REMEDIAL LAW

I. GENERAL PRRINCIPLES
A. Distinguish: Substantive law and Remedial Law
 Substantive law creates, defines and regulate
right concerning life, liberty and property.
(Primicias vs Ocampo, 93 Phil. 446)

 Remedial law lays down the methods by which

those rights or obligations arising from
substantive law are protected, enforced and
given effect.
(Bustos vs Lucero, 81 Phil. 640)

B. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

 The Supreme Court has the constitutional power
to promulgate Rules concerning: (code: 4P ALI)
(Sec.5 paragraph (5), Article VIII of the
Constitution)

 Pleading
 Protection and enforcement of the constitutional
rights
 Practice
 Procedure in all courts
 Admission to practice of law
 Integrated Bar
 Legal Assistance to under privileged

Note: The rule making power of the SC is exclusive. It

is not shared with Congress, more so with the
Executive
(Echegaray v Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, 112).

 SC has the power to amend and suspend rules

( Neypes vs CA, 469 SCRA 633, 643-644)

 Estipona vs Lobrigo, August 15, 2017

-Constitutionality of Sec23 RA 9165 on plea
 bargaining. (Plea bargaining is procedural,
Congress cannot encroach on the rule making
power of the Supreme Court).

 Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of

GSIS for Payment of Legal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-
01-0, February 11, 2010 - The legal fees are
imposed by The Rules of Court. By making
GSIS exempt from the legal fees imposed by the
Rules of Court, the law in effect, amends the
Rules of Court. This cannot be done without
offending the Constitution. The power to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts is a traditional power
of the Supreme Court. It is a power not shared
with Congress. The imposition of legal fees is
provided by the Rules of Court.

 Carpio- Morales vs CA November 10, 2015 –

That Congress has been vested with authority to
define, prescribe, band apportion the jurisdiction
of the various courts under Section 2, Article VIII,
as well as to create statutory courts under
Section 1, Article VIII does not result in an
abnegation of the Court’s own power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and
procedure under Section 5 (5) Article VIII. When
Congress creates a court and delimits its
jurisdiction, the procedure for which its
jurisdiction is exercised is fixed by the Court
through the rules it promulgates.

1. Limitations of the rule-making power of the

Supreme Court
 The Following limitations are imposed by
the Constitution on the Rule-making
power of the Supreme Court: (SUN)
 1. The Rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases.
2. The Rules shall be uniform for all the
courts of the same grade;
3. The Rules shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights.
Sec. 5 (5), Article VIII

2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and

suspend procedural rules
 The Supreme Court has the sole
prerogative to amend, repeal or even
establish new Rules for a more simplified
and inexpensive process, and the speedy
disposition of cases
(Neypes vs CA, Sept. 14, 2005)

 The Supreme Court have the power to

relax or suspend technical or procedural
Rules or to except a case (pro hac vice)
from their operation when compelling
reasons so warrant or when the purpose
of justice requires it. What constitutes
good and sufficient cause is discretionary
upon the courts. (CIR vs Mirant Pagbilao
Corp. Sept. 12, 2008)
Some of the reasons may be:
1. To relieve the litigant from injustice not
commensurate with his failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure;
2. Good faith of the defaulting party by
immediately paying within a
reasonable Classification of time from
the time of the default.
3. The existence of special or compelling
circumstances.
4. The merits of the case;
 5. A cause not entirely attributable to the
fault or negligence of a party favored
by the suspension of the Rules.

C. Nature of the Philippine Courts

1. Meaning of a court
 A court is an organ of the government
belonging to the judicial department the
function of which is the application of the
laws to controversies brought before it as
well as the public administration of justice.
(Black Dictionary)

2. Distinguish: court and judge

 A Judge is simply an officer of such
tribunal.
 A court is a tribunal officially assembled
under authority of law.

Note: Rule that jurisdiction is conferred upon the court, not the judge.
 When a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the case does
not attach to the branch or judge alone to the exclusion of the other
branches. Trial may be held, or proceedings continue by and
before another branch or judge. The apportionment and
distribution of cases do not involve a grant or limitation of
jurisdiction, the jurisdiction attaches and continues to be vested in
RTC of the province and the trials may be held by any branch or
judge of the court.

3. Classification of Philippine Court

 First Level – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in the Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts.
 Second Level – Regional Trial Courts;
 Third Level – Court of Appeals, Court of
Tax Appeals and Sandiganbayan.
 Fourth Level – Supreme Court
 4. Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

 Courts of original jurisdiction - These refers to those courts which,

under the law, have the power to take judicial cognizance of a case
instituted for judicial action for the first time under the condition set
by the law. It is where the case is commenced.

 Courts of Appellate jurisdiction - refers to those courts which have

the power to review on appeal the decisions or order of a lower
court.

5. Court of General and Special Jurisdiction

 Courts of General Jurisdiction – They refer to the courts with

competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and to take
cognizance of all cases except those expressly withheld from
them either by the Rules or by law. A court may also be
considered general if it has the competence to exercise
jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions, e.g., Regional Trial Court.

6. Constitutional and Statutory Courts

 Constitutional Courts are courts which owe their creations the

Constitution itself (CONST. Art VIII, Sec 1) and thus cannot be
legislated out of existence or deprived by law of the jurisdiction
and powers unqualifiedly vested in then in them by the
Constitution. In the Philippines, only the Supreme Court is
constitutional court.
Note: The Sandiganbayan is not a constitutionally- created court.
It was not directly created by the Constitution but was created by
law (PD 186) pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

 Statutory Courts refer to courts created by law other than by the

Constitution. All courts in the Philippines, except the Supreme
Court, are statutory courts.
 7. Courts of Law and Equity

 Court of Law is any tribunal duly administering the law of the land.

 Court of Equity is a tribunal which rules according to the precepts

of equity or justice and is sometimes called “courts of
conscience.” It adjudicates a controversy according to the
common precepts of what is right and just without inquiring into
the terms of the statutes.
Note: Our Courts are both courts of law and equity (DPWH v
Quiwa, Feb. 8, 2012). Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction
is dispensed with the same tribunal. (US v. Tamparong, Aug.
23,1915)

8. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

 Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, where courts have

concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter, such
concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party seeking
relief the absolute freedom to file the case in court of his
choice. Pursuant to the doctrine, the case must be filed first to
the lowest court possible having appropriate jurisdiction.

 Lower courts shall initially decide case before it is considered

by a higher court. A higher court will not entertain direct resort
to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts (Santiago v. Vasquez, Jan. 27,1993).

 Rationale: is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the

limited time of the court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a
delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases,
which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the
lower court as the proper forum under the Rules of procedure,
or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the Court
is not a trier of facts (People v. Azarraga, OCT. 12, 20111)

 Is it the principle of Judicial Hierarchy absolute?

 No. In several cases, the court has allowed direct, invocation
of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction on the following
grounds: (SWINE)
 Special and Important reasons clearly
stated in the petition
 When dictated by public Welfare and the
advancement of public policy.
 When demanded by the broader Interest of
justice.
 When the challenged order were patent
Nullities; or
 When the analogous Exceptional and
compelling circumstances called for and
justified and the immediate and direct
handling of cases (Republic v. Caguioa,
Feb 20, 2013)

9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of

judicial stability

 The doctrine of non-interference holds that the courts of

equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each
other’s orders. It also bars a court from reviewing or
interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over
which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.
The doctrine applies with equal force to administrative
bodies. (Villamor v. Salas, Nov. 13, 1991)
 Exceptions:

II. Jurisdiction

Meaning: It is the power and authority of the court to hear,

try, and decide the case (Barangay Mayamot v. Antipolo City,
Aug. 17, 2016) as well as to enforce or execute its judgments or
final orders (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, Jan. 1999)
  It is conferred by law and not by the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by
erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
only power it has is to dismiss the action. (Mitsubishi
Philippines v BOC)

 Jurisdiction of the court includes the authority to

execute is decision. It includes the power of the court to
control the execution of its decision (Echegaray v
Secretary of Justice, Jan. 1999)

 Is jurisdiction substantive or procedural?

Both. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is substantive as

it is conferred by the Constitution or by law; while
jurisdiction over the person is acquired by his voluntary
submission to the authority of the court or through the
exercise of the coercive processes and is therefore,
procedural. Jurisdiction over the res is obtained by actual
constructive seizure placing the property under the orders
of the court and is also procedural (Zamora v. CA, March
19, 1990)

A. Classification of Jurisdiction
1. Distinguish: Original and Appellate

 Original Jurisdiction – means jurisdiction to take

cognizance of the cause of its inception, try it and pass
judgment upon law and facts (Cubero v Laguna West
Multi-Purpose Coop., Inc., Nov. 30, 2006)

 Appellate Jurisdiction - means the authority of a court

higher in rank to re-examine and overrule decisions of a
lower court which tried the case.

2. Distinguish: General and Special

  General Jurisdiction - means the power of the court or
tribunal jurisdiction to hear, try and decide all kinds of
cases except those prohibited by law.

 Special Jurisdiction - means the power of the court to

hear, try and decide certain type of cases.

3. Distinguish: Exclusive and Concurrent

 Exclusive Jurisdiction - means no other courts or

tribunal has the same jurisdiction over a particular
case.

 Concurrent Jurisdiction - means equal jurisdiction to

deal with the same subject matter (Begnaen v
Spouses Caligtan, August 2016)

B. Doctrine of Hierarchy of the courts and Continuity of

Jurisdiction

 Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

***Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by

law. It is determined by the material averments in the complaint as well as
the character of the relief sought. (Heirs of Florencio Abad v Cabral, Aug
2007)

A court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. The rationale is that the subject matter jurisdiction is
conferred by law, and the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to
take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action. (Francel realty V
Sycip, 2005)

*** Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue of the
party’s voluntary submission to the authority of the court through the
exercise of its coercive processes.
Thus, in civil cases, courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the
filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants is acquired
either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required
by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission
to its authority. (BPI v Sps. Evangelista, 2002)

Jurisdiction over the person is waivable unlike jurisdiction over the subject
matter which is neither subject to agreement nor conferred by consent of
the parties. (Genato v Viola, Feb. 2010)

C. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts

1. Supreme Court
Judicial Power and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
court as may be established by law.

1987 Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

 Exclusive original jurisdiction (4Cs)

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus
against:
1. CA
2. Comelec
3. COA
4. Sandiganbayan
5. CTA

 Concurrent original jurisdiction

Note: While the Rules provide for the concurrent jurisdiction among the
RTC,CA, and SC, the same is still subject to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of
Courts.
  Concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA and
RTC in Petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in
petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus.
 Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in
cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers
and consuls (Sec 21(2, BP 12; Sec 5, Art VII 1987
Constitution

 Appellate jurisdiction (CSCR)

 By way of petition for review on the certiorari

under Rule 45 over decisions and final orders of:

1. Court of Appeals

2. Sandiganbayan

3. CTA en banc

4. Regional Trial Court

 In cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty,

international agreement or executive agreement, law presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, regulation,
legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a
lower court (CONST. Art VIII, Sec 5); and
5. Court of Tax Appeals en banc (RA 9282, Sec
19)

2. Court of Appeals

 The jurisdiction of Court of Appeals is provided by Section 9, BP 129

as amended: Sec. 9 Jurisdiction - The Court of Appeals shall
Exercise:
1. Exclusive Original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of regional Trial Courts.
2. Concurrent with Supreme Court

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against:

a. RTC
b. Civil service Commission
c. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
d. NLRC
e. Other quasi - judicial agencies
2. Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan Rule 7 Sec 3

Concurrent with SC and RTC

1. Petitions for Habeas Corpus

2. Petitions for quo warranto; and
3. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior
courts and other bodies
4. Petitions for continuing mandamus

With the RTC, SC, and Sandiganbayan

1. Petitions for writ of amparo

2. Petitions for writ of habeas data

3. Exclusive Appellate

1. By way of ordinary appeal from RTC and Family

Courts
2. By way of petition for review from the RTC
rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction
3. By way of petition for review from the decisions,
resolutions orders or awards of the
a. Civil Service Commissions
b. Office of the Ombudsman in
the administrative disciplinary
cases and
c. Other bodies mentioned in
Rule 43
 4. By way of ordinary appeal over decisions of
MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases
pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction.
Note: May the CA receive evidence on appeal?
YES. The CA shall have the power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence and perform any all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within is original and appellate
jurisdiction. Sec 9 BP 129 as amended

3. Court of Tax Appeals

The CTA is a court of special jurisdiction, with power to review

by appeal decisions involving tax disputes rendered by either
CIR or the COC. It has no jurisdiction to determine the validity
of a ruling issued by the CIR or the COC in the exercise of their
quasi- legislative powers to interpret tax laws. (RA 9282)

4. Regional Trial Court in Civil Cases

1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is

incapable of pecuniary estimation.
2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand
pesos (20,000.00). or for civil actions in Metro Manila where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of land or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MTC,
Municipal Trial courts and Municipal Circuit Trial courts.
3. Admiralty and maritime cases depending on the amount of
demand or claim (100,000.00) or, in metro Manila where
such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand
pesos (200,000.00)
4. Probate proceedings both testate or intestate depending on
the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (100,000.00) or in probate matters in Metro
Manila where such Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00)
 5. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations. (Family Court Sec 5 RA 8369)
6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions.
7. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of. Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now
provided by law.
8. In all other cases in which demand exclusive of interests,
damages, of whatever kind, attorney’s fees litigation
expenses and costs or the value of the property exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the
above mention items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00)
 RTC has jurisdiction to hear and determine the nullification of the
decree of land registration. RTCs now have the power to hear and
determine all questions, even contentious and substantial ones,
arising from applications for original registration of titles to lands and
petitions filed after such registration. (Lozada v Bracewell, April 2014)

RTC designated as Special Family Court

 Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as Regional Trial
Courts. Under RA 8369 otherwise known as the Family Courts Act of
1997, family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases of domestic violence against women and children. In
the absence of such court in the place where the offense was
committed, the case shall be filed in the RTC where the crime or any
of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant.

a. Criminal Cases where one or more of the accused is below

eighteen years of age (18) but not less than nine years (9) of age
or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense: provided, that if the minor is found
guilty the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil
liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence,
however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant
 to Presidential Decree No. 603 otherwise known as the “Child and
Youth Welfare Code”
b. Petition for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter.
c. Petition for adoption of children and the revocation thereof
d. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of
marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations
of husband and wife or those living together under different status
and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal property
of gains
e. Petition for Support and or acknowledgment
f. Summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code
g. Petition for declaration of status of children, voluntary and
involuntary commitment of children, suspension and restoration of
parental authority
h. Petitions for constitution of family home
i. Cases against minors cognizable under Dangerous Drug Act
j. Violation of RA 7610 amended by RA 7658 “Special Protection of
Children against abuse and exploitation Act”
k. Domestic violence against women and children

RTC designated as Special Commercial Court

 Intra-corporate controversies are not always incapable of pecuniary

estimation for purposes of computing the docket fees.
 The jurisdiction of SEC over Sec 5, PD 902-A was transferred to the
courts of general jurisdiction or to the proper Regional Trial Court
(Gonzales v GJH Land, Inc, Nov 10, 2015)
 Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustee,
officers or managers of such corporations or partnership or
associations.
 Petitions to declare suspension of payment in cases where the
corporation, partnership, association possess sufficient property to
cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them
when they fall due or when there is no sufficient assets to cover its
liabilities but is under the management of a rehabilitation receiver of
management or management committee pursuant to this Decree.

5. Sandiganbayan
 The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
cases involving:
a. Violation of RA 3019 Anti -Graft and Corrupt Practices RA 1379
and Chapter II Sec 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
where one or more of the accused are official occupying the
position in the government whether in permanent acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense. Those with
salary grade “27” and higher.
b. Members of Congress and official thereof classified as Grade “27”
and higher
c. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of the
Constitution
d. Members of the Constitutional Commission
Provided that the RTC shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction
where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the
government or any bribery or (b) alleges damage to the
government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos
(1,000,000.00)

6. Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

courts in the Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate

proceedings, testate or intestate including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of personal property,
estate or amount of the demand does not exceed Three hundred
thousand (300,000.00) outside Metro Manila or in Metro Manila
where. Such personal property, estate or amount of the demand
does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00)
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 whatever the causes
of action arose out of the same or different transaction

b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and

unlawful detainer: Provided, that when such cases the 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.

c. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil action which involve title to

or possession of real property or any of interest therein where the
assessed value or interest therein does not exceed Twenty
thousand pesos (20,000.00) or in civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such assed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(50,000.00)exclusive of interest , damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, that the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value
of the adjacent lots.

— Note: The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in

determining the jurisdictional amount, applies to cases where the
damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main
cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is
the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the
amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court (Sante vs. Claravall, GR No. 173195,
February 22, 2010).

What is the meaning of interest?

 Since the 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 filing of the Complaint, it must be
included in the determination of which court has the jurisdiction over
petitioner's case (Gomez vs. Montalban, 548 SCRA 693).
 THUS:
If interest is only incidental, then it should not be included in the
determination of the jurisdictional amount.
 What is Totality Rule?

 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 (Section 33, BP, 129).

MTC jurisdiction over settlement of estate

 Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate

proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where
such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive of
interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs (Section 33, BP, 129).

Delegated jurisdiction of the MTC (Sec 34 BP129 as amended)

 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear
and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots
where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots
the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), xxxxxx Their decisions in these
cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of
the Regional Trial Courts. COURT OF APPEALS

Special jurisdiction of the MTC

 In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,

any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit
 Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or
city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit (Section 34, BP 129,
as amended).

Venue

— Venue is the place or the geographical area in which a court with

jurisdiction may hear and determine a case or the place where a case
is to be tried (Black’s Law Dictionary; City of Lapu-Lapu vs.
PEZA, GR No. 184203, November 26, 2014).
— Venue in civil cases is procedural and not substantive. Thus, it may
be waived or subject to agreement of the parties.

How is Jurisdiction distinguish from Venue

 Jurisdiction refers to the authority of the court to hear and decide the
case; venue refers to the place where the case is to be heard or tried.
 Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law while venue, of procedural
law.
 Jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties; venue may be waived if
not invoked either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
 Jurisdiction is fixed by law; venue may be fixed by agreement of the
parties.
 Court may dismiss the action motu proprio in case of lack of
jurisdiction.

D. Aspects of Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the parties

 Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to

make decisions that are binding on persons (De Pedro vs.
Romasan, GR No. 194751, November 26, 2014).
 It is the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment
against the party to an action or proceeding (Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 767, cting Imperial vs. Hardy, La 302 So.2d 5, 7,
cited in Riano, Civil Procedure, 2016).
a. How Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired?
 Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by the plaintiff’s filing of
the complaint or petition or other initiatory pleading. By doing
so he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. (Davao
Light and Power Co. Inc. v CA Dec 29,1991)

Defendant
 Jurisdiction over the defendant is obtained either
1. By service of summons: or
2. By his voluntary appearance in court - The defendant’s
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons:
 By filing an answer
 By filing a motion to dismiss, except when the defendant also
raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person (ROC Rule
14, Sec 20)

Jurisdiction over the subject Matter

a. Meaning of Jurisdiction over subject matter:

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is referred to as the power

of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before
it. The term also refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the
class of cases to which a particular case belongs (De Pedro
vs. Romasan Development, GR No. 194751, November 26,
2014).

b. Distinguish: Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction

 Jurisdiction is the authority to hear, determine a case. It does

not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that
power or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. The
authority to decide a case at all, and not the decision rendered
therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is
jurisdiction, the decision of all question arising in the case is but
 and exercise of jurisdiction (Estate of Yujuico v Republic, Oct.
2007)
c. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law

which may either be the Constitution or a statute (City of
Dumaguete vs. PPA, 659 SCRA 102, 119). Only statute can
confer jurisdiction (BF Homes, Inc., vs Meralco, 636 SCRA
495, 510).
NOTE:
 If one wants to know the jurisdiction of the court, he must look
into the law on jurisdiction not the rules of court or any
procedural rule.

If jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law, then:

 It cannot be subject of agreement of the parties.

 It cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any
act or omission of the parties.
 It cannot be conferred by acquiescence by the court.
READ:
 Republic vs. Estipular, 336 SCRA 333, 340
 De Jesus vs. Garcia, 19 SCRAS 554, 558
 Arranza vs. BF Homes, 336 SCRA 333, 340

How jurisdiction over the subject matter determined:

— It is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well as by

the character of the relief sought (Geronimo vs. Calderon, GR No.
201781, December 10, 2014; Cabling vs. Dangcalan, GR No.
187696, June 15, 2016).
— This is regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein
(Continental Micronesia, Inc., vs. Basco, GR Nos. 178382-83,
September 23, 2015; Barangay Mayamot vs. Antipolo City, GR No.
187349, August 17, 2016)
Thus:
— Caption of the case is not controlling (Sps. Erotica vs. Sps.
Dumlao, GR no. 195477, January 25, 2916).
— Defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction (Balibago
Faith Baptis Church, Inc., Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist church, GR
No. 191527, August 22, 2016).
— The amount awarded does determine jurisdiction (Dionisio vs.
Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471, 477).

d. Distinguish: Doctrine of Primary Administrative jurisdiction and

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

GR: The doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction holds that 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 the administrative proceedings
before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter
may be well within the proper jurisdiction. (Province of Aklan v
Jody King Construction and Development Corporation 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 Development Corp.
2013)

 Exceptions:

1. Where there is estoppel on the part of party invoking the

doctrine.
2. Where the challenge administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
3. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complaint.
4. Where the amount involved is relatively small.
5. Where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the court.
6. When judicial intervention is urgent.
7. When the application may cause great and irreparable
damage.
 8. Where the controverted acts violate due process.
9. When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot.
10. When there is no other plain and speedy, adequate
remedy.
11. When strong public interest is involved, and
12. In quo warranto proceedings. ( Province of Aklan v Jody
King Construction, 2013)

e. Doctrine of adherence of Jurisdiction also known as Doctrine of

continuity of jurisdiction.

 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 the jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
(Baritua v Mercader, 2001)

GR: 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, 1992)

Exceptions:
1. Where there is an express provision in the statute; and
2. The Statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its
enactment (People v Cawalig,1998)

f. Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

 When it appears from the pleading 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 the 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, 1992)
 Under the Amended Rules, a motion to dismiss is now a prohibited
motion, but one exception 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.

g. Effect of Estoppel on Objection to Jurisdiction

 GR: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. The
reason for this is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it
affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the action
(Asiatrust Development Bank v First Aikka Development, Inc. 2011)

 Exception: Tijam v Sibonghanoy (1968) espoused the doctrine of

estoppel by laches, which held that a party may be barred from
questioning a court jurisdiction after invoking the court’s authority in
order to secure affirmative relief against its opponent, when laches
would prevent the issue of lack of jurisdiction from being raised for
the first time on appeal by a litigant whose purpose is to annul
everything done in trial in which it has actively participated( Francel
Reality Corp v Sycip, 2005)

Note: Tijam v Sibonghanoy must be construed as an exception to the

general rule and applied only in the most exceptional cases where
the factual milieui similar to that in the said case (Figueroa v People
2008)

Note: Even if Sec 12 (b), Rule 8 of the Amended Rules provide that
the failure to raise an affirmative defense at the earliest opportunity
constitutes a waiver thereof, the failure to raise lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter as an affirmative defense in the answer does
not waive such defense. The retention of Sec 1 Rule 9 maintains the
status of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in the answer
would be to file a motion to dismiss, which can be filed at any point
during the proceedings, subject to the doctrine in Tijam.
Jurisdiction over the issues

 Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to try and
decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties (Reyes v
Diaz, 1941)

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.

 Generally, jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and determined

by:

1. The pleadings of the parties, which present the issues to be

tried and determined whether or not the issues are of fact or
law
2. Stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial the parties
enter into stipulations of facts or enter into agreement
simplifying the issues of the case. Sec 2 Rule 18
3. Waiver or failure of the object to evidence on the matter not
raised in the pleadings. Here the parties try with their express
or implied consent on issues not raised by the pleadings. Sec 5
Rule 10.

 The rule is that a party is entitled only to such relief consistent

with and limited to the sought by the pleadings or incidental
thereto. A trial court would be acting beyond its jurisdiction if it
grants relief to a party beyond the scope of the pleadings.
(Gonzaga v CA, 2004)

4. Jurisdiction over the res or property in Litigation

 This refers to court’s jurisdiction over a thing or the property which

is the subject of the action.

 RES in civil law is a thing or object. It is everything that may form

an object of rights as opposed to a persona which is the subject of
rights. It includes object, subject matter of status.
How acquired:

a. By seizure of the thing under legal process whereby it is brought into

actual custody of the law (custodia legis) or

b. From the institution of legal proceedings, wherein under special

provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized
and made effective (potential jurisdiction over the res.

 In order that the court to exercise power over the res, it is not
necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property,
potential custody thereof being sufficient.

Example: A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, in such a case,

actual possession of the land by the court is not necessary. It is enough
that there is constructive seizure through publication and service.

 Jurisprudence holds that if the action is in rem o quasi in rem

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required. What is
required is jurisdiction over the res, although summons must also be
served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due
process. (Gomez v CA, 2004)

5. Jurisdiction over the remedies

E. Distinguish: error of Jurisdiction and error of Judgment

 Error of Jurisdiction - is one which occurs when the court exercises a

jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law or when the court acts in
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction
Renders a judgment void or at least voidable (Sec 12 Rule 8, Sec 12
Rule 15; Rule 65)
Correctable by extraordinary writ of certiorari.

 Error of Judgement - presupposes that the court is vested with

jurisdiction over the subject matter but in the process of exercising
 such jurisdiction, it committed mistakes in the appreciation of facts
and the evidence leading to an erroneous judgment.
It includes errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings. It
does nit make the court’s decision void.
Correctable by Appeal.

F. Distinguish: Jurisdiction and Venue

VENUE:

 The place or geographical area where an action is to be filed and

tried.
 Can only objected to before the other party files a responsive
pleading (Answer)

May be waived by;

1. Failure to object through motion to dismiss or through an

affirmative defense or

2. Stipulation of the parties.

 Matter of procedural law

 May be stipulated by the parties
 Establishes a relation between the plaintiff and defendant or
petitioner and respondent.

JURISDICTION;

 The power of the court to hear and decide a case.

 Can be brought up at any stage of the proceedings.
 Cannot be waived
 Matter of Substantive law
 Cannot be the subject of the agreement of the parties
 Establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter
 It is a ground for a motu proprio dismissal in case of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter (Sec 1 Rule 9)
 G. Jurisdiction over Small claims, cases covered by the rules on
Summary Procedure and Barangay Conciliation

H. How Jurisdiction is determined

 Jurisdiction is determined by the allegation contained in the

complaint or information.

Totality or Aggregate Rule

 Where there are several claims or causes of actions, principally

for recovery of money, between the same or different parties
embodied in one complaint, the amount of the demand shall be
the totality of the claims in all causes of action irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transaction. (SEC 5 Rule 2)

Note: Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to
cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes of
action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as well as
to cases where the plaintiff has separate causes of action
against two or more defendants joined in a single complaint.
However, the causes of action in favor of the two or more
plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out
of the same transaction or series of transactions and there
should be a common question of law or fact, as provided in Sec
6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of parties)

The totality rule is not applicable if the claims are separate and
distinct from each other and did not arise from the same
transaction. If there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that
the claims against respondents are separate and distinct, then
neither falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction (Flores v Judge Mallare
-Phillips, Sept. 1986)

Claim for Damages

 If the main action is for the recovery of sum of money and
damages being claimed are merely the consequences of the
main cause of action, the same are not included in determining
the jurisdictional amount.
However, in the case where the claim for damages is the main
cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such
claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
court.

III. CIVIL PROCEDUERE

A. General Provisions.

1. Applicability

 The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts except as

otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (Sec 2 Rule 1)