PINALAGPAT REVIEWER

ALLARIC LUIG PALMARES, J.D. IV,

CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY

Vol. 1

SOURC ES: REGALADO & RIANO

Remedial law reviewer (Civil Procedure)
General Principles
Classification of courts in the Philippines:
a. Courts of general jurisdiction: Those competent to
decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all
kinds of cases, unless otherwise provided by the law or
Rules. Example: Regional Trial Courts.
Courts of special or limited jurisdiction: Those
which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and
can only try cases permitted by statute . Example:
Municipal Trial Courts.
b. Courts of original jurisdiction: Those courts in
which, under the law, actions or proceedings may
originally be commenced.
Courts of appellate jurisdiction: Courts which have
the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of
a lower court.
c. Superior courts: Courts which have the power of
review or supervision over another and lower court.
Inferior courts: Those which, in relation to another
court, are lower in rank and subject to review and
supervision by the latter. While, in a generic sense, a
court is considered an inferior court in relation to the
powers of another tribunal higher in rank, in its technical
sense and unless otherwise intended, it was formerly
provided that the phrase "inferior court" referred to the
then municipal or city courts, now called Metropolitan,
Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Note, also,
that under Sec. 2, Rule 5, the term "municipal trial court"
as used in these revised Rules includes all other courts
of the same rank. In legal circles, they are also called
"courts of the first level." In some official issuances, the
Supreme Court refers to them as "first level courts."
However, the "inferior courts" whose decisions are
subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(Sec. 17, R.A. 296) refer to all the courts lower than the
Supreme Court. The term "lower courts" is now used for
that purpose in the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 5[2], Art. VIII),
in lieu of "inferior courts" used in the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions.
d. Courts of record: Those whose proceedings are
enrolled and which are bound to keep a written record of
all trials and proceedings handled by them.
Courts not of record: Courts which are not required
to keep a written record or transcript of proceedings held
therein.
e. Constitutional courts: Those which owe their
creation and existence to the Constitution and, therefore,
cannot be legislated out of existence or deprived by law
of the jurisdiction and powers unqualifiedly vested in
them by the Constitution. The Supreme Court and the
Sandiganbayan are the only courts specifically provided
for in the Constitution. With regard to the latter, the better
view is that the Sandiganbayan is only a constitutionally-
mandate d court since, although its existence is provided
for in the Constitution, its creation was by statutory
enactment.
Statutory courts: Those created, organized and with
jurisdiction exclusively determined by law. Accordingly,
all other courts in the Philippines are statutory courts.
2. The Court of Tax Appeals created by R.A. 1125 has
been held to be a part of the judicial system vested with
special jurisdiction to act only on protests of private
persons adversely affected by the tax, customs or
assessment laws (Ursal vs. CTA, et al., 101 Phil. 209).
On March 30, 2004, said law was amended by R.A. 9282
expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) and elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate
court with special jurisdiction, of the same level as the
Court of Appeals, and consisting of a Presiding Justice
and 5 Associate Justices who shall sit en banc or in 2
divisions of 3 justices each. The court shall, inter alia,
have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in disputes
arising from the tax law administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, the Regional Trial Courts in local tax
cases, the Com missioner of Customs in matters
administered by the Bureau of Customs, the Central
Board of Assessment Appeals in assessments of real
property, the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of
Trade and Industry in matters specified therein. The
decision of said court en banc may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
The distinction obtaining in other jurisdictions between
courts of law and courts of equity, and among civil,
criminal and probate courts, does not apply in the
Philippines wherein all courts are courts both of law and
equity.
Classifications of Jurisdiction
a. General jurisdiction, or the power to adjudicate all
controversies except those expressly withheld from the
plenary powers of the court; and special or limited
jurisdiction, which restricts the court' s jurisdiction only
to particular cases and subject to such limitations as may
be provided by the governing law.
b. Original jurisdiction, or the power of the court to take
judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action
for the first time under conditions provided by law; and
appellate jurisdiction, or the authority of a court higher
in rank to reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower
court which tried the case now elevated for judicial
review.
c. Exclusive jurisdiction, or the power to adjudicate a
case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at
that stage; and concurrent jurisdiction, sometimes
referred to as confluent or coordinate jurisdiction, which
is the power conferred upon different courts, whether of
the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the
same stage of the same case in the same or different
judicial territories.
Under B.P. Blg. 129, delegated jurisdiction is provided
for, i.e., the grant of authority to inferior courts to hear and
determine cadastral and land registration cases under
certain conditions (see Sec. 34, infra); and special
jurisdiction, which is the power of inferior courts to hear
and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in the absence of all the Regional
Trial Judges in the province or city (see Sec. 35, infra).
This latter type of jurisdiction was formerly included, with
variations, in what was known as the interlocutory
jurisdiction of inferior courts under the Judiciary Act.
Territorial jurisdiction of a court, which refers to the
geographical area within which its powers can be
exercised. This assumes importance in criminal cases
wherein considerations of the territory vis -a-vis the locus
of the crime determine not only the venue of the case but
the jurisdiction of the court; and, in civil cas es, the venue
of real or mixed actions. In all cases, the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals have national jurisdiction; the
Regional Trial Courts have regional jurisdiction; and the
inferior courts have such territorial jurisdiction as may be
defined by the Supreme Court pursuant to Secs, 25, 28
and 31 , B.P. Blg. 129.
Jurisdiction and venue are distinguished as follows:
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.
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.
In criminal cases, the venue of the crime goes into the
territorial jurisdiction of the court, hence where the
criminal action is instituted not in the place specified by
the Rules and declared by the substantive law as within
the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, the motion to
quash should be grounded on lack of jurisdiction, andnot
improper venue.
The authority to decide a case and not the decision
rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. Where
there is jurisdiction, the decision of all questions arising
in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction.
Consequently, a court may have jurisdiction over the
case but at the same time act in excess of such
jurisdiction.
Errors of Jurisdiction vs Errors of Judgment
The errors which a court may commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction differ from errors of judgment. The former is
reviewable in an original action for certiorari, while the
latter is correctible by appeal.
Errors of jurisdiction render a judgment void or, at least
voidable, while errors of judgment are grounds for
reversal only if it is shown that prejudice has been caused
thereby.
Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how
the court acquires such jurisdiction:
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is
acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory
pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This
is acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission
by the defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive
process issued by the court to him, generally by the
service of summons.
.
c. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter: This is
conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties,
cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or
agreement of the parties.
d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is
determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the
case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial
order or stipulation, or, at times, by their implied consent
as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an
issue not covered by the pleadings.
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.
e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing
which is the subject of the litigation): This is acquired by
the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing
in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law which
recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property
or subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as inland
registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or
real property in the Philippines of a nonresident
defendant.
In two instances, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the
case, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the
person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has
jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves the
personal status of the plaintiff or property in the
Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest(see
Sec. 17, Rule 14 as amended). In such cases, the service
of summons by publication and notice to the defendant is
merely to comply with due process requirements. Under
the Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines without a license cannot sue
or intervene in any action here, it may be sued or
proceeded against before our courts or administrative
tribunals.
As a general proposition, the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action, unless such statute
provides for its retroactive application, as where it is a
curative legislation.
The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of the court over
the subject-matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint but this rule is not without exceptions. Thus, it
was held that while the allegations in the complaint make
out a case for forcible entry, where tenancy is averred by
way of defense and is proved to be the real issue, the
case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the
case should properly be filed with the then Court of
Agrarian Relations . However, with the integration of the
courts of agrarian relations as branches of the Regional
Trial Courts under B.P. Blg. 129, the case was required
to be filed with the corresponding Regional Trial Court if
it was within the jurisdiction thereof, for assignment to the
appropriate branch.
The jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil
cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events although of a character which
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance and it retains jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case.
Basic in the law on procedure is the doctrine that the
jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter of an
action is conferred only by the Constitution or the law
and that the Rules of Court yield to substantive law, in
this case, the Judiciary Act and B.P. Blg. 129, both as
amended, and of which jurisdiction is only a part.
Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the agreement of the
parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived,
enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the
parties; neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence
of the court.
The principle of estoppel by laches has been availed
of by our appellate courts to bar attacks on jurisdiction
and this principle has been applied to both civil and
criminal cases .
The doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. Sibong- hanoy, supra,
has been reiterated in many succeeding cases and is still
good case law. The rule up to now is that a party' s active
participation in all stages of a case before the trial court,
which includes invoking the court's authority to grant
affirmative relief, effectively estops such party from later
challenging the jurisdiction of the said court (see,
Figueroa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147406,
July 14, 2008).
Jurisdiction over a person may also be acquired even if
he was never impleaded nor summoned in the action as
a defendant if he thereafter voluntarily submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the court.
Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage, but not to
actions which have already become final and executory.
Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to
that extent.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, a remedy, a
remedy within the administrative machinery must be
resorted to give administrative officers every opportunity
to decide a matter within its jurisdiction. Such remedy
must be exhausted first before the court’s power of
judicial review can be sought.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
in which courts cannot or will not determine controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
question by the administrative tribunal where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact.
Exceptions to Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction/Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
a. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party
invoking the doctrine;
b. Were the challenged administrative act is
patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
c. Where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
d. Where the amount involved is relatively small so
as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
e. Where the question involved is purely legal and
will ultimately have to be decided by the courts
of justice;
f. Where judicial intervention is urgent;
g. When its application may cause great and
irreparable damage;
h. Where the controverted acts violate due
process;
 i. When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
j. When there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;
k. When strong public interest is involved; and
l. In Quo Warranto proceedings;
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction
The doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction means thatonce
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.
Doctrine of Ancillary (incidental) Jurisdiction
This power refers to the authority of an office or tribunal
to do all things necessary for the administration of justice
within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the
enforcement of its judgment and mandate. In other
words, ancillary jurisdiction refers to the power of every
court to adopt such means and perform such acts
necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
Doctrine of Judicial Stability
The doctrine of judicial stability is one which precludes a
court from interfering by injunction with regular orders of
a co-equal court. “The rationale for the rule is founded on
the concept of jurisdiction: a court acquires jurisdiction
over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts, for its execution and over all incidents,
and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with that
judgment” (Tan vs Cinco, GR No. 213054).
Substantive law vs Procedural Law
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates
rights concerning life, liberty or property, or the powers of
instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs.
Procedural law refers to the adjective laws which
prescribe rules and forms of procedure in order that
courts may be able to administer justice.
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights, as
opposed to "adjective or remedial law" which prescribes
the method of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for
their invasion.
Procedure is the mode of proceeding by which a legal
right is enforced, as distinguished from the law which
gives or defines the right, and which, by means of the
proceeding, the court is to administer. This term is
commonly opposed to the sum of legal principles
constituting the substance of the law, and denotes the
body of rules, whether of practice or pleading, whereby
rights are effectuated through the successful application
of the proper remedies .
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme
Court abridges, enlarges or modifies any substantive
right, the test is whether the rule really regulates
procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights
and duties recognized by the substantive law and for
justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard
or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right,
it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right, such as the
right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive
matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an
existing right, then the rule deals merely with procedure
(Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al).
The Constitution limits the rule making power of the
Supreme Court that the rules which the Supreme Court
is authorized to promulgate shall not diminish, increase
or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5 [5], Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The study of civil procedure includes ordinary civil
actions, special civil actions and provisional remedies.
Special civil actions are governed by specific and
individual rules supplemented by the general provisions
on civil actions.
Definition of terms:
a. Cause of action: The delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary
rights of the plaintiff.
b. Right of action: The remedial right or right to relief
granted by law to a party to institute an action against a
person who has committed a delict or wrong against him.
The cause of action is the delict or wrong, while the right
of action is the right to sue as a consequence of that
delict. The question as to whether the plaintiff has a
cause of action is determined by the averments in the
pleading regarding the acts committed by the defendant;
whether such acts give him a right of action is determined
by the substantive law. There can be no right of action
without a cause of action being first established.
A right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause
of action — a remedial right affording redress for the
infringement of a legal right belonging to some definite
person; a cause of action consists of the operative facts
which give rise to such right of action. The right of action
does not arise until the performance of all conditions
precedent to the action, and may be taken away by the
running of the statute of limitations , through an estoppel,
or by other circumstances which do not affect the cause
of action.
object of which is to bar indifferently all who might be
minded to make any objection against the right sought to
be enforced, hence the judgment therein is binding
theoretically upon the whole world. Example:
Expropriation.

There may be several rights of action and one cause of
action, and rights may accrue at different times from the
same cause.
c. Relief: The redress, protection, award or coercive
measure which the plaintiff prays the court to render in
his favor as a consequence of the delict committed by the
defendant.
d. Remedy: The procedure or type of action which may
be availed of by the plaintiff as the means to obtain the
relief desired.
Action in personam: One which is directed
against particular persons on the basis of their personal
liability to establish a claim against them and the
judgment wherein is binding only upon the parties
impleaded or their successors-in-interest. Example:
Action for breach of contract.
Action quasi in rem: One directed against
particular persons but the purpose of which is to bar and
bind not only said persons but any other person who
claims any interest in the property or right subject of the
suit. Example: Judicial foreclosure of a mortgage.

e. Subject-matter: The thing, wrongful act, contract or
property which is directly involved in the action,
concerning which the wrong has been done and with
respect to which the controversy has arisen.
Thus, in a case for breach of contract, the contract
violated is the subject-matter; the breach by the obligor is
the cause of action; the right of action is the consequent
substantive right on the part of the obligee to sue for
redress; the relief is the damages or rescission or the act
which the plaintiff asks the court to order; and the remedy
is the type of action which may be availed of by the
plaintiff, which may be an action either for damages, for
rescission or for specific performance.
A proceeding for attachment of property is in rem if the
defendant does not appear in court, and in personam if
he appears.
c. Transitory action: One the venue of which is
dependent generally upon the residence of the parties
regardless of where the cause of action arose. Example:
Personal action.
Local action: One which is required by the
Rules to be instituted in a particular place in the absence
of an agreement to the contrary. Example: Real action.

The subject-matter of a given case is determined not by

the nature of the action that a party is entitled to bring but
by the nature and character of the pleadings and issues
submitted by the parties .

Classification of actions:

a. Real action: One brought for the protection of real

rights, land, tenements or hereditaments or one founded
on privity of estate only. Example: Accion
reivindicatoria.

Personal action: One which is not founded upon the

privity of real rights or real property. Example: Action for
a sum of money.

Mixed action: One brought for protection or recovery

of real property and also for an award for damages
sustained. Example: Accion publiciana with a claim
for damages.

For purposes of venue, a mixed action is governed by the

rules of venue in real actions.

b. Action in rem: One which is not directed only against

particular persons but against the thing itself and the