e.

Regional Trial Courts

Page 101 of 1530

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (RTC)

Page 102 of 1530

a. All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation [Sec. 19(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Test: If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation. On the other hand, where the basic issue is
something other than the right to recover a sum of money, and the money
claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought,
such actions are cases where the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Heirs of Padilla v. Magdua, G.R. No. 176858 (2010),
quoting Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, G.R. No. L-27343 (1979)]

An action to nullify a Deed of Assignment and Conveyance is not one involving

a subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation if the plaintiff also seeks to
the transfer of possession and control of properties: In Home Guaranty v. R-II
Builders [G.R. No. 192649 (2011)], an action that sought the nullification of a
Deed of Assignment and Conveyance was characterized by the respondent
on an MR before the SC as one involving a subject matter incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The SC disagreed and held that since the action was not
solely for the annulment of the Deed of Assignment and Conveyance - indeed,
the respondent consistently sought the transfer of possession and control of
properties - following the its ruling in Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty
Page 103 of 1530
Development Corp. v. Formaran III, G.R. No. 175914 (2009), the subject of the
action was capable of pecuniary estimation.

However, if the principal nature of an action to cancel a contract to sell, where

the defendant has already taken possession of the property, involves a
determination on whether a suspensive condition has been fulfilled - then the
subject matter involved is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation: In
Olivarez Realty v. Castillo [G.R. No. 196251 (2014)], the action instituted in the
trial court was one for the cancellation of a contract to sell, and prior to the
institution of the action the defendant had already proceeded to occupy the
property involved. In this instance, the SC held that the action involved a
subject matter that was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The difference in
the ruling of the SC here and in Home Guaranty lies in that fact that in Olivarez
Realty, what the plaintiff had principally sought was a determination that a
suspensive condition for the perfection of the contract had not been fulfilled:
“the trial court principally determined whether Olivarez Realty Corporation
failed to pay installments of the property’s purchase price as the parties agreed
upon in the deed of conditional sale. The principal nature of Castillo’s action,
therefore, is incapable of pecuniary estimation.”

Page 104 of 1530

 See also: Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo [G.R. No. 208232 (2014)], where an action to
redeem a land subject of a free patent was characterized by the SC as one
whose subject matter was incapable of pecuniary estimation since the
reacquisition of the land was merely incidental to and an offshoot of the
exercise of the right to redeem the land, pursuant to Sec. 119 of CA 141.

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation [Barangay San

Roque v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, G.R. No. 138896 (2000)]

Lastly, an action for specific performance in one incapable of pecuniary

estimation. [Russel v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738 (1999)] Any amount of damages
claimed in addition to the prayer for specific performance is not determinative
of jurisdiction. [1 Riano 135, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

b. Civil actions involving title to, or possession of real property, or any interest
therein, where assessed value exceeds P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or
exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila [Sec. 19(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Exception: Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (FEUD) cases, as FEUD cases are
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC. [Sec. 33(2), B.P. 129, as
amended by R.A. 7691]
Page 105 of 1530
 An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiff's cause of
action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal
rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
same. Title is the "legal link between (1) a person who owns property and (2) the
property itself." [Heirs of Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla, G.R. No. 174497 (2009)]

c. Any action if the amount involved exceeds P300,000 outside Metro Manila or
exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila in the following cases [B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 7691]:
1. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the amount refers to
demand or claim [Sec. 19(3)]
2. Matters of probate (testate or intestate), where the amount refers to gross
value of estate [Sec. 19(4)]
3. In all other cases where the amount refers to the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses,
and costs [Sec. 19(8)]

d. All actions involving the contract of marriage and family relations [Sec. 19(5),
B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691], and all civil actions and special
proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
Page 106 of 1530
 Note: This jurisdiction is deemed modified by Sec. 5, R.A. 8369, the law
establishing the Family Courts. However, in areas where there are no Family
Courts, the cases within their jurisdiction shall be adjudicated by the RTC [Sec.
17, R.A. 8369; 1 Riano 147, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

e. All civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Reform [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by
R.A. 7691]

f. All cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions [Sec. 19(6), B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 7691] This jurisdiction is often described as the “general jurisdiction” of
the RTC making it a court of general jurisdiction. [1 Riano 146, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

g. Intra-corporate controversies
1. Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of board of
directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud
and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to interest of public and/or
of stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations
registered with SEC

Page 107 of 1530

 2. Controversies arising out of intracorporate or partnership relations, between
and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of
them and corporation, partnership or association of which they are
stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns
their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
3. Controversies in election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or
managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations
4. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in state
of suspension of payments in cases where corporation, partnership of
association possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees
impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases
where corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to
cover its liabilities, but is under management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or
Management Committee [Sec. 52, Securities and Regulations Code]

h. Petitions for declaratory relief [Sec. 1, Rule 63]

i. Cases originally falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan where the information:
1. Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
Page 108 of 1530
2. Alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely
related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding P1 million. [Sec. 4,
P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

Page 109 of 1530

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (RTC)

Page 110 of 1530

1. With SC
a. Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls [Sec. 21(2), B.P.
129]
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts [1
Riano 93, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
c. Quo Warranto petitions,
d. Writ of Habeas Corpus,
e. Writ of Amparo, and
f. Writ of Habeas Data

2. With CA
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and
bodies
b. Quo warranto petitions, and
c. Writ of Habeas Corpus [1 Riano 96, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
d. Writ of Amparo, and [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo
e. Writ of Habeas Data [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

3. With Sandiganbayan
a. Writ of Amparo, and
b. Writ of Habeas Data
Page 111 of 1530
APPELLATE JURISDICTION (RTC)

Page 112 of 1530

Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts (i.e. MTC) in their
respective territorial jurisdictions, except those made in the exercise of delegated
jurisdiction, which are appealable in the same manner as decisions of the RTC.
[Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended]

Page 113 of 1530

SPECIAL JURISDICTION (RTC)

Page 114 of 1530

Special jurisdiction - SC may designate certain branches of RTC to try exclusively
criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land
reform cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body and other
special cases in the interest of justice [Sec. 23, B.P. 129]

Page 115 of 1530

f. Family Courts

Page 116 of 1530

a. Criminal cases where one or more accused is below 18 but not less than 9
years old or where one or more victims was a minor at time of commission
of offense,
b. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus in relation
to children,
c. Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof,
d. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and
those relating to status and property relations of husband and wife or those
living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for
dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains,
e. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment,
f. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Family Code,
g. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or
neglected children, voluntary or involuntary commitment of children,
suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority, and other cases
cognizable under P.D. 603, E.O. 56, s. 1986, and other related laws,
h. Petitions for constitution of family home,
i. Cases against minors cognizable under Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended,
(now R.A. 9165)
j. Violations of R.A. 7610, or the “Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”, and
Page 117 of 1530
k. Cases of domestic violence against Women and Children. [Sec. 5, R.A. 8369]

Page 118 of 1530

g. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Page 119 of 1530

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (MTC)

Page 120 of 1530

 a. Where the value of personal property, estate, or amount of demand does not
exceed P300,000 outside Metro Manila or does not exceed P400,000 in
estate Metro Manila, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and costs, in the following cases:
1. Civil actions,
2. Probate proceedings, (testate or intestate)
3. Provisional remedies in proper cases. [Sec. 33(1), B.P. 129, as amended by
R.A. 7691]
totality
Totality Rule
If several claims or causes of action are embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of all the demands shall be the basis in computation of the amount
involved, if
1. Claims are in the same complaint
2. Claims are against the same defendant
3. No misjoinder of parties [1 Riano 104, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

b. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer ; - ' (FEUD) Note: When defendant raises
questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
feud cannot be resolved without deciding issue of ownership, the latter issue

Page 121 of 1530

 shall be resolved only to determine the former issue [Sec. 33(2), B.P. 129, as
amended by R.A. 7691]
c. All civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where assessed value of property or interest therein does not
exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or does not exceed P50,000 in Metro
Manila [Sec. 33(3), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
d. Inclusion and exclusion of voters [Sec. 49, Omnibus Election Code]

Page 122 of 1530

SPECIAL JURISDICTION (MTC)

Page 123 of 1530

Special jurisdiction over petition for writ of habeas corpus OR application for bail
in criminal cases in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city. [Sec. 35,
B.P. 129]

Page 124 of 1530

DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Page 125 of 1530

Delegated jurisdiction of 1st level courts assigned by SC to hear and decide
cadastral and land registration cases covering
a. Lots where there is no controversy or opposition
b. Contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, the value is to
be ascertained:
1. By the claimant’s affidavit
2. By agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; or
3. From corresponding tax declaration of the real property

MTC decisions in cadastral and land registration cases are appealable in the
same manner as RTC decisions, since MTCs acting in their delegated capacity
are treated under law like RTCs. [Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Page 126 of 1530

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1ST LEVEL COURTS

Page 127 of 1530

1. Metropolitan Trial Court - in each metropolitan area established by law [Sec. 25,
B.P. 129], particularly Metro Manila [Sec. 27, B.P. 129]

2. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities - In every city not part of a metropolitan area [Sec.
29, B.P. 129]

3. Municipal Circuit Trial Court - in each circuit comprising such cities and
municipalities grouped together pursuant to law [Sec. 25, B.P. 129]

4. Municipal Trial Courts - in municipalities not comprised within a metropolitan

area and a municipal circuit [Sec. 30, B.P. 129]

Page 128 of 1530

4. Aspects of Jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction over the Parties

J o t p r t t p o t c t m d t a b o p.

Page 129 of 1530

Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that
are binding on persons. [De Pedro v. Romansan Development Corp, G.R. No.
194751 (2014)]

It is also called jurisdiction in personam which is the power required before a court
can enter a personal or an in personam judgment. [Pennoyer vs Neff, 95 US 714
(1878)]

It is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil or criminal, except
in actions in rem or quasi in rem. [Guy v. Gacott, G.R. No. 206147 (2016)]

Kinds:
a. Over the plaintiff
b. Over the defendant
c. Over non-parties - It is a principle of equity that jurisdiction over a person not
formally or originally a party to a litigation may nevertheless be acquired,
under proper conditions, through the voluntary appearance of that person
before the court. [Rodriguez v. Alikpala, G.R. No. L-38314 (1974)]

Page 130 of 1530

i. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired

Page 131 of 1530

Courts acquire jurisdiction over a party plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint
[De Pedro v. Romansan Development Corp, G.R. No. 194751 (2014)]

By the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. [Guy v. Gacott, G.R. No. 206147 (2016)]

Page 132 of 1530

ii. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired

Page 133 of 1530

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired:

1. By his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority, or

2. By service of summons.
[Sec. 20, Rule 14; Macasaet v. Co, G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]

Voluntary Appearance of the defendant gives the court jurisdiction over his
person despite lack of service of summons or a defective service of summons.
Since his voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons.

For further discussion on voluntary appearance, see section on Summons.

Page 134 of 1530

b. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

Page 135 of 1530

 i. Meaning of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

J o t s m i t p o a p c t h t t o c t i t b i.

Page 136 of 1530

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of a particular court to hear the
type of case that is then before it [1 Riano 71, 2014 Bantam Ed., citing Black’s Law
Dictionary 767, 5th Ed.]

It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong [Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L48754 (1941)]

Subject matter jurisdiction simply refers to the judicial power that has been vested
in a specific type of court by the legal system, in terms of what kinds of action it
can decide and what powers it can exercise in relation thereto. [Prof. Avena]

Page 137 of 1530

ii. Distinguish: Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction

J i t a t d a c. I i t p o t c.
E o J i t e o s p o a. W t i j o t p a t s m, t d o a o q a i t c i a e o t j.

Page 138 of 1530

Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. It is the power of the court.

Exercise of Jurisdiction is the exercise of such power or authority. Where there is

jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. [Republic v. G
Holdings, Inc, G.R. No. 141241 (2005)]

Page 139 of 1530

iii. How Jurisdiction is Conferred and Determined

Page 140 of 1530

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. [Medical Plaza Makati
Condominium v. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416 (2013)]

The allegations in the body of the complaint define the cause of action. The
caption or title of the cause of action is not controlling. [Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No.
139442 (2006)]

Consequences of rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law; it cannot be: voluntary

a. Conferred by voluntary act or agreement of the parties, agreement
b. Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties,
or waived enlarged or diminished
c. Conferred by the acquiescence of the courts, [De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No.
133882 (2006)] conferred acquiescence of court
d. Conferred by administrative policy of any court, or [Arranza v. B.F. Homes, Inc.,
G.R. No. 131683 (2000)] conferred by administrative policy of court
e. Conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction. [Tolentino v. Social
Security Commission, G.R. No. L28870 (1985)] conferred by court's unilateral
[1 Riano 75-76, 2014 Bantam Ed.] assumption of J

Page 141 of 1530

Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas set up by the defendant in his answer or in
a motion to dismiss, otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims.
[Sindico v. Diaz, G.R. No. 147444 (2004)]

Page 142 of 1530

 iv. Distinguish: Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction and Doctrine of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

T d o p j h t i a c i s t i d r t e, s t a k o t p a b,
r m f b o i a a p b a r i s b t c e i t m m w b w t p j.

Page 143 of 1530

General Rule: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the
proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well
be within their proper jurisdiction. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and
Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the 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. [Province of Aklan v. Jody
King Construction and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]

Exceptions:
a. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine,
b. Where 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,

Page 144 of 1530

e. Where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts,
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, adequate remedy,
k. When strong public interest is involved, and
l. In quo warranto proceedings.
[Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592
(2013)]

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies in which courts cannot determine a controversy involving
a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the
resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal. [International Service v.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia, G.R. No. 209271 (2015)]

Page 145 of 1530

v. Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

Page 146 of 1530

Also known as doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction [1 Riano 85-86, 2014 Bantam
Ed.]

Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it continues until the case is finally
terminated. The trial court cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance [Baritua v. Mercader, G.R. No.
136048 (2001)]

General Rule:
Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a
controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the case is not
affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceeding in another
tribunal [Southern Food v. Salas, G.R. No. 56428 (1992)]

Exceptions:
a. Where there is an express provision in the statute; and
b. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment

[People v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 117970 (1998); Southern Food v. Salas, G.R. No.
56428 (1992)]]
Page 147 of 1530
vi. Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

Page 148 of 1530

When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the claim. [Sec. 1, Rule
9]

The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law
and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
appeal [SEAFDEC v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86773 (1992)]

Under the Amended Rules, a motion to dismiss is now a prohibited motion, but one
of the exceptions provided is the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the claim. [Sec. 12, Rule 15] Moreover, under the Amended Rules, lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter is also an affirmative defense which can be
raised in a defendant’s answer. [Sec. 12(d), Rule 8 in relation to Sec. 5(b), Rule 6]

Page 149 of 1530

vii. Effect of Estoppel on Objection to Jurisdiction

Page 150 of 1530