence of the court. decision rendered by the MTC as affirmed on appeal
Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, by the RTC. The writ of execution is to be served on
to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of the losing defendant by the sheriff.
justice would constitute indirect contempt.
If the losing defendant who is directed to peacefully
vacate the premises subject to the litigation does not
Sec. 1, Rule 71, Rules of Civil Procedure follow the directive, then the sheriff may inform the
Direct contempt punished summarily. A person guilty judge and upon motion the court will issue a Writ of
of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court Demolition.
as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward the court, EXAMPLE 2: The issuance of a writ of demolition is
offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be another manifestation of the power of the court to
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an compel obedience to its judgement.
affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so,
may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such ATTY’S SUGGESTION: For plaintiff’s counsel - Do
court and punished by a fine not exceeding two not commit a mistake of accompanying the sheriff in
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten enforcing the writ of executions, especially the writ of
(10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a demolition.
court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not Lesson 1: It may harm you because a writ of
exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not demolition is against the owner’s will, there’s a
exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court. lawyer who accompanied the sheriff and upon doing
the demolition, gi martilyo ang ulo sa lawyer.
2. Power of the Court to enforce order
Lesson 2: (Atty. G’s experience) There was a case
Sec. 5 (b) , Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court filed against the sheriff because the property was not
To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a owned by the losing defendant, nadamay sad si Atty.
person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial because he was there.
investigation under its authority
Lesson 3: Warning shots, dili muila ug abogado ang
EXAMPLE: There are situations that the court will bala.
appoint a Commissioner or Board of Commissioners
Lesson 4: There might be a case filed against you
to conduct hearings
coupled with a disbarment case.
The hearings conducted are not by the Judge but by
Lesson 5: (Atty. G’s experience) A case was filed for
the Commissioner appointed, however this does not
illegal trespass to dwelling
give any license to disrespect the court appointed
Commissioner because the court may cite you in
Atty. G: List down these things on your notes
contempt.
because these are not in the rules
15
CIVIL PROCEDURE
4. Power to Control its Ministerial Officers “So in his own accord, without any motion for
reconsideration, the court exercising its inherent
Sec. 5 (d) , Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court power rectified and corrected itself by issuing an
To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its amended order”
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any
manner connected with a case before it, in every Sec. 5 (h) , Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court
manner appertaining thereto. To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading
or other paper to be filed and used instead of the
EXAMPLE: A sheriff enforcing a judgment, he is original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its
always under the control, supervision and direction of records and proceedings.
the court.
In your evidence, you’ll come across this term called
Sec. 5 (f), Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, to the end that when
To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a the evidence presented is a document, then the
case pending therein, and in all other cases where it original document must be presented in court.
may be necessary in the exercise of its powers
Ordinarily, you are not allowed to present a
photocopy, but the court has this inherent power to
EXAMPLE: Usually in court proceedings before the
relax the rules to allow the parties to present a copy
witnesses will testify to deliver his testimony for direct
of the lost pleading or original. Normally, this
or cross examination, he will take an oath to tell the
happens when documents are lost by natural
truth and nothing but the truth.
calamities (like fire)
ATTY’S SUGGESTION: If you are the witness, tell
Question: What if the court has to enforce a
the truth as the bible says “the truth will set you free.”
decision but the law is silent on how to enforce
But as a practicing lawyer, “If the truth will not set
the same. What will the court do?
you free, then lie by all means.”
5. Power to Amend and Control its Process and Section 6, Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court
Orders Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. — When by
law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial
Sec. 5 (g) , Rule 135, 1997 Rules of Court officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means
To amend and control its process and orders so as necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by
to make them comfortable to law and justice such court or officer; and if the procedure to be
followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not
specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any
Normally, If the court modifies its judgement or order, suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
it’s upon a motion by any of the litigants, ex. Motion adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of
for Reconsideration. the said law or rules.
Ordinarily, the court will not modify its judgment or
correct its order UNLESS there is a MOTION filed by TAKE NOTE: The court should not and cannot be
any of the parties. rendered inutile by the fact that the procedure/rules
are silent. The judge will have to find ways to enforce
The Court has the inherent power to correct, amend its orders or judgment, all in the name of justice. He
or rectify its order or judgement in the name of has to innovate. The above provision provides that
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. where there are no procedures provided for in the
law in the exercise of jurisdiction, then reasonable
Atty. G: “In my years of practice, I only encountered measures and mode of processes for as long as they
ONE instance where the court, BY ITSELF, may somehow approximate to the spirit of what the
corrected its order without us lawyers and litigants procedure does provide.
filing a motion for reconsideration.”
Atty. G: There was this case, I presented an
accused and then she had a 3 month old child at the
time of her arrest. She was arrested in Lapu Lapu.
16
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Then we applied for bail. Ordinarily, when you apply Question: Could that warrant of arrest be
for bail, the regular procedure is that before the judge implemented in Baguio City?
issues the release order, the accused must be
brought to court to sign some documents (her A warrant of arrest is also a process, it’s also a writ
commitments, undertakings). Then it was already 5 issued by the court just like the writ of habeas corpus.
pm pag process sa among papers, it was a Friday. If We need to be guided by the provisions under
di to maabot sa judge then kalaboso ang akong Section 3 of the Interim Rules.
client. The judge didn't want to sign the release order,
but I pleaded with the judge and told her she had a 3 Region refers to the judicial region, not the division.
month old baby. And somehow the judge found ways The writ in connection with these cases could only be
to enforce its order. She said ok to signing the enforced within the judicial region of the court which
papers so long as I undertake that 1st thing in the issued the same.
morning of Monday, you will present to me the
undertakings to be signed by your client. So akoy In the first situation, if the RTC of Maasin City issued
gipa-undertake ug una na mupirma siya. And that is the writ of habeas corpus, such writ cannot be
under section 6 rule 135. enforced in Pasig. Because if at all, the writ issued
by the RTC of Maasin City could only be enforced
within judicial region number 8, to which RTC of
INTERIM RULES Maasin City belongs. It is also in that context that the
writ issued by the RTC of Cebu City belonging as it
SECTION 3, Interim Rules does to judicial region number 7 could not be
Writs and processes. — (a) Writs of certiorari, enforced in Pasig because Pasig belongs to the
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas National Capital judicial region.
corpus and injunction issued by a Regional Trial
Court may be enforced in any part of the region. TAKE NOTE::This rule only applies to certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
One of the cases falling under the original jurisdiction corpus and injunction.
of the RTC is a petition for habeas corpus in relation
Atty G: There was this intra-corporate case we
to illegal detention.
handled. The main office of the corporation is in
Cebu City but the corporation has branches
EXAMPLE: A person is a resident of Maasin, Leyte
throughout the Visayas area, one of which was
and the he came to Cebu but while in Cebu City he
situated in Davao City. It was a public corporation,
was abducted and eventually brought to Pasig City
the mother filed a case against the children in the
where he would illegally detained.
RTC of Davao.
Question 1: Suppose the family of the person
In that case, the mother prayed for injunctive relief
detained filed a petition for habeas corpus before the
seeking to enjoin the performance by the defendants
RTC of Maasin City and the RTC issues a writ as
of some corporate acts. So we filed a motion to
prayed for, could that writ be enforced in Pasig
dismiss, where we argued that the case partook of
where the person is illegally detained?
the nature of an intra-corporate dispute hence it
should be filed in the RTC of Cebu. And in respect to
Question 2: Suppose that instead of filing a petition
the application for an injunctive writ, we contended
for habeas corpus the family of the person illegally
that the RTC could not issue a writ of injunction to be
detained filed it before the RTC Cebu City where the
enforced against the defendants for acts to be
abduction happened and the RTC of Cebu City
performed here in Cebu City.
issued the writ, could it be enforced in Pasig?
EXAMPLE: A case is filed before the RTC in Cebu We were sustained because Section 3 Paragraph (a)
City because the crime happened here. After filing of is very clear notwithstanding the submission of the
the information, the court issued a warrant of arrest. matter. On the other hand, they came up with good
But at the time the warrant of arrest was issued, the arguments because the lawyer for the mother is of
accused already fled to Baguio City. course the Marquee lawyer based in Manila, he was
one of the lawyers for ERAP but it just so happened
that the law and the rules were on our side. Section 3
17
CIVIL PROCEDURE
is very clear that written injunction may only be So, if this is filed in Cebu City, the court issues
enforced within the judicial region where the issuing summons in a Civil case then it so happens that the
court sits. defendant resides in Marikina, then the summons
can enforced or served in Marikina City.
STUDENT’S QUESTION: Atty., are there writs which
can be executed outside the region? EXAMPLE: If there is already a judgment in a civil
case and the court thereafter issued the writ of
Atty: You may recall that I also perceived another execution, it could still be enforced anywhere in the
situation where the RTC of Cebu City issued a Philippines. The writ of execution falls under the
warrant of arrest. purview of “other writs” under Sec.3(a) of the interim
rules.
TAKE NOTE: Warrant of arrest is also a writ, it’s a
process issued by the court. Can that writ issued by ENFORCEMENT OF SEARCH WARRANT
RTC in Cebu City be enforced in Baguio City where
the accused inhabited? YES. Because paragraph b RULE 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
of the same section 3 of the Interim Rules provide Sec. 2 Court where application for search warrant
that other writs, meaning writs other than certiorari, shall be filed. – An application for search warrant
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas shall be filed with the following:
corpus and injunction. Other writs other than those
may be enforced or issued by the RTC, MeTC, MTC, (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
MTCC, MCTC may be enforced anywhere in the crime was committed.
Philippines.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application,
SECTION 3(b), Interim Rules any court within the judicial region where the crime
3. Writs and processes. — (b) All other processes, was committed if the place of the commission of the
whether issued by a regional trial court or a crime is known, or any court within the judicial region
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court or where the warrant shall be enforced.
municipal circuit trial court may be served anywhere
in the Philippines, and, in the last three cases, However, if the criminal action has already been filed,
without a certification by the judge of the regional trial the application shall only be made in the court where
courts. the criminal action is pending.
TAKE NOTE: Only the writs mentioned in Sec 3(a) General Rule: Territorial jurisdiction where the crime
of the interim rules are enforceable only within the is committed.
judicial region where the issuing court sits. Other
than certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto Exception: By a court within the juridical region
injunction, mandamus, habeas corpus issued by where the crime was committed OR where the
RTC or in first level court can be enforced anywhere search warrant is to be implemented.
in the Philippines.
EXAMPLE: The crime happened in Lapu-lapu City
Further, those mentioned in Sec. 3(a) are not but is so happened that the accused is a public
cognizable by first level courts. That explains why the officer in that city. There’s a danger that there will be
rules mentioned the writs issued by the RTC. a leakage of information. So, when that happens,
there is a reason for the applicant to apply the search
But as to others writs, such as warrant of arrest, it warrant in the court other than in Lapu-lapu city.
can be enforced anywhere in the Philippines.
This is valid because the court where the warrant is
EXAMPLE: Such that in the civil case, when the filed is situated in the said judicial region where the
court issues summons and directs the defendant to crime is committed or where the warrant is to be
file his answer to the complaint within the given implemented.
period, the summons may be served anywhere in the
Philippines. TAKE NOTE: This is just justified where there are
compelling reasons.
18
CIVIL PROCEDURE
summons can be enforced anywhere in the
So at most, following the provision of Sec. 2, Rule Philippine. Take note of enforcement and application
126, it would really appear that search warrant may for search warrant. Do not forget your basics.
only be enforced within the judicial region where the Remember this.
issuing court sits following the general rule and the
exception provided under Sec.2 of Rule 126. IMPORTANT: Familiarize the jurisdiction of various
courts. Revisit your crimpro notes.
But there is still another exception, an exception to
the exception. The one provided for by JURISDICTION
Administrative Circular no. 03-8-02, Feb. 15, 2004.
Under Sec.12 of said circular. Jurisdiction – the power and authority of the court to
hear, try, and decide a case.
Administrative Circular No. 03-8-02
SEC. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special Jurisdiction is taken from two (2) Latin words, “juris”
criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and “dico”.
and Quezon City.– The Executive Judges and,
whenever they are on official leave of absence or are Juris - stands for “law”.
not physically present in the station, the Vice- Dico – means “to say or to speak”.
Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon
City shall have authority to act on applications filed If you combine the two words, “juris” and “dico”,
by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the jurisdiction, means to speak under authority of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime law or to speak by the law.
Task Force (ACTAF), for search warrants involving
heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession If you speak by the law; if you invoke legal provisions;
of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of then it will really appear that you are authorized.
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money So jurisdiction refers to the power of the court not
Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs only to hear and decide cases, but also the power to
Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may enforce the decisions or orders issued therein.
hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included
herein by the Supreme Court. TAKE NOTE: The jurisdiction of the court is of
primary importance because if the case is filed in the
wrong court, then any proceeding/s conducted
TAKE NOTE: Only in those cases may the search therein is considered to be null and void.
warrant be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction
where the issuing court sits. EXAMPLE 1: In Criminal Procedure, where a penalty
imposable for the offense is imprisonment exceeding
These search warrants may be enforced anywhere in six (6) years, then the criminal case should be filed
the Philippines or outside the territorial jurisdiction of with the RTC. Such that if you file such criminal case
the issuing court may only be granted by the with the MTC, it is without jurisdiction.
Executive Judges or in their absence, the Vice-
Executive Judges of the RTCs in Manila and Quezon If the case is Homicide or Murder. You file it with the
City. MTC. If the MTC renders a judgment, then later on it
is found out that the MTC is without jurisdiction, if the
Atty. G: While I was working. Naay implementation case will be filed anew with the RTC, the accused
of search warrant, gi raid among neighboring office, cannot even invoke in his favor his right against
ang application for search warrant kay not in cebu double jeopardy because in the first place, he had
city but in manila. not been put in jeopardy at all because the court in
the case, at the first instance, was without jurisdiction.
There was also a raid about counterfeited products And this is also with respect to civil cases.
of Lacoste, the issuing court is RTC in manila. But
only in those cases where a search warrant may be
enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction of the EXAMPLE 2: One of the cases falling under the
issuing court. On the contrary, warrant of arrest and jurisdiction of the first-level courts is the case for
19
CIVIL PROCEDURE
ejectment, unlawful detainer or forcible entry. So, if So indeed, exercise of jurisdiction is different from
an ejectment case is filed before the RTC, any jurisdiction. The latter pertains to the authority of the
judgment rendered therein is invalid because the court to hear and decide the case, whereas the
RTC has no jurisdiction to hear at the first instance former is the action of the court in furtherance, or in
the case for ejectment. putting into action the authority conferred upon it by
the law.
EXAMPLE 3: In your criminal law, a case for
physical injuries is filed with the wrong court. It was ERROR OF JURISDICTION V. ERROR OF
filed with the RTC when it should have been filed JUDGEMENT
with the MTC. Even if the RTC renders a decision
therein, any such decision is void for want of Courts also commit mistakes because the ones
jurisdiction. presiding the Courts are also human beings. That is
why in the law, or under the rules, we have these
That holds true in civil cases as well. Such that when remedial measures in the event that there is an
you file a case for legal separation with the MTC, adverse judgement. You may want to file an appeal
even if the MTC renders a judgement therein, that or perhaps an action or petition for certiorari because
judgement is not enforceable for want of jurisdiction. errors may be committed by the courts. It is in that
It is void because MTC has no jurisdiction over regard that we need to differentiate error from
petitions for legal separation. jurisdiction and error in judgement.
JURISDICTION vs. THE EXERCISE OF ERROR IN JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION Ejectment cases fall under the jurisdiction of the first
level courts (MTC, MTCC, or MeTC as the case may
be).
We need to differentiate jurisdiction from the exercise Suppose that the case for ejectment is filed before
of jurisdiction although these two terms are the RTC. When the RTC issued summons to the
interrelated. defendant who was mindful of the provision of the
law and the jurisdiction of the courts, instead of filing
JURISDICTION an answer, filed a motion to dismiss, pleading for the
The power of the court to try and decide cases. outright dismissal of the case contending that the
Simply put, jurisdiction, as applied to litigation, refers case should have been filed with the MTC.
to the authority of the Court.
So the defendant here filed a motion to dismiss for
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION want of jurisdiction. But for one reason or another,
The exercise of the authority that was given to it by the RTC is not persuaded. The judge denied the
the law. motion to dismiss and ruled that it has jurisdiction
over the case.
TAKE NOTE: Jurisdiction is NOT affected by any
irregularity or error in the judgement committed by The question now is what kind of error was
the court in disposing of the case. Authority or committed by the court? Is that an error of judgment
jurisdiction is different from exercise of jurisdiction. or error of jurisdiction?
EXAMPLE: If for example, the case is filed before It is an error of jurisdiction. Because in the first
the Court and the Court determines that it has place, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. So,
jurisdiction over the case and issues summons that error is an error of jurisdiction.
directing the defendant to file his answer to the
complaint. Thereafter the court conducts pretrial, trial, ERROR IN JUDGMENT
and judgement. There is a case for ejectment and the lawyer
handling the case for the plaintiff is a graduate of
The act of the court in issuing summons and in USC. He filed the case before the MTC. Defendant
resolving any and all issues, are considered acts in cannot file a motion to dismiss. So, he filed an
furtherance of, or exercise of jurisdiction. answer.
20
CIVIL PROCEDURE
In his answer, the defendant said that the cause for EXAMPLE: Supposing that the lawyer for the losing
ejectment must fail because according to him, he is defendant here is Gravador, and he already received
occupying the property under a contract of lease. the adverse decision. Under the rules, he had a
The period of which has not yet expired, or the lease period of 15 days, but Gravador did not file a motion
is still subsisting upon renewal. for reconsideration and it was already 2 days lapsed.
The plaintiff contended that the contract has already Can Gravador file certiorari instead? (because after
expired. After submission of the parties’ position all, certiorari can be filed within 60 days.)
papers, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It ruled
that the contract of lease has already expired. NO. Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. In the
However, in truth and in fact, the contract is still case of Gravador, the rule of mirisi applies. It will be
subsisting. dismissed.
Atty. G: Be careful with this action because it is
The court, therefore, misappreciated the evidence possible that your client will file a disbarment case
submitted by the parties. It is an error of judgment. against you and accuse you of ignorance of the law.
What is the importance of knowing the difference

Pena - 16 - 21
between the two errors?
It is very important for us to know the kind of error EXAMPLE: Ejectment case filed correctly with the
that is committed by the court because our remedies MTC. Defendant filed an answer interposing the
will depend on it. defense of ownership. And the court misled by the
submission, erroneously dismissed the case on the
REMEDIES basis that it has no jurisdiction because of the issue
Error of jurisdiction - Question the order of the of ownership and that it should be filed with the RTC.
RTC through certiorari or prohibition under Rule 65.
Issue: What kind of error is that?
In such a situation, the order of the court is null and
void for want of jurisdiction. Answer: Error of judgement. In the first place, the
MTC has jurisdiction over the ejectment case. Hence,
Error of judgment - Remedy is appeal because the your remedy where the court renders a judgement
judgment here, although erroneous, is not dismissing the case is not certiorari but appeal.
necessarily null and void.
Rationale: Under the rules the MTC may even pass
TAKE NOTE: The remedies of appeal and certiorari judgement on the issue of ownership but only to
are two different things. They are mutually exclusive. resolve the issue on possession.
1. If the remedy is appeal: file a notice of

Q: Does the error depend on the first case filed?
appeal (consisting of 1-2 pages) filed with the
trial court and pay the corresponding Atty: It would depend on the nature of the case. It
docket/appeal fee. File it within 15 days. would also depend if the court has jurisdiction over
the case.
2. If the remedy is certiorari: file a petition for
certiorari directly with the superior court. The DIFFERENCE OF CLASSIFICATIONS OF COURTS
period of filing is longer than filing of the 1. Original jurisdiction from appellate
notice of appeal. Normally, the period of filing 2. General jurisdiction from limited jurisdiction
is 60 days and you can even ask for an 3. Exclusive jurisdiction from concurrent or co-
extension. ordinate jurisdiction
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION v. APPELLATE

Where the remedy of appeal is available, you cannot
JURISDICTION
pursue the remedy of certiorari. Certiorari is not a
substitute for a lost appeal.
Original jurisdiction
21
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Courts in which under the law, actions and Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
proceedings may originally be commenced. Courts shall exercise:
(Regalado, 10th ed)
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
Appellate jurisdiction and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
Courts which have the power to review on appeal the including the grant of provisional remedies in proper
decisions or orders of the lower court. (Regalado, cases, where the value of the personal property,
10th ed) estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
TAKE NOTE: If the MTC renders judgment in the Metro Manila where such personal property, estate,
ejectment case and the losing party therein interpose or amount of the demand does not exceed Two
an appeal before the RTC, if the RTC the reviews the hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of
decision of the MTC then the RTC therefore is interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
exercising what is known as appellate jurisdiction. litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where
GENERAL JURISDICTION vs. LIMITED there are several claims or causes of action between
JURISDICTION the same or different parties, embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
General jurisdiction totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
Those Courts competent to decide their own irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out
jurisdiction and to decide all kinds of cases, unless of the same or different transactions
otherwise provided by the law or the Rules. Example:
RTC. (Regalado, 10th ed) TAKE NOTE: There is a civil clause under RA 7691
such that there was an increase or there will be an
Sec. 19 (6) of B.P. 129 increase 5 years from the effectivity of RA 7691, as it
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional is now for Cebu city the jurisdictional amount for
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original MTC is now 300,000.
jurisdiction: xxx
EXAMPLE: Gravador owes me 300k but he didn’t
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of pay because he used the money to buy gas for his
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising motorcycle. If I file a case against Gravador for the
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body principal amount, I have to file it before the MTC
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; xxx Cebu City.
If the principal amount is 320k, it is already beyond

Atty G: This means that the court concerned can
the jurisdictional amount of the MTC. The case has
practically hear and try various cases whether to be filed before the RTC.
criminal or civil with that it is characterized as real
action or personal action which we shall be
discussing later on. MTC and other first level courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction because there is a cap as to the amount
Special or Limited jurisdiction cognizable before these courts. The maximum
Those which have no power to decide their own amount is 300k.
jurisdiction and can only try cases permitted by
statute. as the term suggests, refers to the authority On the other hand, the RTC, among other courts, is
of the court to decide specific or particular cases only. a court of general jurisdiction. There is no limit as to
Example: MTC. (Regalado, 10th ed) the amount cognizable before the RTC, it can be
beyond 300k or 1M.
EXAMPLE:
RTC can take cognizance over all cases not falling
RA 7691
under the exclusive jurisdiction of any courts, tribunal,
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
or body exercising quasi-judicial powers.
Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Sec. 5(1), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
22
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over violation of city and/or
following powers: municipal ordinances.
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting Thus when there is any violation of jaywalking
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, ordinances the case may be filed in first level courts
and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, only.
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus; xxx
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION EXAMPLE:
The Writ of Habeas Corpus may also be filed in the
The SC shall have original jurisdiction over petitions
RTC, after all the Constitution is silent whether the
for certiorari, mandams, etc. but it doesn’t state
writ can only be filed in a certain court. Thus, it may
therein that its jurisdiction over such cases is
be filed in the SC, CA, and RTC.
exclusive.
TAKE NOTE: Once a particular court has already
This means that the RTC may also hear and try taken cognizance of the petition the other courts may
petitions for certiorari, mandamus, etc. because the no longer hear the petition. So, if one filed a petition
law states that the RTC would have jurisdiction over of Habeas Corpus from RTC then he cannot file
all cases not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of again any similar petition from the same factual
any courts. Even if Sec. 5, par. 1, Art. VIII of the circumstances with the CA and SC. Non-compliance
Constitution provides that a case for habeas corpus
with this will be a violation of forum-shopping.
may be filed before the SC, the RTC may also hear
and decide such case just the same, being a court of
general jurisdiction. Atty G: If you are not as famous as Fortun or
Narvasa, it is better for you to file at the RTC. See
what happened in the case of Atty. Falcis III, he filed
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION v. CONCURRENT an affidavit directly to SC, but the SC said that you
should filed it with the RTC. Pero if sikat, okay ra.
JURISDICTION
EXAMPLE: A kidnapping case in Cebu, so a petition
for Habeas Corpus. Nganong mag file man ka sa SC,
Exclusive jurisdiction gasto gasto ka lang, diri ras Cebu.
The power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the
exclusion of all other courts at that stage. (Regalado, Exception: If the issue is of transcendental
10th ed) importance, like in the case of UPLB when it filed a
petition for habeas data directly to the SC.
Concurrent jurisdiction
Sometimes referred to as confluent or coordinate Classmate Question: If mali imo na file nga action sa
jurisdiction. It is the power conferred upon different MTC, so gi dismiss sa MTC, then you file it to the
courts, whether the same or different ranks, to take RTC. What is the jurisdiction of RTC, original or
cognizance at the same stage of the same case, in appellate?
the same or different judicial territories. (Regalado,
10th ed) Atty G: It depends. If you refile the case with a
payment of the docket fee, then that’s original. But, if
This means to say that the case may be in you question the erroneous decision because you
cognizance by different courts — that jurisdiction is realized that it is correct, then appellate jurisdiction.
shared by among or several courts.
TAKE NOTE: Ordinarily, if the law provides that this
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION EXAMPLE: There is a case falls under the original jurisdiction of a court,
provision under BP 129 as amended and the without mentioning exclusive jurisdiction. Then,
amended rules of court that MTC, MCTC, MeTC almost always that case may be taken cognizance of
have original jurisdiction overall cases over violation by several courts, so there may be sharing of
of city and municipal ordinances committed under jurisdiction. Just like what is obtaining in the
their respective territorial jurisdiction. The Law is very provision of Sec. 5 (1), Article VIII, it merely says that
clear it says that first trial courts have original and
23
CIVIL PROCEDURE
it falls under the original jurisdiction of the SC without the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was
mentioning about exclusive jurisdiction.
once again held as discretionary in the
QUESTION: (Political Law) How about the provision president. The SC again reiterated that the
under Sec. 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
which provides that the SC has jurisdiction to hear suspension of the writ was a political question
petitions questioning the sufficiency of the factual to be resolved solely by the president.
basis of the proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Such
provision does not use the word “exclusive”, it only
NOTE: This ruling was abrogated by Sec 18,
provides that the SC has jurisdiction. So, is the
jurisdiction of the SC exclusive? Note that the Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution which
Constitution is silent.
expressly constitutionalized the Lansang
Doctrine.
Atty G: The Supreme Court has exclusive
jurisdiction over that because it is of vital
A: That’s why the framers of the 1987
importance (being that an issue of Martial
Constitution deemed included now provided
law) but more than that, there were three
under Section 18 that the Supreme Court
decisions of the Supreme Court in the past.
has jurisdiction. So with this factual backdrop
in mind, it’s obvious that the intention of the
1st: Montenegro case
framers of the 1987 constitution is to vest in
There was a petition filed before the Supreme
the SC and ONLY in the SC the power to
Court questioning the factual basis of the
hear questions with regards to the factual
declaration of Martial law by Marcos. The SC
basis of martial law and the suspension of the
ruled in this case that the issue could not be
writ of Habeas Corpus. Although the
taken cognizance of the SC because it was a
constitution is silent, we can infer the
political question.
intention of the framers of the Constitution.
2nd: Garcia v. Lansang

3 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
The SC corrected itself ruling in that case
that it had jurisdiction over the case and that 1. Over the subject matter
2. Over persons
it is not a political issue. 3. Over the res
4. Over issues
3rd: Garcia-Padilla v. Enrille JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Ruling: In a complete about face, the SC
This is conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over
decision in the Lansang Case was reversed the parties, cannot be conferred on the court by the
voluntary act or agreement of the parties. (Regalado,
and the ruling in the Barcelon Case & the
10th ed.)
Montenegro Case was again reinstated. The
This is the power of the court to hear and try cases of
questioned power of the president to suspend general kind.
24
CIVIL PROCEDURE
TAKE NOTE: The nature of the action determines by the agreement of parties, much less by their
the jurisdiction of the court. omission, inaction, waiver or otherwise.
Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law. It LACK OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT
is a matter of legislative enactment. It cannot be ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
conferred by:
Lack of jurisdiction may be assailed or can be raised
1. By agreement of parties at any stage of the proceedings. It can be raised
2. Inaction, omission, waiver, consent even for the first time of appeal. It can be raised even
3. Acquiescence of the court at the level of the Supreme Court.
EXAMPLE: Gravador and I entered into a contract of In fact, jurisprudence tells us that even the court
lease where I will buy property of Gravador under the motu proprio or on its own accord can dismiss the
contract of lease. Gravador says the contract has case for want of jurisdiction, without the parties or
expired while I contend that there is an automatic any of the parties moving for the dismissal of the
renewal clause. So if Gravador would want to drive case.
me out of his property, his cause of action is an
ejectment suit, which is cognizable by first level Vicente Foz, Jr. and Danny G. Fajardo v. People
courts. of the Philippines
Let’s say Gravador and I agreed in writing to submit Voz and Fajardo are the columnist and the publisher
the case for adjudication before the RTC. Does that
of the Panay news. Panay news is based in Panay.
confer jurisdiction upon the RTC over the case?
There was an article that was published therein
which supposedly maligned the reputation of Dr.
No. Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred
Portigo under the caption “Meet Dr. Portigo, the
by law. It cannot be conferred by the agreement of
company physician”. It was narrated in the
the parties.
newspaper that Portigo misdiagnosed the illness of
the employees of SM Iloilo City.
EXAMPLE: The wife filed a case against Gravador
for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article
Dr. Portigo filed a case of Libel before the RTC of
36. But the wife filed the case with the MTC when it
Iloilo City. Take note that Panay news had its
should have been filed in the RTC, right? Nullity of
publication or had its publishing office in Panay
marriage, it is cognizable under RTC. But instead of
although it has circulation in Iloilo City.
filing it with the RTC, she filed it before the MTC.
Gravador knew beforehand that the case was filed Trial ensued because Fajardo and Foz did not
with the wrong court. But he did not object for the question the jurisdiction of the RTC Iloilo. They were
reason that the presiding judge of the MTC is his convicted by the RTC. They went to CA and they did
friend. So Gravador rather participated in the not question the jurisdiction of the RTC. Then, the
proceedings, confident that the case will be decided decision of the RTC was affirmed. They went to the
in his favor. Although he knew that MTC is without Supreme Court. They didn’t question at first the
jurisdiction over the case. jurisdiction of the RTC of Iloilo.
Then, judgment rendered by the court in favor of The Solicitor General filed a Comment on behalf of
Gravador. the Republic. Accused Fajardo and Foz filed a reply
and for the first time raised the issue about
Gravador did not object. The wife did not object also jurisdiction, questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC
because she was the one who invoked the Iloilo over the case because under 360 of the RPC:
jurisdiction of the court.
Article 360. The criminal and civil action for damages in
cases of written defamations as provided for in this
Is that decision valid? No. chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
the court of first instance of the province or city where the
Again, jurisdiction over the subject-matter is libelous article is printed and first published or where any
conferred by law. It is not conferred upon the court,
25
CIVIL PROCEDURE
of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the averred by way of defense and is proved to be the
commission of the offense... real issue, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as the case should properly be filed with
In this case, the libelous article was printed and first the Court of Agrarian Relations (Igancio v. CFI). But
published in Panay because Panay News was based note that courts of agrarian relations are now
in Panay. integrated in the RTC by BP 129.
In the criminal information, it was but stated therein In another case, although the allegations in the
that Panay news had a considerable circulation in complaint make out a case cognizable by the RTC,
Iloilo City but it was not mentioned that the libelous where, however, the acts complained of are shown
article was first printed and published in Iloilo City. at the trial to be interwoven with an unfair labor
Because in truth and in fact, it was first printed and practice case, the action should be dismissed since
published in Panay, not in Iloilo City. jurisdiction is vested in the NLRC. This is so because
the Rules now permit a motion to dismiss based on
In the criminal information, it was casually averted facts not alleged in the complaint (Mindanao Rapid
therien that Dr. Portigo, the complainant, is a medical Co. v. Ombudsman). (Regalado, 10th ed.)
practitioner in Iloilo but it was not stated therein that
he was residing in Iloilo at the time of the publication TAKE NOTE
of the question article.
So, the General Rule is that jurisdiction over the
Supreme Court said that clearly, from the averments subject matter is conferred by law and it is to be
of the criminal information, it would readily appear determined on the basis of what appears in the
that RTC of Iloilo was without jurisdiction of the case. complaint or it has to be determined on the basis of
If at all, the case should have been filed in Panay or the allegations, not on the basis of the caption of the
it should have been filed in the place where Dr. complaint as ruled in the case of Balibago Faith
Portigo was or is a resident. Baptist Church vs. Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist
Church.
TAKE NOTE Supreme Court took up the issue even
if it was rather belatedly raised by Foz and Fajardo. Balibago Faith Baptist Church vs Faith in Christ
Indeed, that case lends substance to the proposition Jesus Baptist Church
that questions on jurisdiction may be raised at any G.R. 191527, August 22, 2016
stage of the proceedings. The only exception is the
case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy (G.R. L-21450, April Balibago (BFBC) filed a complaint for unlawful
15, 1968). detainer against Faith (FCJBC) because while
plaintiff BFBC was in possession of the subject
But the General Rule is that lack of jurisdiction may premises, defendant Reynaldo Galvan and his
be raised at any stage of the proceeding even for the companions joined the regular religious services of
first time before the Supreme Court. It was without plaintiff BFBC at the subject premises. It turned out
prejudice because it can be refiled. Foz and Fajardo that defendants have an interest in the subject
could not also invoke their right against Double premises and defendant Reynaldo Galvan formed
Jeopardy because in the first place they had not and incorporated the defendant FCJBC and took
been placed in actual jeopardy because RTC of Iloilo control of the subject premises
was without jurisdiction over the case.
The caption is unlawful detainer but the body does
DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE not make out the case for unlawful detainer. So the
SUBJECT MATTER rule is that jurisdiction over subject matter is to be
determined on the basis of the complaint meaning
The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of the court allegations of the complaint, not the caption thereof
over the subject matter is determined by the much less is it to be determined on the basis of the
allegations in the complaint (Edward J. Nell & Co. v. allegations in the answer.
Reyes), but this rule is not without exceptions. Thus,
it was held that while the allegations in the complaint JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
make out a case for forcible entry where tenancy is
26
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Jurisdiction over the person refers to the power of generally by the service of summons. (Sharuff v.
the court to render personal judgment which are Bubla. GR. L-17029)
through the service of a compulsory process or by
the voluntary appearance of the party-disputants If the defendant in a civil case has already been
before the court. served properly with the summons of the case
directing him to file his answer to the complaint, and
In criminal process, accused must be arrested either the service is in accordance with the procedures, the
without a warrant for as long as the same is lawful or court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of
there is a warrant or where accused in a criminal the defendant.
case voluntarily surrenders to the court. If the court
or the accused is not arrested or does not appear EXAMPLE: Gravador files a case for ejectment
voluntarily, then he cannot be arraigned. When there against me before MTC. The said court then takes
is no arraignment, there is no such thing as trial in cognizance of the case and issues a summons.
absentia. Again, in your Constitutional Law, trial in Once the summons is served to me properly by the
absentia may only be had if there is already sheriff (personally) then the court already acquires
arraignment. So again in criminal cases, the court jurisdiction over my person.
has to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused and this is done through arrest with or Even if after being served with summons, I did not
without a warrant or through his voluntary file my answer to the complaint, the court can
appearance before the court. declare me in default and the court can render
judgment in the court. The rule on merisi now applies.
In civil cases, the court also has to acquire
jurisdiction over the party-disputants therein and What matters most is that summons was served on
ordinarily, there are two main party-disputants in a the defendant observing the procedures outlined by
civil case. The complainant/plaintiff, the one who is the law and the defendant receives such summons
filing the complaint and the defendant, the one who whether or not he files an answer.
is being sued in the complaint. And the court has to
acquire jurisdiction over them for it to validly render a He cannot now later on declare that he was deprived
decision in a civil case. But how does the court of due process, because due process again, merely
acquire jurisdiction over the complainant? When the refers to an opportunity to be heard. Sala na nimo. If
complainant files a complaint in court, he thereby you did NOT file your answer.
submits or voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of
the court. He’s the one who goes to court asking for REASON: Proper service of summons the court
affirmative relief, So by filing the complaint before the already acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
court, the complainant in a civil case submits himself person of the defendant in a civil case. But that is on
to the jurisdiction of the court. the supposition that the service of summons was
done regularly and properly.
HOW THE COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION Conversely, when the service of summons was
invalid, irregular, and improper, then the court does
Over the plaintiff/complainant not validly acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
Regalado, 10th ed: This is acquired by filing of a defendant. The court cannot validly render judgment
complaint, petition, or initiatory pleading before the against the defendant.
court, by the plaintiff or petitioner.
EXAMPLE: I owe Gravador money, and gi paninglan
Here, the complainant in a civil case thereby ko niya kay iya itubil kay adtu siya sa Negros. Ana ko
voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the wala koy kwarta. So gravador filed a case against
court. me before the MTC. Utang: P50.
Over the defendant/respondent MTC issued summons and directed me to file an

Regalado, 10th ed: This is acquired by the voluntary answer to the complaint.
appearance or submission by the defendant to the
court or by the coercive process issued by the court,
27
CIVIL PROCEDURE
This is an action for the collection of sum of money render an answer, the court cannot render
which is characterized as a personal action. Personal
judgement against him/her.
in the sense that it only affects the complainant and
the defendant. The world has nothing to do with the Reason: because it had not validly acquire
case. Unlike an action in rem, it affects the whole jurisdiction over the defendant from the beginning.
world.
EXAMPLE OF ACTION IN REM: So that is how to differentiate one from the other. So
Declaration of nullity of marriage MTC is a court of limited jurisdiction while RTC
among other courts is a court of general jurisdiction.
TAKE NOTE: When the action is a personal action, it The fact that RTC is a court of general jurisdiction is
is a requirement sine qua non that service of bolstered by the provision under BP. 129 as
summons must be done personally, or there should amended to the end that RTC would have jurisdiction
be personal service of summons. over all cases not falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Action is a personal action, it is a requirement sine
qua non that the service of summons must be
Sec. 19 (6) of B.P. 129
done personally on the defendant. It cannot be
done through substituted service.
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. –
EXAMPLE: giserve sa akong wife. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction: xxx
but thing is, in a personal action, there is no such
thing as serving of summons through publication (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
w/c may be had when the action is an action in
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
rem. exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; xxx
EXAMPLE: for nullity of marriage. Kay di maserve

So where a case does not fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of any other court, then it may be taken
ang service sa defendant. Here, summons through cognizance of by the RTC. Now you TAKE NOTE
publication will suffice because action for that Sec. 5 (1), Art. VIII mentions in essence that the
Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over
declaration of nullity of marriage is an action in
petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo
rem warranto among others. But it does not state therein
that its jurisdiction over said cases is exclusive. So
proceeding from that, may the RTC hear and try
GENERAL RULE: service of summons through petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition,
publication is improper in actions in personam. habeas corpus, etc? The answer is YES. After all,
the law BP 129 as amended provides that RTC
would have jurisdiction over all cases not falling
EXAMPLE: action for collecting sum of money. under the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of any court.
So even if Sec. 5 (1), Art. VIII says that in case for

The same cannot be served with the wife, or house habeas corpus may be filed or taken cognizance of
helper. Even if defendant has the chance to read by the Supreme Court, RTC just the same can also
hear and decide that case being a court of general
the summons in a new paper, and he does not
jurisdiction. So that’s the distinction by and between
28
CIVIL PROCEDURE
a court of general jurisdiction like RTC and a court of EXAMPLE: Gravador files a case of declaration of
limited jurisdiction. nullity of marriage based on article 36 applying the
doctrine in the famous case of Chi Ming Choi. Si
But then again there is also another classification. Gravador ang incapable, kay sigeg kabayo sa iyang
There is such a thing as exclusive jurisdiction as motor. Such action does not involve a thing. The res
distinguished from concurrent or coordinate there is the status of his marriage to his wife.
jurisdiction. When we say exclusive jurisdiction, it
means to say that a case is cognizable only by a TAKE NOTE: The courts acquisition of jurisdiction
particular court to the exclusion of others. On the over the res or the thing of litigation is important. In
other hand, speaking of concurrent jurisdiction, it some cases jurisdiction over the res would substitute
means to say that the case may be taken cognizance jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
of by different courts or that jurisdiction over the
same is shared by and among several courts. HOW ACQUIRED
It is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by
EXAMPLE: There is a provision under BP 129 as the court of the thing in question, placing it in
amended and the under Revised Rules of Court to custodia legis. (Regalado, 10th ed.)
the end that the first level courts, the MeTC, MTCC,
MTC and MCTC have original exclusive jurisdiction If what is involved is really a personal object, then it
may be acquired by the court through the issuance of
over all cases involving violations if city and/or
a legal process against the thing and directed it to be
municipal ordinances committed within their held to be answerable and subject to the orders that
respective territorial jurisdictions. The law is very the court may issue.
clear, it says that first level courts have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over violations of municipal But of course, it applies to a situation where there is
and/or city ordinances. So it shows that where there really an actual thing, an object personal or real
property involved in a litigation.
is a violation of the anti-jaywalking ordinance in
Cebu city, then any case from that must be filed with Again, acquisition of jurisdiction over the res is
what court? MTCC… to be continued important as it may, in some cases, be substitute
jurisdiction over the person especially in situations
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES where the defendant is not a resident of the
Philippines and his whereabouts is unknown. The
Res in civil law, is a thing or object, or anything that court cannot serve a summon. This holds true if
may form an object of rights, in opposition to persona action characterized as action in rem, or action
which is the subject of rights. The term res includes quasi in rem.
an object, subject matter, or status.
EXAMPLE: Gravador case above. Assume further
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s that his wife is a foreigner. A Japanese woman in the
jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the person of Maria Ozawa. Ozawa went back to japan
subject matter of the action. (Riano, 2016) with her whereabouts unknown. So Gravador filed a
petition for nullity of marriage. Naturally, the summon
EXAMPLE: Replevin. Recovery of possession or cannot be issued. The court may just order that the
ownership of a personal thing. If the object of the summon be published, upon motion, in the
litigation is a car, then the car is the res. Another is newspaper of general circulation. And after that is
Accion reivindicatoria where the object is parcel of done, coupled with a copy of the summon sent via
land. registered mail to Ozawa's last known address, then
the court may already proceed to hear and decide
In our jurisdiction and as applied to litigation, the the case even if Ozawa did not receive the summon
word res does not only refer to something that is or even if she did not have the chance to read it.
tangible or personal object. It also includes
something that is intangible.
So upon proper application by Gravador, upon
proper motion, the court may just direct that the
complaint, the summons be published in the
29
CIVIL PROCEDURE
newspaper of general circulation. And where that is the person. But again, that also requires that the
done and once a copy of the summons is sent say summons together with the complaint be sent to the
via registered mail to the last known address of last known address of the defendant. But that is not
Osawa, then the court may already proceed to hear
to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant but merely
and decide the case even if Osawa did not actually
receive the summons issued therefor or even if she for the purpose of complying supposedly this
did not had the chance to read the complaint and the procedural due process required. But that it not to
summons as were published in the newspaper. confer jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: I mentioned to you that So I trust that you now see the importance of
collection of the sum of money is a personal action. It acquiring jurisdiction over the res, or the object, or
requires personal service of summons or at the very the thing subject matter of litigation because it may,
least substituted service of summons. But it cannot
in some situations, subject to jurisdiction over the
be done through summons by publication.
person of the defendant.
Assume a situation where you have a client nga
dunay collectible but the one who owes him money is JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
a foreigner, non-resident of the Philippines who
Refers to the power of the court to hear and decide
returned to his native country without any forwarding
issues brought to court by the parties in the
address. What will be your recourse as a lawyer?
pleadings filed before the court. (Reyes v. Diaz)
When you knew for a fact that summons of that
defendant could not be served. You knew for a fact Pleadings are enumerated under Rule 6 of the Rules
that it is a personal action which requires personal of Court.
service of summons. Will you file a case?
As for the plaintiff, the substantive pleading, insofar
Of course kwarta ma na. Nganong balibad man ka. as the plaintiff is concerned, is of course, the first one
But kahibaw ka di gyud ma-serve. And without this is complaint.
then the court cannot proceed to hear the case. So
what will be your remedy? Publication will not suffice As for the defendant, that is when the defendant files
because again that is a personal action. It’s not an his answer to the complaint.
action in rem.
But if the plaintiff files his reply to the answer, the
Collection of sum of money per se is a personal reply is also a pleading for plaintiff. If the defendant
action. Summons should be served personally or opts to file a rejoinder to the reply, then that’s
through … service. It can never be done, as a rule, another responsive pleading coming from the
through publication. So what will you do if you are defendant.
the lawyer of the complaining party?
HOW ACQUIRED
You look for any property owned by that debtor.
Because if he has a property here in the Philippines. This is determined by the pleadings filed by the
Condo unit, for example, then you apply for a writ of parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or
attachment. You attach the property because by stipulation, or, at times, by their implied consent as
doing that, you thereby converted the action from a by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an
personal action to an action quasi in rem. And where issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in
the action is already an action quasi in rem then you Sec. 5, Rule 10. (Lazo v. Republic Surety &
can proceed to have the summons published through Insurance Co.)
the newspaper in a general circulation. Because
again, in actions in rem, quasi in rem, jurisdiction EXAMPLE: In the action for collection of sum of
over the res would substitute lack or jurisdiction over money filed by Gravador, he files a complaint
30
CIVIL PROCEDURE
thereby alleging that I owe money in the amount of So, in that context, we can differentiate jurisdiction
P50 and I filed my answer thereto. I interposed the over the subject matter vis-a-vis jurisdiction over the
defense that I already paid attaching thereto the issue involved in the case. Because in the first place,
when we speak of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
receipts supposedly signed by Gravador but he files
well it is determined on the basis of the complaint
his reply questioning the authenticity of the receipt filed by the parties. So if Gravador filed a case for the
then I filed a rejoinder ascertaining that it was his collection for a sum of money, where the amount
signature. involved does not exceed say P300,000, then by
filing the complaint, the Court already acquires
So the issue in that case is clearly about payment or jurisdiction over the subject matter. But the Court
non-payment of loan or obligation. And where that is would only acquire jurisdiction over the issue in a
the claim of Gravador that I owe him money and my case the moment and only after the filing of the
answer to the complaint. So upon filing of the
defense is that I paid him attaching thereto the
complaint, the Court may already acquire jurisdiction
receipt then only that issue will have to be resolved over the subject matter but it’s only upon filing of the
by the Court. answer the Court acquires jurisdiction over the issue
in the case. Because again, jurisdiction over the
Such that, the Court may not in its judgment rule the subject matter pertains to the power of the court to
case on the basis of an issue that is not found or try and decide a case whereas jurisdiction over the
contained in the pleadings submitted by the parties. issue pertains to the court’s power to decide the
So, when that is the situation in that collection suit, issues involved in the case itself. So lahi, subject
matter, to decide the case itself but jurisdiction over
then the Court cannot resolve the case by holding
the issue pertains to the power of the court to resolve
that I had no more obligation to Gravador because it issues involved in the case. And far more important,
has already been condoned because in the first when we speak of jurisdiction over the subject
place not one of the parties raise the issue about matter, again, it is conferred by law; whereas,
condonation of obligation. Because as a matter of jurisdiction over the issue in case, is conferred
general rule, the issues in a case are to be by the allegations in the contained in the
determined in the pleadings submitted by the parties. pleadings submitted by the parties for the Court to
pass judgment upon.
And the Court, as a rule, cannot tackle the issue on
jurisdiction or any issue outside or issue outside the JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
allegations or counter allegations in the complaint or
answer. This jurisdiction of the First Level Courts is defined
under B.P. 129 and as amended by RA 7691.
ISSUES OF A CASE WILL BE JOINED ONCE
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT IS FILED BP 129, Sec. 33
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
And take note also that it is upon the filing of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
answer that the issue in a case or issues therein are Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
supposedly joined. Kung mu claim si Gravador nga Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
naa koy utang, well, that’s his allegation. But you Courts shall exercise:
cannot as if say that the issues or issue has already
been joined until and unless I already filed my (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
answer thereto whether controverting the allegation and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
of Gravador or somehow admitting that I still owe him including the grant of provisional remedies in proper
something. So the issue therefore in the case is cases, where the value of the personal property,
joined once answer is already filed. estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JURISDICTION OVER Metro Manila where such personal property, estate,
THE SUBJECT MATTER AND JURISDICTION or amount of the demand does not exceed Two
OVER THE ISSUE(S) INVOLVED IN A CASE hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of
interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
31
CIVIL PROCEDURE
litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which The types of actions referred to under Section 33
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where Paragraph 1 are civil actions and probate
there are several claims or causes of action between proceedings. Take note further that when we speak
the same or different parties, embodied in the same of civil actions, or the kind of civil actions referred to
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the under Section 33 Paragraph 1 are those which
totality of the claims in all the causes of action, involve only personal property or a demand for the
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose payment of a sum of money.
out of the same or different transactions;
Otherwise stated, where the civil action involves real
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of property and not personal property, then such case
forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That is not governed by Paragraph 1 of Section 33 but by
when, in such cases, the defendant raises the Paragraph 2 of Section 33 which talks about
question of ownership in his pleadings and the ejectment or Paragraph 3 of Section 33 which talks
question of possession cannot be resolved without about jurisdiction of the first level courts over cases
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of involving title to or possession of real property or any
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the interest therein where the amount does not exceed
issue of possession. Php 20,000.00 outside Metropolitan Manila or Php
50,000.00 in Metropolitan Manila.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed To simplify the rule, the civil action falling under the
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil purview of Paragraph 1 Section 33 over which the
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value First Level Courts will have jurisdiction involves
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) personal property or demand for the payment of a
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, sum of money. But that is for civil actions. When we
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: speak of probate proceedings, these proceedings
Provided, That value of such property shall be may include real property. So the civil actions may
determined by the assessed value of the adjacent only involve personal property or a demand for
lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) payment of a sum of money. But as for probate
proceedings, the same may involve real property.
It provides, in essence, that these courts would have But first, what is a probate proceeding?
exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
probate proceedings, testate and intestate including
the grant of provisional remedies therein and in ATTY G: If you are to execute a will, the same is not
proper cases, where the value of the personal deemed effective unless the same is probated in
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not court. So probate is a proceeding in court if only to
exceed Php 100,000.00 which has now been prove, among other things, the due execution of the
increased to Php 300,000.00 for places outside will. To prove that the testator is not compelled or
Metropolitan Manila. If within the Metropolitan Manila
coerced into the execution of a will.
area, the amount of personal property, estate, or the
amount of the demand is pegged at Php 200,000.00
but has now been increased to Php 400,000.00 but EXAMPLES: If you are filing an action for collection
not beyond that. of sum of money, definitely it falls under the category
of civil actions involving amounts of demand and
Jurisdiction over the cases falling under the purview your demand is for example, Php 300,000.00 and
of Paragraph 1 of Section 33 is vested with the First you are in Metro Manila, the case then may be filed
Level Courts exclusively and the same is not shared with the MTC.
with the RTC, CA, or SC UNLESS there is this
appeal or review proceedings. After all, this mentions If your demand goes beyond that, for example the
exclusive original jurisdiction.
demand is Php 450,000.00 and you are in Cebu City,
then it should be filed with the RTC because that
32
CIVIL PROCEDURE
case already exceeds the jurisdictional amount of computing the payment for the appropriate docket or
Php 300,000.00. filing fees.
As for probate proceedings, there is also that ceiling ILLUSTRATION NO. 1:

that the amount of the property involved, be it real or
There is a complaint for a sum of money. The
personal property, should not exceed Php principal amount demanded representing the
300,000.00 if you are outside Manila but if you are in principal loan obligation is P250,000. Then, there is
Manila, it should not exceed Php 400,000.00. And likewise a demand in the complaint praying for the
that is what is referred to as jurisdictional amount. award of legal interest of 6% per annum, which is
reckoned from the time there is a judicial demand up
WHERE DID THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT to rendition of judgment. Other than that, there is a
COME FROM? prayer for moral damages of P50,000, then
exemplary damages of P50,000, then attorney’s fees
These amounts are provided for under RA 7691 of P50,000, and lastly, litigation expenses of P30,000.
under Section 5 which provides that after 5 years
from the effectivity period of the act, the jurisdictional Principal Loan P250,000
amount mentioned under Section 19 Paragraphs 3, 4, Legal Interest 6%
Moral Damages 50,000
and 8 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the RTC, and Exemplary Damages 50,000
Section 33 Paragraph 1 of BP 129 as amended, shall Attorney’s fees 50,000
be adjusted from the original amount provided for Litigation expenses 30,000
under BP 129 (Php 100,000.00) to Php 200,000.00 Total P430,000
after five years reckoned from the effectivity of RA
7691 (1994-1999). Additionally, 5 years thereafter, Question: Which court has jurisdiction over the case?
(from 1999 to 2004) it shall be adjusted to Php
300,000.00. Answer: Applying Section 33, it is stated that in the
determination of the jurisdictional amount, we have
But for metro manila, there is just one adjustment. to exclude interest, damages of whatever kind,
That is from the original amount of Php 200,000.00 attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost of suit.
to as much as Php 400,000.00. That's where I get
the numbers. This is pursuant to Section 5 of RA Meaning to say, in the determination of the
7691. jurisdictional amount to determine which court has
cognizance of the case, we only have to factor in the
INTEREST, DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES, principal obligation. The rest (interest, moral
LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND COSTS IN damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
RELATION TO THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT litigation expenses) will not be considered in the
determination of the jurisdictional amount. However,
Take note that in the determination of the these things must be factored in for the purpose of
jurisdictional amounts for cases falling under the computing the filing fee.
jurisdiction of the MTC or RTC as the case may be,
there is a provision to the end that it shall be Therefore, the action must be filed in the MTC of
computed EXCLUSIVE of interest, damages of Cebu City.
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses,
and costs. The amount of which must be specifically For purposes of determining each court the
alleged in the complaint. jurisdiction in a case, we only have to consider this
one.
Caveat: Those expenses should be included in the
computation of the filing fees. But for purposes of determining the amount to be
Simply put, interests, damages of whatever kind, paid for the filing fees, we have to factor it also other
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and cost, should than the principal amount of P250,000.00, the
not be factored in in determining the jurisdictional amount corresponding for as interest or damages or
amounts for the courts but it should be factored in in attorney’s fees and litigation costs pursuant to the
provision here that interest or damages of whatever
33
CIVIL PROCEDURE
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs HELD: RTC has jurisdiction. “Since the interest on
shall be included in the determination of the filing fee. the loan is a primary and inseparable component of
the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto,
Atty: We mentioned earlier that stated in the Section and already determinable at the time of the filing of
33 (1) in the determination of the jurisdictional the complaint, it must be included in the
amount, we have to exclude interest, damages of determination of which court has jurisdiction. Using
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses as basis the P238,000.00 amount being claimed by
and costs. But I will vary the situation. petitioner from respondent for payment of the
principal loan and interest, this Court finds that it is
Example: In a promissory note, there is a stipulation well within the jurisdictional amount fixed by law for
providing for the payment of interest saying 3% per RTCs”
month and in the complaint, the plaintiff also
demanded that the accrued interest be paid on top of
Going back to the problem earlier, that in determining
the principal, computed from the time of default up to
which court has the jurisdiction over the case then
the filing of the complaint. Assuming that there is an
this amount of P60K for and has accrued stipulated
added amount as accrued interest to P60,000.00.
interest should be considered and it should be added
up to P200K. So when the result is P310K, then the
This time around, this stipulated as accrued interest.
action should be filed with the RTC and not with the
Here legal interest from demand. But here, this
MTC.
interest is pursuant to the agreement of the parties
pursuant to the promissory note and this interest is
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO BE EXCLUDED
already considered as accrued interest.
Other than interest, claims for damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs
Where the complaint, plaintiff demanded not just the
should also be excluded in the determination of the
payment of the principal amount but also the accrued
jurisdictional amount.
stipulated interest which is already determined in the
complaint to be P60,000. Which court would have
Such that, I mentioned that moral damages and
the jurisdiction of the case? In this scenario, should
among others, should be excluded in the
the amount of P60,000.00 corresponding to the
determination of the jurisdictional amount. What
accrued stipulated interest be factored in determining
should be factor in is only the principal amount.
the jurisdictional amount? (YES)
(Under the first situation)
Answer: RTC. In the ruling of Gomez.
ACTION PURELY FOR DAMAGES
But what if the cause of action is purely for damages?
GOMEZ vs. MONTALBAN, 548 SCRA 693
FACTS: The defendant obtained a loan from the EXAMPLE Atty. Gravador as an Angkas driver &
petitioner in the principal amount of P40K and Atty. Galeon as a pasahero got involved in an
agreed to pay 15% monthly interest. When accident where Atty. Galeon incurred hospitalisation
defendant defaulted in paying the loan, the petitioner expenses, so he filed an action for damages against
filed an action for sum of money with the RTC, Gravador. Culpa Contractual in your Torts and
demanding payment of P238K representing the Damages because Gravador is into transportation
principal amount and the accrued interest since 1998 business and the motorcycle is for hire -- take note
and up to the time of the filing of the complaint. The not him! *dead*.
defendant moved to the dismiss the case arguing
that since the principal amount is but 40K and I demand from him payment for the bills in form of
considering that purposes of determining the actual damages to the tune of 250k, claim for moral
jurisdictional amount the interests should be damages PHP50,000, exemplary damages
excluded, then the case is cognizable by the MTC. PHP50,000 and Litigation Cost PHP20,000
(note: at the time of the filing of the complaint, the
amount - P238K - was still within the jurisdiction of QUESTION: When this happens which court has
the RTC) jurisdiction over the case?
34
CIVIL PROCEDURE
ANSWER: RTC. This has been clarified by the Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Supreme Court through the issuance of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Administrative Circular 09-04. Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Administrative Circular 09-04. Courts shall exercise:
2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever (1) xxx exclusive of interest damages of whatever
kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as costs, the amount of which must be specifically
amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where alleged: xxx
the damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action. However, Although, these are not to be considered in the
in cases where the claim for damages is the main jurisdictional amount but still they should still be
cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the alleged in the complaint because they will be
amount of such claim shall be considered in considered in the determination of the docket fee.
determining the jurisdiction of the court. This is very important, because even if you filed the
complaint but you failed to correct docket fee then it's
Therefore, if the main cause of action is the as if your complaint is not deemed filed. And this
collection of the loan and the claim of moral and assumes paramount importance if your cause of
exemplary damages are incidental, therefore, they action is highly prescribing or is about to prescribe.
should be excluded in the determination of the
jurisdictional amount. That's why, this case should be SITUTATION: A case for damages. If today February
filed with the MTC. But if your main cause of action is 13, 2020, I filed the complaint this morning but I
purely for damages, then the case should be filed didn't pay the correct docket fee(I lack PHP10,000).
with RTC. And It's only the following week Feb 17, 2020, that I
paid up, Then this is deemed filed only on Feb.
Sante v Claravall 17,2020.
Facts: The plaintiff in the RTC prayed that the So what’s the problem? The problem comes in If
defendants be made liable to pay moral damages in your action is highly prescribing. If today Feb 13,
the amount of P300k, P50k as exemplary damages, 2020 is the last the day for the filing for the cause of
P50k as attorney's fee, P20k as litigation suits. The action but I only paid the complete docket fee on Feb
defendants filed a motion to dismiss and argued that 17, 2020.
since the amount of the claim for moral damages
was not more than P300k, the MTC, not the RTC has QUESTION: What's the implication?
jurisdiction. All other claims, they contended should
be excluded from the computation of the ANSWER: It would then appear that my complain in
jurisdictional amount. time barred or has already prescribed. That's why
pay up the correct docket fee! Becuse it may even be
Held: The exclusion of the term damages of dismissed.
whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional
amount applies to cases where the damages are And it may even be dismissed.
merely incidental to or consequence of the main
cause of action. However, where the main claim for Cases in which the SC invariably emphasize the
damages as the main cause of action, or one of the need for the payment not just of any filing fee but the
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be corresponding or appropriate docket fee.
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
courts.
TAKE NOTE
BP 129
35
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Indeed, the payment of the correct docket fee is very
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP VS. CA.
important. Your action will be dismissed. If you file an
149 SCRA 562.
amended complaint, you cannot just pay for the
FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the variance or for the deficit.
docket fee but he did not specify the amount of the
In the case of Sun Insurance Office Ltd, the SC
damages he was claiming.
modified and relaxed the ruling in the case of
(TAKE NOTE: Under Sec 33, par. 1, BP 129 there Manchester.
is a need to allege the amount of the claim as
amount of the damages although it is not SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. vs. CA
determinative of the jurisdiction amount but the
same is to be included in the computation of filing HELD: The Court rules as follows:
fee. )
(1) It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
Respondent contended that he is claiming for appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
moral damages in such amount as the court will the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
grant. He filed a motion to dismiss stating that with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of
there is a necessity to state the exact amount of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading
the damages in order to determine the correct is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
amount of the docket fee. So the plaintiff amended the court may allow payment of the fee within a
the complaint and paid the balance of the docket reasonable time but in no case beyond the
fees. applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent EXAMPLE: If I file a case against Gravador today
amendment cures the defect? and that I paid the incorrect amount, the court may
grant me time to pay the appropriate docket fee
HELD: No, the defect is incurable.
unless the action prescribed in the meantime.
Thus, the action has to be dismissed. The court SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. vs. CA
acquires no jurisdiction over the case. The remedy
is to re-file the complaint and pay again the HELD: The Court rules as follows:
complete amount of the docket fee. The prior
payment made is forfeited inasmuch as the defect (2) The same rule applies to permissive
in the first complaint is incurable. counterclaims, third party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until
and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.
The court may also allow payment of said fee
within a reasonable time but also in no case
EXAMPLE:He paid 50,000 but if we have to include beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary
the amount of damages and has to pay 60,000 all in period.
all. However, he only paid for 50,000. When the
defendant interposed the objection, plaintiff amended
the complaint and pay the corresponding 10,000.
PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM VS.
If you file your amended complaint you have to pay COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM VS. THIRD-
not just the 10,000 but the full amount of 60,000. PARTY COMPLAINT
36
CIVIL PROCEDURE
EXAMPLE: I filed a case against Gravador for HELD: The Court rules as follows --
reckless imprudence. Culpa contractual. Gravador is
an angkas driver. Gravador, in his answer, said that (1) It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
he is exercising the diligence of a good father of a appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
family as required of one engaged in transportation the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
business and asked for the payment of moral action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is
damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the
contending that the case I filed is ostensibly baseless. court may allow payment of the fee within a
The counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees reasonable time but in no case beyond the
raised by Gravador in his answer could well be applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
characterized as compulsory counterclaim. These
(2) The same rule applies to permissive
claims are basically intertwined with my cause of
counterclaims, third party claims and similar
action. pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until
and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.
Permissive counterclaim happens when in his The court may also allow payment of said fee within
answer says and argues in the alternative that even a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its
assuming arguendo that he may be made liable but applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
considering that I owe him money in the amount of
5,000, then the debt will be offset. Permissive (3) Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a
claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and
because the collection of sum of money based on payment of the prescribed filing fee but,
promissory note is basically not intertwined with my subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
cause of action. specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has
been left for determination by the court, the
Third-party complaint is when for example Gravador additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on
in his answer would interpose a defense that it was the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
not his fault that we had a vehicular incident. Rather, Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
he argued that somebody else bumped the enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
motorcycle. He filed a third-party complaint against
Torregosa, that if at all there will be a liability it would
EXAMPLE: I filed a case against Gravador for
be against Torregosa. damages, including hospital bills and cost of
medicines. This is my determination. But after filing a
In filing the answer pleading there in the permissive complaint, I still incurred expenses for medicines. In
counterclaim or the third-party complaint, it is still the course of the trial, I presented additional receipts
required to pay for the required filing fee. Failing in proving that I still paid 50k by way of additional cost.
that and that is not considered as filed. The court awards the same.
In the case of Sun Insurance, when what is pleaded Take note that when I filed the complaint, I did not
is a compulsory counterclaim, then Gravador does pay the filing fee because it was not identified during
not have to pay any amount. If in his Answer, he the filing of the complaint, additional mani. If the
states that he should be liable for moral/exemplary court awards this additional amount, the filing fee will
damages, the same is compulsory. be considered as a lien on the judgement. If the
If permissive, he needs to pay. judgement attains finality and if Gravador chose to
pay the judgement award, the filing fee pursuant to
There are Courts which would require payment even this shall be deducted from the award owing to me
for compulsory purposes. because the plaintiff did not specify the damages he
was claiming.
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. vs. CA The amount must be stated in the complaint filed for
purposes of determining the correct filing fee.
37
CIVIL PROCEDURE
his claims reached millions. The trial court ordered
The case of Tacay is the median/combination of him to pay Php 945,636.90 as docket fee. He had no
Manchester and Sun Insurance. When the case of money so he questioned it. So the court, in effect,
Tacay was filed in court, the doctrine in Manchester ruled that you can file the case and the docket fee is
Development Corporation vs. CA was controlling. deductible from whatever judgement of damages
However, it reached the SC, the prevailing doctrine shall be awarded by the court.
was that of Sun Insurance so the SC came up with a
modified ruling. HELD: There is no such thing as file now, pay later.
No justification be found to convert such payment to
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE something akin to a contingent fee which would
depend on the result of the case. Under the
circumstances, the Court would stand to lose the
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with
filing fees should the party be later adjudged to be
damages (accion publiciana). It is not purely for
not entitled to any claim at all.
damages. Based on the value of the land, plaintiff
paid the docket fee. Defendant moved to dismiss
based on Manchester Development Corporation vs. Filing fees are intended to take care of court
CA because the plaintiff did not specify in the expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of
complaint how much damages he was claiming. Now supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe
the RTC denies the motion. The defendant goes to benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man
the SC citing Manchester. Of course, SC ruled that hours used in handling of each case. The payment of
Sun Insurance is the controlling doctrine. But it also said fees therefore, cannot be made dependent on
sets forth another rule: the result of the action taken, without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the
judiciary in particular.
(When the case was filed in court, the doctrine in
Manchester Development Corporation vs. CA was
controlling. During the pendency of the case, the Sun This case highlights the importance of paying the
Insurance case came out). correct filing fees upon the filing of the complaint.
HELD: There are 2 options here: IMPORTANT: He should have petitioned the court
that he’d be allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant
(1) If the docket fee for the recovery of land had been so that'd be exempted to pay the filing fee.
paid already but not for the claim for damages, the
Court should not dismiss the entire case. Just do not ATTY G: It happened to me daog ko ug kaso but na-
consider the claim for damages. It is as if it has not encash ang checke and wala na. Of course I could
been filed. have filed a complaint but dyahe eh.
(2) Citing Sun Insurance, the Court should give the So in this case, the lawyer filed a motion for his
plaintiff reasonable time to pay the balance. attorney’s fees. But look what was the ruling of the
SC: the lawyer has to pay. It may be true that the
claim for attorney’s fee but an incident to the main
FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM GROUP. vs. CA case but it is not a reason, said by the SC, to not pay
docket fees. Because the payment of docket fees is
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies mandatory. A lawyer, even a claim for attorney’s fee
(Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of the Philippines for is required. So even the claim for attorney’s fees
infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of require or even if that was pursuant to a MOTION
reasonable compensation for damages. According to requires a docket fees.
him, these companies used in their operation a
certain type of machine which he claimed he So that is how the government is after the payment
invented. His patents were infringed. Thus, all these of docket fees. Then, let’s take a look on this case of
companies are all liable to him for royalties. The Suson:
estimated yearly royalties due to him is Php 236,572.
Since the violation has been for many years already,
38
CIVIL PROCEDURE
BUT the ruling the in the case of SUSON should be
SUSON V. COURT OF APPEALS
differentiated with this case of GONZAGA
Facts:
Motion filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After
filing, the court dismissed the case because it Gonzaga v. GJH Land
should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asking that An intra-corporate case was filed with the Office of
the docket fee paid inLeyte be considered the Clerk of Muntinlupa City, which is the official
applicable in Cebu. OCA granted his request. station of the designated special commercial court.
Charles questioned it because of the rule that the THe case, however, was raffled into a branch of
payment of the docket fee is jurisdictional. the RTC which is not a special court. On the
motion of the defendant, the regular RTC
Held: dismissed the case on the ground that it was,
The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to indeed and intra-corporate dispute and said court
exempt any party not otherwise exempt nor is not a commercial court.
otherwise exempt under law or under the Rules of
Court In the payment of the prescribed fees. It may Held:
be noteworthy to mention here that even in the
Supreme Court, there are numerous instances Case should not be dismissed. It should just be
when a litigant has had to refile a petition referred to the Executive Judge in re-docketing as
previously dismissed by the COurt due to a a commercial case and assigning the same to the
technicality (Violation of a pertinent Circular(, and designated special court. Docket fees already paid
in these instances when a litigant is required to pay shall be duly credited
the prescribed docket fees and not apply ito the
re0filed case the docket fees paid in the earlier Having filed with the intra-corporate case with the
dismissed case. In this case at bar, in the strict Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
sense, Mortz's complaint cannot be deemed to Muntinlupa City, which is also the official station of
have been filed in the same court but in the RTC the special commercial court, the court had
Leyte. Thus, when Mortz’s complaint docketed by acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
the clerk of court of the RTC of Cebu City, it nature of the action upon filing of the complaint.
became an entirely separate case from that was The objective behind the designation of special
dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to improper commercial courts is to promote expediency and
venue. As the case in Cebu is concerned while efficiency in the exercise of the RTC’s jurisdiction
undoubtedly the order of dismissal is not an over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of
adjudication on the merits of the case, the order, PD902-A. Such designation has nothing to do with
nevertheless, is a final order. This means that the statutory conferment of jurisdiction because the
when a private respondent did not appeal power to define, prescribe, and apportion
therefrom, the order became final and executory jurisdiction is, as a general rule, a matter of
for all legal purposes. legislature.
The OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR Atty. G. :Intra-corporate dispute that was filed in the
OF THE SUPREME COURT has NO authority to court of Muntinlupa City which is also the designation
exempt the other party none otherwise exempt from of special commercial court because if you file a
the payment under the law or under the Rules of complaint, you cannot file it directly with a particular
Court of the prescribed docket fee. branch of court (e.g. MTC branch 1). You need to file
the case in the MTC clerk of Court or RTC clerk of
So meaning to say, if he refile the case in Cebu that court not the branch of that particular MTC or RTC
was erroneously filed in Leyte, he has to pay a new as the case maybe.
docket fee. What he paid in Leyte will not be credited
in Cebu. UNFAIR, but that is the ruling of the The case however was raffled to an RTC that is not a
Supreme Court. designated special commercial court. The case was
dismissed.
39
CIVIL PROCEDURE
When the case was elevated to the SC, it enunciated
of the land for the purpose of determining docket
that the case should not be dismissed. What should
fees. Dagul countered that an action for annulment
have been done is to refer the case to the
or rescission of a contract of sale of real property is
designated special commercial court. For the “re-
incapable of pecuniary estimation and so, the
docketing” of the special case. The DOCKET fees
docket fees should be fixed amount of P400.00 in
already paid should be duly credited.
RUle 141, Section 7(b)
But in the case of Suson refiling needs a payment. Held:
BUT in the case of GONZAGA, what was paid Dagul is correct.
should be credited. In determining whether an action is one of the
subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of
In the case of SUSON, the case was dismissed first ascertaining the nature of the principal action
because the case that was filed in Leyte should be or remedy sought. If it is primarily for recovery of
filed in Cebu. It was dismissed for WRONG VENUE. sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
In the case of Gonzaga, the case was correctly filed the municipal trial courts or in the courts of first
in Muntinlupa City only that it was raffled to a court instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
which is not designated to handle commercial law
disputes. But it does not deny the fact the case was
filed in the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa
ATTY G: This is complicated because here the
which is also the official station of the designated
Action was denominated as an action for rescission
commercial court; only that it was raffled to the
of contract of sale of real property. When the
wrong court. Pareho lang gehapon, same station. It
complaint was filed, minimal docket fee was paid
was just a matter of filing the case from one sala of
pursuant to Rule 41; that is an action characterized
the RTC to another. From a regular court in the
as an action involving one which is incapable of
Muntinlupa City to a Commercial Court in Muntinlupa
pecuniary estimation. But the defendant here argued
City.
that in as much as the case involves a real property
the action should be characterized as a real action;
THEN we will have this case of De Leon. and when an action is characterized as a real action
there is a payment of gargantuan fee because it
DE LEON V. COURT OF APPEALS involves the filing of docket fee depending on the
Facts: value of real property. Whereas, an action which is
The question for decision is whether the docket incapable of pecuniary estimation, Php 400.00 ra.
fees to be paid for the filing of an action for BUT here, the contended amount is Php 4,000,000.
annulment or rescission of a contract of sale, the
value of the real property, subject matter of the HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT RESOLVE?
contract should be used as basis, or whether the Determine the principal remedy sought to be
action should be considered as one which is not resolved.
capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the
fee charged should be flat rate of P400.00 as If the action is not for a sum of money, then it may be
provided in Rule 141, section 7(b)(1) of the Rules characterized as an action incapable of pecuniary
of Court. Polgas argued that an action for estimation.
annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real
property is a real action and, therefore, the amount But, in this case, the SC said that the action is clearly
of the docket fees to be paid by Dagul should be for specific performance of contracts and that the
based either on the assessed value of the property recovery of the property is merely incidental to the
subject matter of the action, or its estimated value recission of the contract. SC said that while it is true
as alleged in the complaint. Since Dagul alleged that in the case of De Leon it involves real property,
that the land in which they claimed an interest as but the primary objective or primary cause of action
heirs, had been sold for P4,378,000 to Polgas, this is actually the recission of contract of sale, such that
amount should be considered the estimated value the conveyance or recovery of the property would
40
CIVIL PROCEDURE
only follow if and when the contract of sale is with the MTC. Which court should I file my complaint?
rescinded. So, the primary action is not the recovery, It should be in the RTC applying the provision above.
it is incidental or a consequence to the rescission of So, even if there four different checks arising from
contract. Therefore, the SC said that it is an action four different occasions which I and Gravador
incapable of pecuniary estimation. contracted but I embodied these in one complaint,
the the TOTALITY OF MY DEMAND should be
ATTY’S SUGGESTION/EXPERIENCE: This case of considered.
De Leon tells us that it is important to arrive at the
proper characterization of our complaint, especially if In this case, walay problema ani kay amoa raman ni
you are the one filing the case. Otherwise, if it is a ni Gravador (privity of party).
real action perting dakoa imong mabayran. We had a
case nga dako kaayo amo nabayran nga filing fee, Q: What if there are different parties involved?
amounted to P500,000.00 because it was a real
action. For purposes of paying the filing fees, the Ex: Nag bike si gravador, nag angkas. Ni insist si
basis is not the assessed value of the property but Gravador nga bike ra. Nag dali ming Toregosa.
the zonal valuation. Disgrasya! Separate hospitals gidala. Dayon ako, I
demanded payment of 300k. So, I demanded the
TAKE NOTE: Your complaint cannot be considered 300k from gravador. Then, Randie, also had a
valid unless the correct filing fee is paid. demand of 200k. We hired one lawyer, Atty.
Degoma against Gravador. So, if tagsa tagsaon nimo
ug file, of course MTC. But, what if we join our cause
Section 33, BP 129
of action in one complaint?
... Provided, That where there are several claims or Apply the so-called totality rule under the last
causes of action between the same or different sentence of section 33 of paragraph 1.
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the Section 33 (1). x x x Provided, That where there are
claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of several claims or causes of action between the same or
whatever the causes of action arose out of the same different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
or different transactions; amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims
in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
EXAMPLE: Nakautang si Gravador in the amount of causes of action arose out of the same or different
P400,000.00. Actually, he secured a loan from me on transactions;
four (4) different occasions (November, December,
January and February) in the uniform amount of Q of Student: As for the evaluation of the property,
P100,000.00. So, Gravador issued me four (4) for example real property. So for purposes of
checks in the uniform account of 100k – face value. jurisdiction, do we base this on the assessed value?
However, these checks were dishonored for or market value per tax declaration?
insufficiency of funds. Pero kay amigo man ko ug
naluoy ko, instead of filing a criminal case for A: Market value is different from Assessed value.
violation of BP 22, I opted to file a civil case. What is stated in the tax dec that is the assessed
Basically, I have the option: value. And the market value is of course way beyond
what is stated in the assessed value. Kay ug
1. If tagsa-tagsaon nako per check kay these mubayad ug buwis, pagamayan jud ninyo. So it is
checks were issued in four different transactions. based on the assessed value sa jurisdictional. But for
Then, the case must be filed in the MTC (max. 300k). purposes of filing fee, it is based on the zonal
This will happen if for each check I will file a evaluation.
complaint.
S: if personal property?
2. If I will file only one complaint stating therein
A: it’s hard. You just have to state the complaint
my cause of action demanding for the payment for
value thereof then for purposes of filing fee that will
the face value of the four checks, with a total amount
be the basis of the computation. But if later on, we
of P400,000.00. Then, the case is not cognizable
41
CIVIL PROCEDURE
find that medyo under declared, then you will be An action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
recquired to pay the deficits. could filed in the MTC notwithstanding the amount of
rentals.
S: What about improvements?
A: Normally pati building apil. But kanang mga tanum, To recall, Section 33 paragraph 1 of BP 129 provides
flowers, walay apil. jurisdictional amounts therein. Such that in the action
for the collection of sum of money is filed in MTC and
(Frank: normally sa BIR not included ang buildings if outside Manila, there is the maximum amount up to
for purposes of assessing) 300,000 pesos. For Manila, it is 400,000 pesos. But
with respect to ejectment cases, notwithstanding the
LACSON vs. REYES amount of the rentals demanded or rentals in arrears,
Facts: There was a case filed and the lawyer filed a the case must be filed in the MTC.
motion for payment of attorney’s fees. The court
required him to pay the docket fee. The lawyer EXAMPLE: In the ejectment complaint, plaintiff
objected as, according to him, it is just a motion. demanded that he be paid back rentals for one
million (1M). What is determinative is the nature of
Held: The lawyer has to pay. It may be true that the action and not the amount of rentals therein. In that
claim of attorney’s fees was but an incident to the situation, the case remains with the first level courts.
main case, still, it is not an escape from the payment
of docket fees because as in all actions, whether TAKE NOTE FURTHER The case of ejectment must
separate or as an offshoot of a preceding proceeding, be filed with the first level courts notwithstanding the
the payment of docket fees is mandatory. The docket value or the assessed value of the property involved.
fee should be paid before the court would validly act
on the motion. Under Section 33(3) of BP 129:
Section 33 (3). Exclusive original jurisdiction in all

Section 33 (2). x x x Exclusive original jurisdiction civil actions which involve title to, or possession of,
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: real property, or any interest therein where the
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant assessed value of the property or interest therein
raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
the question of possession cannot be resolved (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of where such assessed value does not exceed
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
issue of possession. interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER of such property shall be determined by the
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by
CASES R.A. No. 7691)
TAKE NOTE: The jurisdiction of the first level courts But for ejectment cases, regardless of the assessed
over cases for forcible entry and unlawful detainer is value, the case must be filed with the first level
said to be exclusive which means that you cannot file courts.
an ejectment case directly with the RTC, CA, much
less the Supreme Court. If at all you need to file an EXAMPLE Actions for recovery of ownership will be
ejectment case before the first level court and in filed in the MTC if the assessed value of the property
case of an adverse ruling, that’s when you can go to does not exceed 20,000 but if it’s beyond that and
the RTC, CA and even to the Supreme Court. the place is outside Manila then it should be filed
before the RTC. BUT we are not going to apply
NOTWITHSTANDING THE AMOUNT OF RENTALS that rule.
OR THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
INVOLVED FIRST LEVEL COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO
RESOLVE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP BUT FOR THE
42
CIVIL PROCEDURE
PURPOSE ONLY OF DETERMINING THE ISSUE constitute as res judicata so as to bar the filing of a
OF POSSESSION proper case questioning the issue of ownership.
In your previous Property classes, the action for FIRST LEVEL COURTS NOW HAVE
ejectment is only as regards possession, not of JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE ISSUES ABOUT
ownership, which is why here in paragraph 2, OWNERSHIP OR INTEREST INVOLVING REAL
Section 33, it is provided that even when the PROPERTY
defendant raises the issue of ownership in his
answer to the complaint, that will not divest the first Section 33 (3). Exclusive original jurisdiction in all
level court of its jurisdiction over the case. civil actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein where the
To recall, jurisdiction of the court with regard to the assessed value of the property or interest therein
subject matter of the case is determined only in the does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
allegations in the complaint, not the allegations in the (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
answer or not the allegations in the motion to dismiss. where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
Balibago Baptist Church Case
expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such
To determine the jurisdiction of the court, we have to property shall be determined by the assessed value
be guided by the allegations in the complaint and of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
not in the answer.
Before the advent of RA 7691, the only issue that
Dela Cruz Case and Ignacio Case first level courts may tackle is only about possession
But the exception is when the allegations of the with respect to ejectment cases. But under the
complaint are vague or iffy. (Dela Cruz case), or amendments brought about by RA 7691, the first
when the issues of tenancy is involved (Ignacio case), level courts now have the competence to resolve
we may consider the allegations in the answer. issues about ownership or interest involving real
property.
Where the issue of possession can never be
resolved without passing judgment on the issue of So actions for publiciana and reivindicatoria may now
ownership, the MTC or the first level courts under be filed with the first level courts. But, there is a
Section 33, paragraph 2 is now vested with the caveat. The issue of the real property involved
power to resolve in such issue of ownership but for should not exceed 20,000 pesos for places
the purpose only of determining the issue of outside Manila and it should not exceed 50,000
possession. pesos in Metro Manila.
Section 33 (2). x x x Exclusive original jurisdiction VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY IS BASED ON
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: THE ASSESSED VALUE WHICH APPEARS IN
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant THE TAX DECLARATION
raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved The value should be based on the assessed value
without deciding the issue of ownership, the thereof.
issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession. Assessed value - that which appears in the
tax declaration based on the assessed value
TAKE NOTE: Such judgment, even if that would of the neighboring properties
attain finality, will not be conclusive with respect to
the issue of ownership. At most, it is persuasive. In other words, if only to determine whether or not
the case should be filed in the first level courts, if the
The adverse party may still file a case before the case involves title to or interest involving real
appropriate court, questioning the issue of ownership, property then the value considered is that which
because the ruling in the ejectment case will not appears in the tax declaration, which is very much
43
CIVIL PROCEDURE
lower, compared to what appears or the zonal
valuation made by the BIR. Before RA 7691, it does not actually matter even if
you consider it as an action for quieting of title as one
EXAMPLE: If there is an action for publiciana or purely incapable of pecuniary estimation or real
action for recovery of real property and the assessed action because the first level courts are without
value thereof does not exceed 20,000 pesos then jurisdiction to hear cases involving ownership
you file it with the MTC. But if the case is filed involving real property.
outside Manila and the value of the property is, let’s
just say 30,000, then it follows that it should be filed After the amendment under RA 7691, first level
with the RTC. courts now have authority and jurisdiction over cases
involving title to, or possession of real property or
QUESTION: Is it not that no one will file because the any interest therein. This brings confusion. Why?
value is so low because, in reality, there is no
property with an assessed value lower than 20,000. An action capable of pecuniary estimation is one
which primarily demands for the payment of a sum of
Atty: No, because a landowner will always try to money and the recovery of land does not involve
lower the value for the municipal assessor. This recovery of money. So actions for recovery of a
provision will usually be applicable in far-flung areas. parcel of land undoubtedly, although it is a real
JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING TITLE action, may also be considered as one incapable of
TO, OR POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY OR pecuniary estimation.
ANY INTEREST THEREIN
In fact, the Supreme Court has flip-flopped its
Before the amendment of BP129 by RA 7691, decisions on how to properly characterize an action
actions denominated as “actions for quieting of title” for a quieting of title, whether it is cognizable by the
are cognizable by the RTC for the main reason that RTC, being one incapable of pecuniary estimation, or
actions for quieting of title are considered as actions whether it should be considered as a real action such
incapable of pecuniary estimation. And where the that jurisdiction on the case must be determined on
action is one which is incapable of pecuniary the assessed value of the property.
estimation, then it falls under the RTC because
Section 19, of BP 129 provides: FLIP-FLOPPING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
CHARACTERIZING AN ACTION FOR QUIETING
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional OF TITLE EITHER AS ONE COGNIZABLE UNDER
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original RTC OR THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
jurisdiction:
Valeriano Concha vs. Spouses Lumocso, 540
1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the SCRA 1
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
FACTS: Three complaints were filed with the RTC,
2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or involving actions for reconveyance and/or
possession of, real property, or any interest annulment of transfer certificate of titles which,
therein, where the assessed value of the property according to the plaintiffs, were obtained by the
involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos defendants through fraud, deceit, bad faith, and
(P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, misrepresentation. The defendants argued, among
where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand others, that the court had no jurisdiction over the
pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry complaints pursuant to Section 19(2) of BP 129, as
into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, amended by RA 7691, the assessed value of the
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon subject lots being less than P20,000.00. The
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and petitioners countered that the nature of their
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; complaints were suits for reconveyance and/or
annulment of certificates of title, hence, an action
So actions for quieting of title in the past would have incapable of pecuniary estimation which, under the
to be filed with the RTC even if such actions would law, fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
involve real property. RTC.
44
CIVIL PROCEDURE
HELD: Actions for reconveyance of real property in TAKE NOTE The ruling in the case of Sebe basically
the subject cases were also actions to remove cloud includes the ruling of Concha that there was no
on a title (otherwise known as quieting of title substantial difference whether the case is one which
under Section 1 of Rule 63) jurisdiction of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation or one involving
would be determined by the assessed value of title of real property under Section 19(2). Again,
the property. Petitioners contentions that these before the amendment, first level courts have no
cases are incapable of pecuniary estimation under jurisdiction over cases involving ownership of real
the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, pursuant to property.
Section 19(1) of BP 129 erroneous. In the cases at
bar, it is undisputed that the subject lots are situated AFTER THE AMENDMENT
in Cogon, Dipolog City and their assessed values are With the advent of RA 7691 in 1994, the Supreme
less than P20,000.00. Hence, MTC clearly has Court said that the distinction between the two
jurisdiction over the instant case. classes became crucial because it expanded the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts.
TAKE NOTE: In the case of Concha, even if the
action or actions filed therein were denominated as TAKE NOTE FURTHER: In the case of Concha, the
actions for reconveyance or annulment of TCTs, and Supreme Court also construed that the amendment
even if it is asserted by the petitioners that the action under RA 7691 was introduced to unclog the overly
therein were incapable of pecuniary estimation dockets of the RTCs.
because they partook of the nature of the quieting of
title, the Supreme Court held that it was in the nature CONCHA AND SEBE SUMMARIZED:
of a real action, hence, jurisdiction thereof would Our Supreme Court has invariably declared that an
have to be determined on the basis of the assessed action for quieting of title involving real property is
value of the property pursuant to Section 33(3), BP now characterized as real action hence the
129 as amended. jurisdiction over the case would have to be
determined on the basis of the assessed value of the
Bottomline, even if the action is denominated as one property. If the assessed value of the real property
which is for quieting of title, it may be considered as does not exceed 20,000 or 50,000 as the case may
real action, which is governed by Section 33(3), and be, depending on its location, then it may be filed
not Section 19(1), which talks about RTC’s exclusive with the first level courts. If it goes beyond that, the it
jurisdiction over actions incapable of pecuniary should be filed with the RTC.
estimation.
TAKE NOTE of the contrary ruling in the case of
Consistent to the ruling of Concha is also Heirs of Spouses Sabitsana, a 2013 case.
Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla. SPOUSES SABITSANA vs. MUERTEGUI
Heirs of Sebe vs. Heirs of Sevilla, 603 SCRA 395 G.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013
HELD:
HELD: If the case was decided under the original text On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the
of BP 129 or even under its predecessor, RA 296, Rules that an action for quieting of title may be
determination of the nature of the case as a real instituted in the RTC regardless of the assessed
action would have ended the controversy. Both real value of the property in dispute. Under the Rule 63 of
actions and actions incapable of pecuniary the Rules of Court (governing actions for declaratory
estimation fell within the jurisdiction of the RTC. relief), an action to quiet title to real property or to
remove cloud therein may be brought in the
But, with the amendment of BP 129 by RA 7691, appropriate RTC.
the distinction between those two kinds of action
has become pivotal. The amendment expanded In the case of Spouses Sabitsana, Supreme Court
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level ruled clearly that an action for quieting of title
courts to include real actions involving property remains to be one that is purely incapable of
with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00” pecuniary estimation. According to our Supreme
Court, action for quieting of title falls under Rule 63
45
CIVIL PROCEDURE
governing actions for declaratory relief hence, it is to Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and
be filed with the RTC. Land Registration Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Under Rule 63, actions for declaratory relief which Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to
also mentions about quieting of title, must be filed hear and determine cadastral or land registration
with the RTC. cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of
ATTY’S SUGGESTION: which does not exceed One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained
Dean Monteclar goes with the case of Concha, Sebe by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
and others but Dean Torregoza is with Sabitsana respective claimants if there are more than one, or
because indeed when you read Rule 63, quieting of from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
title is mentioned therein which is part of the action property. Their decisions in these cases shall be
for declaratory relief and such action must be filed appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
with the RTC). Regional Trial Courts."
While it is correct that an action for quieting of title is
clearly mentioned under Rule 63, this Rule was TAKE NOTE:
promulgated on the basis of BP 129. Rule 63 which The Jurisdiction of the First level court as stated
mentioned about quieting of title was promulgated above is nothing but a delegated authority from the
before the RA 7691. The purpose why BP 129 was Supreme Court, because supposedly, these cases
amended by RA 7691 is to unclog the dockets of the are cognizable by the RTC. This is to unclog the
RTC. That’s why first level courts are now dockets of the RTC.
empowered to try cases involving ownership, title to,
or possession involving real property. Also, in Hence, the Supreme Court is given the authority to
Statcon, there is a principle that when there is a delegate the hearing of the cadastral and land
conflict between a substantive law and the rule, it is registration cases to the 1st level courts. But only
the substantive law which would prevail. where there is no controversy to the petition for
registration. Or even if there is an opposition, the
The Supreme Court’s rule-making power cannot value of the property or real property involved does
expand, diminish or modify substantive rights. So it is not exceed P100k.
in that context that I submit that the ruling in the case
of Sabitsana is not the correct ruling. In other words, the assessed value of the property is
not determinative of the Jurisdiction of the 1st level
If this will come out in the bar, cite the conflicting courts if there is no opposition to the petition. If there
rulings. is opposition, it is where you should factor in the
assessed value of the property.
Question from student: Can we argue that the
subject of the conflict in the quieting of title is not the Question from student: What is a Cadastral
real property but the document itself lang. Proceeding? What is the difference between
Cadastral Proceedings and Land Registration cases?
Answer: Not necessarily, because there are actually Answer: It involves a lot of land for example in a
a quieting of title that does not involve the document. Barangay, the DENR will survey the whole Brgy.
Title here is something that is intangible. We should
not equate certificate of title because such is only an Question from student: So, it is more or less
evidence of your title. Title is basically intangible. So, mandatory?
quieting of title should not be equated with quieting of Answer: Yes, because it is an old survey proceeding,
certificate of title. so it is mandatory. But Land Registration here is one
that is optional, it is up to the owner of the property if
CASES FALLING UNDER THE 1ST LEVEL you want your property to be covered by a torrens
COURTS title. In other words, a Cadastral proceeding is
mandatory.
46
CIVIL PROCEDURE
TAKE NOTE: Sec.34 should be differentiated with bailable, that is why we need to apply for bail. Bail,
Sec.33(3). Recall: In the latter the values concerned therefore, is not a matter of right.
are eithe P20k or P50k as the case may be, while in So, apply your knowledge in crimpro which carries
the former it is for P100k. with it that a petition for bail then the offense there for
carries an imposable penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
The difference between the 2 provisions, in Sec.33(3) or higher and the evidence of guilt is strong. Petition
involves, recovery of possession, title or interest for bail ordinarily must be and should be filed with the
involving real property, but here, it is purely for RTC.
Cadastral or Land Registration proceedings. That is
why the amount is bigger compared to the amount But here, pursuant to Sec 35, BP 129 as amended,
stated in Sec.33(3) although cognizable with the RTCs, may be heard
and tried with the 1st level courts if the Regional trial
TAKE NOTE: Judge of a province or city are absent.
Kining Cadastral, wala kay bayrunon ani.
EXAMPLE: All the RTC judges are attending a
Last sentence of SEC. 34, BP 129 as amended. convention of judges. So, if there is a petition for bail
Section 34. x x x Their decisions in these cases shall or an application for a writ of habeas corpus, then
be appealable in the same manner as decisions in such case/petition may be heard and decided by a
the Regional Trial Courts. judge of a 1st level court.
When the first level courts would render a judgement Rationale: Because take note, when we say ‘habeas
regarding land registration cases, an appeal from corpus’ it presupposes there is an urgent situation,
that decision would be taken not before the RTC but one is supposedly illegally detained. Same holds true
directly to the CA, when ordinarily, appeals would be in application for bail, it carries with it that the
raised to the RTC, inobservance of the hierarchy of accused is under detention.
courts.
BUT, as soon as the RTC judges report back to work,
Rationale: Because these cases are supposedly the MTC should forward the petition if still undecided
cognizable by the RTC and the fact that the hearings to the RTC for the appropriate disposition.
of the RTC are nothing but a delegated authority
from the SC. QUESTION OF STUDENT: Could the MTC judges
forward the petition for habeas corpus to CA judges
Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. - In directly since the jurisdiction is shared?
the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a
province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Atty: No. you have a point there. If you know already
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge that the RTC judges are on leave or are not around
may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas and you want to urgently file a petition when knowing
corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the full well that it may be filed directly with the CA but
province or city where the absent Regional Trial my advice to you is file directly with the CA. kay kung
Judge sit.” ari sad ka sa MTC judge okay man sad.
JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL

A petition for writ of habeas corpus, supposedly is
COURT
not cognizable by the 1st level courts. If at all, a
petition for habeas corpus may be taken cognizance
of the RTC, CA, SC because this case is among the Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil cases. - Regional
cases there in which is in concurrent jurisdiction of Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
the RTC, CA, and SC. jurisdiction.
Same holds true with respect to petitions for bail in x x x In all civil actions where the subject is incapable
criminal cases because when we say “applications of pecuniary estimation.
for bail” it follows through that the offense is not
47
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Incapable of pecuniary estimation - Not quantifiable 3. An action for interpleader is capable of
in terms of money (ex. Specific performance, pecuniary estimation where the subject
Rescission of contract, etc.) matter is either real or personal property. If
the subject of the interpleader is real property,
Examples of actions INCAPABLE of pecuniary then the jurisdiction amount is determined by
estimations: the assessed value of the property. (see
1. An action for expropriation, as it rather deals Feria and Noche, Provisional Remedies and
with exercise by the government of its Special Civil Actions, 2007)
authority and right to take private property - even if the thing involved is real or
(Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, 344 personal property. The one who files
SCRA 127) the petition for interpleader does not
2. An action seeking to annul a resolution of a actually claim interest or title over the
government-owned and controlled property subject matter of the litigation.
corporation (Polomolok Water District v. It’s just that he wants each party
Polomok General consumers Associations, claiming to be the owner of the
636 SCRA 647) property may prove their claims
3. An action for injunction against the adverse before the proper court.
party to permanently enjoin them from
preventing the survey of land. (Bokingko v. TAKE NOTE: ‘Exclusive Original Jurisdiction’
CA, 489 SCRA 521) meaning it is not shared with any other court.
4. Action for recognition of an illegitimate child
and support (Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. EXAMPLE: Interpleader. Akoy banko and there’s an
no. 208232, March 10, 2014) account of a deceased depositor and then naay mga
a. Perhaps you may ask naa may grupo, each one claiming to be the legal heirs of the
support nga quantifiable mani in terms deceased depositor. So if I am the bank, I will file an
of money. Well you are correct, yet action for interpleader because I do not know to
take note that the MAIN THRUST is whom the money shall be awarded. Each group has
the recognition of filiation of the child to prove their respective contentions as to who really
whether he is a legitimate or is entitled to receive the amount.
illegitimate child.
5. Interpretations of contracts (Heirs of Bautista That is considered to be one incapable of pecuniary
v. Lindo, supra) estimation. Hence, the jurisdiction would be
6. Declaratory relief (Rule 63) dependent on the amount of the property involved.
7. Petition for correction of entries in the Birth
Records ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR
RESCISSION OF CONTRACTS INVOLVING REAL
Examples of actions CAPABLE of pecuniary PROPERTY
estimation:
Spouses Saraza vs Francisco, G.R no. 198718,
1. An action for sum of money
November 2013
2. An action for the Replevin of a motorcycle
FACTS: An action for specific performance was
valued at P 150,000.00 (Brgy. San Roque v.
brought primarily to enforce the contract to execute a
Heirs of Pastor, 344 SCRA 127)
deed of sale.
- because the property can be equated
or can be quantified in terms of money. HELD: The action is incapable of pecuniary
So if the value of the car subject estimation.
matter of the replevin is say 500,000 Although the end result of the plaintiff’s claim was the
then you file the action for replevin transfer of the subject property to his name, the suit
before the RTC. If it goes beyond or was still essentially for specific performance, a
lower than say 300,000 or 400,000 as personal action, because it sought from the
the case may be outside Manila or in defendant the execution of a deed of sale based on a
Metro Manila then you may file it with contract which they had previously made.
the first level courts.
48
CIVIL PROCEDURE
In this case, there was an issue as to which court considering that it involved a real property and the
would have jurisdiction over the case. It was primary objective of the plaintiff is to have the
contended that it was one incapable of pecuniary property recovered, then it was characterized as a
estimation, hence the same is to be field with RTC. real action. Hence, if the value of which does not
But it’s also argued on the other hand that it is a real exceed 20,000 or 50,000, then it’s with the MTC. Kay
action, hence it should be filed with the MTC if the kung na characterize pa ni nga incapable of
assessed value of the property involved is 20,000 or pecuniary estimation, then by all means it should be
50,000 or less, depending on the estimation. But the filed with the RTC pursuant to Sec. 19 (1).
Supreme Court said that the action is really one that
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. So the case of Ruiz, therefore, is inconsistent or
diametrically opposed to the ruling in the case of
Why? Although that action in the case of Saraza Spouses Saraza. But in the following case, echoed
involves a real property, the Supreme Court said, it’s ruling in the case of Saraza:
that is basically just incidental to the main action
cause of action that specific performance. Hence, the Russel vs Vestil, 304 SCRA 738
case is to be filed with the RTC.
FACTS: This case was filed in September 1994,
barely five months after R.A. 7691 took effect. The
Manuel B. Ruiz vs J.M Tuazon and Co., G.R. No. action was denominated as one for “Declaration of
L-18692, January 31, 1963 Nullity and Partition” and filed with the RTC under the
theory that the same was incapable of pecuniary
FACTS: Manuel B. Ruiz brought an action before the estimation under Section 19 (1) of BP 129, as
Court of First Instance of Manila praying, among amended by R.A. 7691.
others, that J.M. Tuason & Co, Inc. be ordered to
execute a final deed of sale in his favor of a parcel of The document which the plaintiffs sought to be
land with an area of 420 sq. m. upon payment by him annulled was the “Declaration of Heirs and Deed of
of the purchase price at the rate of P7.00 per sq. m. Confirmation of Previous Oral Partition” executed
and to consider the sum of P855.00 already paid by among the defendants, a document which, according
hi, to defendant Florencio Deudor as partial payment to the plaintiffs, has the effect of excluding from their
thereof. property as co-heirs. The defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of the court’s alleged lack of
HELD: The action is one for recovery or acquisition jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the land
of ownership, not a simple action incapable of sought to be partitioned has to an assessed value of
pecuniary estimation. only P5,000 which under Section 33 (3) of BP 129,
as amended by RA 7691.
Although appellant’s complaint is entitled to be one
for specific performance, yet the fact that the asked HELD: RTC has jurisdiction
tha a deed of sale of a parcel of land situated in
Quezon City be issued in his favor and that a transfer Since the main purpose of the plaintiff was to have
certificate of title covering said land be issued to him the document annulled, the action filed was one
shows that the primary objective and nature of the incapable of pecuniary estimation. “While the
action is to recover the parcel of land itself because complaint also prays for the partition of the property,
to execute in favor of the appellant the conveyance that is but incidental to the main action, which is the
requested, there is need to make a finding that he is nullity of the document above described.”
the owner of the land which in the last analysis
resolves itself into an issue of ownership.
Saraza: Specific performance involving real property.
Supreme Court said incapable of pecuniary
The Supreme Court said, this time around it’s not estimation.
purely one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation Ruiz: Specific performance involving real property,
for that it is rather a real action. Hence, jurisdiction is real action because it involves real property.
to be determined on the basis of the assessed value
of the property involved. Although the title of the Russel: Rescission of a document. Supreme Court
complaint was that of specific performance but in the case of Russel that even if it involved partition,
49
CIVIL PROCEDURE
it is merely incidental to the main action which is
EBARASABAL. G.R. NO. 181622. 2013.
nullification.
Facts: the action filed was denominated as one for
But an action for simple partition of property may be “declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of
cognizable by the first level courts depending on the shares, partition, damages and attorney's fees”
assessed value of the property involved: the case involved a parcel of land with an
BARRIDO VS NONATO. 304 SCRA 738 assessed value of p11,990. one of the issues here
was whether or not the action is primarily one
Facts: an action for partition of real property with which is incapable of pecuniary estimation or one
an assessed value of p8,080 was filed with the which affects title to, possession of, or an interest
MTCC. Defendant moved for the dismissal of the in real property.
action holding that it is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation; hence, cognizable by the RTC. Held: the action of one incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Held: MTCC has jurisdiction.
Ascertaining the nature of the principal action or
“the MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of remedy sought, the court found the principal relief
real actions or those affecting title to real property; sought was the nullification of the extrajudicial
or for recovery of possession, or for the partition, or settlement with sale, a relief that is one other than
for foreclosure of a mortgage on real property.” the recovery of a sum of money, hence an action
Again, this depends on the assessed value of the incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court found
real property involved. the base to be a joinder of causes of action which
comprehends more than the issue of partition of or
recovery of the shares of interest over the real
Barrido: Action for partition of a property, treated as property in question but includes an action for
real action. Taking into consideration the case of declaration of nullity if contracts and documents
Russel, partition was merely incidental to the main which is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
action that is rescission or nullity of contract.
Padilla: SC said that an action for foreclosure of a

real property subject to mortgage shall be considered RECAP:
as real action cognizable by MTCC depending on the Cases of Saraza, Russel, and Genesis ruling:
assessed value. So if there's a real estate mortgage Action for specific performance, nullity of document
and you want the mortgage foreclosed and the value or title although involving real property are
of which does not exceed 20,000 then you file your considered to be actions incapable of pecuniary
petition to MTCC. estimation.
But if you want the foreclosure sale nullified, that But, in the case of Ruiz, it was an action for specific
action is already considered as one incapable of performance to recover a parcel of land, it is
pecuniary estimation. considered to be real actions. Barrido’s partition is
also considered as a real action. Even foreclosure of
Conclusion: So, what is controlling is the main property.
cause of action.
REFER TO PAGE 133-140 CHAPTER II RIANO
To simplify: If partition as the main action, real action. (2016) FOR MORE CASES ABOUT ACTIONS
If rescission or nullity of document, it is incapable of INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION.
pecuniary estimation hence cognizable by RTC.
TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTION IS
And as ruled in the case of Ruiz, saraza, and russel, A REAL ACTION OR A PLAIN ACTION
they're also equal to the case of: INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION:
GENESIS INVESTMENT V HEIRS OF RUSSEL V VESTILL, 304 SCRA 738

Ascertain the nature if the principal action or
50
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rescission, enforcement, that’s incapable of
remedy sought. “verily, while the complaint also
prays for the partition of the property, this is but pecuniary estimation.
incidental to the main action, which is nullity of the
documents.” Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
BRGY, PIAPI V TALIP, 469 RUSSEL V VESTIL,
304 SCRA 409 (3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
Where the ultimate objective is to obtain title to real
where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred
property, it is considered a real action and should
thus, be filed with the proper court having thousand pesos (P100,000.00) [300,000.00] or , in
jurisdiction over the assessed value of the real Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds
property subject thereof. Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00)
[400,000.00] ;
SC: As enunciated in the cases of Russel and Tiapi. TAKE NOTE: The values have been increased:
All you have to do is ascertain the nature of the 100,000 is now 300,000, or in Metropolitan Manila
principal action or remedy sought. Where the where such claim exceeds 200,000, but it’s now
objective is to recover real property, it shall be 400,000 pursuant to Section 5 of R.A. 7691. be filed
considered as real action and should be filed with the
first level court depending on the assessed value.
But what is an admiralty or maritime case?
Determine the primary objective or principal relief.
EXAMPLE: Carriage of goods. Kana bang mag-
ATTYS OPINION: With this, It becomes subjective. It
transport ka ug sakyanan. Imong i-sakay sa
depends on your biases and appreciation of the
action therein. Way klaro ang sc. Cokaliong for Leyte. Simbako madalis na, then you
ATTYS OBSERVATION: Not 100% accurate but based have a claim. That’s an admiralty dispute. So be
on my readings, I noticed that in the cases of Saraza, guided by Paragraph 3. If the amount that you claim
Russel and Genesis, the action for specific performance or exceeds 300,000 kay natagak ang sakyanan, then of
rescission is actually based on pre existing contract or
document. But not in the case of ruiz. Because in the course you file it with the RTC. Medyo gasgas lang
latter, the defendant executed in his favour a deed of sale kay wa matarong higot, then rough kaayo ang sea,
but there is no privity of contract between ruiz and j tuazon. then you file it with the MTC, the amount or damage
In other words, there is no contract existing between ruiz does not exceed 300,000 or 400,000 as the case
and tuazon. In cases of saraza, etc, it leads me to notice
that where the acquisition or recovery of a parcel of land may be.
proceeds from and is dependent on the enforcement or
rescission of the pre existing contract or document then Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional
almost always the action is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Look at the case of Genesis, it mentions here
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
the declaration of nullity of document. So there is a jurisdiction:
document sought to be nullified which is the extra judicial
settlement with sale. Take a look also at Russel, (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and
declaration of nullity and partition. What is sought to be
annulled by the heirs is the previous oral partition. Another intestate, where the gross value of the estate
is the saraza, there’s also an existing contract. exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
Nonetheless, it is not 100% accurate. [300,000.00] or, in probate matters in Metro Manila,
where such gross value exceeds Two hundred
QUESTION: With regards to the contracts, atty., I thousand pesos (200,000.00) [400,000.00];
think it would be easier to estimate the value of a
property…
You have to read this Section 19(4) in conjunction
Answer: Enforcement, rescission, it’s not about the with Section 33(1), which mentions probate
value of the property; it’s the nature of the action. proceedings cognizable by the MTC or the first level
51
CIVIL PROCEDURE
courts if the amount thereof, the gross value of the
estate does not exceed 300,000 or 400,000 in Manila. (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
So in fact, this is really in conjunction with Section 33, any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
Paragraph 1. jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original RTCs indeed are courts of general jurisdiction in the
jurisdiction: sense that where a case does not fall under the
exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, then it may
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage be taken cognizance of by the RTC, like quo
and marital relations; warranto proceedings, Writ of Amparo, and Writ of
Habeas Data.
R.A. 8369
Section 5. Jurisdiction of family Courts. - The Family In as much as it was not provided that such case
Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the SC then it
and decide the following cases: may be filed with the RTC. But not Writ of Kalikasan
xxx
because the latter falls under the exclusive
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
jurisdiction of the CA.
habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
QUESTION: Actions for the annulment of decisions
thereof;
of the RTC falls within the eclusive original
jurisdiction of the CA under Section 9 of B.P. 129, as
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions amended, it should be filed with the CA. What if the
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the decision that you want to be annulled is the decision
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental of an MTC on the ground of fraud, extrinsic fraud?
authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential
Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of QUESTIONING AN MTC DECISION ON THE
GROUND OF EXTRINSIC FRAUD
1986), and other related laws;
xxx
It does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
CA. It’s not even mentioned under BP 129 as to
Under Section 19(5), any such case involving which court may hear a petition for the annulment of
contract of marriage and marital relations fall under decisions of first-level courts. So, following Sec. 6 of
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. But BP 129 as amended, if you want to annul a judgment
take note that there is a law that was passed, R.A. of the MTC based on extrinsic fraud, then you can
8369 which provides in the main that actions file your action before the RTC, because it is the
court of general jurisdiction.
involving contract of marriage and marital relations
would have to be filed and the same are cognizable If the case is already under the exclusive jurisdiction
by the so-called Family Courts. But Family Courts of a particular court, then the RTC is without
actually are RTCs which are but designated to act as jurisdiction.
Family Courts. So file ka’g nullity of marriage, still
with the RTC but that RTC branch is designated as a Lupangco et al v. CA
Family Court pursuant to R.A. 8369.
Case in point is the case of Lupangco, a resolution
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional issued by the PRC prohibiting the giving of review
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original materials, handouts, and tips to the CPA board
examinees because of the leakage of the previous
jurisdiction: 1995 exams.
52
CIVIL PROCEDURE
should’ve been filed with the ERB (Energy

Then it was questioned, of course by the Regulatory Board), the body which basically
prospective examinees. When the petition was supervises this oil industry. Sa ERB nang
filed, it was filed with the RTC, the respondent jurisdiction.
PRC moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
under the Rules, decisions of the PRC may be Supreme Court: No, because the action is one
brought or may be questioned before the Court of involving a debtor and creditor. So it should not
Appeals. be filed with the ERB, but to be filed with the RTC
which is a court of general jurisdiction.
So it was argued by the PRC that in as much as
So in the cases of Lupangco and Bernardo,
the petitioners were questioning a resolution of the
Supreme Court again decreed that when an
PRC and considering that the decisions of the PRC
action is brought and it is not within the
may only be reviewed by the CA, and not with the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or
RTC, the action should be filed with the Court of
body, then it may be filed with the RTC being a
Appeals.
court of general jurisdiction.
But the Supreme Court disagreed. What is in
Conversely, where a particular case falls squarely
question here was a resolution issued by the PRC
under the exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court,
in the exercise purely of its administrative function.
tribunal, or body, exercising quasi-judicial function,
It was not a decision of the case filed before the
then RTC therefore is without jurisdiction.
PRC. There’s nothing in the law which mentions
asa ifile ang action if kining iquestion nimong
admin resolution of the PRC or if it’s in furtherance Sandoval v. Caneba
of its administrative function. If it’s in furtherance of
its quasi-judicial function, then you file it with the Dispute is between owner of subdivision and the
CA. buyer. The buyer refuses to pay the installments.
The developer filed a case for collection. The
Since there’s no law governing that action, then it question now is which court has jurisdiction over
should be filed with the RTC it being a court of the case? Should it be with the HLURB which is
general jurisdiction. Supreme Court said that it is basically the governing body governing
under paragraph 1 which is one incapable of subdivisions OR should it be filed with the RTC?
pecuniary estimation or even under paragraph 6
which vests upon RTC jurisdiction over cases not Held: Regular courts have no jurisdiction. It was an
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, action for collection of unpaid installments but
person, or tribunal. Even if there’s no law considering that it involves a developer and a
governing that situation, considering that the buyer, and considering that the case falls squarely
RTC is a court of general jurisdiction, then the under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, then
case may be filed with the RTC. RTC therefore is without jurisdiction.
Bernardo v. Caltex CT Torres Enterprises Inc. v. Hibionada
Kining supplier or dealer ba. Kung maka kompra An action involving developer and subdivision
sa buntag, mao ni price per liter or barrel of fuel. owners should be filed with the HLURB and not
Pagka gabii, dunay increase. So, ingon ang Caltex: with the RTC. This one is the reverse in that here
“Oi! bayra ni! It’s a variance. Because the price in the case of CT Torres, the plaintiffs were the
was based on the increase which took effect in the subdivision owners who filed a case against the
evening. Well, the dealer made the order in the developer because the developer failed to develop
morning. the roads in and out of the subdivision. So it was
contended that the case should be filed with the
So, a case was filed with the RTC questioning the RTC, but the Supreme Court said: “No, it should be
collection. It was contended that the action with the HLURB because this case falls under the
53
CIVIL PROCEDURE
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. SECTION 33 (2), BP 129

First level courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over the cases for forcible entry and
Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corp. v. unlawful detainer. It likewise provides that when such
Cullen cases raise the question of ownership and the
Here, the plaintiff filed a case for damages. He is a question of possession cannot be resolved without
condo unit owner, so supposedly he’s a deciding the same, then the court shall rule on the
shareholder of that condominium corporation. issue of ownership only for the purposes of
determining who has a better right to possession.
He was not allowed to participate in the election of
officers. He was not allowed to vote and be voted TAKE NOTE: The jurisdiction of first level courts
as an officer because of his alleged delinquency in over cases for forcible entry and unlawful detainer is
the payment of association dues. said to be exclusive. Meaning to say that you cannot
file an ejectment case directly with the RTC or with
Ingon sya nakabayad man ko! Ingon ang the CA, much less with the Supreme Court.
condominium corporation nga wala ka ni bayad! So
he ran for officer and of course he was disqualified You need to file an ejectment case with the first level
to run for that position so he filed a case for court and in case of an adverse ruling, that’s when
damages. you can go up to the RTC, CA, and even the SC.
Take note that what he filed is in the nature for an JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS UNDER SEC. 33 OF
action for damages. RTC indeed has jurisdiction BP 129
but it should be with the designated commercial
court. Why? Because it involved an intra-corporate Par 1 - Civil actions and probate proceedings,
dispute. It is a dispute between a stockholder and testate and intestate, including the grant of
a corporation. So it is an action for damages but provisional remedies in proper case. To be filed with
should be taken cognizance by an RTC designated the MTC, value must not exceed Php 300,000.00.
as a special commercial court. In Cebu City, it’s For Manila, it’s up to Php 400,000.00.
only Branch 11 which has been designated as
special commercial court. Say this case be filed in Par 2 - Ejectment cases: To be filed with the MTC
Branch 22 of RTC, then Branch 22 has no regardless of the amount of rentals imposed.
jurisdiction over this case.
Par. 3 - actions involving title to, or possession of
real property, or any interest therein may be taken
Benguet Corp. v. Leviste cognizance by the first level courts if the assessed
value thereof does not exceed Php 20,000.00 for
Then, this other case of Benguet. Rescission, places outside Metro Manila, and Php 50,000.00 if
management contract involving mga mining within Metro Manila.
corporations. Supreme Court said RTC has no
jurisdiction, it should be filed with the Bureau of EXAMPLE 1: Plaintiff demanded in the ejectment
Mines which has jurisdiction over such complaint that he be paid back rentals to the tune of
dispute. Php 1,000,000.00. In this case, what is determinative
is the nature of the action and not the amount of the
rentals demanded. Therefore, in this situation, the
Machete v. CA case remains within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Then the other case of Machete. Machete v. Court EXAMPLE 2: Actions for recovery of ownership
of Appeals. Because it involves tenancy, then should be filed with the MTC if the value of the
RTC therefore is without jurisdiction and the property does not exceed Php 20,000 but if it's
case should’ve been filed with the DARAB. beyond that and the place is outside Manila, then it
should be filed with the RTC but we do not apply that
rule here. If the action is plainly for ejectment, then
regardless of the amount of rentals demanded or the
54
CIVIL PROCEDURE
assessed value of the property, the case should SECTION 33(3), BP 129 AS AMENDED
remain with the first level courts.
Paragraph 3 now vests upon the first level courts the
TAKE NOTE: The case for ejectment must be filed power and authority to decide questions involving
with the first level courts notwithstanding the title to, possession of, real property or any interest
value/assessed value of the property involved. Basta therein.
ejectment, do not mind the values, it is unconditional.
Maypa ang ejectment, unconditional. Actions for publiciana or reinvindicatoria may now be
filed with the first level courts. However, take note of
1ST LEVEL COURT DECISIONS ON OWNERSHIP the caveat. The issue of the property involved should
IN EJECTMENT CASES: MERELY PROVISIONAL. not exceed Php 20,000.00 if outside Manila or Php
NO RES JUDICATA. 50,000.00 if located in Metro Manila.
Action for ejectment is only with regards to the TAKE NOTE: The value should be based not on the
possession of the land. It’s not about ownership. But market value of the property, nor the zonal value of
where the issue of possession can never be resolved the property, but the assessed value thereof.
without passing judgement on the issue of ownership,
then the MTC is now vested with the power to Assessed value is the one that appears on the tax
resolve any such issue of ownership but for the declaration. If there is no tax declaration, it will be
purpose of answering only the issue of possession. based on the assessed value of the neighboring
properties.
It will not be conclusive with respect to the issue of
ownership. The adverse party may still file a case EXAMPLE: If there is an action for publiciana or
before the appropriate court questioning the issue of action for recovery for real property, and the value of
ownership. the property does not exceed Php 20,000.00, then
you file it with the MTC. But if the case is filed
Thus, even when the defendant raises the issue on outside manila and the value of the property is Php
ownership in its answer to the complaint, that will not 30,000.00 then it follows that you file the action with
divest the first level courts of its jurisdiction over the the RTC.
ejectment case.
B.P. 129, Section 19(8)
Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
be determined on the basis of the allegations of the xxx xxx xxx
complaint. Not the allegations of the answer, nor the (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
allegations on the motion to dismiss. interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
Balibago Faith Baptist Church vs Faith in Jesus property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand
Christ Baptist Church pesos (P100,000.00) (now P300,000) or, in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of
General Principle: To determine the jurisdiction of the the above mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred
court, we have to be guided by the allegations in the thousand pesos (P200,000.00) (now P400,000).
complaint and not necessarily by the answer.
Take note however of the exception to the rule: If it is real property, the value of which should not
Dela Cruz vs CA exceed P20,000 or P50,000 as the case may be.
Ruling: If the allegations in the complaint are vague
and iffy, or where the issue of tenancy is raised (in If there is an action for collection of a sum of money
relation to the case of Ignacio vs CFI of Bulacan), we arising from a loan transaction, the determining
may consider the allegations if the answer. factor is the amount involved. If it is P300,000 below
or P400,000 below, as the case may be, file it with
EMPHASIS: Where the defendant raises an issue the MTC. Beyond that, file it with the RTC.
about ownership, it will not divest the first level courts
of jurisdiction over such cases. EXAMPLE: Suppose Gravador and I entered into a
contract of deposit where I deposited my money to
him, under the obligation to return the money to me
55
CIVIL PROCEDURE
after a period of time. As soon as I made a demand that it was a contract of loan, then you can file the
for the return of my money, Gravador refused. action with the RTC.
Instead, he used it for the gasoline of his motorbike.
CASES FALLING THE CONCURRENT ORIGINAL
So, I filed a case for the return of the money. JURISDICTION OF THE RTC (B.P. 129, as
Assuming that the amount deposited is P50,000, amended, Section 21)
where will you file the action taking into consideration
the provision in Section 33 (1), and Section 19 (8)? Original jurisdiction in other cases - Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
File the action with the RTC.
[1] In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
Reason: Although it involves a sum of money, but mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and
that transaction is not a contract of loan but a injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
contract of deposit, which is akin to specific respective region.
performance, for him to perform what was
incumbent upon him – to return the money I [2] In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
deposited. ministers and consuls.
Take note of this case. These cases would fall under the original, but not
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.
ORTIGAS AND CO., LTD PARTNERSHIP vs.
HERRERA Meaning to say, the RTC’s jurisdiction over the cases
mentioned under Paragraph 1 is shared with other
Facts: A entered into an agreement with B where A courts.
deposited the sum of P50,000 with B. After certain
conditions are complied B has to return the amount Verily, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
to A. According to A the conditions are already quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction may be
complied with, but B still refuses to return the money. filed with the RTC, CA and the SC. But, when you
So, A filed a complaint which he denominated as already filed the case before the RTC, you cannot file
sum of money and since he is only asking for the anymore a similar case under the CA.
return of P50,000, A filed the case in the MTC.
TAKE NOTE:While the RTC may issue writs of
Issue: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
the case. habeas corpus, and injunction, the validity or the
enforceability is limited only with their respective
Held: The MTC has NO jurisdiction. It should be filed judicial region (limited jurisdiction). But as
in the RTC. It is not an action to collect a loan. You regards to writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
are not recovering a loan. You are compelling him to quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction issued
comply with the agreement – to return the money by the CA and the SC, they may be enforced
after certain conditions are complied with. You are anywhere in the Philippines.
trying to enforce your agreement. therefore your
action is an action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE In cases falling under Paragraph 2 of Section 21,
which should be tried by the RTC under paragraph they are filed under the concurrent jurisdiction of the
[1]. “When a party to a contract has agreed to refund RTC and the SC, to the exclusion of the CA.
to the other party a sum of money upon compliance
by the latter of certain conditions and only upon Why? Because Section 9, dealing with the
compliance therewith may what is legally due him jurisdiction of the CA, does not mention about cases
under the written contract be demanded, the action is affecting ambassadors and other public ministers
one not capable of pecuniary estimation. So, it is and consuls as falling under the jurisdiction of CA.
cognizable by the RTC.
The provision of Section 21 (2) of B.P. 129, as
Although it involves a sum of money, the transaction amended, juxtapose with Section 5 (1) of Article VIII
involves a contract of deposit. However, had it been of 1987 Constitution.
56
CIVIL PROCEDURE
SUMMARY: petition fore review because petition for review may

only happen if the case originated from the 1st level
Section 21 (1) – concurrent jurisdiction of RTC, CA court reviewed or appealed by the RTC then
and SC eventually brought further to the CA. your recourse
here is Petition for review.
Section 21 (2) – only RTC and SC have concurrent
jurisdiction Decisions rendered by the MTC if you want it to be
reviewed by the RTC your remedy is ordinary appeal.
All you have to do is file a notice of appeal. File it
with the MTC.
CASES UNDER THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION
OF THE RTC If the RTC affirms the decision of the MTC and you
(B.P. 129, as amended, Section 22) want it to be reviewed further by the CA then file
Petition for review under Rule 42. File a Petition for
Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts shall Review not with RTC but with CA.
exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
by MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their respective What is the difference? (Garcia v. Mun. of Iba,
territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided Zambales)
on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings
had in the court of origin and such memoranda
and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or Notice of Appeal Petition for Review
required by the RTCs. The decision of the RTCs in (Ordinary Appeal)
such cases shall be appealable by petition for review
to the CA which may give it due course only when The appeal to the CA in
the petition show prima facie that the lower court has Appeal to the CA in cases decided by the
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
sought to be reviewed. its original jurisdiction in accordance with Rule
42.
Only the RTCs and the SC could have concurrent Petition for review is
jurisdiction over ambassadors, other public ministers, Taken by filing a notice filed with the CA
and consuls but CA does not have jurisdiction over of appeal with the court
such cases. which rendered the
judgment or final order
Appellate jurisdiction of the RTC. appealed from and
serving a copy thereof
TAKE NOTE: RTC may only review decisions upon the adverse party
rendered by the 1st level courts WITHIN their
respective territorial jurisdictions as distinguished
from Judicial Region Perfected as to the Deemed perfected as to
appealing party upon the petitioner upon the
Such that when a decision is rendered by an MTC in his timely filing of the timely filing of the
Mandaue City, it can only be reviewed by an RTC of notice of appeal + petition for review
Mandaue City. It cannot be reviewed by an RTC in proper payment of before the CA
Quimonda or RTC in Lapulapu. Because the law docket fee
speakes of “Territorial Jurisdiction”
RTC loses jurisdiction RTC shall lose
upon perfection jurisdiction upon
perfection thereof and
EXAMPLE: Ejectment case before Mandaue, pilde the expiration of the
ang pikas, then they filed a petition for review. Dre sa time to appeal of the
RTC sa Cebu City. Dapat RTC in Mandaue. I told my other parties.
associate to wait for 15 days to lapse, to file an
objection. He could have filed an appeal not a
57
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Non-payment within the Non-payment is not the

Sec. 5.2 of RA 8799 transferred jurisdiction over
reglementary period is only ground to dismiss
intra-corporate disputes from the SEC to the RTC,
mandatory and (as discussed further
specifically the Special Commercial Court designated
jurisdictional, non below)
by the Supreme Court.
compliance is fatal to
the appeal, and is a
ground to dismiss RA 8799 SEC 5.2
Sec. 5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all
Upon perfection, it is Discretionary appeal,, cases enumerated under section 5 of Presidential
matter or right may be disallowed by Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts
the superior court in its of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional
discretion Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the
exercise of its authority may designate the Regional
Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction
Upon perfection, Clerk This is not required over the cases. The Commission shall retain
of court of the RTC has under Rule 42, except jurisdiction over pending cases involving intracor-
no choice but to upon order of the CA porate disputes submitted for final resolution which
immediately transmit the when it is deemed should be resolved within one (1) year from the
records to the CA necessary enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain
jurisdiction over pending suspension of
payment/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000
CA may dismiss your petition for review outright
until finally disposed.
when there is no prima facie evidence that RTC
committed reversible error with the findings of facts
and conclusions, even if field on time, may be In Cebu, we only have one commercial court and
dismissed outright by the CA. that is RTC 11.
TAKE NOTE: In Sec. 22, if the case originated MTC JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
and it will be reviewed by the RTC in its exercise of
its appeallate jurisdiction, the records of the case will Before, this court used to be called the Intermediate
be forwarded to the RTC. Once a notice of appeal is Appellate Court (IAC) but after EDSA People Power,
filed within the period and the appeal fee has been Pres. Aquino issued EO 33 which created the Court
paid, then the MTC will elevate the entire records to of Appeals.
the RTC. RTC will almost always require the parties EO 33 “The Court of Appeals”
to submit their respective memoranda or Brief. Section 2. Section 3, Chapter I of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, is hereby amended to read as follows:
BRIEF is where you will plead your argument.
Allowing RTC to decide the case on the basis of the "Sec. 3. Organization. There is hereby created a
entire records from the lower court and the Court of Appeals xxx"
memoranda or brief that will be submitted by the
parties. In the letter of Justice Capuno, it was clarified that
the CA referred to EO 33 issued by Aquino is a new
TAKE NOTE RTC's jurisdiction is limited to the court. It was stated here that Pres. Aquino not only
decision rendered by the MTC within its territorial abolished the defunct IAC but also created the CA.
jurisdiction. CA therefore, is a new entity. . And when it comes to
the jurisdiction of CA this is conferred Sec. 9 BP 129
EXAMPLE as amended.
● Liloan, Cebu etc they're covered RTC
Mandaue Section 9 (1). Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals
● Cebu City is under RTC Cebu shall Exercise:
● Lapu-lapu City is under RTC Lapu-Lapu 1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
JURISDICTION OVER INTRA-CORPORATE
DISPUTES
58
CIVIL PROCEDURE
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
This provision fortifies the proposition that indeed subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
that petition for mandamus, prohibition, etc. may be subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section
taken cognizance by the RTC, the SC and the CA. 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
TAKE NOTE: Actions affecting ambassadors and

other public ministers and consuls falls under the RA 7902 provides otherwise, decisions rendered by
original although not exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, the Civil Service Commission would be reviewed by
but insofar as CA is concerned, Sec. 9 doesn't the Court of Appeals, not necessarily the Supreme
mention cases affecting ambassadors and other Court.
public ministers and consuls.
Section 7, Article 9-A, 1987 Constitution provides
That's why i said earlier that cases of such nature,
would only be taken cognizance by the RTC and or that decisions rendered by the Constitutional bodies
SC. like COMELEC, COA, CSC, may be reviewed by on
certiorari by the SC. It did not mention CA but the law
Section 9 (2). Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals mentions recourse before the CA when it comes to
shall Exercise: the decisions rendered by the CSC.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; Is the law RA 7902 valid?
Paragraph 2 of Sec. 9 doesn't include annulment of Yes, because Section 7 has this caveat that unless
the decision of the MTC, only decision of RTC. otherwise provided by this Constitution or by Law,
the decisions of the various Constitutional bodies or
IS ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OF RTC commissions may be reviewed on certiorari by the
DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY APPEAL?
SC.
YES, because appeal is a mode of review but
annulment of judgement of RTC is an original action.
TAKE NOTE Decisions rendered by the COMELEC
Example: The judge was bribed, so extrinsic fraud. and COA in the performance of the quasi-judicial
The remedy is not appeal because that decision is functions remains to be reviewable only by the
null and void, as if no decision at all. You file a Supreme Court.
petition of annulment of judgment of the RTC and
that is an original action and it falls under the TAKE NOTE Sec. 9(3), BP 129, excludes from the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the CA. appellate jurisdiction of the CA, the cases covered by
sub-paragraph 1, 3rd paragraph, sub-paragraph 4, 4th
Paragraph 3 of Section 9, of BP 129, as amended
takes about the appellate jurisdiction of the CA. paragraph and also cases falling the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC. You can find the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC in Sec. 5(2), Art. 8, Constitution.
Section 9 (2). Jurisdiction. – The Court of
Appeals shall Exercise:
Example:
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of YNOT VS. IAC
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, ISSUE: WON Ynot has the permit to transport
instrumentalities, boards or commission, including carabao to one province to another and in the
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Social Security Commission, the Employees alternative he also questions the validity of the
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Executive Order.
Commission, Except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
59
CIVIL PROCEDURE
It is a mixture of questions of facts and law. The case, Cases involving pure questions of law: File it
if at all, decided by the RTC, would still have to pass directly to the SC
through the CA. You cannot go proceed to the SC.
Section 9 (4). Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals
If the only issue is W/N E.O. 626-A is constitutional, shall have the power to try cases and conduct
you go directly to the SC. hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
IOW, the cases mentioned in Sec. 5, par. 2, Art. 8 cases falling within its original and appellate
of the Constitution would go directly to the SC if jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct
they involve pure questions of law, not factual new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must
issues. be completed within three (3) months, unless
PEOPLE vs. MATEO extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A.
When the penalty imposed is death, the CA conducts No. 7902.)
an immediate review of the case before it is reviewed,
if warranted, to the SC. You can only bypass the CA The CA is authorized to conduct hearings and
if it involves pure questions of law, not questions of receive evidence, except those cases under the
facts or mixed questions of facts and law. Labor Code and the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals. However, it is different from such in the trial
Cases in sec. 18(2)(e) of E.O. 292 (Atty said sub-par. court. Hearings in the CA is like mooting because the
3, sec. 1) involve the penalty of death. This is already judges will cross-examine you.
qualified in PP vs. Mateo. This is also in consonance
with Sec. 5(2)(d) of the Constitution. QUESTION #1 May the parties withhold evidence at
the trial court level, only to present it in the CA?
SEC. 18(2)(e) OF E.O. 292 No. Calling for a hearing is discretionary on the part
SECTION 18. Jurisdiction and Powers of Supreme of CA. There is no assurance that the CA will call for
Court. —The Supreme Court shall have the following a hearing. Almost always, seldom ra sila mag-
powers: hearing ang CA. It usually based its decision on your
xxx appellant’s/appellee’s brief.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court QUESTION #2 What happens if the CA will not hold
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower a hearing? What happens to your evidence?
courts in:
xxx Again, there is no assurance that the CA will hold a
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is hearing. It might just ask clarificatory questions,
reclusion perpetua or higher. without giving the parties a chance to present
additional evidence.
SEC. 5(2)(d) OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the GENERAL RULE CA will only consider the decision
following powers: or in its decision, the evidence presented and passed
xxx upon by the trial court.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court EXCEPTION When the trial court failed to consider a
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower particular evidence that the CA may, on appeal,
courts in: consider additional, or where the parties present
xxx additional evidence. This is not mandatory on the
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is part of CA.
reclusion perpetua or higher.
That will be a ground for a new trial but it is a long
SUMMARY shot. Evidence should be filed in the Pre-trial. There
Cases involving (1) mixed questions of facts and are many strict courts that do not allow new evidence
law, or (2) pure questions of facts: File it in CA first to be presented during the trial. So it is better that
you present the evidence before the start of the trial.
60
CIVIL PROCEDURE
TAKE NOTE: While the CA may allow to present It is only when a case originated from another court
evidence but it is not guaranteed that the CA will where the Supreme Court may no longer entertain
allow to present additional evidence. Because as a new evidence.
GENERAL RULE, the cases appealed to CA will be
decided based on the records. But CA has the JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
discretion whether or not it will accept new evidence
but some evidence is based on some incidental Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is governed by the
matters. CONSTITUTION. Congress has no power to define
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is the only
LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT.
APPELLATE COURT
So the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is governed
HELD: The power of the CA to receive evidence by Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution:
refers only to incidental facts which were not 100
percent touched upon, or matters which were simply ARTICLE VII, SECTION 5. The Supreme Court
overlooked by the trial court. You cannot opt not to shall have the following powers:
present evidence before the RTC. It only refers to (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
incidental facts. “Evidence necessary in regards to affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
factual issues raised in cases falling within the consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
Appellate Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
contemplates ‘incidental’ facts which were not corpus.
touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or
respondent Court. The law could not have intended
that the Appellate Court would hold an original and TAKE NOTE: I would like to emphasize that cases
full trial of a main factual issue in a case, which affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
properly pertains to Trial Courts. consuls would fall under the jurisdiction of RTC and
SC.
Supreme Court said that the power of the CA refers Cases over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
only to incidental facts which were only overlooked mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus would
by the trial court. fall the jurisdiction of RTC, CA, and SC.
QUESTION: Doesn’t an appeal open the case in its The only difference is the JURISDICTION of the
entirety? issuance of RTC only has effect within its JUDICIAL
REGION. BUT the writs issued the CA and SC can
Atty. G.: Not necessarily. It only means that the be enforced or implemented anywhere in the
whole issues of the case can be reviewed. It does Philippines.
not mean that the case will be opened for new
hearing or new evidence can be automatically QUESTION: Are there petitions for certiorari,
accepted by the reviewing court. BUT if the Court of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
Appeals will be hearing a case on its ORIGINAL corpus which the Supreme Court has “exclusive
JURISDICTION then I am inclined to believe that the original jurisdiction, notwithstanding Sec. 5(1)?
Court of Appeals can automatically receive evidence.
ANSWER:
So probably that is the posturing of Solicitor General
Calida in Filing a quo warranto case againsts ABS- EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SC
CBN. I have read in social media which says that
Supreme Court is not a trial of facts—that is correct. The Supreme Court, however, shall have exclusive
But it is not 100% accurate because take note that original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
the Supreme Court has also original jurisdiction over prohibition, mandamus against the following:
some cases thus the Supreme Court can receive
evidence. 1. Court of Appeals (Section 17, Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1948)
61
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2. Commission on Elections (Section 7, Article and qualifications of the President or Vice-
IX, 1987 Constitution) President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
3. Commission on Audit (Section 7, Article IX,
1987 Constitution) ATTY’S COMMENT: In the case of Grace Poe, the
SC said that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over
4. Sandiganbayan (P.D. 1606, as amended) cases dealing with qualifications of the
Presidentiables and Vice Presidentiables.
5. Court of Tax Appeals
However, this is different in the case of Poe Jr. vs
REASON: No courts higher than these courts other Arroyo, because the SC ruled that the disqualification
than the Supreme Court cases involving presidentiables may be taken
cognizance of by the COMELEC and only after
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME proclamation the case should be referred to the PET.
COURT
However, in Grace Poe the SC said to the
Section 5 (2), Article XVII, 1987 Constitution COMELEC that you have no jurisdiction. That is why
it is being criticized, because if you look closely at
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on the provision, it states “qualifications of the President
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of or Vice-President”. It does not state qualifications of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of Presidential candidates or Vice-Presidential
lower courts in: candidates. (Para kay Atty. inconsistent ang ruling sa
case ni Grace Poe sa provision sa Constitution.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity Anyways, problema na nis SC)
of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
Section 11, Art. 8. The Members of the Supreme
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question
Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office
during good behavior until they reach the age of
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge
assessment, or too, or any penalty imposed in
the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc
relation thereto
shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
of the Members who actually took part in the
court is in issue
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty is reclusion thereon.
perpetua or higher
A: I think you must know that in the past there were 5
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law judges in Cebu City who were dismissed by the SC.
is involved And the SC does that pursuant to Sec 11 Art 8. One
of them filed an MR, she was even disbarred.
TAKE NOTE: In the case of Ynot, the SC said that
even the lower courts can rule upon the validity of a Section 18, Art. 7. x x x The Supreme Court may
law. review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
If there is a mixed question of facts and law, you are proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
not allowed to file directly at the SC, your remedy is privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and
to file before the CA. must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty
days from its filing.
Section 4, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole A: While this is a good provision, because in the past
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, the court had flip flopping decisions on whether or
62
CIVIL PROCEDURE
not the court can review the factual basis for the
declaration of martial law.
1st case Montenegro, then Garcia, then Padilla.

(refer in the previous discussion)
So to remove all doubts with respect to the authority

of the SC, then we have this paragraph 3. This is
where the rule on legal standing is relaxed.
Section 2, Art. 8. The Congress shall have the

power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not (but
should be read as SHOULD NOT) deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
While this provision makes it clear that congress has

no power to deprive the SC over the jurisdiction of
the cases mentioned in sec 5. We also have section
30 of article 6.
Section 30, Article 6. No law shall be passed

increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its
advice and concurrence.
which allows congress to increase the jurisdiction of

the SC or to include cases not included in sec 5.
So if you will compare Sec. 2, Art. 8 with Sec. 30, Art

6. Here, congress is prohibited from depriving SC of
its jurisdiction over cases mentioned under Sec 5 par
1 and 2. But under Sec 30, Congress can somehow,
although it cannot decrease the power of SC, but
may increase its jurisdiction. But for it to be valid, it
should be with the prio advice and concurrence of
the SC.
-------End (for jurisdiction)------
63

Civil Procedure Pre Mid Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Pre Mid Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Pre Mid Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL PROCEDURE

PREMID | ATTY. GALEON | EH 408 S.Y. 2019-2020

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS ENACTED BY

“(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions

SC said it is more on the rule-making power.

TAKE NOTE SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF

Rules of Court of the Philippines may, in the

TAKE NOTE: The ONLY Constitutional court here in

The rest, the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court,

Such provision, however, does not provide that the

1987 Constitution Art. VIII Sec. 5(2)(d)

RULE 111 OF THE RULES OF COURT Art. 9, New Civil Code

That is not in the Labor Code because it only

JURISDICTION vs. THE EXERCISE OF ERROR IN JURISDICTION

What is the importance of knowing the difference

1. If the remedy is appeal: file a notice of

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION v. APPELLATE

If the principal amount is 320k, it is already beyond

2nd: Garcia v. Lansang

3rd: Garcia-Padilla v. Enrille JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Over the defendant/respondent MTC issued summons and directed me to file an

EXAMPLE: for nullity of marriage. Kay di maserve

So even if Sec. 5 (1), Art. VIII says that in case for

As for probate proceedings, there is also that ceiling ILLUSTRATION NO. 1:

Section 33 (3). Exclusive original jurisdiction in all

JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL

Padilla: SC said that an action for foreclosure of a

GENESIS INVESTMENT V HEIRS OF RUSSEL V VESTILL, 304 SCRA 738

should’ve been filed with the ERB (Energy

Bernardo v. Caltex CT Torres Enterprises Inc. v. Hibionada

exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. SECTION 33 (2), BP 129

SUMMARY: petition fore review because petition for review may

Non-payment within the Non-payment is not the

TAKE NOTE: Actions affecting ambassadors and

1st case Montenegro, then Garcia, then Padilla.

So to remove all doubts with respect to the authority

Section 2, Art. 8. The Congress shall have the

While this provision makes it clear that congress has

Section 30, Article 6. No law shall be passed

which allows congress to increase the jurisdiction of

So if you will compare Sec. 2, Art. 8 with Sec. 30, Art

-------End (for jurisdiction)------

You might also like