CIVIL PROCEDURE PREMIDS 8.

Actions or Proceedings not governed by ROC Sec 4, Rule 1, ROC

RULE MAKING POWER OF SC a) Election cases
1. Power of Congress: b) Land registration cases
a) Enact substantive laws c) Cadastral cases
b) Created Courts for enforcement of substantive rights. d) Naturalization proceeding
i. SC is the only constitutional court. Sec 1, Art 8, Consti All e) Insolvency proceedings
other courts are creations of Congress. 9. Actions or Proceedings governed by ROC
c) Define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction of courts. Sec 2, a) Rules are applicable in all courts, unless otherwise provided by SC
Art 8, Consti but may not deprive SC of jurisdiction over the ff. Sec 2, Rule 1
cases:Sec 5, Art 8, Consti b) Rules shall govern the procedure observed in actions, civil or
2. Rule-making power of SC: Sec 5(5), Art 8, Consti criminal and special proceedings Sec 3, Rule 1
a) Promulgate remedial law - promulgate rules concerning the 10. ROC may only apply SUPPLETORILY in cases filed in administrative
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, bodies and quasi-judicial bodies (COMELEC, CSC, BOARD OF
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice MEDICINE, DARAB, RARAD, NLRC for labor cases) as they promulgate
of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the their own respective rules.
underprivileged. Limitations: (1) such rules shall provide a 11. Rules of Civil Procedure shall be liberally construed in order to promote
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
cases; (2) shall be uniform for all courts of same grade; (3) shall not action and proceeding. Sec 6, Rule 1, 1997 RCP
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of a) GR: RCP must be observed notwithstanding the above provision.
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain b) XPN: Abandonment or relaxation of RCP can only be done in the
effective unless disapproved by SC. most exceptional circumstances.
3. Estipona vs Lobrigo – Congress cannot encroach on rule-making powers i. Sumbilla vs Matrix Finance – SC has power and
of SC under Sec 5(5) prerogative to suspend its own rules when justice requires
4. BP 129 – reorganized the judiciary it. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather
5. RA 7691 – expanded jurisdiction of 1st level courts. Congress enacted than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former
but SC enacted Administrative Circular 09-94 which implemented its must yield to the latter.
amendatory provisions. COURTS
6. Congress enacts substantive law but is given teeth by SC’s rule making 1. Court – organ of govt belonging to judicial dept whose function is to apply
power: Ex. RA 7160, Sec. 408: Brgy. Lupon w/ authority to bring parties the laws to a legal controversy pending before it as well as the
for amicable settlement. → Sec 18, RSP SC provided that non-referral to administration of justice.
Lupon is ground for dismissal of the action. Court Judge
7. Rule-making power includes power to amend, repeal, abrogate, relax, Merely the tribunal organized under Preside over the proceedings
or suspend operation of such rules. Ex: authority of law conducted in court or tribunal
a) Neypes vs CA - Notwithstanding Sec. 3, Rule 41 of ROC that an Office Public officer
appeal is to be filed w/n 15 days from notice of judgment/final order, Merely legal fiction, intangible Can be sued
SC said that the filing of such MR would have the effect of giving the Jurisdiction attaches to the Court Jurisdiction does not attach to judge
movant a fresh period of 15 days to file a notice of appeal reckoned 2. The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its judgement is not affected
from the time of receiving the order denying his motion for by the death, resignation, or removal of the judge.
consideration. Constitutional Courts vs Statutory Courts
b) Alonzo vs Villamor - Defect in mere form cannot prejudice as long Constitutional Courts Statutory Courts
as the substance is clearly evident. Under Sec 110, CCP, SC has Created by the Constitution Created by law or by legislature
full power to amend the process, pleadings, proceedings, and Supreme Court CA, RTC, 1st level courts
decisions by substituting, as plaintiff, the real party in interest, 1. Sandiganbayan not a constitutional court (created by PD 1486).
without need of further technicalities. Litigation is not a game of 2. Statutory Courts may not be abolished by Congress because “no law shall
technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the
be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines security of
subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other.
tenure of its members” Sec 2(2), Art 8, Consti
3. SC can only be abolished amending the Constitution. Congress cannot
pass a law abolishing SC
Superior Courts vs Inferior Courts
Superior Court Inferior Court
W/ controlling authority over other Subordinate to another Court;
courts. W/ own original jurisdiction judgment may be reviewed by a
higher tribunal
Can review, revise, modify, or affirm Whose decisions or orders may be
on appeal or on certiorari decisions reviewed, revised, modified, or
or orders rendered by another Court affirmed on appeal or on certiorari by
another court
1. Hierarchy: MTC, MeTC, MCTC, MTC, MTCC → RTC → CA → SC
2. Purpose of hierarchy: sharing of caseload; division of power
3. Ex. of observance of hierarchy of Courts: People vs Mateo - although SC
can review cases where penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or death,
there must be an intermediate review to be conducted by CA
4. Falcis III vs Civil Registrar - Although certiorari is cognizable by SC under
its original jurisdiction, it does not fall under its original and exclusive
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over such petition is shared and concurrent by
RTC, CA, and SC. Falcis filed it directly with the SC. While this falls under
SC jurisdiction, what Falcis filed partakes of the nature of declaratory relief.
It should’ve been filed first with RTC.
Courts of Original Jurisdiction vs Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction
Where a case is commenced; filed Where a case is reviewed
at first instance
1. 1st level courts are courts of original jurisdiction.
a. XPN: When a decision is rendered by a public officer. Ex. Mayor
denies permit to conduct rally in a public place. This is an isolated
case and does not make the MTC an appellate court.
2. RTC as court of original jurisdiction:
a. Crim cases w/ imposable penalty of imprisonment > 6yrs
b. Civil case were subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation
c. Money matters exceeding 20k/50k for MM
3. RTC as appellate court: when reviewing 1st level court decisions
4. CA primarily an appellate court
5. CA as court of original jurisdiction: Petitions for Certiorari, Habeas
Corpus, applications for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and Writ of
Kalikasan, petition for wiretapping of terrorists are filed directly to CA.
6. SC as appellate court: SC is the final arbiter or the court of last resort.
7. SC as court of original jurisdiction: (1) Over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and (2) over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.
a. Note: Not exclusive. RTC may hear and try said petitions.
Remember, RTC has jurisdiction over all cases not falling under
EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of any court.
8. Lupon Tagapamayapa: while it provides that brgy disputes must be
referred to LT or Brgy Captain, it does not make them a court.
Civil Courts vs Criminal Courts
1. All PH courts are empowered to hear both civil and criminal cases,
including SC. Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
2. Art 100, RPC, in conjunction w/ Rule 111, ROC, validate the proposition
that our courts are both criminal and civil courts. There is no such thing as
100% civil court or 100% criminal court.
3. Sandiganbayan: involves public officers committing criminal offenses
such as (1) violations of Anti-Graft and Corruption Act and (2) Arts. 210-
212 of RPC. Characterized as both a criminal and a civil court. Civil aspect:
authority to decide cases such as those involving ill-gotten wealth.
Courts of Law vs Courts of Equity
Courts of Law Courts of Equity
Only administer the laws of the land. Rule according to the precepts of
Dispose of cases according to what equity or justice; “courts of
the law says. “dura lex sed lex” conscience”. Adjudicate based on
justice, fairness, fair play.
1. Our Courts are both courts of law and equity. Ex. principle of laches –
unreasonable delay in bringing a cause of action before the courts,
estoppel – person precluded from asserting something contrary to what is
implied by his previous action, solutio indebiti – something is received
when there is no right to demand it
2. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity, or insufficiency of the laws Art 9, NCC
3. Regulus Devt Corp vs CA - Equity Jurisdiction to provide complete
justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to
the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility
when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of this is to
prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
a. A law may be applicable to a certain case, but this case may have
certain details beyond the contemplation of the letter of the law. That
if the courts do not adjust its application, they would frustrate rather
than facilitate justice.
4. David-Chan vs CA - Equity is applied only in the absence of, and never
against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.
Inherent Powers of the Court Rule 135, Sec 5, ROC
1. To issue and preserve order in its immediate presence
a. Observance of proper decorum
b. Baculi vs Belen – contempt of court - defiance of authority & dignity
of the court. Direct contempt - when a person is guilty of misbehavior
in the presence of or near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings, including disrespect, offensive personalities, or refusal
to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit
or deposition when lawfully required. Indirect/constructive contempt
- committed out of the presence of the court. Improper conduct
 tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice.
2. To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before persons empowered
to conduct judicial investigation
3. To compel obedience to its judgments, orders
a. Ex. Issuance of writ of demolition/writ of execution must be followed
4. To control conduct of its ministerial officers
a. Ex. Sheriff enforcing a judgment
5. To compel attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein
6. To administer oaths in a case pending therein, and in all other cases where
it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers
7. To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
comfortable to law and justice
a. Ordinarily, the court will NOT modify its judgment or correct its order
UNLESS there is a MOTION filed by any of the parties.
b. Remember: Court has inherent power to correct, amend or rectify
its order or judgement in the name of SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
8. To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading to be filed and used
instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records
and proceedings
a. Ordinarily, you are not allowed to present a photocopy, but court has
inherent power to relax the rules to allow the parties to present a
copy of the lost pleading or original. (when documents are lost by
natural calamities)
9. What if the court has to enforce a decision but the law is silent on
how to enforce such. What will the court do? Any suitable process or
mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears comfortable to the
spirit of the said law or rules. Sec 6, Rule 135, 1997 ROC
INTERIM RULES
1. Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction issued by a RTC may be enforced in any part of the
region Sec 3(a), Interim Rules
2. Region* - judicial region of the court which issued such
3. Said writs are enforceable only WITHIN THE JUDICIAL REGION WHERE
THE ISSUING COURT SITS
4. All other processes, whether issued by RTC, MeTC, MTC, MCTC may
be served anywhere in the Philippines, and, in the 1st level courts,
without a certification by the judge of RTC. Sec 3(b), Interim Rules
a. Ex. warrant of arrest; writ of execution can be enforced anywhere
ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES
ENFORCEMENT OF SEARCH WARRANT
1. Sec 2, Rule 126, RR of CrimPro An application for search warrant shall be
filed with the following:
Any Court If crime was committed w/n territorial
jurisdiction
Any court w/n the judicial region If place of commission of crime is
where the crime was committed known
Any court w/n the judicial region Where the warrant shall be enforced
Court where criminal action is If criminal action has already been filed
pending
2. GR: Territorial jurisdiction where the crime is committed
3. XPN: By a court w/in the juridical region where the crime was committed
OR where the search warrant is to be implemented
4. XPN TO THE XPN: Sec 12, Admin Circular 03-08-02 Executive Judges
and/or Vice-Executive Judges of RTC Manila and QC shall have authority
to act on applications filed by NBI, PNP, and ACTAF, for search warrants
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms
and ammunitions, and violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, etc. Only in these cases may the
search warrant be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction where
the issuing court sits.
5. Warrant of arrest and summons can be enforced anywhere in PH.
JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction – power and authority of court to hear, try, and decide a case;
power to enforce the decision or orders issued
2. If a case is filed in the wrong court/no jurisdiction, then any
proceeding/s conducted therein is considered to be null and void.
3. Ex. Case is Homicide and you file it with MTC. MTC renders a judgment,
and it is found out that MTC is w/o jurisdiction. Case is filed anew w/ RTC.
Accused cannot invoke right against double jeopardy because he had not
been put in jeopardy at all as the court in the case, at the first instance,
was without jurisdiction.
4. Ex. UD or FE falls under jurisdiction of 1st level courts. So, if an ejectment
case is filed before RTC, any judgment rendered therein is invalid because
RTC has no jurisdiction to hear at the first instance the case for ejectment.
Jurisdiction Exercise of Jurisdiction
Power of the court to hear, try and Action of the court as conducting the
decide a case; to enforce judgment hearing and rendering judgment
Exercise of the authority that was
given to it by the law
1. Ex. Act of the court in issuing summons and in resolving any and all issues
2. Jurisdiction is NOT affected by any irregularity or error in the
judgement committed by the court in disposing of the case.
Error in Jurisdiction Error in Judgment
When case is filed to a court w/ Court has jurisdiction, yet the judgment
no jurisdiction, yet it still renders rendered is in error
a decision
REMEDY: Question order of RTC REMEDY: File notice of appeal w/n 15
through certiorari or prohibition days. Pay docket/ appeal fee. Ordinary
under Rule 65. W/n 60 days
 appeal under Rule 40. Judgment is not 3. If law provides that a case falls under original jurisdiction of a court, not
necessarily null and void. exclusive, case may be taken cognizance of by several courts
Not continuous action Continuous from lower court 4. ONLY SC has power to hear questions with regards to the factual basis of
1. Important to differentiate to know what remedies will apply. martial law and the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
2. If remedy of appeal is available, you cannot pursue remedy of certiorari. 3 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
Mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
3. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Kung nag lapse na, lapse na 1. Power of the court to hear and try cases of the general class to which the
DIFFERENCE OF CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS proceedings in question belong.
Original Jurisdiction vs Appellate Jurisdiction 2. It is conferred by law. Cannot be conferred by (1) voluntary act, (2)
Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction agreement of the parties, or (3) acquiescence of the court.
Courts where actions/proceedings Courts w/ power to review on a. If a wrong Court made the decision (and jurisdiction is through any
may originally be commenced appeal decisions of lower courts of the 3), decision is not valid.
General Jurisdiction vs Limited Jurisdiction 3. Nature of action determines the jurisdiction of the Court.
General Jurisdiction Limited Jurisdiction 4. Lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Courts competent to decide their No power to decide own jurisdiction; 5. GR: Court motu proprio can dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction,
own jurisdiction and to decide all can only try cases permitted by statute. without any party moving for the dismissal of the case.
kinds of cases Decide specific/particular cases only 6. Only XPN: Tijam vs Sibonghanoy - party cannot invoke jurisdiction of a
RTC: no limit as to the amount 1st level courts: there is a cap as to the court to secure affirmative relief and, after failing to obtain such relief,
cognizable before the RTC amount cognizable before these courts question whether the court had jurisdiction. It took him 15 years.
7. GR: Determination of Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
1. RTC exclusive original jurisdiction: all cases not w/n the exclusive
by the allegations in the complaint OR on the basis of the allegations.
jurisdiction of any court exercising jurisdiction or any court exercising
8. Balibago Faith vs Faith in Jesus - allegations in the complaint
judicial or quasi-judicial functions Sec 19(6), BP 129
determine both the nature of the action and jurisdiction of the court.
2. 1st level courts exclusive original jurisdiction: civil actions where value
The designation or caption is not controlling, for it is not even an
of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
indispensable part of the complaint.
exceed 300k (for MM 400k) exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's
Jurisdiction over the person
fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged. Sec 33, RA 7691 1. Power of the court to render a personal judgment through a compulsory
3. SC original jurisdiction: over petitions for certiorari, mandamus, quo process or by voluntary appearance of a party during the case.
warranto, and habeas corpus; not exclusive. So, as seen above, RTC 2. IN CRIMINAL CASES, court has to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
may also hear and try for said petitions as RTC has jurisdiction over all the accused (1) through arrest with or without a warrant or (2) through his
cases not falling within exclusive jurisdiction of any courts. voluntary appearance before the court.
3. IN CIVIL CASES, court has to acquire jurisdiction over complainant
Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Concurrent Jurisdiction
and defendant for it to validly render a decision.
Exclusive Jurisdiction Concurrent/Coordinate Jurisdiction
a. When complainant files a complaint in court, he voluntarily submits
Case only cognizable by a particular Case may be taken cognizance of by
to the jurisdiction of the court.
court to the exclusion of others different courts; jurisdiction over case
4. How the court acquires jurisdiction:
is shared by & among several courts
a. Over plaintiff/complainant - by filing of a complaint, petition, or
Ex. 1st level courts has exclusive Ex. Writ of Habeas Corpus may be initiatory pleading before the court
original jurisdiction over violation of filed in RTC, it may also be filed in b. Over defendant/respondent – (1) voluntary appearance or (2)
city & municipal ordinances under SC, CA, and RTC. submission by defendant to the court or (3) by proper and valid
their territorial jurisdiction service of summons. Doesn’t matter if he files answer or not.
1. Once a particular court has already taken cognizance of a petition, other 5. When action is a personal action - service of summons must be done
courts may no longer hear the petition based on the same facts. personally, or substituted service of summons. Ex. collection for sum of
2. Case to case basis in filing writ of habeas corpus. If of transcendental money, recover possession of personal property, dec of nullity of marriage,
importance, can file directly to SC. annulment of marriage, action for damages
6. When action in rem – can be service of summons through publication
 Jurisdiction over Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the Person
Conferred by law; hence, cannot be Lack of jurisdiction over the person
waived by the parties. of defendant may be cured by
Cannot be waived by failure to object waiver, consent, silence, or failure to
or by silence, waiver, or consent object
Jurisdiction over the res/thing
1. Court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the subject
matter of the action ex. Replevin – recovery of possession of personal
thing where object can be car. Accion reivindicatoria - where object is land
2. Also includes intangible thing ex. status of marriage to his wife.
3. How acquired – actual or constructive seizure by the court of the
thing – placing in custodia legis
4. Acquisition of jurisdiction over the res is important as it may be substitute
jurisdiction over the person especially in cases where defendant is not a
resident of PH and his whereabouts is unknown.
a. Ex. Ozawa for nullity of marriage, approved despite her absence
5. Ex. Client w/ collectible from foreigner who returned to his native country
w/o any forwarding address. Obviously, personal summons to defendant
could not be served (as a personal action) Will you file a case? REMEDY:
look for property owned by debtor in PH, then apply for writ of attachment;
converting the action from person to in rem. If already in rem, have
summons published through newspaper AND sent to last known address.
Jurisdiction over the issues
1. Power of the court or authority to hear and decide issues raised by the
pleadings of the parties
2. Pleadings are enumerated under Rule 6, ROC. ex. Plaintiff – complaint,
reply; Defendant – answer to the complaint, rejoinder to the reply
3. How acquired: Sec 5, Rule 10, ROC
a. By the pleadings filed by the parties; OR
b. By their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation OR
c. By their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings
4. Issues in a case are determined in the pleadings submitted by the parties.
5. Courts cannot:
a. Tackle issues outside the allegations/counter-allegations in the
complaint or answer
b. Rule on the basis of an issue not found or contained in the pleadings
submitted by the parties
6. Issues of a case will be joined once answer to the complaint is filed.
Jurisdiction over
Jurisdiction over Issues Involved
Subject Matter
Acquired upon Acquired only after filing of answer to the complaint;
filing of complaint upon filing of complaint, Court may already acquire
jurisdiction over subject matter but it is only upon filing
of answer Court acquires jurisdiction over issue
Power to decide a Power to decide issues/resolve legal questions
case itself involved in the case
Conferred by law Conferred by the allegations submitted by the parties
JURISDICTION OF THE 1st LEVEL COURTS
1. Defined under BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
Sec. 33. MeTC, MTC, MCTC shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings where the value of personal property, estate, or amount of
demand for sum of money does not exceed 300k (for MM 400k)
exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged:
Provided, That where there are several claims or causes of action 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;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer: That when defendant raises the question of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in 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 20k (for MM 50k)
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.
Paragraph 1
1. NOTE: There is a need to allege the amount of the claim including amount
of damages; although not determinative of jurisdictional amount, it is
included in the computation of filing fee)
Civil action Probate Proceedings
Personal property or demand for May include real property
payment of sum of money
2. Probate Proceedings - proceeding in court to prove, among other things,
the due execution of the will (testator is not compelled or coerced into the
execution of a will). 300k and 400k for MM still applies
To determine Only principal obligation; interest, damages, attorney’s
jurisdiction fees, litigation expenses, and costs not included
• BUT where in the complaint, plaintiff demanded
payment of principal amount + stipulated interest
(damages, etc excluded) & is already determined in
the complaint – principal amount + stipulated interest
3. BUT in cases where the claim for damages is the
main cause/one of the causes of action - damages
+ atty’s fees + everything
 To determine Principal obligation + interest, damages, attorney’s fees,
docket or litigation expenses, and costs in relation to the
filing fees jurisdictional amount
4. Gomez vs Montalban – If interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable
component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto, and
already determinable at the time of the filing of the complaint, it must be
included in the determination of jurisdiction.
5. Administrative Circular 09-04 and Sante vs Claravall - In cases where the
claim for damages is the main cause/one of the causes of action, the
amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction.
So: damages + atty’s fees + everything
6. Manchester Devt Corp vs CA – A did not specify amount of damages. B
argued for necessity to specify to determine correct amount of docket fees.
A amended the complaint and paid the balance. SC: amending complaint
and paying balance of docket fees does not cure its defect. Action has to
be dismissed; court acquired no jurisdiction over the case. REMEDY: re-
file the complaint and pay again as prior payment was forfeited.
7. Sun Insurance vs CA – (1) filing of the complaint AND payment of docket
fees vests a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. If w/o payment
of the docket fee, Court may allow payment of the fee w/in reasonable time
but not beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. (2) The
same applies to permissive counterclaims (D’s claim against P does not
arise from same transaction as P’s claim), and 3rd party claims.
a. But if compulsory counterclaim (arises from same transaction),
not required to pay.
(3) Where court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by filing of pleading and
payment of filing fee but, subsequently, judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee shall constitute a
lien on the judgment. Clerk of Court must enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee.
8. Tacay vs RTC Tagum – 2 options: (1) If docket fee for recovery of land
had been paid but not for claim for damages, Court should not dismiss the
entire case. Just do not consider claim for damages. It is as if it has not
been filed. (2) Citing Sun Insurance, Court should give plaintiff reasonable
time to pay the balance.
9. Filipinas Shell Petroleum vs CA – no such thing as file now, pay later.
Filing fees are mandatory. Payment of said fees, cannot be made
dependent on the result of the action taken. Instead, litigate as pauper
litigant to be exempted from paying filing fee
10. Suson vs CA – Office of Court Administrator has no power or authority to
exempt any party in the payment of the prescribed fees. Payment of
docket fee is jurisdictional IF WRONG VENUE, PAY AGAIN
11. Gonzaga vs GJH Land – Case is CORRECTLY FILED but raffled to a
wrong court, no additional payment of docket fee is needed. From regular
Court in Muntinlupa to a Commercial Court in Muntinlupa
12. De Leon vs CA - In determining whether an action is capable of pecuniary
estimation, ascertain the nature of the principal action or remedy
sought. If primarily for the recovery of a sum of money - capable of
pecuniary estimation. If basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental
to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, (ex. specific
performance, actions for support, annulment of judgment, foreclose a
mortgage) – not capable of pecuniary estimation.
a. DETERMINE PRINCIPAL REMEDY SOUGHT TO BE RESOLVED.
13. Important to properly characterize the complaint.
14. TOTALITY RULE - where there are several claims or causes of action
between the same parties, embodied in the same complaint, amount of
the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action
a. A owes B: P250k as balance on purchase price of a car; P200k
based on a simple loan; P275k also based on another loan. All debts
are due and a demand to pay went unheeded. If an action is filed
and the causes of action are joined, the basis of jurisdiction would
be the total amount due. RTC has jurisdiction. If each debt is made
the subject of a separate complaint, the MTC, by reason of the
amount, has jurisdiction.
15. Jurisdictional amount for real properties assessed value in tax declaration.
16. For personal properties, value declared in complaint or petition.
17. Lacson vs Reyes - requirement for filing of docket fees also applies to
motion for payment of Attorney’s fees
Paragraph 2
1. 1st level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases, notwithstanding the amount of rentals or the
assessed value of the property. Only go to RTC, CA, SC for appeal.
2. Where issue of possession cannot be resolved w/o passing judgment on
issue of ownership, 1st level courts vested w/ power to resolve issue
of ownership to determining the issue of possession.
a. BUT such judgment merely provisional. Party can still file case
before appropriate court to question issue of ownership. No res
judicata.
b. Will not divest from 1st level court jurisdiction over such case
Paragraph 3
1. Ex. of real actions: affects title to or possession of real property
a. Ejectment
b. accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria
c. Action to annul or rescind a sale of real property
d. Action to foreclose REM
e. Action for recovery of possession
f. Action for partition
g. Action for condemnation of property
2. Real actions other than ejectment cases may be filed with MTC. Value
must not > 20k (for MM 50k); otherwise, RTC Sec 33(2)
3. If involves title to or interest involving real property - value of real property
is based on assessed value in the tax declaration. NOT ZONAL or
MARKET VALUE.
4. Whether “quieting of title” is cognizable under RTC (incapable of
pecuniary estimation) or 1st level courts (assessed value of property)?
5. Valeriano Concha vs Lumocso and Heirs of Sebe vs Heirs of Sevilla -
Action for quieting of title involving real property is now characterized as
real action, which jurisdiction must be determined by the assessed value
of the property CONTROLLING
6. Sabitsana vs Meurtegui - Action for quieting of title is purely incapable of
pecuniary estimation on the basis that it is a declaratory relief under Rule
63. Hence, RTC has jurisdiction
CASES FALLING UNDER THE 1st LEVEL COURTS
st
1. 1 level courts may be assigned by SC to hear and determine cadastral
or land registration cases covering (1) lots where there is no controversy
or opposition, OR (2) contested lots where value does not exceed 100k (to
be ascertained by the affidavit of claimant OR by agreement of claimants
OR from tax declaration of the real property). Their decisions in these
cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTC
(meaning, directly to CA!!) Sec 34, BP 129
2. Sec 34 (cadastral or land registration proceedings) must be differentiated
with Sec 33(3) (recovery of possession, title, interest of real property)
DIFFERENT VALUES.
3. In the absence of all RTC Judges in a province or city, any 1st level court
Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail (presumption of urgency) in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent rtc Judge sit. Sec 35, BP 129
4. NOTE: If you remember previously, you may also file directly with CA.
JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
1. Sec 19, BP 129. RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil
actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Not quantifiable in terms of money. Ex:
a. Specific performance, rescission, enforcement of contract
b. Action for expropriation
c. Action to annul resolution of GOCC
d. Action for injunction against adverse party
e. Action for recognition of illegitimate child and support – main thrust
is the recognition of filiation here whether leg or illeg
f. Interpretations of contracts
g. Declaratory relief (Rule 63)
h. Petition for correction of entries in birth records
i. Foreclosure of mortgage
j. Annulment of judgment
k. Action questioning validity of mortgage
l. Action to annul deed of sale and
2. Capable of pecuniary estimation:
a. Action for sum of money
b. Action for Replevin – property subject matter can be equated or
quantified in terms of money
c. Action for interpleader – SM is either personal or real property
Action for Specific Perf/Rescission of Contracts Involving Real Property
3. Sps Saraza vs Francisco – action for specific performance to enforce
contract to execute a deed of sale is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Although action involves real property, it is just incidental to the main
cause of action that is specific performance.
4. Manuel Ruiz vs J.M. Tuazon - Although title of the complaint was that of
specific performance but considering that it involved a real property and
the primary objective is to have the property recovered, it was
characterized as a real action. Capable of pecuniary estimation.
5. Russel vs Vestil - Main purpose of A was to have the document annulled,
the action filed was incapable of pecuniary estimation. While complaint
also prays for partition of the property, it is only incidental to the main
action, which is the nullity of the document above described.
6. Barrido vs Nonato - Action for partition of a property, treated as real action.
Partition was merely incidental to the main action that is rescission or
nullity of contract.
7. WHAT IS CONTROLLING IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE ACTION; THE
NATURE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACTION OR REMEDY SOUGHT.
8. If partition as main action; recover real property → real action.
9. If rescission or nullity of document, incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Whether action is real action or action incapable of pecuniary estimation
10. Rusell vs Vestill - partition of property is incidental to the main action, which
is nullity of the documents.
11. Brgy Tiapi vs Vestil - Where ultimate objective is to obtain title to real
property, it is considered a real action and should thus, be filed with the
proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value
12. Sec 19(3), BP 129 RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim
exceeds 300k (for MM 400k)
13. Admiralty or maritime case – carriage of goods
14. Sec 19 (4), BP 129 RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
matters of probate proceedings, both testate and intestate, where the
gross value of the estate exceeds 300k (for MM 400k)
15. Sec 19(5), BP 129 RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations
a. RA 8369 provides that actions involving contract of marriage and
marital relations would have to be filed and are cognizable by
Family Courts (RTC designated to act as Family Courts)
16. Sec19(6), BP 129 RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
cases not w/n the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising jurisdiction or xxx judicial or quasi-judicial functions
 a. Remember, RTC are courts of general jurisdiction. Where a case
does not fall under exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, RTC
may take cognizance quo warranto proceedings, writ of amparo,
writ of habeas data. Writ of kalikasan exclusive to CA tho
17. If you want to annul a MTC judgment based on extrinsic fraud, then you
can file your action before RTC, because it is court of general jurisdiction
18. If case is already under exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court,
then RTC is without jurisdiction
19. Lupangco vs CA - RTC can decide cases involving purely administrative
function. Here, what is involved are resolutions of PRC acting as quasi-
legislative body. Had PRC exercised as quasi-judicial body in releasing
the resolution, CA would acquire exclusive jurisdiction. But it was a
resolution issued by PRC in its administrative function.
20. Sandoval vs Caneba - It was an action for collection of unpaid installments
but considering that it involves a developer and a buyer, and considering
that the case falls squarely under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB,
then RTC therefore is without jurisdiction.
21. Medical Plaza vs Cullen - it involved an intra-corporate dispute between
stockholder and corporation. It is an action for damages but should be
taken cognizance by an RTC designated as a special commercial court
22. Sec 19(8), BP 129 RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or value of
property in controversy exceeds 300k (for MM 400k) Remember above
when taken into consideration with Sec 33(1)
23. Ortigas and Co vs Herrera - Although it involves a sum of money, the
transaction involves a contract of deposit. A is compelling B to comply with
the agreement to return the money; to enforce agreement. Therefore, it is
an action for specific performance (not capable of pecuniary estimation)
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF RTC
1. Sec 21, BP 129 RTC shall exercise original jurisdiction:
a. 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 region.
i. May be filed with RTC, CA and SC.
b. In actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls
i. May be filed by RTC and SC only.
2. NOTE: Validity or enforceability of writs issued by RTC is limited only
w/ respective judicial region (limited jurisdiction) BUT those issued
by CA and SC may be enforced anywhere in PH.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF RTC
1. Sec 22, BP 129 RTC shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by 1st level courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. The
decision of RTCs in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review
to CA which may give it due course only when petition shows prima facie
that RTC has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal
or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
a. If case originated in MTC and reviewed by RTC, the records of the
case will be forwarded to RTC. Once a notice of appeal is filed w/n
+ appeal fee has been paid, MTC will elevate the entire records to
RTC. RTC will almost always require parties to submit their
respective memoranda or Brief
2. Decisions rendered by MTC if you want it to be reviewed by RTC
REMEDY ordinary appeal → file a notice of appeal with MTC
3. If the RTC affirms decision of MTC and you want it to be reviewed
further by CA REMEDY file petition for review under Rule 42 with CA
Notice of Appeal (Ordinary Appeal) Petition for Review
Appeal to CA in cases decided by RTC Appeal to CA in cases decided by
in the exercise of its original RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction jurisdiction in accordance w Rule 42
Filing w/ the court which rendered the Petition for review is filed with CA
judgment appealed from
Perfected as to the appealing party Perfected as to the petitioner upon
upon his timely filing of notice of the timely filing of petition for review
appeal + payment of docket fee before CA
RTC loses jurisdiction upon perfection RTC loses jurisdiction upon
perfection and expiration of time to
appeal
Non-payment w/n the reglementary Non-payment is not the only ground
period is mandatory and jurisdictional, to dismiss
non-compliance is fatal to the appeal
Upon perfection, it is matter or right Discretionary appeal, may be
disallowed by the superior court in its
discretion
Upon perfection, Clerk of court of RTC Not required under Rule 42, except
has to immediately transmit the upon order of the CA when it is
records to the CA deemed necessary
1. CA may dismiss petition for review outright when there is no prima facie
evidence that RTC committed reversible error with the findings of facts and
conclusions
2. Brief – where you will plead your argument
3. RTC’s jurisdiction is limited to decision rendered by MTC w/in its territorial
jurisdiction
JURISDICTION OVER INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTES
Sec 5.2, RA 8799 transferred jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes from
the SEC to RTC (Special Commercial Court) designated by the Supreme Court
JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS
1. Sec 9(1), BP 129 CA shall exercise original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction
2. Sec 9(2), BP 129 CA shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over 5. Sec 4, Art 17, Consti SC, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
actions for annullments of judgments of RTCs contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President
a. Annulment of judgment of RTC (original action) DIFFERENT from or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose
ordinary appeal (mode of review) 6. Sec 11, Art 8 Members of SC and judges of lower courts shall hold office
3. Sec 9(3), BP 129 CA shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over during good behavior until they reach the age of 70yo or become
all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs and quasi- incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. SC en banc shall have
judicial agencies, boards or commission (SEC, SSC, ECC and CSC) the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by
4. RA 7902 - decisions rendered by Civil Service Commission would be a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
reviewed by CA, not necessarily SC deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon
5. Pp vs Mateo - when the penalty imposed is death, CA conducts an 7. Sec 18, Art 7 SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
immediate review of the case before it is reviewed, if warranted, to the SC. citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
You can only bypass the CA if it involves pure questions of law, not law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
questions of facts or mixed questions of facts and law. SO lower and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from filing.
courts can rule upon validity of a law 8. Sec 2, Art 8 Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
6. If pure questions of law → go directly to SC apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but SHOULD NOT deprive
7. If questions of facts and law → still needs to pass through CA SC of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
8. Power of CA to conduct hearing and receive evidence 9. Sec 30, Art 6 No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction
a. GR: CA will only consider the decision or in its decision, the of SC as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence
evidence presented and passed upon by the trial court
b. XPN: When trial court failed to consider a particular evidence that
CA may, on appeal, consider additional, or where the parties
present additional evidence. Not mandatory tho
9. Linger and Fisher vs IAC - power of CA to receive evidence refers only to
incidental facts which were not 100% touched upon, or matters which were
simply overlooked by the trial court. SO, you cannot choose not to present
evidence before RTC – malugi ka sa CA
JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF SUPREME COURT
1. Jurisdiction of SC is governed by the Constitution. Sec 5, Art 8, Consti
2. SC shall exercise original jurisdiction over cases:
a. Affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls
b. Over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
3. SC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus against the following:
a. CA
b. COMELEC
c. COA
d. Sandiganbayan
e. Court of Tax Appeals
No courts higher than these court other than SC
4. Appellate jurisdiction of SC Sec 5(2), Art 17, Consti
a. All cases involving constitutionality of the law
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
d. All criminal cases w/ penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher
e. Error or question of law is involved