Civil Procedure Reviewer on General Principles of Remedial Law and Jurisdiction
General Principles of Remedial Law
A. Distinguish: Substantive Law and Remedial Law
- Source: Congress, Ex: Civil Code
- Operation: Prospective
- Sources:
- General Rule: Supreme Court, Ex: Administrative Matters
- Exception: Congress, Ex: BP 129 on Jurisdiction
- Operation:
- General Rule: Retroactive, no vested rights in the rules of procedure
- Exceptions:
- The statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides
- Applying it to pending proceedings would impair vested rights
- Not be feasible or would work injustice
- Naturalization
- Insolvency proceedings
- Cadastral Cases
- Land Registration
- Election Cases
- Other cases not provided for in the Rules of Court
Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution:
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
- Power to Settle Actual Controversies
- Power of Judicial Review
Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII,1987 Constitution:
- The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the: (PPAIL)
- protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
- pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
- admission to the practice of law;
- integrated bar; and,
- legal assistance to the underprivileged.
- (Limitations) Such rules: (SUN)
- shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
- shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
- shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
- Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
- For a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases, the Supreme Court has the power to:
- amend (overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law)
- repeal
- or even establish new rules
- When the compelling reasons so warrant it or when purpose of justice requires, the courts have the power to:
- relax
- or suspend technical or procedural rules
- or to except a case from their operation.
- What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the court.
- The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
- The merits of the case;
- A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
- suspension of rules;
- A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
- The rights of the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Courts
- The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical judicial policy designed to restrain parties from directly resorting to a higher court when relief may be obtained before the lower courts.
- It is grounded on the need to prevent inordinate demands upon the higher court‘s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to prevent the congestion of the higher court‘s dockets.
- General Rule: Where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter, such concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party seeking relief the absolute freedom to file the case in court of his choice. Pursuant to the doctrine, the case must be filed first to the lowest court possible having appropriate jurisdiction.
- Exceptions: The following are the exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts:
- When genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediate;
- When the case involves transcendental importance;
- When the case is novel;
- When the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the higher court;
- When time is of the essence;
- When the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
- When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
- When the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice;
- When the order complained of was a patent nullity; and
- When the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy.
- Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket.
- The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until finally disposes of the case .
- A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.
1. Regular Courts
- Supreme Court
- Court of Appeals
- Regional Trial Courts
- First-level Courts
- Metropolitan Trial Court
- Ex: Metro Manila
- Municipal Trial Court
- Ex: Narra, Culion
- Municipal Trial Court in Cities
- Ex: Puerto Princesa City
- Municipal Circuit Trial Court
- Ex: Taytay-San Vicente
- Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
- Sandiganbayan (PD 148, as amended)
- Shari'a District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 Code of Muslim Personal Law)
- Family Courts
D. Precepts of Equity
Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.
Art. 9, New Civil Code No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.
Art. 10, New Civil Code: In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of the laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
Cases can be decided on the basis of law or equity.
Equity means a sense of justice or fairness, and Philippine courts are courts of law and/or equity. The two systems of jurisprudence - law and equity - have merged.
- Ex:
- Estoppel
- Laches
- Solutio indebiti
E. Nature of Philippine Courts
- Philippines courts, original or appellate, are both courts of law and of equity.
F. Inherent Powers of the Court
Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court:
Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have power: (8) PPCC-CACA
- To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
- To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
- To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending therein;
- To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto;
- To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
- To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
- To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice;
- To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.
G. Enforceability of Court Writs and Processes CPM-QHI
Under Section 3, Interim Rules (BP 129):
Sec. 3. Writs and Processes.
- a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction issued by a regional trial court may be enforced in any part of the region.
- b) All other processes whether issued by the RTC or MetTC, MCTC, and MTC may be served anywhere in the Philippines, and, the last three cases, without a certification by the judge of the RTC.
Concept of Jurisdiction in General
Jurisdiction
- It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide the case.
✅whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry
❌whether the decision is right or wrong
- Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and they may act accordingly by dismissing the action even though the issue of jurisdiction is not raised or not even suggested by counsel.
- The entire proceedings would be null and void.
- It may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal.
A. Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction—the authority to hear and decide a case.
Exercise of Jurisdiction—any act of the court pursuant to such authority, including the decision and its consequences.
Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction?
A: A court acting as such may commit errors or mistakes and questioned later before a higher court. The procedure or remedy in case of a mistake or error would be dependent on whether it is an error of jurisdiction or an error in the exercise of jurisdiction also known as error of judgment.
Q: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused files a motion to quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder. But the court denied the motion to quash. What is the error committed? Error of Jurisdiction.
Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court has jurisdiction. But in the course of the trial, it committed mistakes like the court misinterpreted or misapplied the provision of the RPC or the Indeterminate Sentence Law. What error is committed? Error of Judgement. Is the proceeding null and void? No.
B. Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of Judgment
- Attributes:
- Error of Jurisdiction
- When a court takes cognizance of a case over the subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction, or
- Acts in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
- Error of Judgment
- Errors which the court may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction, like errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's findings
- Effect:
- Error of Jurisdiction
- null and void
- voidable
- Error of Judgment
- valid or binding unless corrected
- Review:
- Error of Jurisdiction
- Certiorari (extraordinary writ)
- Error of Judgment
- Appeal
C. Types of Jurisdiction
- On cases tried:
- General Jurisdiction
- the power of the court or tribunal to hear, try and decide all kinds of cases except those prohibited by law;
- only the RTC
- Special or Limited Jurisdiction
- means the power of the court to hear, try and decide certain type of cases
- On the nature of the cause:
- Original Jurisdiction
- power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its inception or commencement
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- power vested in a superior court to review and revise the judicial action of a lower court.
- On the nature and extent of exercise:
- Exclusive Jurisdiction
- no other courts or tribunal has the same jurisdiction over a particular case
- Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction
- equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter
- the court obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of the others, but the choice of court is lodged in those persons duly authorized to file the action.
- In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
- In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P 400,000 except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs;
- In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds P 2,000,000; (
- In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds P 2,000,000;
- In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations.
- In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
- In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
- In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P 2,000,000.
- On situs:
- Territorial jurisdiction
- exercised within the limits of the place where the court is located.
- ex: writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
- Extra-territorial jurisdiction
- exercised beyond the confines of the territory where the court is located.
- ex: writ of execution
D. Elements of Jurisdiction in Civil Cases
- The authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action, or
- Administer a particular kind of relief depending on the issues raised;
- It may refer to the power of the court over or to bind the parties, or
- Over or to bind the property which is the subject of the litigation.
So there are what we call elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases, otherwise, the proceeding will be illegal. These elements are: SPRI
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case;
- Jurisdiction over the res; and
- Jurisdiction over the issues.
a) Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
- Power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
- Jurisdiction over the nature of the action:
- actions for sum of money
- actions not capable of pecuniary estimation
- real and personal actions
- action in rem
- action in personam
- The Court may dismiss the case.
- The court cannot refer the case to another court.
- The judgment is void.
- If the jurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of the record, it may be subject to collateral attack.
- The judgment is no judgment at all.
- Direct attack
- Ex: petition for annulment of judgment
- Collateral attack
- Indirect attack
- What is the nature of the action filed?
- Does the court have authority to try and determine that class of actions to which the one before it belongs?
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, either by the Constitution or a statute.
- It is never acquired by: CAWS
- consent or submission of the parties or by their laches
- agreement of the parties
- waiver
- or failure to object (silence)
- It cannot be subject of agreement of the parties.
- It cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties.
- It cannot be conferred by acquiescence by the court.
- It is determined by the allegations in the complaint
- Exception: In ejectment cases in which the defendant averred the defense of the existence of tenancy relationship between the parties (See: Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan, 42 SCRA 89 below)
- As well as by the character of the relief sought
- Caption of the case is not controlling
- Defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction
- The amount awarded does determine jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the proper ground for a motion to dismiss.
- This is broad enough to include the “nature of the action.”
- Subject or subject matter of the action
- The physical facts, the things real or personal, the money, lands or chattels and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
- Examples:
- Declaration of nullity of marriage: the marriage of the parties involved
- Foreclosure of mortgage: the thing or subject of the action is the property mortgaged
- Specific performance or rescission of contract: the contract involved that is the subject matter of the action.
Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan, 42 SCRA 89
- The court noted that these cases essentially revolve around a tenancy dispute, and the issue of actual possession was not resolved by the Court of Agrarian Relations.
- The decision and writ of execution only affected Maximo Marcelo's claim as a tenant and did not address Magdalena dela Cruz's right to possession.
- The court concluded that the ejectment case intruded upon the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
- The decision of the Court of First Instance in the two cases was set aside.
While it is true that the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for ejectment or forcible entry is determined by the allegations in the complaint, yet where tenancy is averred as a defense and, upon hearing, is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Salmorin vs. Zaldivar, G.R. No. 169691, Jul. 23, 2008
Zaldivar’s complaint concerned the unlawful detainer by Salmorin of the subject lot. This matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
The allegation of tenancy in Salmorin’s answer did not automatically deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction. Contrary to the findings of the MCTC, both the RTC and the CA found that there was no tenancy relationship between Salmorin and Zaldivar. A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. In this case, the RTC and CA correctly found that the third and sixth elements, namely, consent of the landowner and sharing of the harvests, respectively, were absent.
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction and Exceptions thereto
- It means that one’s jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
Exceptions: ECC
- When there is an express provision in the statute on retroactive application; or
- When the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment; or
- When the statute is curative.
Q: How jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired by the court?
- It is conferred by law applicable at the time of the commencement of the action; and
- Jurisdiction must be properly invoked by filing the complaint or information.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
- Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within its jurisdiction and also of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.
- Where a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.
Two-fold Purpose:
- Desire for uniformity
- Reliance on administrative expertise
Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167
It is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit filed by private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the administrative agency's prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The Secretary of DENR is directed to resolve the controversy with utmost dispatch.
Q: A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it as a major watershed. The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a portion located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and levelled to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the alleged actionable neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (2015 BAR QUESTION)
No. The court was not correct in motu propio dismissing the petition. While it appears that the alleged actionable neglect or omission took place in the City of Z of Province II and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II, venue is not jurisdictional, and it can be waived in a special civil action for continuing mandamus.
Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction
- It involves the inherent or implied power of the court to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
- A court may determine all questions relative to the matters brought before it, regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may be heard, direct the disposition of money deposited in court in the course of the proceedings, appoint a receiver an grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment.
General Rule: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court.
This doctrine applies to administrative bodies as well.
Exception: The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where a third party claimant is involved.
Rombe Eximtrade vs. Asiatrust Dev’t. Bank, GR 164479, Feb. 13, 2008
There is no interference by one co-equal court with another when the case filed in one involves corporate rehabilitation and suspension of extrajudicial foreclosure in the other.
The rehabilitation case is a special proceeding which is summary and non-adversarial in nature. The annulment of foreclosure case is an ordinary civil action governed by the regular rules of procedure under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Being dissimilar as to nature, purpose, and reliefs sought, the order granting the injunctive writ in the annulment of foreclosure case, therefore, did not interfere with the order dismissing the rehabilitation petition and lifting the Stay Order.
Estoppel by Laches
Art. 1431, Civil Code: Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by which you have misled another while laches means abandonment of a right for failure to assert it for a long time.
- General rule: Objection on jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised even for the first time on appeal.
- Exception: Estoppel by laches.
Estoppel by laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do what ought to have been done earlier.
- The failure to act warrants the presumption that one has abandoned his right or that he had acquiesced to the correctness and fairness of what has been resolved.
- The doctrine of estoppel is based on public policy intended to discourage stale claims.
- Estoppel is not a question of time unlike the statute of limitations.
- General rule: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.
- Exception: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, the case had been pending for almost 15 years, and the defendant-appellant never raised the question of jurisdiction until after receiving the Court’s adverse decision.
The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, a party may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea.
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape penalty.
Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a Complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of P19,700.00. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification and certification of non-forum shopping executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New York. Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving real property with an assessed value of P19,700.00; exclusive and original jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court where the defendant resides. Rule on the foregoing ground. (2009 BAR)
A: The ground that the RTC does not have subject matter jurisdiction is without merit. A complaint for rescission of a contract of sale is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and hence within the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to B.P. 129.
b) Jurisdiction Over the Parties
- Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons.
- It is the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against the party to an action or proceeding.
- As to Plaintiff*: CP-S
- Filing of the complaint or petition.
- By doing so, he submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the court.
- As to Defendant*:
- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required in an action in personam.
- However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required in an action in rem or quasi in rem.
- Only the court should acquire res.
- As to Action of the Defendant: WCL
- waiver
- consent
- lack of objection by the defendant
- Action in personam: action against a person in basis of his personal liability
- Action in rem: action against the thing itself
- Action quasi in rem: an individual is named as a defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property
- Action in personam: there is a specific defendant and the judgment is applicable only to defendant, ex: specific performance
- Action in rem: motion is applicable to everyone
- Action quasi in rem: purpose is not to impose liability on defendant but on property
- by a valid service of summons upon him or
- by his/her voluntary submission to the court’s authority
- when seeking affirmative relief
- except in motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction
- when the defendant’s counsel files the corresponding pleading thereon;
- when the defendant files a motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default;
- when the defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default;
- when the defendant and plaintiff jointly submit a compromise agreement for the approval of the court;
- when the defendant files an answer to the contempt charge;
- when the defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his person.
c) Jurisdiction Over the Res
- It is the power to bind the “thing”.
- It is applied to an object, subject matter (not nature of the action), status, considered as the defendant in the action or as the object against which, directly, proceedings are taken.
Define jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action.
- This type of jurisdiction is necessary when the action is one:
- in rem or
- quasi in rem.
- When the action is action in personam, the jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient to authorize the court to render judgment against the defendant. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is required.
How is jurisdiction over the res acquired. S-I
It is acquired either by the:
- the seizure of the property under legal process whereby it is brought into actual or constructive custody of the court or
- as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Why is jurisdiction over the res important?
Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over the person.
- There are instances when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like when he is abroad. But if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res becomes a substitute over the person.
- Ex: action for compulsory recognition, even if the defendant is a non-resident who is out of the country the object of litigation is status here in the Philippines.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the res acquired in Land Registration Cases or Probate Proceedings?
- By compliance with procedural requisites, such as publication.
What is the extent of relief that may be awarded in action in rem and quasi in rem?
- Any relief granted in rem or quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render judgment against the defendant.
d) Jurisdiction Over the Issues
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.
- An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.
- Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
Two issues:
- Issue of law
- Issue of fact
- when allegation in the complaint is specifically denied in an answer
How Jurisdiction Over the Issues Is Conferred and Determined?
- Jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and determined by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties.
- Sec. 2, Rule 18: Jurisdiction over the issue may be determined by the stipulation of the parties during pre-trial.
- The parties enter into stipulation of facts and documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the issues of the case.
- Sec. 5, Rule 10: Jurisdiction over the issue may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on the matter not raised in the pleading.
- The parties try with their express or implied consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
- An issue not duly pleaded may be validly tried and decided by the court as long as there is no objection from the parties.
- Complaint
- Answer
- As to definition:
- Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter:
- power to hear and try a particular case
- Jurisdiction Over the Issues:
- power of the court to resolve legal questions involved in the case
- As to conferment:
- Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter:
- by law
- Jurisdiction Over the Issues:
- by the pleadings
- by the express (stipulation) consent of the parties
- by the implied (failure to object to evidence) consent of the parties
- As to acquisition:
- Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter:
- upon filing the complaint
- Jurisdiction Over the Issues:
- upon filing of the answer which joins the issues involved in the case
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court.
- It was not affected by the Judiciary Law (BP 129) which reorganized the judiciary in 1983.
- Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found in the fundamental law itself.
- The SC is both an original and appellate court.
En Banc Cases
- Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, executive agreement, law, ordinance or executive order or regulation is in question;
- Criminal cases in which the decision imposes the death penalty;
- Cases raising novel questions of law;
- Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls;
- Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed;
- Cases assigned to a division including motions for reconsideration which in the opinion of at least 3 members merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a majority vote of the actual membership of the Court en banc;
- All other cases as the Court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention;
- Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer, or employee of the SC, disbarment of a lawyer, or suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both;
- Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Sandiganbayan, Comelec, COA, or Military Tribunals;
- Habeas corpus against government or military officials;
- Adjudication (Judicial Power)
- Administration or Disciplinary power
- Rule-making (Rule-making Power)
- Issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus as defined in Rule 65 against the following against the following appellate courts: CPM-CCCSC
- CA;
- COMELEC;
- COA;
- Sandiganbayan;
- Court of Tax Appeals
- With CA –
- petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the following first-level courts: CPM-CCNQR
- CSC;
- Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
- NLRC or the Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code;
- Quasi-judicial agencies;
- RTC.
- With RTC – APC
- actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
- With CA and RTC – CPM-HQ
- habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies.
- With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan – AH
- petitions for issuance of writ of Amparo and petitions for Habeas Data, where the action involves public data or government office.
- With Sandiganbayan – CPM-HIA
- petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of the Sandiganbayan's appellate jurisdiction i.e. only in connection with a case appealed to the Sandiganbayan.
- All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
- All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
- All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
- All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
- All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.
- There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts.
- There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.
- Ex:
- Where the question is whether or not the debtor has paid the debt, the issue is one of fact.
- Where the question is whether or not the manner of payment is of the type which produces the legal effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issue becomes one of law.
- The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice. They have powers to decide certain cases within their jurisdiction.
- COMELEC γΌ Election cases
- COA γΌ claims against the government
- CSC γΌ eligibility or removal from government service of an appointive employee
- Any decision, order or ruling of these commissions may be brought to the SC on certiorari, etc. The decisions of the constitutional commissions are reviewable by the SC.
- However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law, particularly Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the CA, by now making decisions of the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to the CA.
- Based on the present law, out of the three constitutional commissions, the only ones whose decisions are appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and the COA
- If there is an electoral protest for the President and Vice-President, the matter is not to be decided by the COMELEC but by the SC acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
- Commander-in-Chief Clause
- The SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law.
- The SC can inquire into the basis on why martial law is declared.
- This is intended to prevent the Supreme Court from invoking the Political Question doctrine laid down in many earlier cases that it is the prerogative of the President to determine, at his discretion, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof.
Congress and Jurisdiction of the SC
(Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution)
- Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the RTC or CA.
- The law can change them because jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.
- However, Congress does not have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction under Section 5, Article VIII.
- Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SC’s powers and jurisdiction, provided it is with the latter's advice and concurrence.
The Supreme Court is not a Trier of Facts
- The SC is not a trier of facts which means that passing upon a factual issue is not within the province of the Court.
- The findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are not generally reviewable by the SC. Also, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on the Court.
- It is not the function of the SC to determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision.
- However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved where the findings and conclusions of the trial court or the quasi-judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent with the findings of the CA.
- when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
- when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
- when there is grave abuse of discretion;
- when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
- when the findings of facts are conflicting;
- when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
- when the findings are contrary to the trial court;
- when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
- when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;
- when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
- when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
- The cases where its original jurisdiction is concurrent with the SC are petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following:
- the CSC;
- Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
- NLRC or the Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code.
- Quasi-judicial agencies;
- RTC.
- Concurrent with the SC and RTC are those involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies.
- Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc.
- No petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in the IAC if another similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the SC. Nor may such petition be filed in the SC if a similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the IAC, unless it is to review the action taken by the IAC on the petition filed with it. A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.
- RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the:
- Securities and Exchange Commission,
- Social Security Commission
- Employees Compensation Commission
- Civil Service Commission
- except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of:
- the SC in accordance with the Constitution
- the Labor Code of the Philippines under PD 442
- The appellate jurisdiction of the CA is exclusive.
- CA is a powerful court because it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or awards of RTCs.
- General Rule: If the RTC, anywhere in the country renders a decision and you want to appeal, whether civil or criminal, chances are it will go the to CA.
- Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts.
- Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
- Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions or orders or awards of the CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
- Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction.
- This is because decisions of MTCs in these cases cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTCs.
- The CA may pass upon factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it or in petitions for writ of amparo or habeas corpus data or in case of actions to annul judgment of the RTC over which the CA has original jurisdiction
- CA is a unique court. Aside from being an appellate court, it also acts as a trial court.
- The Judiciary law has divided the country into 13 areas called Judicial Regions.
- From the 1st to the 12th, the 13th is actually in the National Capital Region (NCR), Metro Manila.
- Every division is divided into branches.
- RTC Puerto Princesa is found in the 4th Judicial Region, which includes Batangas, Cavite, Laguna, Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro Quezon, Rizal and Romblon province, its territorial area is not the entire region, (4th Judicial Region), it is limited to Puerto Princesa City only because it depends on the territory as defined by the SC.
- Interim Rules, Sec. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts. -
- a) MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall exercise their jurisdiction in the city, municipality or circuit for which the judge thereof is appointed or designated.
- b) A Regional Trial Court shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area defined by the SC as the territory over which the particular branch concerned shall exercise its authority, in accordance with Sec. 18 of BP 129.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction:
- In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
- Claim cannot be quantified to money; e.g. action for specific performance.
- In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P400,000, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon MeTC, MTC, MCTC;
- Applicable to real actions to recover real property.
- If the amount involved exceeds P2,000,000 in the following cases: DCAPO
- Damages (apply totality rule)
- Collection of sum of money, exclusive of damages claimed and interests
- Admiralty and maritime cases
- Matters of Probate
- Other actions involving property
- All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court [general jurisdiction of the RTC]
- All actions involving the contract of marriage and family relations and all civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
- All civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Reform.
- Intra-corporate controversies
Concurrent Original Jurisdiction:
- In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and
- In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
- In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
- In an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, the basic issue is one other than the recovery of a sum of money.
- If ever there is a claim for money, it should only be incidental to the main issue.
- In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought.
- Examples:
- specific performance
- support
- foreclosure of mortgage
- annulment of judgment
- questioning the validity of a mortgage
- annulling a deed of sale or conveyance
- recover the price paid
- rescission which is a counterpart of specific performance
- complaint for expropriation
- action seeking to annul a resolution of a government-owned and controlled corporation
- action for injunction
- action to annul a deed
- action for partition of a real property
- specific performance to compel the defendant to execute a deed of conveyance
- The court declared the following as real actions:
- judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
- actions to annul real estate mortgage;
- for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real right as well as a real property.
- an action to cancel or annul a real estate mortgage necessarily affects title to the real property, hence a real action and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property.
- A complaint for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
- The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to the prayer for specific performance is not determinative of jurisdiction.
- Thus, an action for specific performance and damages of P200,000.00 is cognizable by the RTC even if the amount of damages sought to be recovered is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
- If the demand is in alternative, as in an action to compel the defendant to deliver the house by completing its construction or to pay the sum of P644.31, the action is one that is capable of pecuniary estimation.
- Thus an action for specific performance or in a the alternative, for damages in the amount of P180,000.00 is one capable of pecuniary estimation. Here, the amount of damages is determinative of jurisdiction.
- So in all real actions outside of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property subject thereof.
- It is one affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein.
- Examples provided the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00:
- accion publiciana (an action to recover possession of real property)
- accion reinvidicatoria (action to recover ownership of real property)
- quieting of title
- For a lesser value, MTC has jurisdiction.
- In forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction lies with the MTC regardless of the assessed value.
- A: RTC and you ask for higher compensation.
- The best example is money claim.
- Most cases which go to court now are money claims – an action to collect sum of money.
- A: It depends on how much are you collecting.
- If it is over P300,000 outside Metro Manila – RTC, in Metro Manila, – P400,000.
- If the amount that you are collecting is only P300,000 or less obviously, you file your case in the MTC.
- If the value of the claim is > P2,00,000 – RTC
- If the value of the claim is = or < P2,00,000 – MTC
- A: MTC. In determining the jurisdictional limit of P2,000,000, do not include the interest, damages, attorney’s fees, etc. So you deduct those from the principal claim even if you put them in your complaint because the law says, “xxx exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs xxx.”
- A: Costs are not the same as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
- Actually, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are part of damages.
- Costs are governed by Rule 141, while attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are governed by the Civil Code.
- This question has been clarified by SC Circular No. 09-94: “Guidelines in the Implementation of RA 7691 Extending the Jurisdiction of the MTCs” where the SC said that the provision excluding damages applies only if the damages are INCIDENTAL to the action.
- If the main cause of action is 100% damages, you include it in determining the P2,000,000 jurisdictional limit of the MTC,
- RTC because the amount of the claim for damages exceeded P2,000,000.
- Since the case is purely for damages, it is included in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
- The rule is, you only exclude the damages if it is a secondary claim.
- But if damages is the primary or only claim, you determine whether the total claim for damages is above P2,000,000, or equal to or less than P2,000,000.
- A: MTC because of paragraph [2]. As regards the damages of P2,000,000.00, MTC still has jurisdiction because such damages being incidental, is not included in determining the jurisdiction of the RTC.
- A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL PROPERTY not real. If the property sought to be recovered is real, apply paragraph [2] of Section 19 on recovery of real property.
- A: MTC if the value is P2,000,000.00 or less, and RTC, if over.
- A: In determining the jurisdiction of the court, over the subject matter, the allegations in the complaint governs.
Ortigas and Co., Ltd Partnership vs. Herrera, 120 SCRA 89
When a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith may what is legally due him under the written contract be demanded, the action is one not capable of pecuniary estimation. The payment of a sum of money is only incidental which can only be ordered after a determination of certain acts the performance of which being the more basic issue to be inquired into.
The title of the action is not determinative on the court.
- Just like the rule on contracts where the nature of the contract is not determined by the title but by stipulation.
- “The factual allegations in the complaint seeking for the performance of an obligation of a written contract which is a matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation prevail over the designation of the complaint as one for the sum of money and damages.”
- As may be seen from the foregoing enumeration, jurisdiction is determined:
- by the nature of the action; or
- by the value of the demand; or
- by the value of the property involved.
[6] In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
- Practically, this makes the RTC the universal catcher – what does not belong to any other court, belongs to the RTC.
Sandoval vs. Caneba, 190 SCRA 77
Under Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority (NHA), later renamed the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), has exclusive jurisdiction over certain cases, including disputes related to unpaid installments for subdivision lots.
CT Torres Enterprises, Inc. vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268
The complaint filed by Diongon falls under the jurisdiction of the HLURB, as it involves specific performance of a contract related to a subdivision lot.
The argument that only courts can adjudicate claims under the Civil Code is outdated, as many administrative agencies now exercise quasi-judicial authority to address complex or specialized issues. This delegation of power aims to expedite the resolution of such issues.
Cuenca vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 159104-05, Oct. 5, 2007
The legal ownership of UHC or PNCC shares would be transferred to petitioners, affecting the government's ownership rights. The ownership dispute over sequestered companies' shares is related to the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, falling under Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction. PCGG's intervention in the case satisfies the requirement for exclusive Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
Fajardo vs. Bautista, 232 SCRA 291
Jurisdiction belonged to the National Housing Authority (NHA) under P.D. No. 957, which was later transferred to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB). The complaints involved unsound real estate business practices and specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations, falling under the jurisdiction of the HLRB. The claims for annulment of the sales and certificates of title and damages were merely incidental.
Benguet Corp. vs. Leviste, 204 SCRA 99
The Court ruled that P.D. No. 1281 vests the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences with jurisdiction over mining-related matters, including the cancellation of mining contracts due to refusal to abide by their terms. The jurisdiction of the RTC is, therefore, inappropriate in this case, and the case should have been brought before the Bureau.
Machete vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 176
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, reiterating that agrarian reform matters should be handled by the DAR. However, the case was not entirely lost for the respondent, as the DAR was better equipped to resolve agrarian disputes quickly and inexpensively. The case was referred back to the appropriate Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for adjudication.
Lupangco, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, asserting that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case.
There is no provision in Presidential Decree No. 223, creating the Professional Regulation Commission, that orders or resolutions of the Commission are appealable either to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court. Consequently, this case, which was filed in order to enjoin the enforcement of a resolution of the respondent Professional Regulation Commission, should fall within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Court.
Bernardo vs. Caltex Phil. Inc. 216 SCRA 170
Caltex had become a debtor to Bernardo, and the dispute was about how Caltex should fulfill its obligation. The main issue was the pricing of petroleum products, and it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Energy Regulatory Board. Instead, it was a civil law question to be determined by the Regional Trial Court.
Q: Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00. At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Should the court dismiss the case? (2015 BAR)
No. The court should not dismiss the case. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones controlling
Accordingly, even if the defendant is able to prove in the course of the trial that a lesser amount is due, the court does not lose jurisdiction and a dismissal of the case is not in order.
Q: Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? (2015 BAR)
No, the Family Court Judge is not correct when it declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute. Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty any or insolvency. This authority is embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine the valid and binding laws in conformity with the fundamental law.
Q: Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of ₱750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC in Quezon City for the latter's alleged breach of their contract of services. Salvador promptly filed his answer and included a counterclaim for ₱250,000.00 arising from the allegedly baseless and malicious claims of Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer mental anguish. Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, Abraham filed a motion to dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground. Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed? Explain your answer. (2017 BAR)
No, the counterclaim of Salvador should not be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In an original action before the RTC, the RTC has jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim regardless of its amount.
Here Salvador’s counterclaim for damages arising from the alleged malicious and baseless claims of Abraham is a compulsory counterclaim as it arises from Abraham’s complaint. Hence the RTC has jurisdiction over Salvador’s counterclaim even if it did not exceed the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.
Note: R.A. No. 11576 was enacted in 2021 increasing the jurisdiction of the RTCs in all actions and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds P2,000,000.
Q: Anabel filed a complaint against B for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Candaba, Pampanga. After the issues had been joined, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction after noting that the action was one for accion publiciana. Anabel appealed the dismissal to the RTC which affirmed it and accordingly dismissed her appeal. She elevates the case to the C.A., which remands the case to the RTC. Is the appellate court correct? Explain. (2010 BAR)
Yes, the C.A. is correct in remanding the case to RTC for the latter to try the same on the merits. The RTC, having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case appealed from MTC should try the case on the merits as if the case was originally med with it, and not just to affirm the dismissal of the case. Rep. Act No.7691, however, vested jurisdiction over specified accion publiciana with courts of the first level (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) in cases where the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P20, 000.00 outside Metro Manila, or in Metro Manila, where such value does not exceed P50, 000.00.
Q: On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/V Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/V Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to ₱167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading. B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the ground that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over "all actions in admiralty and maritime" claims. In his Reply, A contended that while the action is indeed "admiralty and maritime" in nature, it is the amount of the claim, not the nature of the action, that governs jurisdiction. Pass on the Motion to Dismiss. (2010 BAR)
The Motion to Dismiss is without merit and therefore should be denied. Courts of the first level have jurisdiction over civil actions where the demand is for sum of money not exceeding P300, 000.00 or in Metro-Manila, P400, 000.00, exclusive of Interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and, costs: this jurisdiction includes admiralty and marine cases. And where the main cause of action is the claim for damages, the Amount thereof shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Q: Fides filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the authority of the local government unit (LGU) to assess real property taxes (RPT) on a certain property she owns. She also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to restrain the LGU from collecting the RPT. The LGU moved to dismiss Fides’ case arguing that since the matter involves RPT, her remedy was to file an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. (2022 BAR)
NO. The LGU is not correct. The Supreme Court has held that an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals is not required where the taxpayer is questioning the very authority and power of the LGU to assess and collect the real property tax and that a court case in such a situation may be properly resorted to.
(b) If the RTC issues an order denying the application for a WPI, and thereafter denies Fides’ subsequent motion for reconsideration, what is her remedy?
A: Fides’ remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Tax Appeals. The Supreme Court has held that the remedy of an aggrieved party from an interlocutory order of the RTC in a local tax case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Tax Appeals. Here, the order denying the application for a WPI is an interlocutory order since it does not completely dispose of the case. Fides should show that the denial of the application for a WPI was made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, Fides’ remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Tax Appeals.
Q: Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage, solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up his business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City. (2015 BAR)
A: As Hades’ lawyer, I would file a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court with prayer for recognition of foreign divorce judgment. In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a foreign divorce decree must first be recognized before it can be given effect. The Supreme Court stated that the recognition may be prayed for in the petition for cancellation of the marriage entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
A: I would file the petition in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, where the corresponding civil registry is located.
- Joinder of the local civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by petition.
- Notice of the order of hearing to the persons named in the petition.
- Publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the province
4. Jurisdiction of the Family Courts
- Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred.
- The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";
- Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
- Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
- Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
- Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
- Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";
- Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
- Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
- Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
- Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and
- Cases of domestic violence against:
- Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and
- Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.
People vs. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, Nov. 13, 2012
The prosecution cites Section 5 of R.A. 8369, which grants family courts jurisdiction over cases involving minors. However, the Court notes that the primary objective of vesting family courts with jurisdiction in such cases is to protect the welfare and best interests of minors. Since the two minor victims in this case are deceased and represented by their parents as private offended parties, there is no living minor involved in the murder cases requiring the special protection of a family court.
5. Jurisdiction of the MTCs
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
- Civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000,000 exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind,attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged:
- Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees:
- Provided further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions.
- Forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
- All civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P2,000,000 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
- Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
- Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots
- where there is no controversy or opposition, or
- contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100K, such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding declaration of the real property.
- In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan, Municipal, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi, G.R. No. 174346, Sept. 12, 2008.
The Supreme Court found that the court had no jurisdiction over the case because the assessed value of the land was only P11,160, falling within the jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.
According to BP 129 Sec. 33, municipal trial courts have exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value of the property does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000 in cases filed in Metro Manila.
Therefore, all proceedings in the Regional Trial Court were declared null and void, and the complaint was dismissed.
Q: Danica obtained a personal loan of Php180,000 from Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal monthly installments of PhP10,000 until fully paid. In order to complete her payment at an earlier date, Danica instead paid PhP20,000 monthly, and continued doing so until the 18th month, all of which payments Dinggoy accepted. Later on, she realized that she had overpaid Dinggoy by 100% as she should have already completed payment in nine (9) months. She demanded the return of the excess payment, but Dinggoy completely ignored her. Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases by filing before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) a Statement of Claim, together with the required documents. Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; (ii) the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) the regular procedure for civil cases? (2018 BAR)
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) should try the case under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims (the “Revised Rules”). As per the latest amendment of said rules (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the Expedited Procedures in First Level Courts), the MTC shall apply the Revised Rules in all actions which are purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money not exceeding Php 1,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. Having overpaid by one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the loan, Danica’s claim for reimbursement amounts to One Hundred Eighty-Thousand Pesos (Php180,000.00), which is within the threshold of the Revised Rules. Thus, the MTC should proceed to hear the case under the Revised Rules.
Q: Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited the property after she took a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house on her property. Both Estrella and John were residents of the same barangay.
To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the other hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of ownership and submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Estrella.
After the filing of John’s answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one of ownership and not of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on the assessed value of the property, it was the court of proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment declaring John as the owner of the land and, hence, entitled to the possession thereof. (2014 BAR)
(a) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not?
NO, the MTC was not correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Rules on Ejectment, the action for ejectment is within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the MTC irrespective of total amount of the claims.
It is well settled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations contained in the complaint. The contention of defendant in his Motion to Dismiss has nothing to do in the determination of jurisdiction.
Hence, it was erroneous for the MTC to dismiss the complaint for ejectment as it falls properly within its jurisdiction.
(b) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the assessed value of the property, the case was within its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed with it? Why or why not?
NO, the RTC ruling based on the assessed value is not correct. The Supreme Court in applying the Rules has held that what determines the jurisdiction of the court as conferred by law is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint.
In this case, the jurisdiction over ejectment cases is conferred by law exclusively and originally upon the MTC. Necessarily, the nature of the action is alleged by the facts in the complaint herein. Hence, the RTC should have remanded the case to the MTC since it is the latter that has jurisdiction over the case.
Comments
Post a Comment