You are on page 1of 4

HOME GUARANTY Case

:

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the
right to act in a case.
In addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the law, the rule is
settled that a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
1. the relevant allegations in the complaint,
2. the law in effect when the action is filed, and
3. the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.
4. In cases where fees are prescribed, a court acquires jurisdiction
over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and
docket fees − this is in consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules of Court which provides that the prescribed fees
shall be paid in full “upon the filing of the pleading or other
application which initiates an action or proceeding

DAVAO LIGHT vs. CA: (Jurisdiction vs Venue)
 Venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by
consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the
consent of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county
may be waived by the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the
court may render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or
agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.
NOCUM vs TAN: (Jurisdiction vs Venue)
(a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where the case
is to be heard or tried;
(b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law;
(c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a
relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and,
(d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred
by the act or agreement of the parties.
PADLAN vs DINGLASAN: (How to determine a court’s jurisdiction over the case?)

specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved. an examination of the complaint is essential. In order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.  The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.  The nature of an action. the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case. experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact  ELEMENTS: 1. which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff. irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. the issuance of the writ of execution because the respondent’s appeal was not perfected. OMICTIN vs CA: (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction) . 2. 3. if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise. as in this case. the RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the prevailing party. jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.  Once vested by the allegations in the complaint. where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge. BAGUNU vs SPS AGGABAO: (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction)  Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. courts must refrain from determining a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter. relief must first 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. as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it. GONZALES vs PE: (Doctrine of Residual Power/Jurisdiction)  prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA. However.

experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact. and to control. other view)  The court cannot exercise jurisdiction if the case is cognizable by an administrative body which has an original and exclusive jurisdiction of the matter as granted by law.  Definition: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. . CABILI vs HON. jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). For agrarian reform cases. the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. more specifically. in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).  The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment. in furtherance of justice. The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same. The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. for its execution and over all its incidents. SPS FAJARDO vs FLORES: (same doctrine as Agra)  The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. BALINDONG: (Doctrine of Judicial Stability/ Non-Interference)  The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice. AGRA vs COA: (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction. where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge. to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts.

and the raising of new issues amounts to the filing of a petition beyond the reglementary period The purpose of this rule is to provide all parties to a case a fair opportunity to be heard. may not interfere with each other's cases. the Court may rule otherwise under meritorious and exceptional circumstances. The various branches of a Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) being co-equal.  To allow respondent Judges to proceed with the trial of the actions for damages against the petitioner. theories. because said memorandum is supposed to be in support merely of the position taken by the party concerned in his petition. a co-equal judge of a coequal court. judgments and orders HEIRS OF MARASIGAN vs MARASIGAN: (Questions on jurisdiction must be raised on the earliest opportunity)  Court Resolution: no new issues may be raised by a party in his/its Memorandum and the issues raised in his/its pleadings but not included in the Memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits.VILLAMOR vs SALAS: (Doctrine of Judicial Stability)  ISSUE: Whether or not take cognizance of the actions for damages against another Judge for allegedly having rendered an unjust order of direct contempt against a party seeking for relief/damages?  No. namely. it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. are vested with authority to review and correct errors of the trial courts. . No Regional Trial Court can pass upon and scrutinize.   The raising of additional issues in a memorandum before the Supreme Court is irregular. and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another Regional Trial Court and sentence the judge thereof liable for damages without running afoul with the principle that only the higher appellate courts. justice and due process TIJAM vs SIBONGHANOY: (exceptions to the above rule)   While it is the general rule that neither waiver nor estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a court. No new points of law. the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. issues or arguments may be raised by a party in the Memorandum for the reason that to permit these would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play. would in effect permit a court to review and interfere with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.