Civ Pro Case Rulings

NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE | Erika Cristel S.
Diaz
BASIC PRINCIPLES lawsuits. It is divided into three distinct set of provisions, to

wit:
Definition of Law a. Civil Procedure Proper – Rules 1-56.
It is a rule of human conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated b. Provisional Remedies – Rules 57-61. The writs and
by legitimate authority for common observance and benefit. processes available during the pendency of the action
to preserve and protect certain rights and interests
Difference between Substantive Law and Remedial Law pending rendition and for the purposes of the ultimate
Substantive Law Remedial Law effects of a final judgment in the case.
 Creates, defines and  The rules which
regulates rights and provides the system for ex: Rule 58, writ of preliminary injunction or temporary
duties concerning life, the protection of rights, restraining order. It is temporary and hence
liberty or property. the prevention of the provisional.
 Provides for the violation of such rights
creation of obligations. and means of redress c. Special Civil Actions – Rules 62-71. Civil actions
for such violations. governed specifically by the special rules and
 The means and generally by the Rules of Court ordinary civil actions.
methods whereby
causes of action may be ex: prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
effectuated, wrongs
redressed and reliefs 2. Special Proceedings – Rules 72-109. Rules governing
obtained. miscellaneous proceedings dealing on specific issues. A
 Lays down the methods special proceeding is defined as a remedy by which a
by which rights and party seeks to establish a right, status, or a particular fact.
obligations arising from
substantive law are It is a proceeding in rem or binding upon the whole world.
protected, enforced and
given effect. 3. Criminal Procedure – Rules 110-127. The legal process
 Also known as adjective for adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal
law. Law.
Aspects of Remedial Law 4. Evidence – Rules 128-133. The means, sanctioned by the
(1) Public Aspect Rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
To afford remedies to the State against an individual.
ex: Proving the elements of a crime.
Criminal Procedure
A branch or aspect of remedial law that governs how the 5. Jurisdiction – It is deemed included in all branches of
prosecution of criminal offenses is supposed to be made. It’s Remedial Law but the main law is Batas Pambansa Blg.
the State against the individual. 129, as amended.
To afford remedies by an individual against the state. Recent amendment in 2021, which increased the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Writ of Habeas Corpus
To produce the body or explain why you are detaining a person Note: While Criminal Procedure taught you what to expect in
against his will. criminal actions, and Evidence will teach you how to prove your
case in court, civil or criminal, Civil Procedure, while being a
Writ of Amparo specialized subject dealing with civil cases, is a subject of
It is an individual filing an action against the State itself. It is general application that provides the basics in terms of
actually the law enforcement agencies, the Philippine National procedure for all types of cases.
Police or the AFP, who are suspected of detaining a person.
Where Remedial law is applied
ex: Violation of constitutional rights usually in the form of It cannot be applied before the barangay and the NLRC
enforced disappearances. because it is not a court.
Writ of Continuing mandamus Rule 1, Sec 2

Under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
Meaning of Court
(2) Private Aspect A Court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial
Affords a remedy to an individual against another individual. It department the function of which is the application of the laws
is a citizen against another citizen (ex: civil procedure). to the controversies brought before it as well as the public
administration of justice. It is the place where justice is
Branches of Remedial Law administered.
1. Civil Procedure – it is the body of rules that sets out rules
and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil Court distinguished from a Judge
Court Judge
From the annotations of Riano and discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo | S.Y 2022-2023 | 1
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE | Erika Cristel S. Diaz
 A tribunal officially  Simply an officer of Constitutional Court – One which is created by a direct
assembled under such tribunal. constitutional provisions. Only the Supreme Court is a
authority of law.  A physical person. constitutional court.
 An organ of the  A public officer.
government with a Statutory Court – One created by law other than the
personality separate Jurisdiction does not attach Constitution. All courts in the Philippines, except the Supreme
and distinct from the to the judge but to the court. Court are statutory courts.
person or judge who The judge may resign,
sits on it. become incapacitated or be (7) Collegiate Court and Non-Collegiate Court
 A being comparable to disqualified to hold office,
a corporation. but the court remains. Inherent Powers of a Court (Rule 135, Sec. 5)
 An office. Every court shall have power:
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate
Classification of Courts of the Philippine Judiciary presence;
(1) Superior and Inferior Courts (b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a
person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
Superior – Those exercising supervisory authority over investigation under its authority;
lower courts. One with controlling authority over other (c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
courts and with an original jurisdiction of its own. All courts processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of
in the Philippines are inferior to the Supreme Court. court, in a case pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
Inferior – Those whose decisions are subject to review by ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any
higher tribunals (ex: MTC). manner connected with a case before it, in every
manner appertaining thereto;
(2) Courts of General jurisdiction and Courts of Special (e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a
jurisdiction case pending therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a
Courts of general jurisdiction – Those with competence case pending therein, and in all other cases where it
to decide on their own jurisdiction and take cognizance of may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
all cases, civil or criminal, of a particular nature (ex: RTC). (g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to
Courts of special jurisdiction – Those taking cognizance make them conformable to law and justice;
only of a few specified matters (ex: Family court, Probate (h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or
court, Small claims court). other paper to be filed and used instead of the original,
and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records
(3) Original courts and Appellate courts and proceedings.
Original court – when actions or proceedings are Means to carry jurisdiction into effect (Rule 135, Sec. 6)
originally filed with it. When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial
officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means
Appellate court – when it has the power of review over necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such
the decisions or orders of a lower court. court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the
exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by
(4) Criminal courts and Civil courts law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of
proceeding may be adopted which appears comfortable to
Criminal courts – Those which adjudicate offenses the spirit of the said law or rules.
alleged to have been committed against the State.
Import of Rule 135, Sec. 6
Civil courts – Those which determine controversies It is recognition by the Supreme Court in making the Rules of
between private persons. Court that it cannot provide for every eventuality or possibility
in litigation. That there may be instances where it may not be
Note: Philippine Courts exercise both civil and criminal found in the Rules of Court but it is still important for the court
jurisdictions because of the principle that every person to proceed. Even though there is no procedure that governs, it
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art. 100, RPC). might still be important for the courts to proceed. In that
instance, it can exercise in a suitable discretion to adopt
(5) Courts of Law and Courts of Equity process or mode of proceeding provided it is conformable to
Philippine Courts are both courts of law and equity. When the the spirit of the law or the Rules of Court.
court relaxes the strict application of the rules where strong
considerations are manifest, the court is said to be in the JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Equity does not apply when
there is a law applicable to a given case. Equity is applied only Jurisdiction
in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial The power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a
rules of procedure. case. The power of a court to hear and decide a controversy
includes the power to determine whether or not it has the
(6) Constitutional Courts and Statutory Courts authority to hear and determine the controversy presented and
the right to decide whether or not the statement of facts that
confer jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that arise ex: Municipal Trial Court (MTC) which assumed jurisdiction
in the case legitimately before the Court. over a criminal information for murder, tried the accused and
subsequently rendered judgement thereon. MTC has no
Two ways in which jurisdiction is understood jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment
(1) A concept denoting authority exceeding 6 years (Sec. 32, BP 129).
Jurisdiction is a practical authority granted a formally
constituted legal body or officer to deal with and make Excess of jurisdiction
pronouncements on legal matters. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the court acted beyond the
(2) Concept denoting area of responsibility power conferred to it by law. An act, though within the general
Jurisdiction is also the power to administer justice within a power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authorized and
defined area of responsibility invalid with respect to the particular proceeding because the
conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general
Distinction between jurisdiction and exercise of power in respect of it are wanting.
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Exercise of Jurisdiction ex: When the Court issued orders clearly contrary to the facts
Jurisdiction is the authority The exercise of this power and the law, and whimsically and capriciously refused to
of the court to decide a or authority is called reconsider said orders despite having authority to do so, the
case, and not the decision exercise of jurisdiction and court is deemed to have been deprived of jurisdiction it
rendered therein. there is jurisdiction over the originally had since its acts are deemed to be tainted with a
person and the subject grave abuse of discretion amounting to “lack of jurisdiction”.
matter, the decision on all
questions arising from the Types of jurisdiction
case is an exercise of such (1) General and Special
jurisdiction.
General jurisdiction – Where the power to adjudicate all
Distinction between error of jurisdiction and error of controversies, except those expressly withheld from the
judgment plenary powers of the court. (ex: B.P. 129, with respect to the
Error of jurisdiction Error of judgment Regional Trial Court, lists the cases that fall under its General
It occurs when the court Presupposes that the court Jurisdiction).
exercised a jurisdiction not is vested with jurisdiction
conferred to it by law. It is over the subject matter of Special jurisdiction – Which restricts the court’s jurisdiction
also when the court or the action but in the process only to particular cases and subject to such limitations as may
tribunal, although vested of exercising that jurisdiction be provided by the governing law.
with jurisdiction, acts in , it committed mistakes in
excess of its jurisdiction or the appreciation of facts and (2) Original and Appellate jurisdiction
with grave abuse of evidence leading to an
discretion amounting to lack erroneous judgment. These Original jurisdiction – The power of the court to take judicial
of jurisdiction. mistakes are mere errors of cognizance of a case instituted for the first time under
judgment and not errors of conditions provided by law. It means jurisdiction to take
jurisdiction, although cognizance of a case at its inception, try it and pass judgment
erroneous, was rendered by upon the law and facts.
a court vested with
jurisdiction over the subject Appellate jurisdiction – The authority of a court, higher in
matter. rank, to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower court
which tried a case now elevated for judicial review.
Correctible by appeal. (3) Exclusive and Concurrent jurisdiction
Correctible by certiorari. Exclusive jurisdiction – Precludes the idea od co-existence
and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others.
Note: The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the court or
tribunal had the power to enter on the inquiry, not whether or Concurrent/Coordinate jurisdiction – The power of different
not its conclusions, in the course thereof were correct, for the courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter. The
power to decide necessarily carries with it the power to decide court first taking cognizance of the case assumes jurisdiction to
wrongly as well as rightly. the exclusion of others.
Distinction between lack of jurisdiction and excess of Elements of Jurisdiction spir
jurisdiction (1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) Jurisdiction over the parties;
Lack of jurisdiction (3) Jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and
The lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and (4) Jurisdiction over the res or thing involved in litigation.
determine a cause considered either in general or with
reference to a particular matter. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
The power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is
then before it. It is the jurisdiction of the court over the class of
cases to which a particular case belongs. Real actions, Jurisdiction over the person of Jurisdiction over the
personal actions or actions incapable of pecuniary estimation the defendant is not required person of the defendant is
are to be considered as subject matters. for the court to proceed with required.
the action. What is required is
How conferred jurisdiction over the res
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The although summons must also
conferring law may be the Constitution, or the statute be served upon the defendant
organizing the Court or tribunal, or the special or general in order to satisfy the
statute defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal. requirements of due process.
It cannot be: How acquired

(1) Granted by the agreement of the parties; It is acquired by the court by placing the property or thing under
(2) Acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or its custody (custodia legis) or constructive seizure.
omission of the parties; or
(3) Conferred by the acquiescence of courts. Jurisdiction is acquired by actual sezure is found in attachment
proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of
How determined the action or subsequent stage of its progress, and to abide
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, with the final event of litigation.
as well as by the characters of the relief sought. The
allegations in the complaint determine both the nature of the Jurisdiction over the issues
action and the jurisdiction of the court. It is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in
the pleadings of the parties.
Jurisdiction over the parties/person
It refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are How conferred and determined
binding on persons. It is the legal power of the court to render a Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by:
personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding. (1) the allegations in the pleadings of the parties;
Also called jurisdiction in personam, it is the power of the (2) the stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the
court over the defendant’s person which is required before a parties enter into stipulations of facts and documents or
court can enter a personal or an in personam judgment. It is an enter into an agreement simplifying the issues of the case;
element of due process that is essential in actions in rem or and
quasi in rem. A person not within the jurisidiction of the court is (3) the waiver or failure to object to the presentation of
not bound by the judgment of the court. evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings.
Serrano vs. Munoz (HI) Motors Inc.

How acquired
We held that jurisdiction over the subject-matter is
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff – As soon as he files his
determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective
complaint or petition. By the mere filing of his complaint, the
of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
plaintiff in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to the
some of the claims asserted therein — a matter that can be
jurisdiction of the court.
resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Nor may the
jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the defenses
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant – It is
set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for, were
acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his
we to be governed by such rule, the question of jurisdiction
submission to its authority or by service of summons.
would depend almost entirely upon the defendant.
Jurisdiction over the res
De Villa vs. Court of Appeals
It refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property
which is the subject of the action. This type of jurisdiction is
Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for
necessary when the action is one in rem or quasi in rem.
administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases.
Jurisdiction in general, is either over the nature of the action,
Action in rem/quasi in rem Action in personam
over the subject matter, over the person of the defendant, or
Directed against the thing or Directed against a specific
over the issues framed in the pleadings.
property or status of a person person and seeks a
and seeks a judgment with personal judgment against
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute
respect thereto as against the him.
in force at the time of commencement of the action. The
whole world.
information under consideration specifically alleged that the
offense was committed in Makati, Metro Manila and therefore,
the same is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon
the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Court acquires
jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused
upon the filing of a complaint or information in court which
initiates a criminal action.
Heirs of Juanita Padilla vs. Dominador Magdua
on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is

With regard to the issue of the jurisdiction of the RTC, we hold something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
that the RTC did not err in taking cognizance of the case. where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
amending Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the following actions: cognizable by courts of first instance.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation; When petitioners filed the action with the RTC they sought to
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession recover ownership and possession of the land by questioning
of, real property, or any interest therein, where the (1) the due execution and authenticity of the Affidavit executed
assessed value of the property involved exceeds by Juanita in favor of Ricardo which caused Ricardo to be the
₱20,000.00 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where sole owner of the land to the exclusion of petitioners who also
such value exceeds ₱50,000.00, except actions for claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the land, and (2) the
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or validity of the deed of sale executed between Ricardo’s
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon daughters and Dominador. Since the principal action sought
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and here is something other than the recovery of a sum of
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; money, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and
thus cognizable by the RTC. Well-entrenched is the rule that
On the other hand, Section 3 of RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over all civil actions the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the
which involve title to or possession of real property, or any party is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.
interest, outside Metro Manila where the assessed value does
not exceed ₱20,000.00. The provision states: Equitable PCI Bank vs. Apurillo
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to However, if the court commits grave abuse of its discretion in
read as follows: the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, such that the
act amounts to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the same may
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal be nullified through a writ of certiorari or prohibition. Such
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
Trial Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or whether the
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. For the
therein does not exceed ₱20,000.00 or, in civil actions in civil extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious,
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power.
exceed ₱50,000.00 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, However, if the court commits grave abuse of its discretion in
That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, such that the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed act amounts to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the same may
value of the adjacent lots. be nullified through a writ of certiorari or prohibition. Such
grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary
In the present case, the records show that the assessed value injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
of the land was ₱590.00 according to the Declaration of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or whether the
Property as of 23 March 2000 filed with the RTC. Based on the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
value alone, being way below ₱20,000.00, the MTC has reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to
jurisdiction over the case. However, petitioners argued that the an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
action was not merely for recovery of ownership and duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law. For the
possession, partition and damages but also for annulment of extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious,
deed of sale. Since annulment of contracts are actions arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power.36
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the RTC has
jurisdiction over the case. A Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only
Determination of whether the subject matter is capable of or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
pecuniary estimation jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the or excess of jurisdiction.
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of It may issue only when the following requirements are
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the alleged in the petition and established:
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; any treaty, international or executive agreement,
(2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
remedy in the ordinary course of law. relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court
Excess of jurisdiction distinguished from absence of is in issue.
jurisdiction (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of reclusion perpetua or higher.
jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law
of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with is involved.
respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions
which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a assignment shall not exceed six months without the
cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference consent of the judge concerned.
to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
authority. miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
In the case at bar, this Court agrees with the conclusion of the enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
CA that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
granting YKS’ plea for injunctive relief. practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance
to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
In the exercise of its discretion, the trial court found all the simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ to be attendant. disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
First, it was well established that YKS had a clear and the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
unmistakable right over the mortgaged properties. Evidently, as modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
owner of the subject properties that stand to be foreclosed, courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
YKS is entitled to the possession and protection thereof when unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
the threat to its foreclosure was apparent even before the (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
respective rights of the parties are determined and the issues accordance with the Civil Service Law.
threshed out in the main action before the RTC are resolved.
Second, there clearly exists an urgent and paramount Original exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
necessity to prevent serious injury on the part of YKS. The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction in petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the:
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT (1) Court of Appeals;
(2) COMELEC;
Basis the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (3) COA;
(4) Sandiganbayan; and
Sec. 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution (5) Court of Tax Appeals.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Original cases cognizable by the SC
Subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, only the following
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to may be filed originally with the SC:
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally a. Petition for certiorari;
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or b. Petition for prohibition;
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to c. Petition for mandamus;
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or d. Petition for quo warranto;
instrumentality of the Government. e. Petition for habeas corpus;
Powers of the Supreme Court f. Disciplinary proceedings against members of judiciary’s
and attorneys;
Sec. 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution g. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: consuls;
h. Petition for writ of amparo; and
i. Petition for writ of habeas data.
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
Exclusive jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
Precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction
warranto, and habeas corpus.
possessed to the exclusion of others.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
Concurrent/Coordinate jurisdiction
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
It is the power of different courts to take cognizance of the incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct
same subject matter. The court first taking cognizance of the of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
case assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of others.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
Doctrine of hierarchy of Courts The courts cannot resolve a controversy involving a question
A case must be filed first before the lowest court possible within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
having the appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a where the question demands the exercise of sound
special reason which would allow a party a direct resort to a administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
higher court. experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
It is the concurrence of jurisdiction among several courts which
triggers the application of the doctrine. For instance, the SC’s It is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain
original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction is not agency has determined some question or some aspect of
exclusive. It’s jurisdiction is concurrent with the CA and RTC. some question arising in the proceeding before the court. The
But a direct invocation of the SC’s jurisdiction is allowed only doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate unto himself the
when there are special reasons for doing so, clearly set out in authority to resolve as controversy the jurisdiction over which is
the petition. initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence.
The rule is that such concurrence in jurisdiction does not give a
litigant an unbridled choice of forum. The doctrine that requires ex:
respect for the hierarchy of courts was created to ensure that  In agrarian reform cases, primary jurisdiction is vested in
every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
effective and efficient manner.  It is the COA, not the RTC which has primary jurisdiction
to pass upon money claims against a local government
When the doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be unit.
disregarded:
(a) There are special and important reasons clearly stated in Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
the petition; It gives emphasis to procedural requirements which a party
(b) Dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public would allow before seeking judicial relief. It is mandated that
policy; where a remedy before an administrative body is provided by
(c) Demanded by the broader interest of justice; statute, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy prior
(d) The challenged orders were patent nullities; to bringing an action in court in order to give that administrative
(e) Analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances body every opportunity to decide a matter that comes within
called for and justified the immediate and direct handling jurisdiction.
by the Court;
(f) There are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be Original concurrent jurisdiction of the SC
addressed at the most immediate time; or (1) With the Court of Appeals (CA) in petitions for certiorari,
(g) The issues raised are of transcendental importance. prohibition and mandamus against the:
a. Regional Trial Court (RTC);
Doctrine of non-interference b. Civil Service Commission (CSC);
Holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot c. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA);
interfere with each other’s orders. Hence, a RTC has no power d. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); and
or authority to nullify of enjoin the enforcement of a writ of e. Other quasi-judicial agency.
possession issued by another RTC.
Note: This jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of
The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering hierarchy of courts.
with a judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate jurisdiction or power of review. The doctrine also (2) With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition
applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law and mandamus against lower courts and bodies, and
provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus.
body to the SC or CA, it means such body is co-equal with the (3) With the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public
RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the ministers an consuls.
control of the latter.
Appellate jurisdiction of the SC
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the The SC has appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review
regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an on certiorari under Rule 45 against the:
elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court (1) CA;
can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of (2) Sandiganbayan; and
another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to (3) RTC, on pure questions of law and in cases involving the
grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international
rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment proclamation order, instruction, ordinance or regulation,
therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty,
other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its jurisdiction of a lower court; and
(4) CTA. (a) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,

international or executive agreement or law;
Limitations on the power of Congress in enacting laws (b) All cases which under the Rules of Court are required to
which affect jurisdiction be heard en banc;
(1) The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, (c) All cases involving the constitutionality, application or
and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction instructions, ordinances and other regulations;
over cases enumerated in Section 5. (Sec. 2, Article VIII (d) Cases heard by a division when the required number in
of the 1987 Constitution) division is not obtained;
(2) No law shall be passed increasing the appellate (e) Cases involving a modification or reversal of a doctrine or
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this principle of law laid down previously by the SC in a
Constitution without its advice and concurrence (Sec. 30, decision rendered en banc or by a division;
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution) (f) Cases involving the discipline of judges of lower courts;
(g) Contests relating to the election, returns and qualification
SC is not a trier of facts of the President or Vice president.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law are
generally reviewed by the Court. Questions of fact are not Lacson Hermanas Inc. vs. Heirs of Cenon Ignacio
entertained. It is not the function of the SC to analyze and
weigh all over again evidence already considered in the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
proceedings below since such matters are issues of fact. The At the outset, the instant Petition for Certiorari should have
appreciation and resolution of factual issues are the functions been filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court
of the lower courts, whose resulting findings are received with pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Disregard of this
respect and binding on the SC, especially when such findings rule warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the
are affirmed by the SC, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is
the SC as long as such findings are supported by the records, concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of
or are based on substantial evidence. Appeals in certain cases, we emphasized that such
concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice
Hence, is an appeal by certiorari is taken to the SC from the of court forum.
RTC raising or submitting issues of fact, such appeal may be
referred to the CA for appropriate action. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as
according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute,
Question of law Question of fact unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
A question of law exists A question of fact exists application therefore will be directed. There is after all a
when the doubt or when the doubt or hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the
controversy concerns the difference arises as to the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of
correct application of law truth or falsehood of facts the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A
or jurisprudence to a or when the query invites becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly
certain set of facts; or when calibration of the whole indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
the issue does not call for an evidence considering mainly against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the
examination of the probative the credibility of the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the
value of the evidence witnesses, the existence and Court of Appeals.
presented, the truth or relevancy of specific
falsehood of facts being surrounding circumstances A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction
admitted. as well as their relation to to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are
each other and to the whole, special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
and the probability of the set out in the petition. It is a policy necessary to prevent
situation. inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which
Where the issue brought is are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
whether or not a lower court jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's
has the power or authority to docket.
hear and determine a cause
of action or where the issue In the present case, petitioner adduced no special and
concerns the correct important reason why direct recourse to this Court should be
interpretation or application allowed. Thus, we reaffirm the judicial policy that this Court will
of relevant laws and rules. not entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction unless the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts,
Instances where the SC may review findings of facts and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort
(1) When the findings of facts of the trial court and the to the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari.
reviewing court are conflicting. (ex: findings of the labor
arbiter and the NLRC are frontally inconsistent with the Jurisdiction over the subject matter how determined
findings of the CA) It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
(2) When the findings of the court below are grounded entirely determined by the allegations in the complaint and is not
on speculation, surmises or conjectures. affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in
an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would
Cases required which must be heard en banc by the SC become dependent upon the whims of the defendant. Here, the
allegations in private respondents' complaint clearly vest Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present
jurisdiction in the trial court. Nothing therein shows that the in the following cases:
questioned property is a subdivision lot and sold by petitioner (a) on citizens' right to bear arms;
as a subdivision developer. (b) on bail in extradition proceedings;
(c) on government contract involving modernization and
Mere assertion by petitioner that it is a subdivision developer computerization of voters' registration list;
and the land involved is a subdivision lot, will not automatically (d) on status and existence of a public office; and
strip the trial court of its jurisdiction and authorize the HLURB (e) on the so-called "Win-Win Resolution" of the Office of the
to take cognizance of the complaint. Indeed, it does not always President which modified the approval of the conversion to
follow that each sale made by petitioner is undertaken in its agro-industrial area.
capacity as a subdivision developer, in the same manner that
sales made in such capacity are not at all times intended for Effect of failure to observe doctrine of hierarchy of courts
subdivision development. In this case, no special and important reason or exceptional
and compelling circumstance analogous to any of the above
There is no allegation in the complaint that the lot purchased cases has been adduced by the petitioners so as to justify
by petitioners is part of a tract of land partitioned primarily for direct recourse to this Court. The present petition should have
residential purposes into individual lots and offered to the been initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance
public for sale. There is likewise no allegation that the tract of of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Failure to do so is
land includes recreational areas and open spaces. Nor does sufficient cause for the dismissal of the petition at bar.
the "Contract to Sell", which forms part of the complaint,
describe the subject property as a subdivision lot. What the Baviera vs. Paglinawan
contract strongly suggests is that the property is simply a lot
offered by respondents, as vendors, to the petitioners, as Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction
vendees, for sale on installment. As can be clearly gleaned A criminal charge for violation of the Securities Regulation
from the same contract, respondents are not acting as Code is a specialized dispute. Hence, it must first be referred
subdivision owners, developers, brokers or salesmen, nor are to an administrative agency of special competence, i.e., the
they engaged in the real estate business. SEC. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts will
not determine a controversy involving a question within the
In the instant case, the parties never mentioned if the contract jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, where the question
was embodied in a written instrument which may shed light on demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
the nature of their transaction. At any rate, the allegations in requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise of said
private respondents' complaint which determine the tribunal administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
that may lawfully take cognizance of the case, clearly show matters of fact.
that jurisdiction in the present controversy is lodged with the
trial court and not with the HLURB. The Securities Regulation Code is a special law. Its
enforcement is particularly vested in the SEC. Hence, all
Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor complaints for any violation of the Code and its implementing
rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC. Where the
SC’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the
This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not complaint to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and
exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts prosecution. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that
and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction petitioner committed a fatal procedural lapse when he filed his
is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking criminal complaint directly with the DOJ. Verily, no grave abuse
any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of of discretion can be ascribed to the DOJ in dismissing
the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is petitioner's complaint.
after all a hierarchy of courts.
Vicenta Dacanay vs. Yrastorza
Rationale behind doctrine of hierarchy of courts
The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an At the outset, we note that petitioner filed his petition for
imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b) it would certiorari directly in this Court. This is a violation of the
cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, doctrine of hierarchy of courts. He should have filed his
in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be petition in the CA before seeking relief from this Court. Thus,
remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum this petition can be dismissed outright for being procedurally
under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve infirm.
the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.
This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as
Exceptional and compelling circumstances well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
Thus, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which
and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective
of national interest and of serious implications, justify the regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the Regional
availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, Trial Court, and with the Court of Appeals (formerly,
calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior to the effectivity
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's
competence to issue the extraordinary writ was restricted to jurisdiction of courts, namely, the Judiciary Act of 1948 as
those in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. amended, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. In short,
the special law prevails over the general law.
Ernesto Morales vs. Court of Appeals
The exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Concurrent original jurisdiction Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals has Courts in criminal cases does not cover those cases which by
concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court provision of law fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
pursuant to Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution and Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan regardless of
Section 17(1) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, and with the the prescribed penalty. Otherwise put, even if such cases are
Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 21(1) of B.P. Blg. 129 punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years (i.e.,
to issue writs of certiorari; mandamus, prohibition, habeas prision correccional, arresto mayor or arresto menor),
corpus, and quo warranto. These are original actions, not jurisdiction thereon is retained by the Regional Trial Courts or
modes of appeals. Since what the petitioner filed was a special the Sandiganbayan, as the case may be.
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the original jurisdiction
of Court of Appeals thereon is beyond doubt. Martin Funeral Home vs. National Labor Relations
Commission
CA’s Appellate jurisdiction
This error of the Court of Appeals was due to its misapplication Appeal of decisions of NLRC to CA
of Section 5(2) (c) of Article VIII of the Constitution and of that There is a growing number of labor cases being elevated to
portion of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 vesting upon this Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been
the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of
reverse, modify or affirm on certiorari as the law or rules of unclear or ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of
court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior Appeals is procedurally equipped for that purpose, aside
courts in all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court from the increased number of its component divisions; and that
is in issue. there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action
on labor cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to
It forgot that this constitutional and statutory provisions pertain labor.
to the appellate — not original — jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, as correctly maintained by the petitioner. An appellate Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No.
jurisdiction refers to a process which is but a continuation of 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme
the original suit, not a commencement of a new action, such as Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to
that of a special civil action for certiorari. The general rule is petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such
that a denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash in criminal petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the Court of
cases is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of an appeal or Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the
of a special civil action for certiorari. hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief
desired. Apropos to this directive that resort to the higher
Nevertheless, this Court has allowed a special civil action for courts should be made in accordance with their hierarchical
certiorari where a lower court has acted without or in excess of order.
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying a
motion to dismiss or to quash. The petitioner believed that the Felixberto Cubero, et. al vs. Laguna West Multi-Purpose
RTC below did so; hence, the special civil action for certiorari Cooperative
before the Court of Appeals appeared to be the proper remedy.
Determination of jurisdiction
SC’s concurrent jurisdiction It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action, as
The next most logical step then is for us to simply set aside the well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations
challenged resolutions and to direct the Court of Appeals to in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. In the
resolve on the merits the petition. But, that would further delay determination of jurisdiction, the status or relationship of the
the case. Considering the special importance of the lone legal parties, as well as the nature of the question that is the subject
issue raised, which can be resolved on the basis of the of their controversy, is also considered.
pleadings heretofore filed, and the fact that this Court has
concurrent jurisdiction over petitioner’s special action, we
Primary jurisdiction of DAR
deem it more practical and in the greater interest of justice not
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with
to remand the case to the Court of Appeals but, instead, to
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
take direct cognizance thereof and resolve it once and for all.
reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except
How jurisdiction is conferred
those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department
Jurisdiction is, of course, conferred by the Constitution or by
of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural
Congress. Outside the cases enumerated in Section 5(2) of
Resources.
Article VIII of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power
to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various
Original jurisdiction and Exclusive jurisdiction
courts. Accordingly, Congress may, by law, provide that a
Original jurisdiction means jurisdiction to take cognizance of a
certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and
cause at its inception, try it and pass judgment upon the law
determined by one court. Such would be a special law and
and facts, while exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-
must be construed as an exception to the general law on
existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion competence of administrative agencies, even if the questions
of others. involved are also judicial in character, as in this case.
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board JURISDCITION OF COURT OF APPEALS

(DARAB) has jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Included in the Old name of the Court of Appeals before B.P 129.
definition of agrarian disputes are those arising from other
tenurial arrangements beyond the traditional landowner-tenant Original exclusive jurisdiction
or lessor-lessee relationship. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs.
The DARAB has been created to assume the adjudicative Concurrent and original jurisdiction
powers and functions of the DAR. Thus, the DARAB has 1. With the SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
been vested with jurisdiction to try and decide all agrarian mandamus against the:
disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents (a) RTC;
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian (b) CSC;
Reform Program (CARP). Its jurisdiction encompasses cases (c) Other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43; and
involving the rights and obligations of persons, whether natural (d) NLRC.
or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of
all agricultural lands covered by Republic Act No. 6657 and Note: Following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the
other agrarian laws. petition for certiorari against the NLRC must first be filed with
the CA.
The JVAs subject of the petition for annulment of petitioners
precisely involve the development and utilization of the subject 2. With the SC and RTC to issue writs of certiorari,
agricultural lands. Since the controversy involves the rights and prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and
obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation bodies and also writs of quo warranto and habeas corpus.
and use of an agricultural land covered by CARP, the case falls
squarely within the jurisdictional ambit of the DAR. This Court Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
has declined to address them, it stating that petitioners must 1. By way of ordinary appeal from the judgments of the RTC
first plead their case with the DARAB. and the Family Courts;
2. By way of petition for review from the judgment of the RTC
DAR vs. Cuenca rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction;
3. By way of petition for review from the decisions,
Two basic rules in determining jurisdiction resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC and other bodies
Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining mentioned in Rule 43;
jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by 4. Decisions for the Office of the Ombudsman in
law. And second, the nature of the action and the issue of administrative disciplinary cases;
jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of the 5. Decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land
complaint and the character of the relief sought. The registration cases.
defenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are
disregarded; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would Mixed question
depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant. A mixed question of fact and law refers to one the solution of
which depends on both fact and law. In resolving a mixed
Allegations of the complaint question, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the
A careful perusal of respondent's Complaint shows that the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time.
principal averments and reliefs prayed for refer not to the pure
question of law spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of Power to try and conduct hearings like a trial court
EO 405 but to the annulment of the DAR's Notice of Coverage. Pursuant to Sec. 9(3) of BP 129, it has the power to try cases
To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage constitutes and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and
the first necessary step towards the acquisition of private land all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases not only
under the CARP. within its original jurisdiction but also in cases falling within its
appellate jurisdiction. This authority includes the power to grant
Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial
jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted The CA may pass upon the evidence to factual issues as when
from its authority by the simple expediency of appending an the petition for certiorari is filed before it. The court may even
allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is act like a trial court in resolving motions for new trial, petitions
clearly agrarian. for writ of amparo, habeas data, habeas corpus, or in actions to
annul judgment of the RTC over which the CA has original
In view of the foregoing, there is no need to address the other jurisdiction.
points pleaded by respondent in relation to the jurisdictional Valdez vs. China Banking
issue. We need only to point that in case of doubt, the
jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from resolving a Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of CA
controversy involving matters that demand the special Under Section 9 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended,
the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments or decisions of regional trial courts. Here, there cases on appeal in which only an error of law is involved.
is no issue at all that petitioner had perfected his appeal from Indeed, the Court of Appeals, under Rule 42 and 44 of the
the decision of the trial court. The well-settled rule is that Rules of Civil Procedure, is authorized to determine errors of
jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the case is finally fact, of law, or both. These rules are expressly adopted to
terminated. Since petitioner invoked the authority of the Court apply to appeals in criminal cases, and they do not thereby
of Appeals when he filed his appellant’s brief in that court, that divest the Supreme Court of its ultimate jurisdiction over such
same court can resolve petitioner’s appeal regardless of the questions.
dismissal of that of his adversary’s.
Anent the argument that petitioner should have filed a petition
Polanco vs. Cruz for certiorari under Rule 65, it might be pointed out that this
remedy can only be resorted to when there is no appeal, or any
Forum Shopping plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse law. Appeal, being a remedy still available to petitioner, a
decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks petition for certiorari would have been premature.
a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than
appeal or certiorari. Forum-shopping exists when two or more Cano vs. Chief of Philippine National Police
actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and
circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject Mixed Question of fact and law
matter, and issues. At the outset, we note that the principal issue raised before us
is a mixed question of fact and law. There is a question of fact
Still another test of forum-shopping is when the elements of litis when doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case the alleged facts, and there is a question of law where the
will amount to res judicata in another – whether in the two or doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
more pending cases, there is an identity of (a) parties (or at state of facts.
least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions), (b) rights or causes of action, and (c) reliefs sought. Here, petitioner seeks to recover back salaries and allowances
allegedly due him from August 7, 1995, when he was unjustly
Although there is an identity of some of the parties in the discharged from the service, to May 15, 1997, when he was
instant case for damages and the unlawful detainer case, there restored to full duty status. The determination of petitioner's
is, however, no identity of reliefs prayed for. The former is for entitlement to said back salaries and allowances is a
recovery of damages allegedly caused by petitioners’ acts on mixed question as it involves the determination of his duty
respondent’s palay crops; while the latter case involved status for the period of his claim and the resolution of whether
possessory and tenancy rights of respondent. As such, the petitioner was acquitted by the NAPOLCOM Appellate
respondent did not violate the rule on forum-shopping. Board in its decision finding him liable only for simple
misconduct, not gross misconduct.
Crisostomo vs. SEC
Appeal by certiorari to SC must only raise questions of law
Application of principle of forum shopping Under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, an appeal by
Notwithstanding the pendency of those two cases in the Court certiorari to this Court should raise only questions of law
of Appeals, Crisostomo filed this petition for certiorari and which must be distinctly set forth in the petition. It is elementary
prohibition on July 27, 1989 where he raises the same issues that a review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
that he raised in the Court of Appeals. Here is a clear case of discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and
forum-shopping. important reasons therefor. As the error raised herein includes
one of fact and law, and not a proper subject for a petition for
There is forum-shopping whenever as a result of an adverse review on certiorari, we are constrained to decline exercise of
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other our equity jurisdiction in this case.
than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies
not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in Hierarchy of courts observed when there is concurrent
connection with litigations commenced in the courts while jurisdiction
an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in At any rate, petitioner also failed without justifiable cause to
order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of observe due regard for the hierarchy of courts. Even on this
an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court reason alone, we are constrained to deny the petition. The
ruling. This is specially so, as in this case, where the court in policy of this Court respecting the hierarchy of courts and,
which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction. consequently, prohibiting the filing of a petition in this Court in
view of the concurrent jurisdiction with the lower courts has
Forum-shopping is prohibited by the Interim Rules of Court for been consistently observed in the absence of any compelling
it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes. Forum- reason for departing from such policy. Pursuant to Section 2,
shopping makes the petitioner subject to disciplinary action and Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,11 petitioner should have taken
renders his petitions in this Court and in the Court of Appeals his appeal to the Court of Appeals.
dismissible.
Tan vs. People
Duenas vs. Guce-africa
Authority of CA to determine errors of fact, law or both
Neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure Question of law and Question of fact distinguished
exclusively vests in the Supreme Court the power to hear
Petitioner endeavors to convince us to determine, yet again,

the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC
presented. This cannot be done in this petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court where only Evidence necessary to resolve factual issues
questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon The Court ruled that receiving evidence on whether or not
by us. LINGNER was doing business in the Philippines could not be
justified under the cited Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the Appellate Court acted correctly in denying the request for an
law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of evidentiary hearing. Evidence necessary in regards to factual
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the issues raised in cases falling within the Appellate Court's
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must original and appellate jurisdiction contemplates incidental facts
not involve an examination of the probative value of the which were not touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The respondent Court. The law could not have intended that the
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law Appellate Court would hold an original and full trial of a main
provides on the given set of circumstances. factual issue in a case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts.
Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence It is our view that evidence as to whether LINGNER was doing
presented, the questioned posed is one of fact. Thus, the test business in the Philippines, even before the Trial Court, is no
of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the longer necessary in view of the fact that PHILCHEM and
appellation given to such question by the party raising the LINGNER were contractees in the AGREEMENT and the claim
same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine of PHILCHEM is based on the ROYALTY CLAUSE of that
the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, AGREEMENT.
in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question
of fact. Whether LINGNER is or is not doing business in the
Philippines will not matter because the parties had expressly
Determination of breach of contract is factual stipulated in the AGREEMENT that all controversies based on
It has already been held that the determination of the existence the AGREEMENT shall fall under the jurisdiction of Philippine
of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually courts. In other words, there was a covenant on venue to the
reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45. We will not review, effect that LINGNER can be sued by PHILCHEM before
much less reverse, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals Philippine Courts in regards to a controversy related to the
especially where, as in this case, such findings coincide with AGREEMENT.
those of the trial court, since we are not a trier of facts.
Exceptional circumstances when SC may review factual

findings of CA
The established rule is that the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding
on us. We wont to review them, save under exceptional JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
circumstances as:
(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd Spouses De Leon vs. CA
or impossible;
(2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; Annulment or recission of contract, incapable of pecuniary
(3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, estimation
surmises or conjectures; Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of
(4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on land, it is the nature of the action as one for rescission of
misapprehension of facts; contract which is controlling.
(5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to We would like to add the observations that since the action of
the admissions of both appellant and appellee; against private respondents is solely for annulment or
(6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of rescission which is not susceptible of pecuniary
specific evidence on which they are based; estimation, the action should not be confused and equated
(7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain with the value of the property subject of the transaction; that by
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if the very nature of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; in the complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or
and value of the transaction, or for actual or compensatory
(8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are damages, the assessment and collection of the legal fees
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted should not be intertwined with the merits of the case and/or
by the evidence on record. what may be its end result; and that to sustain private
respondents' petitioners position on what the respondent court
Except with respect to the first ground advanced by the may decide after all, then the assessment should be deferred
petitioner, none of the above exceptions obtain in this case. and finally assessed only after the court had finally decided the
Hence, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the case, which cannot be done because the rules require that
RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that petitioner was filing fees should be based on what is alleged and prayed for in
negligent in the construction of respondent’s house and thus the face of the complaint and paid upon the filing of the
liable for breach of contract. complaint.
An action involving title to real property means that the

Russell et. al vs. Vestil et. al plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a claim that he owns
such property or that he has the legal rights to have exclusive
Determination of whether an action is capable of control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same.
pecuniary estimation Title is the legal link between (1) a person who owns property
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of and (2) the property itself.
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the Bardillon vs. Brgy. Masili of Calamba
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of Expropriation suit, incapable of pecuniary estimation
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of
municipal courts or in instance would depend on the amount of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of
the claim. its authority and right to take property for public use. As such, it
is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with
However, where the basic issue is something other than the the regional trial courts.
right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an
sought, this Court has considered such where the subject of expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its
the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority
Trial Courts). of the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation,
and the observance of due process. In the main, the subject of
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of
mortgage or annulment of judgment; also actions questioning True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated
the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the
conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission, just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to
which is a counterpart of specific performance. the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only
after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the
The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to expropriation.
declare null and void the document in which private
respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the Iniego vs. Purganan
late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and divided
his property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts, capable of
who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property. pecuniary estimation
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and
effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the
While the complaint also prays for the partition of the damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious
property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is acts. The damages claimed in such actions represent the
the declaration of nullity of the document above-described. monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the
It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case defendant, which are thus sought to be recovered by the
is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief sought, and is
complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of not merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims bears to point out that the complaint filed by private respondent
asserted therein. before the RTC actually bears the caption "for DAMAGES."
Heirs of Sebe vs. Heirs of Sevilla Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, is not actionable by itself. For
Action involving title to real property, capable of pecuniary such fault or negligence to be actionable, there must be a
estimation resulting damage to a third person. The relief available to the
The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of offended party in such cases is for the reparation, restitution, or
the nullity of the documents or the reconveyance to the Sebes payment of such damage, without which any alleged offended
of the certificates of title covering the two lots. These would party has no cause of action or relief. The fault or negligence of
merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the the defendant, therefore, is inextricably intertwined with the
issue of which between the contending parties is the lawful claim for damages, and there can be no action based on
owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their possession. quasi-delict without a claim for damages.
Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not
defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their property by All claims for damages should be considered in
making them sign documents of conveyance rather than just a determining jurisdiction
deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The action All claims for damages should be considered in determining
is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the the jurisdiction of the court regardless of whether they arose
lawful owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over which is from a single cause of action or several causes of action. Rule
determined by the assessed value of such lots. 2, Section 5, of the Rules of Court allows a party to assert as
many causes of action as he may have against the opposing
party. Subsection (d) of said section provides that where the injunction with a prayer for temporary restraining order or writ
claims in all such joined causes of action are principally for of preliminary injunction.
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the
test of jurisdiction. In the factual setting at bar, the Court rules that the Parañaque
RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint of respondent Uy it
Hence, whether or not the different claims for damages are being a case in which the subject of litigation for permanent
based on a single cause of action or different causes of action, injunction against the termination of his contract, is
it is the total amount thereof which shall govern. Jurisdiction in incapable of pecuniary estimation.
the case at bar remains with the RTC, considering that the total
amount claimed, inclusive of the moral and exemplary SSS vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company
damages claimed, is P490,000.00.
Action for specific performance, incapable of pecuniary
In sum, actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are estimation
actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation. As such, The controversy, instead, lies in the non-implementation of
they fall within the jurisdiction of either the RTC or the the approved and agreed dacion en pago on the part of the
municipal courts, depending on the amount of damages SSS. As such, Atlantic filed a suit to obtain its enforcement
claimed. In this case, the amount of damages claimed is within which is, doubtless, a suit for specific performance and one
the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of incapable of pecuniary estimation beyond the competence of
damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of the Commission.
courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or
from different causes of action. Copioso vs. Copioso
Mendoza vs. Teh Joinder of causes of action

Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which
Appointment of an administratix for an estate, incapable of comprehends more than the issue of title to, possession of, or
pecuniary estimation any interest in the real property under contention but includes
An action for reconveyance, which involves title to property an action to annul contracts, reconveyance or specific
worth millions of pesos, such as the lots subject of this case, is performance, and a claim for damages, which are incapable of
cognizable by the RTC. Likewise falling within its jurisdiction pecuniary estimation and thus properly within the jurisdiction of
are actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as the the RTC.
appointment of an administratrix for an estate.
As correctly opined by the appellate court, if the only issue
In the present suit, no settlement of estate is involved, but involved herein is naked possession or bare ownership, then
merely an allegation seeking appointment as estate petitioner Lolita Copioso would not be amiss in her assertion
administratrix which does not necessarily involve settlement of that the instant complaint for reconveyance, considering the
estate that would have invited the exercise of the limited assessed value of the disputed property, falls within the
jurisdiction of a probate court. The above allegation is not even exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
a jurisdictional fact which must be stated in an action for
reconveyance.
The Court therefore, should have at least, proceeded with the But as herein before stated, the issue of title, ownership
reconveyance suit rather than dismiss the entire case. Third, and/or possession thereof is intertwined with the issue of
jurisprudential rulings that a probate court cannot generally annulment of sale and reconveyance hence within the
decide questions of ownership or title to property is not ambit of the jurisdiction of the RTC. The assessed value of
applicable in this case, because: there is no settlement of the parcels of land thus becomes merely an incidental matter
estate involved and the RTC of Batangas was not acting as to be dealt with by the court, when necessary, in the resolution
a probate court. It should be clarified that whether a particular of the case but is not determinative of its jurisdiction.
matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction, is not a Ortigas vs. Herrera
jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure.
Refund after compliance with certain conditions, an action
Moreover, the instant action for reconveyance does not even for specific performance
invoke the limited jurisdiction of a probate court. Considering The action involved in this case is one for specific
that the RTC has jurisdiction, whether it be on the performance and not for a sum of money and wherefore
reconveyance suit or as to the appointment of an incapable of pecuniary estimation because what private
administratrix, it was improper for respondent judge to dismiss respondent seeks is the performance of petitioner's obligation
the whole complaint for alleged lack of jurisdiction. under a written contract to make a refund but under certain
specific conditions still to be proven or established. In a case
BCDA vs. UY for the recovery of a sum of money, as the collection of a debt,
the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation
Action for injunction, incapable of pecuniary estimation because the obligation to pay the debt is not conditioned upon
Firmly established is the doctrine that jurisdiction over the any specific fact or matter.
subject matter is conferred by law. Section 19 of BP 129 shows
that a Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over all civil cases in But when a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the
which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary other party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter
estimation. Jurisprudence has recognized complaints for of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith
may what is legally due him under the written contract be square meter portion subject thereof may be conveyed to
demanded, the action is one not capable of pecuniary petitioners.
estimation. The payment of a sum of money is only
incidental which can only be ordered after a determination Petitioners’ argument that the present action is one incapable
of certain acts the performance of which being the more of pecuniary estimation considering that it is for annulment of
basic issue to be inquired into. deed of sale and partition is not well-taken. As stated above,
the nature of an action is not determined by what is stated in
Although private respondent's complaint in the court a quo is the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the
designated as one for a sum of money and damages, an complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where, as in this case, the
analysis of all the factual allegations of the complaint patently ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real
shows that what private respondent seeks is the performance property, it should be filed in the proper court having
of petitioner's obligation under the written contract to jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property
make the refund of the rate of P10.00 per square meter or in subject thereof.
the total amount of P4,820.00, but only after proof of having
himself fulfilled the conditions that will give rise to petitioner's Sumulong vs. CA
obligation, a matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
San Pedro vs. Asdala Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of
action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any
reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet title land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat,
over real property are actions that fall under the classification strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully
of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination
any interest therein”. of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or
implied.
Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on
jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of which In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning
was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto. In
B.P. 129, or one involving title to property under Section 19(2). unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became
The distinction between the two classes became crucial with unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess
the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, which and the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession
level courts to include "all civil actions which involve title to, or and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the defendant's right to continue in possession.
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions Accordingly, in forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the
in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed complaint and prove that he was in prior physical possession of
Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest, the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses defendant, but in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need not have
and costs." prior physical possession of the property, or, elsewise stated,
prior physical possession is not an indispensable requirement
Assessed value as benchmark for real actions in an unlawful detainer case.
Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases
the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession Allegations in the complaint, controlling
of, real property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) The complaint should not have been dismissed merely for its
of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second level failure to state a cause of action for forcible entry, for although
courts, with the assessed value of the real property Sumulong has designated or denominated it in the caption as
involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced one for forcible entry, her allegations in the body thereof
to unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would sufficiently establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
result in the speedier administration of justice. Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the
action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case
Sps. Hugete vs. Sps. Amarillo are the allegations in the complaint.
When the ultimate objective is to obtain title to the The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation
property of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of
Petitioners’ cause of action is based on their right as purchaser the complaint define or describe. The designation or caption is
of the 50-square meter portion of the land from respondents. not controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint
They pray that they be declared owners of the property themselves are, for it is not even an indispensable part of the
sold. Thus, their complaint involved title to real property or complaint. It is equally settled that in an action for unlawful
any interest therein. The alleged value of the land which they detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully
purchased was P15,000.00, which was within the jurisdiction of withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient,
Municipal Trial Court. The annulment of the deed of sale and a complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges
between Ma. Lourdes Villaber-Padillo and respondents, as well that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is
as of TCT, were prayed for in the complaint because they were unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology of the
necessary before the lot may be partitioned and the 50- law.
We note, however, that neither the assessed value nor the

Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corp. "estimated value" of the questioned parcels of land were
alleged by respondent in both his original and amended
Real action complaint. What he stated in his amended complaint is that the
A real action is one in which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of disputed realties have a "BIR zonal valuation" of ₱1,200.00 per
real property. While it is true that petitioner does not directly square meter. However, the alleged "BIR zonal valuation" is
seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in not the kind of valuation required by the Rule. It is the
question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for assessed value of the realty.
damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of
the building which, under the law, is considered immovable Having utterly failed to comply with the requirement of the Rule
property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. that he shall allege in his complaint the assessed value of his
The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or real properties in controversy, the correct docket fee cannot be
rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface computed. As such, his complaint should not have been
the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, accepted by the trial court. We thus rule that it has not acquired
which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. jurisdiction over the present case for failure of herein
respondent to pay the required docket fee.
Annulment or recission, not necessarily an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation Land bank of the Philippines vs. Rufino et. al
The Court, however, does not perceive a contradiction
between Serrano and the Spouses De Leon. The Court calls Determination of just compensation by RTC
attention to the following statement in Spouses De Leon: "A While the determination of just compensation is essentially a
review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in judicial function which is vested in the RTC acting as a
determining whether an action is one the subject matter of Special Agrarian Court, the Court, nonetheless disregarded
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has the RTC’s determination thereof when, as in the present case,
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the the judge did not fully consider the factors specifically identified
principal action or remedy sought. by law and implementing rules.
Necessarily, the determination must be done on a case-to-case While the determination of just compensation involves the
basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each. exercise of judicial discretion, however, such discretion must
What petitioner conveniently ignores is that in Spouses De be discharged within the bounds of the law. Here, the RTC
Leon, the action therein that private respondents instituted wantonly disregarded R.A. 6657, as amended, and its
before the RTC was solely for annulment or rescission of implementing rules and regulations.
the contract of sale over a real property. There appeared to
be no transfer of title or possession to the adverse party. The Court is thus constrained to remand the case for
determination of the valuation of the property by the trial court,
It was in Serrano v. Delica, however, that the Court dealt with a which is mandated to consider the factors provided under
complaint that bore the most similarity to the one at bar. Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, and as translated into the
Therein respondent Delica averred that undue formula prescribed in DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO
influence, coercion, and intimidation were exerted 11-94.
upon him by therein petitioners Serrano, et al. to
effect transfer of his properties. Thus, Delica filed a
complaint before the RTC against Serrano, et al.,
praying that the special power of attorney, the
affidavit, the new titles issued in the names of Land bank of the Philippines vs. J.L Jocson and Sons
Serrano, et al., and the contracts of sale of the
disputed properties be cancelled; Mode of appeal from decisions of RTCs acting as Special
Agrarian Court
A petition for review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of
A careful examination of respondent’s complaint is that it is a Court, and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, is the
real action. in a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of appropriate mode of appeal from decisions of RTCs acting as
real property, or, as stated in Section 2(a), Rule 4 of the Special Agrarian Courts (SACs).
Revised Rules of Court, a real action is one ‘affecting title to
real property or for the recovery of possession of, or for The reference to the Rules of Court means that the specific
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on a rules for petitions for review in the Rules of Court and other
real property. relevant procedures in appeals filed before the Court of
Appeals shall be followed in appealed decisions of Special
Obviously, respondent’s complaint is a real action Agrarian Courts.
involving not only the recovery of real properties, but
likewise the cancellation of the titles thereto. Considering CA has jurisdiction for petitions for review under Rule 42
that respondent’s complaint is a real action, the Rule requires Considering that RA 6657 cannot and does not provide the
that "the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the details on how the petition for review shall be conducted, a
estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and suppletory application of the pertinent provisions of the
shall be the basis in computing the fees." Rules of Court is necessary. In fact, Section 61 uses the word
"review" to designate the mode by which the appeal is to be
Failure to allege assessed value of real property effected. The reference therefore by Section 61 to the Rules of
Court only means that the procedure under Rule 42 for ordinance. The Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of the RTC
petitions for review is to be followed for appeals in agrarian to resolve questions of constitutionality and validity of laws
cases. (deemed to include local ordinances) in the first instance,
without deciding questions which pertain to legislative policy.
Clearly, jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the SAC
resides in the Court of Appeals via a Rule 42 petition for Sandoval vs. Caneba and Estate Developers & Investors
review, which may raise either questions of fact, or of law, or Corporation
mixed questions of fact and law.
Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 957 the National
Osungco vs. Malones Housing Authority (NHA) was given the exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide certain cases as follows:
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
It is true that the general rule is that before a party is allowed to SEC.1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate
seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in
availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority
processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of
within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the following nature:
the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to
decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, A. Unsound real estate business practices:
then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s
judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based
on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and
remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker
for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a or salesman.
dispute until the system of administrative redress has been
completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative Exclusive jurisdiction of HLRB
agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and The language of this section, particularly, the second portion
dispose of the case. However, there are several exceptions to thereof, leaves no room for doubt that exclusive jurisdiction
this rule. over the case between the petitioner and private respondent is
vested not on the RTC but on the NHA. The NHA was re-
Exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative named Human Settlements Regulatory Commission and
remedies thereafter it was re-named as the Housing and Land Use
The rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies is Regulatory Board (HLURB).
intended to preclude a court from arrogating unto itself the
authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is Undeniably the sum of money sought to be collected by private
initially lodged with an administrative body of special respondent from petitioner represented unpaid installments of
competence. Thus, a case where the issue raised is a a subdivision lot which the petitioner purchased. Petitioner
purely legal question, well within the competence; and the alleges that he suspended payments thereof because of the
jurisdiction of the court and not the administrative agency, failure of the developer to develop the subdivision pursuant to
would clearly constitute an exception. their agreement.
Resolving questions of law, which involve the interpretation RTC has no jurisdiction over cases falling under Sec.1 of
and application of laws, constitutes essentially an exercise of P.D 957
judicial power that is exclusively allocated to the Supreme This Court ruled that upon the issuance of Presidential Decree
Court and such lower courts the Legislature may establish. No. 957, the trial court may no longer assume jurisdiction over
the cases enumerated in Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.
In this case, the parties are not disputing any factual matter on 957. Considering that the trial court has no jurisdiction under
which they still need to present evidence. The sole issue the circumstances obtaining in this case, the decision it
petitioners raised before the RTC was whether Municipal rendered is null and void ab initio. It is as if no decision was
Ordinance No. 98-01 was valid and enforceable despite the rendered by the trial court at all.
absence, prior to its enactment, of a public hearing held in
accordance with Article 276 of the Implementing Rules and When as in this case the attention of the trial court is drawn to
Regulations of the Local Government Code. This is its lack of competence and authority to act on the case,
undoubtedly a pure question of law, within the competence and certainly the trial court has a duty to vacate the judgment by
jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve. declaring the same to be null and void ab initio. This is as it
should be. Inasmuch as the questioned judgment is null and
Original jurisdiction of lower courts involving the void, it is, as above observed, as if no decision had been
constitutionality or validity of an ordinance rendered by the trial court.
Paragraph 2(a) of Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution,
expressly establishes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, It cannot become final and executory, much less can it be
and impliedly recognizes the original jurisdiction of lower courts enforced by a writ of execution. The trial court, rather than
over cases involving the constitutionality or validity of an reiterating the issuance of a writ of execution in this case,
which it did, should have recalled and cancelled the writ of issued to the highest bidder at the said foreclosure sale,
execution of the judgment. and
(d) collection of the balance of the unpaid purchase price of a
Fajardo vs. Bautista subdivision lot filed by the developer of a subdivision
against the lot buyer.
Jurisdiction of HLRB
The trial court correctly ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the Incidental claims for damages may be resolved by the
subject matter. Jurisdiction thereon was originally vested in the HLRB
National Housing Authority (NHA) under P.D. No. 957, as We further declared that incidental claims for damages may be
amended by P.D. No. 1344. Under E.O. No. 648 of February resolved by the HLRB. The argument that only courts of justice
1981, this jurisdiction was transferred to the Human can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) which, pursuant Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There
to E.O. No. 90 of December 17, 1986, was renamed as the are hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature.
This quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is exercised by them
We agree with the trial court that the complaints do involve as an incident of the principal power entrusted to them of
unsound real estate business practices on the part of the regulating certain activities falling under their particular
owners and developers of the subdivision who entered into expertise.
Contracts to Sell with the petitioners. By virtue of Section 1 of
P.D. No. 1344, the NHA, now HLRB, has the exclusive The Court affirmed the competence of the Housing and Land
jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. In addition to use Regulatory Board to award damages although this is an
involving unsound real estate business practices, the essentially judicial power exercisable ordinarily only by the
complaints also involve specific performance of the contractual courts of justice. This departure from the traditional allocation
and statutory obligations of the owners or developers of the of governmental powers is justified by expediency, or the need
subdivision. The claims for annulment of the "Kasulatan ng of the government to respond swiftly and competently to the
Bilihan" in favor of HABACON and the certificates of title pressing problems of the modern world.
issued to him and for damages are merely incidental.
Lupangco vs. CA
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344, promulgated on 2 April 1978,
provides as follows: General jurisdiction of RTC
The respondent court erred when it place the Securities and
Sec. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real Exchange Commission and the Professional Regulation
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers Commsision in the same category. As already mentioned, with
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National respect to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the laws
Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and cited explicitly provide with the procedure that need be taken
decide cases of the following nature: when one is aggrieved by its order or ruling. Upon the other
hand, there is no law providing for the next course of action for
A. Unsound real estate business practices; a party who wants to question a ruling or order of the
Professional Regulation Commission.
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project Unlike Commonwealth Act No. 83 and Presidential Decree No.
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and 902-A, there is no provision in Presidential Decree No. 223,
creating the Professional Regulation Commission, that orders
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and or resolutions of the Commission are appealable either to the
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court.
condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman. Consequently, the Civil Case which was filed in order to enjoin
the enforcement of a resolution of the respondent Professional
Conformably with this section, we had earlier upheld the Regulation Commission alleged to be unconstitutional, should
jurisdiction of the NHA to determine the rights of the parties fall within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance,
under a contract to sell a subdivision lot and struck down the now the Regional Trial Court.
exercise of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court over a
case instituted by a lot buyer for delivery of title against the What is clear from Presidential Decree No. 223 is that the
subdivision owner. Professional Regulation Commission is attached to the Office
of the President for general direction and coordination. Well
We also sustained the jurisdiction of the HLRB over settled in our jurisprudence is the view that even acts of the
complaints for: Office of the President may be reviewed by the Court of First
(a) the refund of reservation fees for the purchase of a Instance (now the Regional Trial Court).
subdivision lot;
(b) specific performance filed by a lot buyer against the seller When the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA may be
of a subdivision lot; invoked
(c) annulment of the mortgage constituted by the project In order to invoke the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
owner without the buyer's consent, the mortgage Court of Appeals as provided for in Section 9, paragraph 3 of
foreclosure sale, and the condominium certificate of title B.P. Blg. 129, there has to be a final order or ruling which
resulted from proceedings wherein the administrative
body involved exercised its quasi-judicial functions. A 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and
quasi-judicial is defined as a term applied to the action, unconstitutional. Here, the petitioners' primary relief is the
discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies annulment of Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA,
required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, which allegedly discriminates against them for being female
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for flight attendants.
their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature. Action incapable of pecuniary estimation
The subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
To expound thereon, quasi-judicial adjudication would mean a exclusively cognizable by the RTC, pursuant to Section 19 (1)
determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. Being an ordinary
decision or order which applies to a specific situation . This civil action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor
does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability tribunals. This Court holds that the grievance machinery and
issued by the administrative body to implement its purely voluntary arbitrators do not have the power to determine and
administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105 settle the issues at hand. They have no jurisdiction and
which was adopted by the respondent PRC as a measure to competence to decide constitutional issues relative to the
preserve the integrity of licensure examinations. In view of the questioned compulsory retirement age. Their exercise of
foregoing, We hold that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction is futile, as it is like vesting power to someone who
jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Case and enjoin the cannot wield it.
respondent PRC from enforcing its resolution.
RTC has jurisdiction when a case involves a pure question
Halaguena et. al vs. Philippine Airline Incorporated of fact
The rule is settled that pure questions of fact may not be the
Courts have jurisdiction when a general civil law applies proper subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
and it is not covered by a special law Revised Rules of Court. This mode of appeal is generally
Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by limited only to questions of law which must be distinctly set
reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or forth in the petition. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law,
the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of The question as to whether said Section 114, Part A of the
justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC. In such PAL-FASAP CBA is discriminatory or not is a question of fact.
situations, resolution of the dispute requires expertise, not in This would require the presentation and reception of evidence
labor management relations nor in wage structures and other by the parties in order for the trial court to ascertain the facts of
terms and conditions of employment, but rather in the the case and whether said provision violates the Constitution,
application of the general civil law. Clearly, such claims fall statutes and treaties. A full-blown trial is necessary, which
outside the area of competence or expertise ordinarily ascribed jurisdiction to hear the same is properly lodged with the the
to labor arbiters and the NLRC and the rationale for granting RTC. Therefore, a remand of this case to the RTC for the
jurisdiction over such claims to these agencies disappears.19 proper determination of the merits of the petition for declaratory
relief is just and proper.
The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor
Code. Rather, it requires the application of the Constitution, JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
labor statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and De Grano vs. Lacaba
the power to apply and interpret the constitution and CEDAW is
within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of general Prior physical possession in forcible entry case
jurisdiction. This Court held that not every dispute between an For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the complainant must allege
employer and employee involves matters that only labor and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the
arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their property and that he was deprived of such possession by
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. A party
who can prove prior possession can recover such possession
The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article even against the owner himself.
217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in
employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that
reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their entitles him to remain in the property until a person with a
collective bargaining agreement. Not every controversy or better right lawfully ejects him. To prove prior possession,
money claim by an employee against the employer or vice- respondent presented his tax declarations, tax receipt and a
versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. certification from the municipal assessor attesting that he has
Actions between employees and employer where the paid real property tax from previous years.
employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the
cause of action precedes from a different source of obligation He, likewise, testified that he appointed the spouses Mojica as
is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court. his caretakers, and allowed three other spouses to build their
houses on the property. Respondent’s counsels also explained
Here, the employer-employee relationship between the parties that they were not able to secure the affidavits of the occupants
is merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately arose of the property and the neighbors because they feared for their
from different sources of obligation, i.e., the Constitution and lives. Respondent’s evidence fails to make out a prima facie
CEDAW. From the petitioners' allegations and relief prayed for case of forcible entry as it does not satisfactorily establish that
in its petition, it is clear that the issue raised is whether Section
respondent has been in physical possession of the subject Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the issue in this case is not
property prior to petitioner’s occupation thereof. the ownership of the lots. It should be stressed that the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
For one, we cannot tack respondent’s possession of the sought determine the nature of the action and the court with
property on his alleged tenants’ actual possession absent any jurisdiction over it. The defenses set up in an answer are not
proof that said tenants acknowledge that respondent is the determinative of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court cannot
owner and that they have occupied the property as be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the
respondent’s tenants. For all we know, these tenants could case by one of the parties.
have been in adverse possession of the property. We cannot
simply rely on respondent’s self-serving testimony that he Courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to
designated the spouses Mojica as his caretakers and allowed resolve the issue of possession
the other families to occupy the property. In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is
physical or material possession of the property involved,
Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.
proof of possession. They are merely good indicia of However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts
possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine
that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a who has the right to possess the property.
property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.
We stress, however, that this adjudication is only an initial
Possession in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue
It bears emphasizing that the word possession, as used in of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing thereto. The lower court’s adjudication of ownership in the
more than physical possession, not legal possession in the ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or
sense contemplated in civil law. When the law speaks of prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to
possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or the property. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of
possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession ownership. This resolution on the issue of ownership is only
de jure. Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue provisional for the purpose of settling the issue of possession.
Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not
involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, Manchester Development Co. vs. CA
except only for the purpose of determining the issue of
possession. Damages claimed as basis for assessment of docket fee
The basis of assessment of the docket fee should be the
Cabrera vs. Getaruela amount of damages sought in the original complaint and not in
the amended complaint. To put a stop to this irregularity,
Sufficient allegations for complaint of unlawful detainer henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar
It is settled that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed
action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer,
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right shall otherwise be expunged from the record.
of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the
thereof; and complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on
vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for the amounts sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the
ejectment. Magaspi case in so far as it is inconsistent with this
pronouncement is overturned and reversed.
In this case, the complaint alleged that petitioners were

occupying the property, with agreement that should Court acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the
respondents need the property, petitioners would relinquish prescribed docket fee
possession of the lots and demolish their houses at their Upon the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff paid the amount of
expense. Respondents personally notified petitioners to vacate only P410.00 for the docket fee based on the nature of the
the premises and to demolish their houses but petitioners action for specific performance where the amount involved is
refused to vacate the lots. The complaint established that not capable of pecuniary estimation. However, it was obvious
petitioners’ possession was by tolerance of respondents, and from the allegations of the complaint as well as its designation
their possession became illegal when they refused to vacate that the action was one for damages and specific performance.
the premises upon demand by respondents. Here, the Thus, this court held the plaintiff must be assessed the correct
possession became illegal not from the time petitioners started docket fee computed against the amount of damages of about
occupying the property but from the time demand was made P78 Million, although the same was not spelled out in the
for them to vacate the premises. In short, the complaint prayer of the complaint.
sufficiently established a case for unlawful detainer.
The case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee 3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by
regardless of the actual date of filing in court, this Court held the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the
that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
payment of only P410.00 for the docket fee. Neither can the awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified
amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the the same has been left for determination by the court, the
Court. For all legal purposes there was no such original additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
complaint duly filed which could be amended. Consequently, judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court
the order admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and
proceedings and actions taken by the trial court were declared assess and collect the additional fee.
null and void.
Tacay vs. RTC of Tagum
The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the
docket fee due it is obvious not only in the filing of the original Damages claimed not determinative of court’s jurisdiction
complaint but also in the filing of the second amended in real actions
complaint. Petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until] It is true that the complaints do not state the amounts being
the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, due claimed as actual, moral and nominal damages. It is also true,
to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held that however, that the actions are not basically for the recovery of
the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and sums of money. They are principally for recovery of possession
that the amended complaint could not have been admitted of real property, in the nature of an accion publiciana.
inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void. Determinative of the court's jurisdiction in this type of
actions is the nature thereof, not the amount of the
Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion damages allegedly arising from or connected with the issue of
title or possession, and regardless of the value of the property.
The contention that Manchester cannot apply retroactively to
this case is untenable. Statutes regulating the procedure of the Quite obviously, an action for recovery of possession of real
courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and property (such as an accion plenaria de possesion) or the title
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are thereof, or for partition or condemnation of, or the foreclosure
retrospective in that sense and to that extent. of a mortgage on, said real property in other words, a real
action-may be commenced and prosecuted without an
In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is accompanying claim for actual, moral, nominal or exemplary
called for considering that, unlike Manchester, private damages; and such an action would fall within the exclusive,
respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
by paying the additional docket fees as required. The
promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides that Regional Trial
sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction inter alia
additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court. It over all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
triggered his change of stance by manifesting his willingness to real property, or any interest therein, except actions for forcible
pay such additional docket fee as may be ordered. entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial
Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
paid is still insufficient considering the total amount of the Courts.
claim. This is a matter which the clerk of court of the lower
court and/or his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk in-charge The rule applies regardless of the value of the real property
should determine and, thereafter, if any amount is found due, involved, whether it be worth more than P20,000.00 or not,
he must require the private respondent to pay the same. infra. The rule also applies even where the complaint involving
realty also prays for an award of damages; the amount of those
Principles regarding payment of docket fees damages would be immaterial to the question of the Court's
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate jurisdiction.
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action.
Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may The rule is unlike that in other cases e.g., actions simply for
allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no recovery of money or of personal property, or actions in
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in which the amount
period. claimed, or the value of the personal property, is determinative
of jurisdiction; i.e., the value of the personal property or the
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third amount claimed should exceed P20,000.00 in order to be
party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said As will be noted, the requirement in Circular No. 7 that
fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its complaints, petitions, answers, and similar pleadings should
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the
body of the pleading but also in the prayer, has not been
altered. What has been revised is the rule that subsequent
amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby Where the action involves real property and a related claim for
vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis
docket fee based on the amount sought in the amended of both:
pleading, the trial court now being authorized to allow payment (a) the value of the property; and
of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the (b) the total amount of related damages sought.
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the
Moreover, a new rule has been added, governing awards of initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the
claims not specified in the pleading - i.e., damages arising after requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing
the filing of the complaint or similar pleading-as to which the of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within
additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of
judgment. course, prescription has set in the meantime.
Now, under the Rules of Court, docket or filing fees are But where-as in the case at bar-the fees prescribed for an
assessed on the basis of the "sum claimed," on the one hand, action involving real property have been paid, but the amounts
or the "value of the property in litigation or the value of the of certain of the related damages (actual, moral and nominal)
estate," on the other. There are, in other words, as already being demanded are unspecified, the action may not be
above intimated, actions or proceedings involving real property, dismissed. The Court undeniably has jurisdiction over the
in which the value of the property is immaterial to the court's action involving the real property, acquiring it upon the filing of
jurisdiction, account thereof being taken merely for assessment the complaint or similar pleading and payment of the
of the legal fees; and there are actions or proceedings, prescribed fee.
involving personal property or the recovery of money and/or
damages, in which the value of the property or the amount of And it is not divested of that authority by the circumstance that
the demand is decisive of the trial court's competence (aside it may not have acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying
from being the basis for fixing the corresponding docket fees). claims for damages because of lack of specification thereof.
What should be done is simply to expunge those claims for
Action purely for recovery of money or damages damages as to which no amounts are stated, which is what the
Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or respondent Courts did, or allow, on motion, a reasonable time
damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the for the amendment of the complaints so as to allege the
aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of interests and precise amount of each item of damages and accept payment
costs. In this case, the complaint or similar pleading should, of the requisite fees therefor within the relevant prescriptive
according to Circular No. 7 of this Court, specify the amount of period.
damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading
but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development vs.
the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Formaran et. al
Two situations may arise. One is where the complaint or similar The docket fees under Section 7(a), Rule 141, in cases
pleading sets out a claim purely for money or damages and involving real property depend on the fair market value of the
there is no precise statement of the amounts being claimed. In same: the higher the value of the real property, the higher the
this event the rule is that the pleading will not be accepted nor docket fees due. In contrast, Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 imposes
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record. In a fixed or flat rate of docket fees on actions incapable of
other words, the complaint or pleading may be dismissed, or pecuniary estimation.
the claims as to which the amounts are unspecified may be
expunged, although as aforestated the Court may, on motion, Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, prior to its
permit amendment of the complaint and payment of the fees amendment by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, had a specific
provided the claim has not in the meantime become time- paragraph governing the assessment of the docket fees for
barred. real action, to wit:
In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there

is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the
claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees.
The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of It is also important to note that, with the amendments
every claim, but the fees paid are insufficient; and here again, introduced by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, which became effective on
the rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for August 16, 2004, the paragraph in Section 7, Rule 141 of the
the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and Rules of Court, pertaining specifically to the basis for
upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may computation of docket fees for real actions was deleted.
properly take cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime Instead, Section 7(1) of Rule 141, as amended, provides that
prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of "in cases involving real property, the FAIR MARKET value of
action. the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT
TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF
Action involves real property and related claim for THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICH IS
damages HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION.”
Determination of docket fees for real actions the present case, it has actively taken part in the proceedings
A real action indisputably involves real property. The docket being questioned.
fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance
with the value of the real property involved therein; the only The foregoing disposition notwithstanding, respondent is liable
difference is in what constitutes the acceptable value. In for the balance between the actual fees paid and the correct
computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, payable filing fees to include an assessment on the award of
the courts, instead of relying on the assessed or estimated unrealized income, following Section 2 of Rule 141 which
value, would now be using the fair market value of the real provides:
properties (as stated in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal
Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is SEC. 2. Fees in lien. – Where the court in its final judgment
higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more
same. than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall
pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the
In sum, the Court finds that the true nature of the action judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall
instituted by petitioner against respondents is the recovery of assess and collect the corresponding fee.
title to and possession of real property. It is a real action
necessarily involving real property, the docket fees for which and jurisprudence, viz:
must be computed in accordance with Section 7(1), Rule 141
of the Rules of Court, as amended. The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to
claims although specified are left for determination of the court
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. and Solidbank is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of
Corporation vs. Perez the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible
for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount
In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, thereof.
the Court held that a pleading which does not specify in the
prayer the amount sought shall not be admitted or shall be
expunged, and that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon
payment of the prescribed docket fee. This rule was relaxed in
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion which was echoed in
the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melico, the
pertinent portion of the decision in the latter case reads:
Plainly, while the payment of prescribed docket fee is

a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at
the time of filing does not automatically cause the
dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period,
more so when the party involved demonstrates a
willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such
payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were
initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no
intention to defraud the government, the Manchester
rule does not apply.
Metrobank takes exception to the application of Sun Insurance

Office to the present case because, by its claim, respondent
deliberately concealed the insufficient payment of docket fees.
Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a

jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff
in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before
the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the
defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else
he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the
balance between the appropriate docket fees and the amount
actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien on any
award he may obtain in his favor.
Metrobank raised the issue of jurisdiction only before the

appellate court after it and its co-petitioner participated in the
proceedings before the trial court. While lack of jurisdiction may
be raised at any time, a party may be held in estoppel if, as in

Civ Pro Case Rulings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civ Pro Case Rulings

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Civ Pro Case Rulings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE | Erika Cristel S.

BASIC PRINCIPLES lawsuits. It is divided into three distinct set of provisions, to

Writ of Continuing mandamus Rule 1, Sec 2

It cannot be: How acquired

Serrano vs. Munoz (HI) Motors Inc.

Heirs of Juanita Padilla vs. Dominador Magdua

on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is

(4) CTA. (a) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board JURISDCITION OF COURT OF APPEALS

Petitioner endeavors to convince us to determine, yet again,

Exceptional circumstances when SC may review factual

An action involving title to real property means that the

Mendoza vs. Teh Joinder of causes of action

We note, however, that neither the assessed value nor the

In this case, the complaint alleged that petitioners were

In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there

Plainly, while the payment of prescribed docket fee is

Metrobank takes exception to the application of Sun Insurance

Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a

Metrobank raised the issue of jurisdiction only before the

You might also like