In order to reject an amicable settlement already entered
into, it must be done in accordance with Section 13 of P.D.
1508 (it must be repudiated within 10 days from the date of
The conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by
PD 1508 as a pre-condition of filing a complaint in court, is
compulsory not only for cases falling under the exclusive
competent of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts, but
for actions cognizable by the regional trial courts as well.
The non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process
may make the complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the
ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity, EXCEPT
where the defendants failed to object to the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court over the case in their answer and
even during the entire proceeding.
The remedy is a MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground of
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT
lack of jurisdiction.
A case cannot have a civil aspect cognizable by the regular
court and at the same time a labor aspect cognizable by the
labor tribunal, and the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at
anytime and at any stage of the action.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION:
Agencies vested with the power to exercise quasi-judicial
functions over disputes specified in the statute granting the
same shall have jurisdiction to hear such cases, not the
authority of the court
Motion to dismiss for
LACK OF JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT
Motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT
Must be seasonably filed
or else deemed waived
(before filing an answer)
The jurisdiction of a case involving international
transportation within the territories of two contracting parties
is governed by the Art. 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention:
1. In the territory of one of the high contracting parties, either
before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of his
principal place of business, or
The Warsaw convention establishes jurisdiction in the
international sense, while the domestic law is applied to
determine the specific court in a country that has proper
jurisdiction pursuant of Art 28(1).
Such jurisdiction cannot be left to the consent or agreement
of the parties whether or not such agreements are explicitly
** This doctrine is SUI GENERIS
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and is not made to depend upon
allegations in the answer or the motion to dismiss, and
continues until the case is finally terminated.
While jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings as the same is
conferred by law, a party may be barred from raising it on the
ground of laches or estoppel.
Posterior changes in the doctrine canNOT retroactively be
applied to nullify a prior final ruling in the same proceeding
where prior adjudication was had, whether the case should be
civil or criminal in nature.
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative reliefagain s t his opponent and, after obtaining or
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question the same
Once a party to a case submits to the jurisdiction of the court
and participates in the trial on the merits of the case, he
cannot thereafter, upon a judgment unfavorable to his cause,
take a total turn about and say that the condition precedent
of compliance with P.D. No. 1508 had not been met.
Where 2 or more plaintiffs sue one defendant in a single
complaint or 1 plaintiff sues several defendants in a single
complaint, based on several causes of action for or against
each, respectively, the TOTALITY RULE applies only where:
1. The causes of action arose from the same series of
2. There is a common question of fact or law among them. There must be a PROPER JOINDER OF PARTIES in order for the totality rule to apply.
Appellate jurisdiction over cases involving PURELY LEGAL
QUESTIONS is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court and
cases erroneously brought to it shall be sent to the proper
court for hearing as if it was originally brought before it as
prescribed by the Judiciary Act.
The Court of First Instance shall dismiss a case on appeal if
tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction EXCEPT when
the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial
without an objection to its jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 11,
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
In a civil case decided under the RULES OF SUMMARY
PROCEDURE, the immediate execution of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court may not be effected unless prior notice of
the judgment or order had been served on the losing party
and proof of such service accompanies the motion for
execution of the judgment.
An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will NOT vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts in the amended pleading.
It is not only the filing of the complaint, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.
The issue of EXPROPRIATION is primarily the right of the
government to expropriate, which is NOT CAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION, and recovery of just compensation
is merely incidental to the expropriation proceedings.
Therefore, jurisdiction of ALL expropriation proceedings are with the regional trial courts, regardless of the value of the subject property.
The pendency of an action questioning the ownership of
property will not divest the city or municipal trial court of its
jurisdiction over the ejectment case and neither will it bar the
execution of a judgment thereon.
It is incorrect for the RTC to dismiss a forcible entry case on
appeal on the ground that it can only decide the issue of
possession after the issue of ownership would have been
The Courts cannot set aside administrative decisions on
matters within their executive jurisdiction except upon proof
of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
Parties must first avail of all the means afforded by
administrative processes prior to seeking the intervention of
Findings of fact of administrative tribunals (e.g. NTC) will be
accorded respect, and on occasion, even finality, by reason of
their acquired expertise on specific matters within their
The allegations in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of the court. The court need not go beyond such allegations (i.e. prove them) in order to determine the issue of jurisdiction.
When TENANCY is averred as a defense and is shown, prima
facie to be a real issue, the MTC must dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction as the issue of tenancy is properly under
the jurisdiction of the the DARAB.
All controversies on the implementation of the CARP fall under
the jurisdiction of the DAR, even though they raise questions
that are also legal or constitutional in nature.
The phrase \u00b3in connection with\u00b4 in Sec. 29 of the SMA
pertains both to the imposition and non-imposition of the S.M.
and the jurisdiction upon appeal lies with the CTA.
All types of ejectment cases are now under summary
procedure regardless of WoN the issue of ownership is pleader
by a party. Under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure,
the adjudication of cases can be done on the basis of
affidavits and position papers.
Where there is only ONE wrong/ONE injury arising from
SEVERAL WRONGFUL ACTS, there is only ONE CAUSE OF
ACTION, regardless of the number of rights violated.
Full payment made by some and their subsequent release
resulted in the extingushment of the liability of the other
The filing of a seaparate action for the claim for a surcharge
(when there was already an action for the claim of the
deficiency), which arose from the same action violating the
same right duty correlative, constitutes a splitting of the
cause of action.
The filing of separate complaints for several reliefs arising
from a single Cause of action constitutes a splitting up of a
cause of action and is prohibited by Section 2, Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court.
The land in dispute in one civil case, and the income from that
land being claimed in another civil case arise from the same
cause of action. Therefore, the filing of the second case
constitutes a splitting of the cause of action.
Where the TWO COMPLAINTS are based on TWO DISTINCT
DEBTS (one for payment of check in Manila and the other for
foreclosure of mortgage to satisfy debt in Quezon City), there
are TWO DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION and therefore, the
rule against splitting of a single cause of action does not
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES DOCTRINE:
The jurisdiction of an administrative agency to resolve issues
which are within its competence and expertise cannot be
rejected after it has been invoked.
A REPRESENTATIVE is one who does not stand to be benefited
or be injured by the judgment, therefore, the action may not
be brought in his name.
The consequence of the action being brought in the name of a
representative or one who is NOT a real part in interest:
MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground of FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION
There is/may be a cause
of action but it was not
There was no problem in
the pleading, but the
facts alleged lead to the
conclusion that there is
NO cause of action
A PROPER PARTY is one which ought to be party if complete relief is to be accorded as between those already parties but even if it was not impleaded.
Joinder of admittedly PROPER PARTIES is PERMISSIVE, that
judgment will be decreed even if all the parties are not
present if the court will be able to proceed to a decree and do
justice to the parties already before it, without injury to those
who are absent but equally interested in the litigation and
who cannot conveniently be made parties to the suit.
Interest existing in some other persons whom the process of
the court cannot reach will not prevent a decree upon the
CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint (the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology) is of common and general
interest to not just to several individuals but to all citizens of
The standing of the petitioners to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based upon the concept of
INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY regarding the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.
An action does NOT become a class suit merely because it is
designated as such in the pleadings.
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the
ATTENDING FACTS and the existence of which, which should
be ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT:
2. The existence of a class and the number of persons in the
alleged class, in order that the court can determine whether
the members of the class are so numerous as to make it
impracticable to bring them all before the court and
The consent of the state to be sued must emanate from
statutory authority, hence from a legislative act and without
such consent, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
Pleadings and remedial laws should be LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED in order that the litigants may have ample
opportunity to prove their respective claims. Possible denial of
substantial justice due to technicalities should be avoided.
The courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default
because default judgments are generally frowned upon,
unless it clearly appears that the reopening of the case it
intended for delay.
The remedy for a complaint with unclear/general allegations
is a MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
The complaint must allege the ULTIMATE FACTS upon which
the plaintiff bases his cause of action.
Bare statements of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, not sustained by
a statement of facts, does NOT aid in the setting forth of a
cause of action.
A complaint must state ULTIMATE FACTS constituting the
three essential elements of a cause of action:
1. The existence of a legal right in the plaintiff,
2. The correlative duty in the defendant, and
3. the act/omission of defendant in violation of the plaintiff\u00b6s
Otherwise, the complaint must succumb to a motion to
dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, such that one is entitled to
something or an act is unlawful wrong, add nothing to the
pleading, it being necessary to plead specifically the facts
upon which such conclusion is founded.
GENERAL RULE: The genuineness and due execution of the
instrument is deemed admitted unless the adverse party
under oath, specifically denies them.
Failure to specifically deny the due execution and genuineness
of an instrument amounts to a JUDICIAL ADMISSION which is
conclusive and, consequently, the instrument need not be
presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an
Now bringing you back...
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.