Understanding Jurisdiction

“If you learn to remember you will forget, but if you learn to understand, you will not forget”
- Atty. Charles
Escolin
Let us first define or understand the concept of jurisdiction.
So, that’s the first thing that I think we should learn.
Jurisdiction - “the authority conferred on a court or tribunal by the Constitution or by law to hear and determine a
cause between parties and to carry its judgment into effect”.
✍In other words, jurisdiction is the power to try a case; the power of a tribunal to judge a case.
✍It is a grant to the court or a tribunal what is called an “adjudicatory power” and normally and logically it the
power deemed includes the grant or authority to enforce or execute the judgment it renders unless otherwise
provided by law.
✍So, when we speak of adjudicatory powers, let us go back, for proper understanding, to our Constitution. So our
Constitution states “that judicial power is the power of a court or tribunal to resolve a controversy involving rights
that are enforceable and demandable” 1. You know in Constitutional Law we call it, before a court can exercise its
power, there must be an actual controversy. You know we just added the adjective “actual” there to the word
“controversy”; meaning the word or adjective “actual” is not found in the Constitution. However, in Constitutional
Law, whenever we say “actual controversy” it refers to a right which is enforceable and demandable because you
know even if our rights have been affected, however there are certain instances where by law because of a statute, it
is no more enforceable. For instance, where an action has already prescribed, when rights have been affected,
however judicial power can only be exercised where rights are involved but we don’t end with just rights, we end
with rights that are demandable and enforceable. So that is what we call in Constitutional Law “actual controversy”.
Ibig sabihin ng “actual controversy” may away. Do you get that ha? There is a conflict or rights and interests, that is
why you can’t go to court without an actual controversy yet, diba? If you want to ask an opinion, you go to the
Executive Department, you go to the Secretary of Justice, you go to the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel when it comes to these GOCCS diba? or if you are exercising governmental powers, you go to the
Secretary of Justice. Okay that is why these agencies of the government will ask an opinion from the Secretary of
Justice but you don’t go to courts ‘pag wala pang controversy. However, judicial power sometimes is also extended
to agencies of government which is also conferred by law. You know there are three (3) branches of government.
We have the legislative, executive and judiciary department. However, sometimes through the infinite wisdom of
Congress, it confers upon certain agencies of the Executive Department adjudicatory powers. In other words, there
is a controversy, yan ang tinatawag natin na “quasi-judicial powers” of quasi-judicial agencies. I would assume
that you have already taken up itong Administrative Law ha? You know, in Administrative Law, there is that
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, that principle is applicable only when a government
agency exercises quasi-judicial functions but when it exercises purely executive or administrative functions, you
don’t talk about exhaustion of administrative remedies, if you still recall that in Administrative Law. Huwag nyong
kakalimutan yan ha? Because you know, what is the function of the Executive? The function of the executive is to
implement the law passed by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court, because you know interpretations made
by the Supreme Court is part of the law of the land ha pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code ha. Anyway, under our
system of checks and balances, while one branch of the government is the one who determines what the law shall
be. However, it is a different branch of the government that tells us what truly it is or how it should be interpreted.
Yun ang checks and balance sa ating gobyerno. Okay now, that is why when a government agency exercises quasi-
judicial function it does not anymore sit as an implementor of the law it sits as a tribunal. I’ll give you an example.
For instance when an employee dies. He is either covered by SSS Law or the GSIS Law. In other words, may mga
1
Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 CONST.
BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
benefits yan - death benefits, burial benefits or whatever. At saka who will now be entitled to the let’s say to the
gratuities, let’s say retirable na yan, who will receive the retirement funds? Mga ganyan. Now, initially it is an
administrative function, halimbawa you are the widow or widower of the employee so you go to the SSS or GSIS to
claim the benefits pero kung may isang tao na nagsabi na “I am the real wife or the real husband”, ay lintik, edi
nag-away na. Now it’s inevitable for GSIS or SSS now to determine sino talaga ang legal children or legal spouse?
Okay? The function is not merely administrative because in order to determine to whom benefits should be granted,
it has to make a finding first kung sino talaga ang tunay na asawa, sino ang number 2? Sino ang Real Makoy ang
no.1. Now, kung may controversy yan tapos magsabi si GSIS na “oh ikaw si Mrs. Number 1, pwede ng ma-question
yan later sa court after exhausting administrative remedies, Okay? Ganun din sa NHA, diba NHA nagpapabahay so
itong tao ginrant ng housing, we will make the monthly payment amortization to NHA, namatay, nabayaran na tapos
namatay na yung the one who was awarded the housing, now here comes 2 sets of families claiming to be the heirs.
Sino tlga ang tunay den whatever determination it make it now becomes a quasi-judicial function in which case we
will later on that an appeal on that case is to the Court of Appeals. Okay kasi karanggo nyan sila ng RTC. Ganun
din yan sa mga process sa HLURB. Now we will be discussing the jurisdiction of the HLURB ha? So you know
what I mean there. So ganun din when you apply for a patent in the Bureau of Patents, or now IPO or you go there
to say you register your trademark, ay aba, kinwesyon yan ng isa, akin yang pangalan nay an ah naku awayan na.
Alam nyo yung mga kotse. Halimbawa yang Toyota, meron silang Vios, yung Honda merong CRV, yung Hyundai
may Sta. Fe, ‘pag ginamit mo rin yan ay lintik magulo yan because they were already able to register those names
ha? Let’s say, sa intellectual property, pati yung mga maong, you cannot use this levi’s. The sasme thing with beer.
You cannot use san Miguel or red hors.e Initially, when you file for a patent or tradenamen, dat is purely admin,
hwoever wen there is a contest, mga ganyan, eh away na yan.
Okay, so jurisdiction has two (2) jurisdiction therefore, one is (1) to adjudicate a case or controversy involving rights
that are demandable and enforceable; and (2) to carry its judgment into effect. In other words, if the court has
authority to adjudicate a controversy, it has the corresponding right to enforce it. If you have read for instance the
case of Vital Gozon v CA, there is a comment there, because in Vital Gozon, here are the facts:
VITAL GOZON V. CA2
Here comes the Philippine Children’s Hospital in Quezon City, one of the doctors there is the Chief of Clinics. The
directress, Gozon, demoted that doctor then the latter questioned that in the Civil Service Commission. After
hearing the CSC ruled that the demotion was illegal and therefore ordered Gozon to reinstate the complainant to his
former position as Chief of Clinics. However, Gozon refused. So ginawa ni doctor eh nagpunta sa CSC to ask for a
writ of execution. However and very unfortunate, the CSC said “this office has only adjudicatory function, it has no
enforcement powers.” On the basis of that, the doctor went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for mandamus to
compel GOZON to follow and comply with the decision of the CSC. However, when the matter eventually reached
the SC, one of the comments there of the Court was the fact of enforcement and the SC said “the CSC should have
enforced this because having the power to adjudicate this kind of controversy, it has logically also the power to
enforce it; that is an aspect of jurisdiction, Not only to adjudicate controversies but also to enforce it, unless
otherwise provided by law.
As we go along the rules of court, there are certain instances where the court that rendered the judgment may not
anymore enforce it. One example of that is when a person dies and it is a money judgment against the decease. You
cannot enforce it anymore because the enforcement as provided by the rules is to claim against the estate of the
person.
CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION
2
GR No. 101428; Aug. 5, 1992
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
I. According to Nature
a) General v. Limited/Special
General Limited/Special
is such as extends to all controversies which may be is that which is confined only to particular causes or
brought before a particular court within the legal bounds which can be exercised only by under the limitations and
or rights and remedies. circumstances prescribed by law.
✍ There is only one court which we can classify as a ✍ Meaning a particular court is conferred with a
court of general jurisdiction - the RTC; that is why in jurisdiction pero ito lang: A, B, C Or another court,
instance for criminal case, why is it a court of general example MTC. If you recall jurisdiction on criminal
jurisdiction, In other words, what cases is within the cases, the MTC has only jurisdiction over all matters: a)
RTC’s original and exclusive jurisdiction under Section involving violation of traffic rules and regulations; b)
20 of BP129 “Regional Trial Courts shall exercise municipal/city ordinances; c) when the penalty of
exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years.
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal Another example would be the Sandiganbayan - can
or body, except those now falling under the exclusive only hear so much cases as defined under Sec. 4 of the
and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which Sandiganbayan Law: a) violation of Anti-Graft and
shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the Corrupt Practices Act, forfeiture cases under RA No.
latter.” Meaning general sya because it extends to all 1379, bribery; and b) all other offenses (meaning not
controversies which may be brought before that within among those under the first set of offenses), committed
the legal bounds. So when we say within the legal by a public officer in relation to their office (it can
bounds, here in Sec. 20 it states “not within the exclusive murder, special offense, etc.) pero committed in relation
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body”. Kaya kung to their office. Yan ang pinakamahirap na intindhihin
wala sa ibang court, RTC yan. That is why it is a court dyan ha. Yung in relation to their office. We already
of general jurisdiction. We will find, a similar provision know that because we already passed criminal
under Sec. 19 of BP 129 relative to civil cases which we procedure. Similarly, the CTA can only involving BIR,
will be discussing in due time. Bureau of Customs, yung mga assessment ng real estate,
yun lang. It is a court of limited jurisdiction.
b) Original v. Appellate
Original Appellate
is one conferred upon or is inherent in court in the first the authority conferred upon a superior court to rehear
instance and determine cases which has already been tried in a
lower court
✍Dun mo lang siya mai-file in the first instance. ✍In other words, meron syang pinanggalingan.
Rehearing ito.
c) Exclusive v. Concurrent/Coordinate
Exclusive Concurrent/Coordinate
is confined only to a particular tribunal or court. Only that is which is exercised by different courts at the same
with that court, you cannot go to other court except that time over the same subject matter and within the same
court territory wherein litigants may in the first instance resort
to either courts indifferently
✍Kumbaga sa law on persons, monogamy yan. Hindi ✍Mamili ka, because it is concurrent (e.g. petitions for
ka pwedeng mag-asawa ng marami. certiorari, prohibition, madamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus, the authority to issue those special or
extra-ordinary writs is concurrent with the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts)
subject on the principle of hierarchy of courts which we
will discuss later on in Rule 65. Umpisa ka muna dito

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
pero pwede ka din dumirecho but only in certain
instances.
d) Civil v. Criminal
Civil Criminal
is that which exist wherein the subject matter is not exists for the punishment of crimes
criminal in nature
e) Territorial v. Extra-Territorial
Territorial Extra-Territorial
refers to the power of the tribunal considered with out of it; specifically this would relate to venue.
reference to the territory within which it may be
exercised
✍We may also refer it to instances where our courts for ✍Venue in criminal cases is very jurisdictional ha but
instance specially in penal statutes. Our courts here have not in civil cases. Meaning in civil cases there can be
no jurisdiction if the crimes are not committed in the such thing as extra-territorial. Why? Because in civil
Philippines, for instance when a person commits a crime cases, we will later on learn that venue can be waived.
of homicide in China or in Indonesia, he cannot be But in criminal cases, it cannot.
charged here because the crime was not committed here
in the Republic of the Philippines however, there are
certain instances in our statutes where our courts can
exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases. I
am referring there to Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code - piracy committed in the high seas, counterfeiting
of our currency, rebellion)
II. According to Object
a) Over the Subject Matter - is the power to hear and determine cases of a general class to which the proceeding in
question belong and this is conferred by law (by the sovereign authority) which recognizes the court and defines its
power.
✍Under the Constitution, it is specifically provided that judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and such
other lower courts as may be created by law. Now, the Supreme Court is created by the Constitution itself and its
powers is also defined in the Constitution itself in Sec. 5 of Art. VIII. On the other hand, lower courts are provided
by law. So, in The Judiciary Act of 1980 (BP 129, as amended), there are three (3) courts - the Court of Appeals,
the Regional Trial Court and the Municipal Trial Courts (includes Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities). On the other hand, we also have the Sandiganbayan Law (PD 1606, as amended). We have the
Court of Tax Appeals (about taxes, assessments, duties, etc.). Before, the CTA was only considered as a quasi-
judicial agency but now it has been elevated to a status of a regular court.
b) Over the Person - means the power obtained over the person of the defendant by service of the processes or
notices issued by the court on the defendant personally within the territorial limits of the Philippines or by voluntary
appearance in person.
✍When you say in person, it can be through your agent for the purposes of rendering a judgment. In civil cases, the
process is known as “summons”. In criminal cases, the process is known as the “warrant of arrest”.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
✍The mere issuance of a summons or warrant or arrest does not immediately confer jurisdiction on the court over
the person of the defendant or the accused. In criminal cases, there must be an actual arrest while in civil cases we
will learn later on under Rule 14 that there should be a proper service of summons.
c) Over the Res/Thing/Property - it refers to the power of the court over the thing before it without regard to the
person who may be interested therein and the presence of the res or thing within the territory of the sovereign power,
under authority of which the court acts, may confer such jurisdiction.
✍Usually, this applies to cases in rem or quasi in rem done by publication
✍Example is in land registration cases, the court does not issue a summons. It is a special proceeding (it is to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact). In LRA cases, you are there to establish a fact or a right that you are
the owner in fee simple of a real property and once a decree of registration is issued in favor of the applicant and
after a certain period of time from the issuance of the decree, that ownership in fee simple becomes unassailable;
becomes indefeasible. As a general rule, it is imprescriptible. Ikaw na ang may-ari as against the whole world.
Q: What is the thing there?

A: The real property.
JURISDICTION OF COURTS
I. SUPREME COURT - exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the
Constitution:
a) Original Jurisdiction:
i. over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
✍“cases” - refers to all kinds of cases (no distinction);
✍the officers referred above are the officers of the other countries here in the Philippines (cases
filed against them. not our ambassadors!)
✍If it involves our ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, it is to be filed with the regular
courts since their offices are deemed extension of the Philippine territory (under the Geneva
Convention) hence within the jurisdiction of PH courts and subject to our criminal jurisdiction
here
Example: When a crime is committed inside the PH Embassy in Singapore, under the Geneva
Convention, for local police gain entry, it will require the consent of the Ambassador (in consular
office) while in embassies, it requires the consent of the home office (of Manila). Same thing
applies to airplanes and vessel of Philippine registry subject to international law (French rule and
English rule).
ii. over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
✍these are the extra-ordinary writs. Why are they called “extra-ordinary writs”? Because
essentially (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus), they refer to errors of jurisdiction as distinguished
from errors of judgment. In other words, when the lower court exceeds it jurisdiction or acts with
grave abuse of discretion. When an agency of a government exceeds its jurisdiction, that judicial
power is conferred in the Supreme Court.
✍Judicial power is not limited to the classical definition as the power of the court to resolve a
controversy involving rights that are enforceable and demandable. The present Constitution
defines judicial power relating to grave abuse (aka “grave abuse clause”). In the 1935
Constitution, it was not written but nevertheless it is exercised pursuant to the power of judicial

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
review which we call here as the grave abuse clause which was brought about by the landmark
ruling of the American Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison.
Q: Why was it necessary to put it in the present Constitution?

A: To answer for the martial law. During the martial law, the SC ruled that it the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law are political questionsa question
which is beyond the competence of the court to examine the factual basis for the suspension of the privilege
of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law. Why? Because it has been expressly reserved by the
Constitution to the people; to only a particular branch of government. To eliminate any political questions
regarding the matter and to strike down an act of any government agency that is beyond the jurisdiction of
that agency.
b) Appellate Jurisdiction-
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(par.2, Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Q: Does congress have the power to reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined in the
Constitution?
A: No; that will result in the amendment of the Constitution and there is a strict process of amendment.
Congress alone cannot do that.
Q: May the Congress increase the judicial powers of the Supreme Court beyond what is defined under Sec.
5, Article VIII of the Constitution?
A: Yes; provided it secures the consent of the Supreme Court.
✍In one case (Fabian v. Desierto3), the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a portion of the
Ombudsman Law relating to appeals rendered by the Ombudsman. The court there distinguished between
two (2) kinds of decisions: (1) the decision in an administrative case; and (2) the decision in the conduct of
the preliminary investigation (meaning in criminal cases). The specific portion of the Ombudsman Act of
1989 provides that all judgments, orders, resolutions of the Ombudsman may only be raise to the Supreme
Court via a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional with respect to decisions
in administrative cases rendered by the Ombudsman because you it adds to the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court and its consent was never obtained. On the other hand, where judgment of the Ombudsman
in the conduct of preliminary investigation, pwede yan direcho sa Supreme Court. Why? Because you are
not appealing there, what you are invoking there is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue
the writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus under Rule 65 in appeals.
c) Administrative/Executive Powers - the power to appoint
3
GR No. 129742; Sept. 16, 1998
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
“6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.” 4
“3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.” 5
d) Legislative/Rule-Making Power
“5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights0. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.”6
Q: Is there a limitation on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court?

A: Yes. It shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights; Rights cannot be affected; That is why
we have to distinguish if it affect substantive rights from procedural to determine if it is within the power of
the Supreme Court. (Prof submits that there are some rules promulgated by the SC that violates substantive
rights. Example is in the case of People v. Mateo.
One of the appellate jurisdiction of the SC is in all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher. Now looking on the jurisdiction of the CA, it has jurisdiction over all decisions of the
RTC subject to exceptions. What are these exceptions? Unless within the appellate of the jurisdiction as
defined in the Constitution and in addition (under Sec. 9 of BP 129) “when the judgment of the CFI (now
RTC) imposes in a criminal case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death”, excluded yan. But in Mateo
(penned by Jus. Vitug), the SC said, pwede na daw dumaan muna sa Court of Appeals, kaya yang ang mga
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment and even death later ha, kung meron ng death penalty ulit, ang
appeal nyan dadaan ka sa Court of Appeals, dati hindi ka makadaan, ang sabi ng Supreme Court walang
appellate jurisdiction ang Court of Appeals tapos Mateo would just say meron na daw because the
Constitution does not prohibit an intermediate appeal. Ang akin namang punto doon, that’s correct. The
Constitution maybe does not prohibit an intermediate appeal, nonetheless that requires legislation from
Congress. There must be a law giving the Court of Appeals the appellate jurisdiction now over criminal
cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. In the absence of any legislative
enactment conferring to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court cannot do that because the Supreme
Court is not Congress - that is already substantive; that is not merely procedural. It is already conferring
power - appellate power.
II. COURT OF APPEALS

7
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo

warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
4
par. 6, Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
5
(par. 3, Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Const.)
6
par. 5, Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
7
BP 129, as amended
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and
the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442,
as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4
of the fourth paragraph od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.”
✍You will notice in that Nos. 1 and 2 are both original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
✍The difference is in No. 2 it is exclusive original and No. 1 is only original meaning it is concurrent with any
courts.
“1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and

auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;”
✍So this is in reference with the extra ordinary writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, concurrent yan with the Supreme court.
✍You will be called under number one sec5 of the constitution, the original jurisdiction there is also
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. So, that is concurrent with the CA.
✍When we discuss RTC jurisdiction, the RTC as well has certiorari jurisdiction and that is as well concurrent with
the Supreme Court and of the CA.
I just want to make a clarification. Although they have concurrent jurisdiction… (CUT)
- We all know that the inclusion of the grave abuse clause has been forced upon as a reaction to the martial law
years. During the martial law period, the SC reviews for instance to rule or determine the factual basis for the
declaration of martial law or for the suspension of the writs of habeas corpus.
- Because if you will go back to the old case of Castaneda v. Baker during the time of governor general, nung
nandito pa ang mga Amerikano. The governor-general has time and again in the past suspended the privilege of
writ of habeas corpus because we were not even at war with the Americans ha. So ang ginawa ng mga
Governor-General. Nakalimutan ko na sino yang Governor-General, si Forbes ata. Basta one of the Governor-
Generals suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Pumupunta yan dito sa SC. The ruling there of the court is that,
that is a political question. That is beyond the power of the courts. It is a question that has been reserved by the
people themselves under the Constitution to be only decided and determined by one branch of government
exclusive. Hindi pwde makialam ang iba.
- So, this is one of the issue. That courts under the political law doctrine enunciated by the SC, cannot tell to
determine upon factual basis for the declaration of martial law or for the suspension of the privilege of habeas
corpus.
- Sabi ng constitution sa ’87, para talaga ma question nayan ng Courts, ilagay na yan natin dito, grave abuse
clause. Then, what Is your remedy sa grave abuse clause? Remember this is remedial law ha. Anong process
mo? Itong certiorari, prohibition, mandamus. Yan ang remedy in the exercise of the courts grave abused clause
power. Ok. Because later on as we discuss the rules, we will be defining civil action. Ok?

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
- So, ngayon, suffice it just to say that the certiorari jurisdiction what I call the issued extraordinary writs is
whether or not a valid jurisdiction.
- Can I illustrate this further?
- Under the present set up of appeals, a decision of the MTC or RTC, therefore there is a grave abuse of
discretion committed by the MTC (CUT)
Q: Can you go to the CA?

A: Yes, concurrent.
Q: Can you also go to the SC?

A: Yes, pero subject na to the hierarchy of courts. Mag mula sa RTC. But if we only talk of jurisdiction, pwde kang
mag punta sa CA.
Q: Now, can the Court of Appeals entertain the petition?

A: Remember that the court of appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over judgments of MTC. The one that has
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MTC is the RTC, but nonetheless, the CA can entertain or issue this
extraordinary writs because its power is whether or not it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction because even if it has
no appellate jurisdiction over judgments of the MTC, it is because the RTC that has appellate jurisdiction,
nonetheless since its power is “whether or not”. Ang ibig sabihin therefore ng “in aid”, that the exercise of the
extraordinary or issuance of the extraordinary writs is conditioned upon the principal of appeal over the decisions of
the lower court ha. Kung wala kang appellate, halimabawa if the phrase is only “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction”,
ang ibig sabihin ng “in aid”, tulong. Yung tulong, the principal power of appellate jurisdiction.
- Kung walang appellate, wala kang power mag-issue ng writs, pero since under the present rules the power now
of the CA, whether or not it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. So, even if the CA has no appellate jurisdiction
over the decisions of the MTC, nonetheless it can entertain an act from to question grave abuse on the part of a
judge of the MTC because its power is whether or not it has appellate jurisdiction. If you compare this with
Sandiganbayan Law under Criminal Procedure, you will recall there that under RA 7975, ang certiorari
jurisdiction ng Sandiganbayan is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Ok. Although, sa rules, inamend ng SC.
Ginawa nilang, whether or not din, “in aid”.
- COMELEC, meron rin certiorari jurisdiction ang COMELEC. Pero doon sa law, “in aid”. Only “in aid” of its
appellate jurisdiction.
- So original yan ha na concurrent. So you understand now the phrase “in aid”. “whether or not”
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
✍So here, it is also original, but here it is further qualified by the word “exclusive”.
✍So to annul judgments of the RTC, you only can go to the Court of Appeals. Original action yan ha. Hindi yan
appellate. Do you get that?
✍Now, those are the two (2) [referring to Nos. 1 and 2] original jurisdictions of the CA.
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts
and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948.”
✍Exclusive appellate jurisdiction, so ibig sabihin “exclusive”, hindi concurrent.

✍ “appellate”, hindi original.
“Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts
and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission.”
✍Can I just emphasize with you, pagdating sa quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards, commissions, the
enumeration there of SEC, SSS, CSC, examples lang yan ha, to include only. They are not exclusive. Do you get
that? Pwede rin yung GSIS, Intellectual Property Office. Okay?
Q: Now, ano itong quasi-judicial agencies and instrumentalities of the government?

A: Eh actually, essentially these quasi-judicial bodies are (cut).. Kaya lang, by law, we are conferred with quasi-
judicial powers.
You know under our system of checks and balances, there are 3 branches of the governmentLegislative,
executive, and judiciary.
Judiciary has the power to determine what the law shall be. Executive, is the one who will implement the law pass
by Congress. Judiciary is the one who will interpret the law. Sa checks and balance, it is Congress who makes the
law but it is the Judiciary who has the final say on what the law means. Iba ang gumagawa pero iba ang nagsasabi
kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng isa. Do you get that? Now, however, itong Executive Branch, implements the law
passed by Congress as interpreted by the Court because judicial decisions under Article 8 of the Civil Code forms
part of the law of the land. Why? Because the interpretation is merely a contemporaneous. The courts law is saying
what is a contemporaneous intent of the one who made the law. Executive Department, they are also given judicial
powers which we call “quasi-judicial powers”. “Quasi” means “almost”.
Q: So, why is it judicial in nature?

A: Because they resolve controversy
✍For instance, let us say the SSS/GSIS. That is a government agency that takes charge of the pension fund. The
employer contributes the employee also contributes and then the employer deposits that with the SSS/GSIS. Para
pag retire ng empleyado ddon kukunin ung pension. So, let’s say somebody dies, kuha ka ng funeral/burial benefits,
diba maraming benefits yan. Mga pension benefits. So his heirs now, will file for the application of these benefits.
At that point in time, it remains an executive function or administrative or ministerial function. Now, later on
however, my nagclaim na iba. Sabi ng isa, ako ang tunay na asawa and my children are the legal heirs. There are
two claimants. There is now a controversy. Now before the SSS/GSIS will now deemed the benefits to the heirs or
people entitled thereto, it has now to determine who is the tunay na pamilya, tunay wife, #1 or #2? It will now
resolve it. After hearing sasabihin ni SSS/GSIS, ah ang tuinay na asawa ay si #2. Kasi si #1 ‘di naman kasal.
Controversy na yan. ‘Yan na ang quasi-judicial.
✍Also you file with the Intellectual Property Office. Patent or whatever ha. Mamaya nagki-claim na yan that he
was the one who invented the song or he was the first one who designed the logo or used the logo. Oh dun kayo
mag-away. Nagiging controversy, although initially it was as executive or ministerial function, it now becomes a
controversy because there are now two conflicting interest or claimants. Ok. It is now the CA that has appellate
exclusive jurisdiction over the decision of quasi-judicial agencies.
Q: Now, what are the exemptions?

A: Yes. (last part of No. 3):
a) Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
✍Yang 1st exemption dyan, meaning the CA has no more appellate jurisdiction. If it is already within the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC as defined by the Constitution.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
b) The Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and
of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary
Act of 1948.”
✍Or as defined by this Act (BP 129), and “the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948”, n ow, ano ‘tong
mga lintik na yan? You read this in relation with the first exception, meaning it is within the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC.
Q: Ano na nga ang within the jurisdiction of the SC under the Constitution?
A: Par.2, Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution:
a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
✍Alam nyo sa mga enumeration na yan ng within within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC, isa lang ang hindi
question of law, all of the four others are questions of law. Question of fact, yung “where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher”.
Q: Question of fact, when?

A: When there is an issue involves the truth or falsity of the facts allege in the parties’ pleading.
Sa complaint my facts doon, then Answer na dine-deny ang complaint. Kapag inadmit, hindi na yan ita-trial. Ang
ita-trial nalang yan ung mga dine-deny to present evidence. With regard to the admitted facts, the court will draw a
conclusion and from that any question that may arise from the conclusion reached the SC will now involve a
question of law because it does not now relate to the truth or falsity, but if the CA is not required to delve on the
evidence to determine which allegation is true or false then the issue there is a question of law.
Example (criminal case):
Allegations in the Information. Motion to Quash filed because there was no offense charged, no fact is alleged in
the pleadings. Conclusion derived from the admitted facts that is a question of law because it does not involve truth
or falsity rather maybe to use it whether it is correct to say that it is with jurisdiction or without jurisdiction.
Mateo Ruling:
“All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.”
✍Amended na yan ha?
✍Ang appeal ngayon from reclusion perpertua even death, assuming revived, do not appeal to the Supreme Court.
Dadaan ka ng Court of Appeals according to the Mateo ruling effectively amending paragraph 3 [referring to No. 3,
Sec. 17, BP 129] here by judicial fiat not by legislative fiat.
✍Legislative power of the Supreme court is limited only to procedure and admissions to the bar.
✍Power of the Supreme Court: how to appeal how many days, these are procedural
✍Regalado: Procedural v. Substantive
Q: what is substantive?
A: Substantive is the right to appeal; whereas how to do it is procedural (Rule 43) within the power of the Court.
✍There is no appellate jurisdiction over labor cases. All labor cases are filed in the NLRC. In the NLRC, you go
first with the Labor Arbiter then appeal to the NLRC.
ST. MARTINS FUNERAL HOMES V. NLRC8

8
G.R. No. 130866 September 16, 1998
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Pumunta ka sa CA, kung hindi pwede appeal bakit pumunta sa CA? Kasi hindi na appeal yan. That is certiorari
under No. 1, not No. 3, appeal ito.
Q: You know what is original and appellate?

A: Original, it is the power of the court which is inherent in the court in the first instance. Meaning it is where you
can file it originally. Kaya original yan. Appellate, the power of the superior court to rehear and determine again
case which had already been decided by any law where court or an inferior court. Appeal yan. Review. Rule is
walang appeal to the courts galing sa NLRC, Labor Code, pero you have to understand the case of St. Martins
Funeral Homes.
FABIAN V. DISIERTO, pilit yan. Na-unconstitutional. Puta. In the first place, Regalado there violated fundamental
law in the constitution. The issue of constitutionality was never raised. The policy in Political Law that as much as
possible, the Court should not rule on its constitutionality if a case can be disposed of on other grounds or by other
means only if there is no escape that you have to rule on the constitutionality.
Words of Justice Laurel - Courts should avoid, even if it’s raised (heto nga it was never raised) but I remember the
wordings of justice laurel in one case “BUT IF THE TIME COMES WHEN THE COURT HAS TO LET THE
GAVEL FALL AND IT WILL LET IT FALL HEAVILY. “
NEXT MEETING -CONT. ON THE JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS…
One of them is decisions of the NLRC. Of course, subject to ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes which technically
is not an appeal, rather petition for certiorari. Hindi na yun appeal, original action na yun, get that? What is the only
limitation under NO. 3 there of Sec.9 of BP129 is only the appellate jurisdiction of the CA wherein it cannot review
by appeal the decisions of the NLRC however it can review NLRC decision via original action for certiorari.
Q: Ano naman deperensya ng dalawa kung nire-review naman pareho?? What is the Hulabaloo distinction?
A: An appeal, you review there errors of judgment. In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, you review there
errors of jurisdiction, not of judgment!
As of today yun nalang muna ha…kasi p*tangina kung didiscuss pa and explain parang naglelecture I will be
dealing with rule 65. HAHAHA
✍It goes without saying that the CA has also no more jurisdiction over tax cases or assessment cases. Kasi dati, the
decisions of Board of Assessment Appeals, decisions of Court of Tax Appeals are appealed via rule 43 to the CA but
since the establishment of CTA as a regular court na, ka-ranggo na ng CA, hindi na quasi-judicial body, court na
talaga yan. In which case, tax cases emanating from MTC, RTC, whether criminal or civil are already appealed to
the CTA. Likewise, decisions of the RTC, MTC relating to jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan is not also appealable to
the CA, rather appealable to the Sandiganbayan.
✍Example: One of the cases that falls under Sandiganbayan jurisdiction is violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. However, does the Sandiganbayan always exercise original jurisdiction? No ha.. in fact in most cases
it only exercises appellate.
Q: So when nag-eexercise ng original si Sandiganbayan?

A: Only subject to certain conditions-
One of the accused belong to salary grade level 27 or higher or one of those enumerated public officers under
section 4 of SB law (director, police, etc…)
✍If ‘di ka enumerated there sa sec.4, di ka VIP public officer. Kung SG-20, or SG-5, or lower pa, hindi ka pang SB
ha…kahit anti-graft case ka, dun ka sa RTC or MTC depende sa imposable penalty of imprisonment, then the
threshold there is imprisonment 6 years. In which case, sa anti-graft cases decided by MTC or RTC, ang appeal mo
niyan sa SB, wag sa CA!

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Ganun din yan sa labor cases. Itong mga tax and labor cases, san ka magcertiorari? Sa CTA ung tax. SB kung anti-
graft, careful there of exceptions. In other words, the CA has no appellate jurisdiction if it is vested in another court.
III. JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(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 (P20,000.00) or for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction or 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 a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand
pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*)
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in
all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under
the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken
cognizance of by the latter.
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
✍Summary:
Sec. 19 Exclusive + Original

Sec. 20 Original Case -in all criminal cases not within
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body except those falling
under.. wala na yung concurrent, old
law yan, eliminated! Pati SB wala na
rin yan concurrent ha, except those
falling within those falling under
exclusive the SB. (BASTA KUNG
HINDI YAN SA IBA, DITO YAN SA
RTC!)
Sec.21 original jurisdiction in other meaning concurrent with other courts

civil cases
these are extraordinary writs…concurrent

issuance of writs of prohibition, yan with SC or CA subject to hierarchy of
certiorari, mandamus, quo courts1st instance na original concurrent
warranto, habeas corpus, with other courts
injunction, which may be
enforced in any part of their
respective regions (par.1)
✍We have geographical “regions”.. example region 1 sa iIocos, sa inyo, Region 3 Bataan, Zambales, Pampanga,
Bulacan. You can also find that in the judiciary act.
CHECK Sec. 13, BP 129  creation lang ito ng RTCs, saang places meron.
✍Take note nalang sa ibang cities na ngayon ha.
✍Extraordinary writs can only be enforced in any part of their respective regions. That’s why when you become a
lawyer, you do not only consider the law on venue, you also consider its enforceability. Lalo na mga habeas corpus
na yan pag nag-away mag-asawa tungkol sa habeas corpus ng anak naku p*tangina, agawan ng bata. So yung
ginagawa ng iba, para…. Syempre nanakawin ng tatay dun sa nanay, okay?
“(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.” [par. 2, Sec. 21, BP 129]
✍This is the second instance of original concurrent jurisdiction of the RTC.

✍This is concurrent with the SC. Recall, No. 1, Sec. 5, Article VIII of Constitution (“over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls”)
✍So you categorize it. First category is really an action, the other one is a special action or special civil actions for
prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, etc.
Now, Sec. 19, BP129
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
✍Like any sentence, first thing you look up is the subject, ano ba ang pinaguusapan? then look at the predicate -
specifically what part of predicate is important — the verb; the action word; yan ang nagbibigay buhay sa sentence,
sa subject… punta sa nouns…tapos….adjective(qualifies/describes a noun)…then adverb (qualifies an adjective)
✍So, in 1st sentence of Sec.19, jurisdiction of RTC, so qualified dyan sa word na “original”, further qualified pa
with an adverb “exclusive”; exclusive original.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Q: What is not capable of pecuniary estimation?
A: It is the subject of the litigation.
INIEGO V. PURGANAN
-clear distinction by SC between subject of litigation and cause of action
-we will discuss this case later on.
✍Do not confuse “subject” with other terms.
(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 (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry
into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;” [No. 2, Sec. 19, BP 129]
✍If it involves “title to, possession of real property…or any interest therein”. In other words, it is a real action if it
involves a real property. Personal action yan if it involves personal property diba? Pero hindi basta-basta real
property eh real action na.
Q: What aspect of real property to be considered real action?

A: if it involves “title to, possession of real property…or any interest therein”.
“or any interest therein” use the principle of ejusdem generis — when general term precedes specific or
particular terms, scope of general term must be of same scope with specific terms.
✍Rule on venue:
Real Action Personal Action

where real property is situated residence where parties reside at option of plaintiff
✍Example:
An action to annul real estate mortgage - real property [Note: call it chattel mortgage if it involves personal
property]. Now this action to annul real estate mortgage, does not necessarily mean that it is already a real action
such that venue must be where it is located, Why? if that action is based on example ground of fraud. Since it does
not involve title or possession of property, SC said that it NOT a real action. On the other hand, pero maski hindi ka
nagdasal for recovery of title or possession, what is the effect? If it is to revert/prevent passing of title or to recover
possession if main relief is granted, then the SC ruled that that it is a real action.
✍It does not stop there because it is qualified by the phrase “where assessed value of property involved exceeds
P20,000 or exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila.”
✍General Rule: RTC has really no jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer or ejectment, that is a real
action because the objective there is to recover possession.
✍Recall, the remedies to recover properties: (1) accion reinvidicatoria; (2) accion publiciana; and (3) accion
interdictal. Reinvicatoria and publiciana, meron jurisdiction ang MTC syempre, meron din ang RTC depende sa
assessed value.
✍9Accion Interdictal (unlawful detainer, forcible entry) is exclusive in the MTC because when you read Sec.19, you
also read and compare it with Sec. 33 on jurisdiction of the MTC, ganun magbasa ha! No value involved!
9
Accion Interdictal is a summary action to recovery physical or material possession only. It consists of the summary
actions of Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such
cases, the defendant raises the questions 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;” [No. 2, Sec.33, BP 129, as amended]
✍Assessed value is the value for purposes of real estate taxes as distinguished from market value or book value
(kung may corporation).
OUANO V. PGTT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORP.10
Jurisdiction is based on assessed value in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of real property with
damages. It is undisputed that the assessed value of the property involved, as shown by the corresponding tax
declaration, is only P2,910.00. As such, the complaint is well within the MTC’s P20,000 jurisdictional limit.
The finding of respondent judge that the value of the lots is higher than that indicated in the tax declaration and that,
therefore, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case is highly speculative. It is elementary that the tax declaration
indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper
government agency.
✍Take note of the amounts there: P20,000 and P50,000;
RTC MTC
Publiciana and Reinvidicatoria
Over P20,000 P20,0000 and below
over P50,000 (Metro P50,000 and below
Manila) (Metro Manila)
Interdictal
Always MTC
irrespective of the value.
Remaining provisions of Sec. 19, BP 129 Notes

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ✍Kapag involved mga barko;
where he demand or claim exceeds Three hundred ✍Example:
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, Kapag may inoorder ka sa Japan ng isang equipment or
where such demand or claim exceeds Four hundred sa China or wherever, principle of res perit domino.
thousand pesos (P400,000.00); When does the buyer assume the loss? Res perit domino
sa Sales when there is already ownership. Now next
point, when does buyer acquire title to thing sold? if
there has already been delivery! Kung wala pa delivery
at na-damage, the one who will bear the loss is the seller
There are many ways of delivery - longa manu, brevi
manu. Now if property a chattel is subject to manual
delivery, dapat actual delivery usually ha.
✍So halimbawa may binili kang sugar galing

Indonesia, yung supplier pag-deliver niya sa barko, sayo
na yan kahit lumubog ang barko! You will suffer the
loss because delivery of seller to carrier is deemed
already delivery of the goods to the buyer maski wala
pang actual delivery, symbolic yan or constructive
pursuant to law on Sales! So insure mo yan, marine
10
GR No. 134230; July 17, 2002
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
insurance para if lumubog yan o pagdating sayo sa
Pampanga, butas butas na asukal mo, may damage, ano
gawin mo edi itapon mo so rejected yan at babayaran
kayo ng insurance company.
✍Pwede via bus (RO-RO), pag sa barko nagpadala at

nasira — yan ang maritime, pag eroplano hindi under
maritime yan!
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, When it comes to judicial settlement of estate of
where the gross value of the estate exceeds Three deceased person, that is probate matter.
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value ✍Test of jurisdiction of RTC:
exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00); GROSS value of estate
(hindi pa bayad taxes and utang)

GROSS yan! Wag ka muna mag-minus minus. NOT net
value ha.
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and ✍includes liquidation of properties
marital relations; ✍NO VALUE involved
✍Still with RTC as a family court.
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of ✍this is what makes RTC a “court of general
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction”.
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling ✍Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) -
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile predecessor of family courts)
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of ✍demand (basis is demand) - you exclude interest,
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property expenses, costs for purposes of computing the demand
in controversy exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos OR the value of property (PERSONAL property) in
(P300,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items controversy.
exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00)
✍Examples:
-A car (specific thing)
-a debt (If not a specific thingyou demand
✍Or the value of property exceeds P300,000 or exceeds

P400,000 in Metro ManilaPera-pera ito!
Categorization of the actions within the jurisdiction of the RTC:
(1) Subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation

(2) Real Action
(3) Maritime
(4) Probate
(5) Marriage
(6) All-Catch Phrase
(7) JDRC & Agrarian Cases

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
(8) Personal Action
Cases under No. (1)subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation (hindi pera-pera!)
ORTIGAS V. HERRERA11
Real estate business ng Ortigas company. A fellow named Samson bought a property in Greenhills. He paid a sum
of P4,330 for the lot. However in deed of sale, subject to special condition siya, that in addition to purchase price,
Samson paid extra amount of P10/SQM; That should Samson complete construction of his residential lot within 2
years from date of sale, Ortigas company would refund to him the extra P10/SQM. Fulfilled naman yung condition.
Samson filed recovery of the refund with damages filed sa MTC Manila (P2,000+).
Ortigas filed motion to dismiss and argued lack of jurisdiction on the part of MTC Manila. Presiding judge Herrera
issued order holding in abeyance the resolution of MTD until trial of merits. MR denied.
Ortigas filed certiorari and prohibition with RTC. Samson filed MTD. RTC dismissed petition on the ground that
city court has jurisdiction because claim of plaintiff is less than P10,000 (At that time, the jurisdictional threshold of
MTC is P10,000), eh almost P3k lang claim dito.
Ortigas claims subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. SC sustained this theory.
Although plaintiff’s complaint is designated as sum of money with damages and the amount involved does not
exceed P10,000 threshold, an analysis of factual allegations of complaint shows that what plaintiff’s seeks is the
performance of Ortigas’ obligation under written contract to make the refund.
However, the obligation will only arise if plaintiff is able to prove of having himself fulfilled the condition (of
building house within 2 years). So SC said the claim of Ortigas only becomes demandable if plaintiff has proven
also of having himself fulfilled the condition and this proof is the one to give rise to the obligation of Ortigas to
make refund.
SC said subject matter here now is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Payment of money here of claim of P2,000+
is only incidental because it can only be ordered after a determination of certain acts, the performance of which by
plaintiff is the more basic use to be inquired into by court.
Where obligation to pay money is not conditioned upon any specific fact or matter, then it is capable of
pecuniary estimation wherein basis of jurisdiction is the amount.
However, when a party to a contract has agreed to refund the other party a sum of money but only upon compliance
by the other of certain conditions and only upon compliance may what is legally due him be demanded, then the
action is not one that is capable of pecuniary estimation.
In other words, the payment of money becomes merely incidental.
More basic issue is before obligation to make refund is proof that plaintiff complied with what is incumbent
upon him which is to build house within period of 2 years.
✍I call this “nature of the question test”. What is the basic issue or question presented? Pera-pera lang ba? Hindi.
Halimbawa uutang ka, di ka nabayaran, specific performance pero pera-pera ba yan? Yes! Nakabayad ka ba?
✍However when claim or payment of money is not conditioned upon any specific fact or matter then punta ka sa
No. 8 (capable of pecuniary estimation).
11
GR No. L-36098; January 21, 1983
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
✍However, where claim is conditioned upon any specific fact or matter which demands inquiry of other factors
which will give rise to the obligation to pay money then incapable of pecuniary estimation.
✍This test is based on landmark ruling of Justice JBL Reyes in Lapitan v. Scandia.
LAPITAN V. SCANDIA12
SC said if action is primarily for recovery of sum of money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Where basic issue
is other than right to recover sum of money, or purely incidental to or as consequence to principal relief
sought (specific performance, action for support, annulment of contract), it is not capable of pecuniary estimation.
✍ This ruling was reiterated in the case of Raymond v. CA:
RAYMOND V. CA check citation
Involves condominium in Makati (Galleria de Magallanes) so may condo association dyan.
Condo Association filed complaint with RTC Makati for mandatory injunction against Raymond who is a unit
owner to compel him to remove the illegal/unauthorized installation of glasses in his veranda.
Plaintiff denominated it as illegal/unauthorized for it violated master deed and restrictions annotated in mother title
with registry of deeds.
Defendant moved to dismiss because RTC has no jurisdiction dapat daw MTC. (attorney’s fees claim only amount
to P10,000).
SC said hindi lang ito pera-pera! Subject matter of case is not capable of pecuniary estimation because this is
specific performance! (bound by obligation pursuant to deed of restrictions and money claim here is merely
incidental);
Action for Mandatory injunction ito so tanggalin ang glasses, hindi lang pera-pera!
More basic issue yung DID YOU VIOLATE DEED OF RESTRICTIONS?
So, the topic we were discussing last time was to determine whether an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
under #1 of Sec.19 of BP129 or whether it is covered by #8 of Sec.19 which is the amount of the demand, the basis,
amount of demand OR the value of personal property and cut-off is P300,000 or P400,000.
So we learned in…
ORTIGAS V. HERRERA
Where the recovery of a sum of money, collection of debt for example, then the claim is considered CAPABLE of
pecuniary estimation.
Reason: the obligation to pay debt/money is not conditioned upon any specific fact or matter.
Conversely, when a party to a contract as in this case has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money, upon
compliance by the other of certain conditions, and only upon compliance therewith, may what is legally due him
under the contract be demanded, then action is one NOT capable of P.E. Because payment is conditioned upon a fact
12
GR No. L-24668; July 31, 1968
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
or matter which has yet to be proved as in this case.
Payment of money here is only incidental which can only be ordered after determination of certain acts, the
performance of which being the more basic issue to be inquired into.
Similarly in the case of…
RAYMUNDO V. CA
-Condominium corporation sued one of its members for mandatory injunction to put out the glass installment he
placed in his veranda on the ground that it violates the restrictions annotated in the mother title and also one of the
restrictions when he bought the unit. Plaintiff also claims P10,000 for attorney’s fees. Case was filed with the RTC.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case?
Defendant said NO because amount of attorney’s fees claimed is only P10,000.
SC: the more basic issue here is WON defendant violated the deed of restrictions (action for specific performance);
incapable of PE and therefore cognizable by RTC!
So conflict between No.1 and no.8.
Second is conflict between #1 and #2. What is #1 of Sec.29 of BP129?
Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation13 v. Real Action
Cases:
-Russell v. Vestil
-Copioso v copioso
-Brgy. Baredellion v. Brgy. Masili (reiterating Brgy. San Roque v. Pastor)
Court adopted test in Lapitan v. Scandia in these three (3) cases:
If it is primarily for recovery of sum of money, then it is capable of pecuniary estimation. However if the more basic
issue is other than to recover sum of money or money is merely incidental to or consequence of primary relief, then
it is not capable of pecuniary estimation (like specific performance, rescission of contracts)
Money v. Incapable Pecuniary Estimation
Is it merely for recovery of Title to or possession of real property?
Under present law, what is real action?
Let’s go back with the law.
No.2 of sec.19: “In all civil actions which involves title to......“
So law defines real action as action which involves title to, possession of real property.
13
hereinafter referred as “IPE” for brevity
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Prior to this, a REAL action was defined as action involving real property affecting title or recovery or possession
thereof of real property ha tapos it doesn’t end there or partition, condemnation (Expropriation), or foreclosure of
mortgage on real property. Old definition yan ha.
Now Sa rule ngayon, eliminated na and just used “any interest therein” (broader term). Is expropriation of real
property a real action or one IPE?
Take note of term used under present definition of real action “one which involves title to or possession of real
property or any interest therein.”
Dati, expropriation is a real action pero ngayon by jurisprudence hindi na.
Kaya in Bardellion v. Brgy Magsili (reiterating brgy san Roque v. Pastor case ruling)
Doctrine: An expropriation suit is IPE and falls within exclusive original jurisdiction of RTC regardless of value of
subject property.
Remember, under #2 of Sec.19, the test of jurisdiction is assessed value. If AV is P20,000 or P50,000 and below
(Metro Manila) it is MTC. Over that it is RTC.
Now irrespective of the value of the property or for that matter, if government expropriates personal property... Let
me exaggerate let’s say a pencil.
Q:Where should the expropriation case be filed?
A: RTC.
✍Why? In this case, court ruled that expropriation suit does not involve a mere recovery of money but rather deals
with government’s exercise of its authority - right to take private property for public use.
The SC pointed out that in an expropriation case, there are two (2) stages:
1. for court to determine authority (WON plaintiff has authority to exercise eminent domain and its
propriety—for public use ba);
2. ascertainment of just compensation;
So the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether or not the government or any instrumentality has
complied with requirements in the taking of a private property which is a question IPE.
Hence, when court determines the authority of government entity, necessity of expropriation, observation of due
process, is the main subject of expropriation suit is the government’s exercise of eminent domain a matter IPE
irrespective of its value.
So, what is the test applied? The test here applied by court is the test laid down in Lapitan v. Scandia:
Nature of the question test

If the payment of money in this case delivery of property to government is based on a fact or matter which is the
more basic issue then payment of money or here delivery of title or ownership of private property to government is
merely incidental.
Why? Because the more basic question inquired into is whether or not the government has complied with all the
requisites for the taking of private property - Authority of government entity. Necessity of expropriation, meaning
public use and observance of due process. This issue is one IPE.
Rusell v Vestil
-Petitioners filed before RTC Mandaue a complaint for declaration of nullity and partition alleging that plaintiffs-
petitioners and defendants-private respondents now are co-owners of a particular lot which they inherited.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
-According to the complaint, lot remain undivided until plaintiffs discovered that defendants executed a document,
ito yung pinapa-annul ha — “Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Confirmation of a Previous Oral Agreement of
Partition.”
-By virtue of this document, defendants exclusively appropriated and divided the property among themselves the
property to the exclusion of plaintiffs from participating therein. So they asked for annulment and partition. So
complaint prayed that the document of partition or in short, extrajudicial partition to nullify that the order be issued
to partition the said property among plaintiffs and defendants.
-However the defendants here filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
case considering that the assessed value of the land sought to be partitioned is only P5,000 which under the law is
within exclusive original jurisdiction of MTC not RTC.
-This was opposed by plaintiffs claiming that RTC has jurisdiction because the action is one IPE
ISSUE: Which between the MTC and RTC has jurisdiction over the case?
SC: The nature of an action is determined by the allegations or averments in the complaint. From the allegations
from the complaint clearly show that the action is not merely for partition of real property because the main purpose
of the complaint is to declare null and void the document which was executed by the defendants where petitioners as
co-heirs were excluded and deprived of their right or share in the subject property.
-SC explained that while the complaint seeks for partition of a real property, nevertheless, just incidental to the main
action for declaration of nullity of docu which is an action that is incapable of PE and therefore falling squarely
Within the Exclusive competence of the RTC.

-Now the court here relied on the ruling in Singson v Isabella Sawmill. This ruling in singson is actually the
doctrine laid down in lapitan v scandia ha. Here accdg. To court in singson it was ruled that the criterion To
determine whether subject of an action is not capable of PE is to ascertain the Principal action relief sought if it is
primarily for recovery of Money or in this case if it is primarily for recovery of title or possession then the claim is
considered capable of PE or it is considered a real action and whether jurisn is within Mtc or Rtc would depend on
the amount of the claim or if real action would depend on the AV of the realty.
-However, when the basic issue is Something other than the right to recover money or in this case recover title or
possession of property when the money claim or where claim for title or possession of rp is merely incidental to or
consequence of main relief sought, the action may not be estimated on terms of money and therefore cognizable by
Rtc.
-So here, the test used was the lapitan case then court went on to explain that considering you are seeking to annul
the document executed therein, then that is incapable of PE.
-The SC said other examples of actions incapable of PE are specific performance; support; foreclosure of mortgage
(bec. before porperty is foreclosed, basic question to be determined first is whether plaintiff has right to foreclose so
Show proof of what?
1. Loan o utang
2. Utang is secured by real estate Mortgage
3. Di nakabayad Ng mortgage loan so after proving that which is IPE that is the time now where court can order the
foreclosure)
Same thing in expropriation (first issue inquired into in such is whether govt or its instrumentality has complied with
reqS. For the taking of private property meaning:
1. authority of plaintiff

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
2. necessity of expropriation (for public use) and value of property expropriated is merely incidental)
Well, under old law it is a real action ha; so Ano pa ba dito sa list:
- annulment of judgment;
- action questioning validity of mortgage;
- annulment of deed of sale or conveyance or for rescission bec. Counterpart daw yan ng Specific
performance.
Now before we proceed if somebody lends money to another and the debtor fails to pay and creditor now sues for
collection isn’t it that That is specific performance?
Answer: YES but accdg. to court it is capable of PE bec. payment of money is not dependent upon another matter!
Masyadong malabooo..,Well anyway that is what the court said..pera-pera lang yan..Next...
Copioso v Copioso
Facts are same as russell v vestil.
In this case mga magkakapatid na copioso Filed with rtc a complaint for conveyance of parcel of lands in laguna
against lolita copioso the widow of antonio (brother ng plaintiffs). So sino ang defendants? Lolita (surviving spouse
and spouses Doria and also the other vendeeS of subject land)
Complaint alleged that the plaintiffs Together with antonio their brother inherited the land from their parents and
that through fraud antonio and spouses doria made it appear daw in a public document that they were co-owners of
the Properties and divided the property among themselves which they later sold to third parties. They prayed for
reconveyance and annulment of 4 DOS and other instrument of conveyance made to 3rd persons.
Now when plaintiffs admitted in a manifestation that the subj prop had only an assessed value of 3k plus pesos,
antonio and spouses moved For dismissal of case on the ground that since the value of the property Is less than 20k
then It is MTc not Rtc has jurisdiction over the case.
On the other hand plaintiffs claim the action is IPE over which Rtc Has competence to hear and decide. RTC denied
motion. Here action is to annul and partition. Issue is which court RTc or Mtc has juris?
SC: true this case partakes nature of annulment and partition. Partition is a real action however this is a case of
joiner of causes of action which comprehends more than title to or possession of or of any interest in real property
but also includes action to annul contracts ...(Inaudible)... which are IPE and therefore within Rtc juris. Here the
issue of title the court explained is intertwined with issue of annulment of sale Or reconveyance of real property.
Since may joinder and one is IPE dun ka punta sa RTc even if property to be partitioned does not exceed 20k
assessed value. That’s the ruling here.
However the other cases later decided by court..
Spouses Huguete v spouses Embudo

Heirs of Sebe v Heirs of Sevilla
Mere fact that one is seeking for annulment of certain documents does not necessarily mean that it is already an
action IPE.
In fact in sps. huguete case and case of Sebe is actually Also a reiteration of previous doctrines laid down by SC
wherein court ruled that test used is not the nature of question rather the primary and ultimate objective test.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
The primary and ultimate objective of the action is title or possession of Rp then it is real action. Test of jurisdiction
being the AV.
In other words Primarily it is to recover title or possession of Rp so that’s why in many cases that an action for
annulment for example or rescission of sale of Rp does not necessarily lose its Character as a real action bec.
annulment of title or rescission of sale of Rp does not operate to Efface the fundamental objective of case which is to
recover title to or possession of Rp.
So in other words itong prime and ultimate objective test ang measure is this for as long as action would result in
affecting title to or possession of or an interest in Rp then it should be classified as real action and test of juris is
assessed value.
Let us go to the examination of the case of Sps Huguete. Ready na ba kayo sa recitation? Beadle tell us the facts and
ruling in this case.
Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo
— Case filed before the Rtc. Annulment of deed of sale and of certificate of title and tax declaration and also for
partition.
— one of the embudos, son in law of one of plaintiffs offered to sell a portion of parcel of land to the parents in law
the 50sqm of 150. Plaintiffs accepted offer and paid for it. Plaintiffs built their house.
But Problem lies where upon repeated demands of execution of DOS and the Embudos with insidious machination
led them to believe that the necessary document Of conveyance could not yet be executed bec. Obligation here has
not yet been fulfilled. Not yet fully paid to the owner of the lot. MTD was filed. RTC dismissed.
SC ruled that the action is a real action and test of juris. is AV. Primary purpose of plaintiffs is to secure title to the
50sqm portion of lot or to be declared the owners thereof.
Cause of action here is based on right of plaintiffs as purchasers of the 50sqm portion. Test used is prime and
ultimate objective test. For as long as Action would result in affecting Title to Possession of RP then it should be
classified as a real action.
And the fact that it also seeks to annulment of sale of real property does no operate to efface A fundamental and
prime objective of the case which is to recover title to said property.
Take note it is also seeking to annul the deed of sale executed by the original owner in favor of son in law And
daughter (spouse). Para daw malapit sila sa anak at mga apo nila ang dahilan.
Court said that Where the ultimate objective of plaintiff is to obtain title to property then it should be filed with court
having juris of assessed value of property. Since here it does not exceed 20k then MTC.
In Heirs of Sebe v Heirs of Sevilla...
-Sps Sebe claim they were Made to believe they were signing a mortgage nun pala Deed of Sale. RTc dismissed
case bec. They have no juris. since AV is less than 20k dapat daw sa Mtc. Sps Sebe argue Rtc is wrong bec they are
asking for annulment of documents And it’s IPE.
SC held that although sps sebe claim for annulment of docs issued, the real issue is the ownership pf properties.
Since issue is such then the AV of property is important. Rtc is correct. Sa Mtc dapat.
Real action Siya kahit it is asking for annulment of docs bec. First issue to Be tackled is ownership. Second issue
nalang yung annulment of docs.
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
SC here applied prime and ultimate objective test. That for as long as action would result affecting title or
possession to rp then it will be classified a Real Action.
It is about the right as an owner Not about declaration of nullity of docs, just the effect of after they are declared as
owners.
This will merely follow after trial court resolves issue of which of parties is the lawful owner of such lot. So the
annulment of DOS is only consequence after court ruled on who the owner is. Primary objective is Who is the
Owner - if court declares plaintiff as owner, then that is the time annulment will be consequence of ownership.
Reconcile with Russell v Vestil case as explained in huguete case. Ruling in russell was cited by petitioners in
huguete case however SC said reliance on this case is misplaced Bec. In said case the petitioner sought annulment of
document- decLaration of heirs and deed of confirmation of previous partition.
Whereby respondents declared themselves as only heirs Of late spouses to the exclusion, court said in huguete
explaining petitioners in russell brought action in order for them to be recognized as heirs as primary objective.
So again in huguete court explained that in russell case action is IPE bec action was brought in order for plaintiffs to
be recognized as lawful heirs in the partition of property of the deceased.
Primary purpose to be declared as heir. Pag declared co-owners or heirs na then That is the time the partition
meaning real action aspect can be allowed.
So let’s go back to sevilla Case. court said If primary purpose is to recover title meaning action would result to title
or possession should be classified real action And when consequence is annulment then it is a real action bec
annulment will only follow after declaration of ownership.
However of primary purpose is first to be declared rightful heirs as interpreted by court in huguete case is that when
primary obj is for them to be recognized as lawful heirs and after this is the annulment. So IPE bec primary purpose
is for them to be declared rightful heirs. What follows then is partition. Which is a real action.
*Sir: I believe erroneous ruling yung sa russell explained in huguete ay mali yun para sakin ha same thing in
copioso. Personal opinion lang ha.
If you will read other decisions of court at this point like...
**Breaking News: City-wide brownout in Angeles City; 11 classmates affected; meeting suspended.
***Read cases for next meeting:

-Penta pacific v lay construction (2014)
-Sps Sabitsana v muertigue (quieting of title)
-These are conflicting decisions. Wag na pala basahin baka maconfuse lang kayo. Explain ko nalang pag 4th yr.
nalang sa review ha
-Heirs of Concha v Lumusco (2007)

-Fraenella v Banayad (2009)
-Hilario v Salvador (2005)
-Iñigo v Purganan
-______ v Soriano
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
-Stante v Claraval
Lets discuss Number 8:
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00)
or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00).
Lets discuss Number 8.
Sa number 3, wala naman problema when we speak of admiralty cases as long as it involves maritime transportation
then that its admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.
- In the old law, mtc has no jurisdiction over maritime claims or admiralty claims even if the damage to the
cargo is only one peso basta maritime transportation nay an, CFI na yan nung araw. Pero under the present
law, mtc has also the maritime jurisdiction, where the value claim does not exceed (cut)
Likewise probate jurisdiction
- Under the old law, mtc has no probate jusrisdiction

- Present law, meron na yan. Threshold: cost estate: value 300 400k
- Then when it comes to contract of marriage and marital relation, walang amount amount jan.
- In other words the test of jurisdiction is not determined upon any amount or value.
JDRC cases – family courts (no threshold)
agrarian cases – rtc (no threshold)
Number 8
- meron threshold 300k or 400k

- but there is a problem. What is the problem? There are 2 things that is subject to threshold amount of 300
or 400
- what are those 2 things? (that to certain extent created some confusion)
“In all other cases in which the demand”
- So the first thing here that is subject of the threshold is the amount of the demand or the value of the
property in controversy. In other words, if the subject personal property is a specific chattel or thing then
what is determine the threshold of 300 or 400k would apply to the value of the property in which case you
EXCLUDE interest, damages of whatever kind, attys fees, litigation expenses, costs. Problema natin dito
yung demand, walang prob sa value of the personal property.
Q: what is this demand? Should it be the sole basis of the threshold of 300 or 400 where you exclude
interest, damages of whatever kind, attys fees, litigation expenses, costs?
Soliven vs fastforms
Unpaid loan
Fastforms borrowed money and failed to pay from soliven. Suit for collection in the rtc of Makati. Praying for: 1. To
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
hold the defendant guilty for breach of contract 2. To order the defendant to pay the ff sums 195k, 155k actual
damages , 100k exemplary damages , 200k moral damages, 100k attys fees.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction?

Q: Should you include everything?
RTC: FASTFORMS SHALL PAY 175K INSTEAD OF 195KAS PRAYED FOR, 5 PERCENT OF 175K OF THE
UNPAID LOAN PER MONTH UNTIL FULLY PAID LESS THE 176K AS INTEREST AND 50K AS ATTYS
FEES.
-PRAYER IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF JURISDICTION. WHATS DETERMINATIVE THERE IS THE

ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT.
Upon receipt of the decision, fastforms filed for a reconsideration questioning for the first time the TC’s jurisdiction.
By the way, when this case was rendered was filed in the RTC ha. The jurisdiction amount or threshold was, diba
nag una yan sa 100k 200k then 200k 300k, then finally 300k 400k. at the time this case was filed andun sya sa 2 nd
phase, 200k 300k. fastforms said it should have been filed with the mtc because the principal demand was only for
195k. kulang sa 200k. dapat exceed sya ng 200k 300k under 7691. RTC denied. RTC said it has jurisdiction. RTC
applied – that all or totality of damages are included. Almost 700k. fastforms appealed. CA reverse the RTC
decision saying that the case is within the jurisdiction of the MTC. And for want of rtc’s jurisdiction, dapat
madismiss ito. Want of jurisdiction according to the CA, may be assailed at anytime even for the first time on
appeal. Why?
Because jurisdiction is determined by law. Jurisdiction cannot be waived. Neither may it be there is a consent of the
parties. Hindi pwde yan. Halimbawa, the parties consent a case for murder may be tried by the mtc. Hindi pwde yan.
Or for unlawful detainer will be filed and they all agreed in the RTC. It cannot be done. JURISDICTION IS
DETERMINED BY LAW. IT CANNOT BE WAIVED. THAT IS THE GENERAL RULE. EXCEPTION: TIJAM
CASE
ISSUE: which court has jurisdiction?
The plaintiff was insisting that there is a Jurisdiction by estoppel.
JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL: he agreed to have the case, he did not question. In fact he filed an answer and
sought affirmative relief. So, the rule is if you are seeking affirmative relief do your really waive jurisdiction? The
TC said NO because you can question it. CA, you can assail it at anytime even for the first time on appeal, that is
jurisprudence. Pero pag dating the supreme court the issue here is won the rtc or mtc? SC agreed with the CA. RTC
had no jurisdiction. MTC has jurisdiction because the main cause of action is for RECOVERY OF SUM OF
MONEY AMOUNTING ONLY to 195k. the damages claim here are merely the consequence of the main cause of
action. Hence, they are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. So, it is plain from 7691 that it is the
MTC which has jurisdiction over the case. But here, while it is true, the SC said the defendant here is guilty of
estoppel while jurisdiction may be raised at anytime the rule presupposes that estoppel has not yet supervened. But
in this case, respondent actively according to the court, estoppel na daw because the defendant here participated in
all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and in fact invoked its authority by asking for affirmative relief in
its answer. Clearly defendant is estopped now from challenging the court’s jurisdiction specially when an adverse
judgment has been rendered against him. So here, the court said the law frowns upon undesirable practices of parties
participating in the proceedings and submitting his case for decision and then accepting judgment only if it is
favorable and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when it is adverse. So wala talagang jurisdiction. When we speak
of demand, the word “demand” under no. 8 or the phrase “ amount of the demand” pagdating sa loan doon ka lang
unpaid loan. However, just a comment. To certain extent mali rn ito. Because under the circular 09-94, if the main
cause of action is for recovery of damages then the totality of the claim of all the damages shall determine the
jurisdiction of the court. Now, take note true that moral exemplary damages and attys fees are damages. There are
certain extent where the court can award attys fees, hindi ibig sabihin nito pang bayad sa abogado ha. It is also
damages. Ex. If there is bad faith – attys fees
- If you lend money to someone and that debtor fails to pay the loan that is also damages. You call that actual

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
damages. It is clear pagka utang only the demand of the unpaid loan. Yan ang interpretasyon ng lintik
nayan. Following from this case, we have the case of inigo vs purganan.
Rule:
Circular 09-94: issued by SC to explain the expanding jurisdiction under RA 7691.
- No. 3 states, wherein damages are incidental, you exclude. But if it is the main cause of action, then you
include all damages.
- Problem arouse here because there are 2 words in number 8 that is the subject of the threshold amount. The
first word is “amount of the demand”, second, “value of the property”.
- Value of the property: specific definite property.
Ex. Car. – dun ka sa value
If you are recovering a car, you go to the value of the car. So the threshold is 300k or 400k. then, you exclude
damages. Because your cause of action is not to recover damages.
Q: how about demand? What does the word demand cover?
A: word demand is also found in section 33- “AMOUNT OF THE DEMAND”
SHOULD THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE DEMANDS CLAIM SHOULD BE COMPUTED OR THIS MORAL
EXEMPLARY AND ATTYS ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL
Inigo vs Purganan
An action for QUASI-DELICT.
Facts:
Binangga ang tao, namatay. Prayer dito to recover the amounts as a result of the delict case. The claim here for
actual damages for hospitalization. Kasi namatay agad kaya 40k lang ang nagastos kasi patay pagdating sa hospital.
There is also a claim na itong mga bus companies pag nasagasaan mabuti pang mamatay na kasi konti gastos. But
here the complaint ask for actual damages in the amount of 40k. now, should that be the sole basis for the
jurisdiction? Is the actual damages there demanded within the word demand, such that moral damages? Kasi
nanghhingi rn ng moral 300k exemplary 150k atty fees 50k then total more than 500k. the case was filed with the
RTC decided by judge Purganan. The defendant files a Motion to Dismiss raising the opinion that the RTC HAS
ONLY EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES EXCEEDS 400K
MANILA ITO. But here in this complaint it did not exceed because his theory is that the sole basis here is the 40k.
pareho rin sa soliven case. Yung actual lang. yung moral, incidental nalang. Now, the theory of the plaintiff, hindi!
KASALI LAHAT YAN. Besides ung 40k sabi ng plaintiff that’s for actual. However, the exemplary, moral etc.,
attys fees is based on another cause of action. When the plaintiff demanded 40k. kung binayaran na agad yan wala
na sanang second cause of action, ung moral. Kaya lang hindi sya nagbayad ng 40k sa actual. The result is plaintiff
suffered moral, exemplary and attys fees. Now, sabi nyang ganon, dalawang causes of action ito. First, for actual.
Second, for moral. Since ung moral exemplary and attys fees exceeds 400k, sa jurisdiction yan ng RTC because the
second cause of action is more than 400k. Judge Purganan in ruling said, that an action based on quasi-delict. An
action based on accion culpa acquillana or quasi delict is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Why? Judge
Purganan applied the nature of the question test. The issue here in a quasi delict case is to determine WON the
defendant was negligent or not when he drove the car at the time of the accident in question. So, it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation after the determination whether the defendant is guilty or not that is the only time when the
obligation to pay damages arises. So following the cases of lapitan case, Isabela somil where the payment of sum of
money in this case damages is not dependent upon any fact for matter then it is capable of pecuniary estimation.
However, where the payment of money is conditioned upon another fact or matter which if that issue is resolved
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
that’s the only time when the obligation to pay damages arises then the basic it is incapable of pecuniary estimation
because the more basic question to be ask is other than the payment of money. Yan ang sabi ni judge purganan.
Inakyat na ngayon ito sa SC.
Issue? Won Judge Purganan is correct that an action based on quasi-delict is incapable of pecuniary estimation
following the standards in lapitan vs Scandia case what I term the nature of question test.
Held: No.
Because what is capable or incapable of pecuniary action is not the cause of action rather it is the subject matter of
the litigation. So the court went back on to emphasize SEC19.
1. In all cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
- Judge Purganan committed an error in saying that an action based on quasi delict is incapable of
pecuniary estimation because no. 1 of sec 19 bp129 states, that what must be determined to be capable
of pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action but the subject matter of the action.
Q: what is a cause of action?

A: it is an act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of plaintiffs right or its is the delict or wrong
committed by the defendant because in a cause of action there are 3 elements:
1. Right of the plaintiff
2. Correlative obligation of the defendant to respect plaintiffs right
3. Act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of plaintiffs right.
But for purposes of jurisdiction, you DON’T go to the cause of action. You don’t refer to the act or omission
whether negligent or not. Kasi quasi delict. Here, the subject matter refers to the physical facts to the thing real or
personal, the money, the lands the chattels in relation to which the suit is now prosecuted. Here, what is the subject
matter? RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IN RELATION TO WHICH THE SUIT IS NOW PROSECUTED. Pera pera
lang. SC SAID which is correct. Ex. Non payment of debt, if the basis is what is capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation then even to an action to recover debt is also incapable of pecuniary estimation because technically, if
you are filing an action for recovery of unpaid loan, it is for specific performance. In other words, if that is the
cause of action, the question there, IS THERE AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT TO
PAY SOMETHING A DEBT? Under the civil code, you have to demand as a general rule because if there is no
demand, there is no delay. Unless stipulated otherwise. So that, there is now an obligation on the part of the
defendant to respect plaintiffs right. Then, the nonpayment of the debt is the omission there. So now you go to the
subject matter—money which is not paid in relation to which the plaintiff is prosecuting his case to recover the
unpaid money or loan. Therefore, subject matter is the one that determines and not the act or omission of the
defendant.
The court here explained, that the action to recover damages on the basis of quasi delict is capable of pecuniary
estimation.
Q: should you only based it on actual damages and exclude moral, exemplary and attys fees?
A: No.
Under the 09-94, these are all actions for damages. Therefore, the totality of the entire claim must be the basis of
jurisdiction. Actions for quasi delict are primarily and effectively for recovery of sums of money for damages
suffered because of the alleged defendant;s tortious acts. His negligent act. The damages claim in such actions
represent the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the defendant. Thus, in the suit sought to be
recovered by the plaintiff. The money claim here is the principal relief sought. So, this is primarily an action for
damages. So here the moral damages are not merely incidental to because the moral like actual damages are the
damages suffered as a result of the negligent act or tortious act of the defendant. Because you know pag binangga
ka, yung sleepless night, wounded feelings kasama yan. Worst, mga babae jan nasira ang mukha. Imagine the
feeling that you are not anymore beautiful? Pati rin sa mga lalake na mas vain pa sa mga babae.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Ang hirap dito, the ruling of judge purganan wa affirmed by the CA. the court said, fault or negligence which the
CA claims is not capable of pecuniary estimation is not actionable by itself, correct. In itself, negligence is not
actionable
Q: when is negligence actionable?

A: when your negligence results in damage
So here, the SC applied the totality rule. Ung theory ng plaintiff na ung 40k actual is a separate cause of action on
the claim of moral damages, mali din yon. Because all of this damages is a result of the negligent acts of the
defendant. Assuming arguendo, that the claim for moral arose from separate and distinct cause of action other than
quasi delict the inclusion in the computation of damages for jurisdictional purposes is still PROPER because all
claims for damages should be considered in determining the jurisdiction.
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION – WE ALSO APPLY THE TOTALITY RULE
Q: what is the basis of totality rule?
A: Sec. 33. BP129 No.1, last proviso.
“provided further that when there are several claims or causes of action between the same and different parties
embodied in the same complaint.”
So, if the same complaint has many causes of action, the court here, assuming that the claim for moral, exemplary
and attys fees, is based on a separate causes of action. Nonetheless, the law said, 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.
For the purposes of jurisdiction, the claims in all the causes of action, the totality of the claims ha. The SC said, lahat
yan ha. Do not only base it only on actual because 09-954 states, where the main cause of action is to recover
damages, so lahat ng claims ng damages is the one that determines jurisdiction.
If we follow strictly the interpretation in this case, (skipped) soliven vs fastforms, unpaid loan is an actal damages
suffered by the creditor. He suffered damages up to the extent of the unpaid loan. Then as a result he also suffers
moral hindi na sya nakatulog kasi hindi sya nabayaran. As a consequence kung pwde moral, pwde rn mag award ng
exemplary damages atyaka attys fees. There is a showing that there is a dolo incidente.
Q: What I want to emphasize is what is the meaning of the word “demand”?

A: It appearse pagka utang, ung demand is only amount of the unpaid loan. Ang claims for moral, kung may kaso
kayo nyan sundin nyo ung soliven vs fastforms. Kung sa mga quasi delict, sundin mo ang inigo vs purganan. Pero,
the truth of the matter kung sa unpaid loan, ung hindi binayran na load is also an actual damages. Damages rin yan.
Actual lang ang tawag. Kala daw sa soliven vs fastforms pag di nanabyaran di daw damages un, ano yun? Di ko
maintindihan kung ano yun. Now, the next case is Mendoza v. Soriano.
Mendoza vs Soriano
Quasi delict rin. Issue here is the application of 09-94.
Facts:
Ang claim dito, 22,250 for funral services, namatay kasi so 22k h,45k burial lot, 15,150 for interment and lapida,
8,066 for hospitalization ang transportation, 28, 544 for food and drinks during the wake, 60k for indemnity for
Soriano’s death. Kung compute mo yan, di aabot ng 300k. theory of the defendant based this on the actual. The
claim for moral is excluded, 200k, loss income 500k, exemplary damages 50k, 25k attys fee plus 500pesos per court
appearance.
The SC here applied 09-94, actions for damages based on quasi delict are primarily and effectively actions for
recovery of sum of money citing inigo vs purganan because all of the sum of money are the result of the tortious
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
acts. Here, the courts said, actions based on quasi delict are primarily effectively effectively actions for recovery of
sum of money for damages for tortious act. In this case, respondents claim totaling 995k in damages and 25k attys
fees plus 500php per court appearance represents the money equivalent for compensation of the alleged injury using
the words in inigo vs purganan all of these damages is the total result of the negligent act of the defendant. Hindi
lang ung actual. Apti na ung moral. So these money claims are the principal reliefs sought by respondent in their
complaint for damages. Consequently, we hold that the RTC OF CALOOCAN CITY POSSESSED PROPERLY
EXECISE JURISDICTION. So, you do not determine it solely on the basis of the actual only ha. Ung mga,
hospitalization, lapiida, etc. clear na tayo jan ha.
Likewise, where the main action is for damages – moral.
Insante vs claraval
Hindi na Quasi delict ito.
If you file an action for dematory case. You have 5 sources of obligation. Law, contracts, quasi contracts, delict and
quasi delict. Here, the court said, pag contract, in a contract of loan. You are only basing it with the unpaid loan.
Pero pag quasi delict, not only on the actual. LAHAT, because all of them are the totality (moral, exemplary attys
fees), the result of the tortious act of the defendant.
Other sources mo yan, criminal cases. Delict yan. Ex. Solution indebiti. Asking for damages also for breach of
contract.
Defamation – balik sa case
Facts: Delict-- Action for damages. RTC of Baguio.

In the presence of other police officers, While in they were in the police station sante uttered words “how many
rounds of sex did you have last night with your boss, you fucking bitch” pag sinabi mo yan sa lalaki, hindi yan
defamatory ha.
Claims: moral300k, exemplary 50k, attys fees50k, 20k litigation expenses.
Q: should you only based it on moral? When you are being defamed, what is the basis of your claim? Delict! It is
oral defamation.
(libel) on a separate cause of action based on a law.
A: the SC said, NO. lahat ng naryan.
CA said lahat. Sc said ganun na rin. For the alleged shame injuries suffered on the alleged plaintiffs utterance. It is
clear based on the allegations in the complaint that respondents main action is for damages. Hence, other forms of
damages( exemplary attys fees,litigation expenses) are claimed are not merely incidental to or a consequences of the
main action but constitute primary relief prayed for in the complaint. Because the theory of the defendant is it should
be based solely on moral as the result of the defamation or the defamatory statements excluding exemplary and attys
fees. No! that is wrong. Following 09-94, the main action is for damages. Therefore, the totality of all the claims and
the incidental or other damages are also damages. So, they are not merely incidental to or consequence of the main
action but they are all the consequences of the defamatory statement uttered by the defendant.So, included lahat. In
this case, Mendoza case was stated here. So, it is not only the principal relief sought. Include all!
BP129-DEMAND - C/O HENSON
RULE 1 - C/O GARCIA
RULE 1 CONT - BLANZA:
RULE 1 CONT. (Thurs class)
Last topic-cases in docket fees.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Q: When is an action commenced?
A: Civil action is commenced by filing the original complaint in court and also payment of the proper docket fee.
A civil action is one where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or for the prevention or
redress of a wrong. So one is ordinary, the other is special civil action.
Special civil action are those enumerated in Rule 62 up to 71. Interpleader, Declaratory relief, review of judgment
and original order of the COMELEC and COA, mandamus, quo warranto, expropriation, foreclosure of mortgage,
partition, forcible entry/unlawful detainer, contempt of court.
Now we are saying that special civil actions are also covered by the rules on ordinary civil action subject however to
the specific rules prescribed for special civil action. So ayan ang action, so even special civil actions are also for the
enforcement or protection of a right ha? Or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Andun pa rin yan sa definition na
yan. Whereas, a special proceeding as I was telling you is when wants to establish a status, a right, or a fact. Okay?
It is not there to enforce or to prevent or redress of a wrong but to establish a right, status or fact by judicial decree.
Now, next, going back to actions. Actions may be classified according to its nature. So according to nature as we
were saying here under the law, an action according to nature may be ordinary or special civil action. The second
classification is as to cause or foundation. So as to cause or foundation, civil action may either be a real action or a
personal action. What is a real action? Is that one which is founded on privity of real estate such as an action
affecting title to or possession of real property. Yan ang real action, when it relates to privity of real property. On the
other hand, a personal action is one that is founded on privity of contract, or on quasi-delict, such as an action for
recovery of sum of money, or for damages or for the enforcement or resolution of a contract, and also for the
recovery of personal property. In other words, kung hindi real, personal. Enforcement of a contract that is
considered a personal action. Now this classification is important even with respect to jurisdiction as we already
learned and also as to venue later. Some authors would classify certain actions as mixed actions, Why? Because it is
a mixture of real and personal. Example of a mixed action according to some authors -- recovery of real property
plus damages. Okay? But for purposes of jurisdiction, you only consider the real and the basis would be the assess
value. You exclude there the damages. Okay? Why? Because the Supreme Court said “you only consider the
damages in all other cases” Okay. So that is # 8 of Sec. 19 of BP 129. So that is what is known as mixed action but
for purposes of jurisdiction, that is only considered as a real action. IN some instances however, because of the
confusion, it can also be considered as an action of incapable of pecuniary estimation and we are going to discuss
that. Another classification of action is the place of filing. So as to the place of filing, civil action may be classified
as local or transitory. Local actions are which must be brought only in a particular place like a real action. We will
find this later on in venue. While transitory action follows the party wherever he may reside. Okay? Yan ang
transitory action. So we will later on learn on the rule on venue that real actions are local as to venue whereas
personal actions are transitory ha? Meaning again, it follows the party wherever he reside. Then the other
classifications of action are on your books ha. Ayaw ko lang magpamemorize. Now as to object, ito yung
importante, although importante naman lahat ha - civil actions may be classified into actions in personam, actions in
rem, meron pang quasi in rem. Now dapat klaro ito ha sa inyo. I mean you have to understand this very very well.
So what is an action in personam as distinguished from an action in rem? Now here. Where the object of the suit is
to erstabnlish a claim against a particular person or some particular persons with a judgment which binds him (that
person) so that only such person or persons are entitled to be heard in defense then the action is in personam. Again,
I repeat. An action in personam in short is one where the object is to establish a claim against a particular person or
some persons ha? Yun yan. That you are seeking judgment against him because that judgment will only bind him or
them so that conversely, since they are the only ones who are entitled to be heard in defense. Okay? Then the action
is in personam. On the other hand, what is an action in rem? It is an action in rem if the object of the suit is to bar
indifferently all those who might be minded of any sort, to make an objection of any sort against the right, the fact or
status sought to be established. Or anyone on the world, anyone ha? Has the right to be heard on the strength of

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
alleging facts which if true show an inconsistent interest, then the proceeding is in rem. In other words, in short, if
the action is agains the whole world so that the purpose is to bar indifferently all those who might be minded of any
sort against the right sought to be estabished, then that is an action in rem. A good example of an action in rem
which you already took up is a land registration proceedings and/or a cadastral proceedings. Is there a distinction
between a land registration and a cadastral proceeding, meron ba? Have you taken this up, land registration.
Actually a cadastral proceeding is also land registration ha? Pero what really divides the two concepts? Sometimes
when you read a certificate of title, so and so.. of the Pampanga cadastre. Cadastral proceedings is an initiative of the
government and it involves. In land registration, the petition is filed by the landowner sya lahat gagastos pati yung
sa publication, punta sya sa Bureau of Lands, he will have it surveyed by the Bureau of Lands. Then he will also ask
for a certification whether the land is already alienable. Has been declared alienable land of the public domain. On
the other hand, ang cadastral proceeding, government already makes a survey - a cadastral survey of the area, let us
say Cadastral survey of Pampanga. Sinurvey na lahat yan, inidentify who are in possession of this properties then
government now will initiate the cadastral proceedings. Tawagin yan isa-isa. Oh, Mr. Dayrit halika ka pagkatapos
susunod kung sino pa dyan. Halimbawa 100 yan, sinurvey na lahat ng gobyerno yan. Gastos ng gobyerno, ha? Para
yung buong yun na-cadastral survey na. After ni Mr. Dayrit, next number 2, then number 3, tatanungin, have you
been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945? Not necessarily you, your predecessor, kung saan nanggaling
yan. How you prove it? Maraming proof - actual possession, present witnesses, tax declarations; that is in rem. So in
other words, all of those who might be minded, like in land registration, cadastral proceeding those are examples, all
of those who might be minded go to court to make an objection against a right sought to be established. Okay, pag
hindi ka nag-appear and you fail to object, tapos ka at saka the court will later on confirm the ownership of the
petitioner then that’s the end of it. Oh yan ang ibig sasbihin “against the whole world”. Okay na yan. What else?
Another example, in a petition for the probate of a will for instance. All of those who might be minded, you must
now go to court and object to the fact sought to be established - that this is the last will and testament of the
deceased. PAg na-allowed probate na yan wala na, that is already what? It settles already the genuineness and due
execution of th will even as against the others. That is why even the state cannot prosecute somebody for the
alleged falsification of the will, that the will is falsified or a forgery. Wala na, tapos na ang boxing dyan. Okay. The
state is even barred from prosecuting. Okay because once the will has been probated, it is now conclusive as to its
due execution and authenticity so all those who might be minded cannot question. However, meron yang pangatlo -
quasi in rem. The word “quaasi” means “almost”. It is a Latin word. Kaya as much as possible do not pronounce it
kwa-say ha? Kwa-si. Alam nyo ang nagpopronounce lang ng kwa-say amerikano- Certioraray> The proper way to
pronounce “certiorari” is “CHER-CHO-RA-RI. Ang C-E, “CHE”. I hope you can pronounce it that way ha. Let’s
say stare decisis, it’s STARE DE-CHI-SIS not STARE DE-SAY-SIS! Short “i” yan! That’s the original Latin.
Kung pwede sana you pronounce it. So what is this quasi-in rem and how does it differ from one that is purely in
rem? An action quasi in rem differs from the true or pure in rem action in the circumstance that in quasi in rem, an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his property to the obligation or to
the lien burdening his property. Now, all proceedings therefore having for their object the sale or disposition of
property whether by attachment, foreclosure or other form of remedy like execution, are designated as quasi in rem
and there in these proceedings it is conclusive only between the parties and not against the whole world but it is
considered quasi in rem because the res is the one who answers for an obligation instead of the person. Now that
can be done voluntary or involuntary. An action quasi in rem may proceed either out of voluntary or involuntary act.
What is voluntary? When a person burdens his property or establish a lien in favor of somebody. Example is a
mortgage. Pagkamortgage, you go to someone to make utang, like a creditor. Tapos sabihin ng creditor, di kita
pautangin, dapat you give me a security. There are two kinds of security -- anotrhe rperson who will execute, that
he will be jointly and severally liable with the debtor. Yan ang joint and solidary obligation. You go to somebody
who will c0-sign, undertake to pay. The other form when the other person is a corporation they call it a bond.
Where a bonding company will assume the obligation that is why sa mga construction, there is usually a contract for
the building, you will be the contractor. There is a requirement that the contractor will put up a bond, you will look
for a bonding company who will issue what is known as “performance bond” . Do you get that? In other words, pag

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
di natapos ng contractor within the time frame or mali ang pagkagawa, the bonding company will answer kaya ilang
milyon yang bond na yan. That bonding company is a person, a juridical person.
(INTERVAL..STRONG RAIN SOUND).
The defendant in a quasi in rem is usually the debtor or mortgagor, okay. So pagnagforeclose ng mortgage quasi in
rem. Dalawang klase naman ang pagforeclose, merong judicial, merong extra-judicial foreclosure. So in other
words, all proceedings having for their sole object the sale or disposition of the property, subject the property of the
defendant to a burdern. Now whether voluntary or involuntary, ano naman ang involuntary? Ang involuntary,
kukunin ng sheriff yan by attachment or by execution. The sheriff will go to the office of the Register of Deeds para
inanotate ang lien by virtue of a writ of execution issued by the court. Yung attachment sa una pa lang, hindi pa
natapos ang judgment. Anyway, we call a writ of execution as “final attachment”. Yung preliminary attachment
yun ang sa umpisa. So the judgment entered. A quasi in rem is conclusive only with the parties not against the
whole world because an in rem is against the world, why? Because the very object there is to bar indifferently those
who might be minded. Okay? Hindi tayo magkamali sa pag-intindi sa mga yan leche na yan (HAHAHA). Now, later
on to understand this better, yung mga decisions ng Supreme Court, remember the classification ha. What did we
say again? An action may be classified as to cause or foundation. We said as to cause or foundation, an action may
be either a real action or a personal action. Okay? Now as to object, an action may be an action in personam or an
action in rem. Okay. Now the question is this, ang action in personam ba is always a personal action? And an action
in rem or quasi in rem is always a real action? Hindi ha! You get that. Why? Because a personal action is when the
object of the suit is to establish a claim against a particular individual only, yun! That is why we have some cases
here where the court, do not confuse it ha? that an action in personam may also be a real action because you are
asking to recover the real property from a particular individual. It is not “against the whole world” in other words.
What is the case of Ching v. CA? Okay? But of course you will really appreciate it when we discuss summons.
Here is a real property (a parcel of land) which Mr. Ching acquired. Mr. Ching migrated to the United States. Then
sometime in 1965, Mr. Ching died in the USA but he was a resident of Pasay City. After he died, his son, Alfredo
Ching filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal for the settlement of his testate (action in rem). So 13 years after the
death of Mr. Ching here comes now a suit for reconveyance of the property filed by Pedro _____ in his favor. It
appears that Mr. Ching is no more residing in Pasay City, so what the plaintiff did is to ask the court that summons
by publication be allowed. So the complaint was amended to “Mr. Ching or his estate”. The trial court allowed
summons by publication. After that, Mr Ching was declared in default kasi di sya sumipot. Paano naman sya
sisipot, eh patay na 13 years ago. A judgment by default was rendered by the court. The judgment became final and
executor. Later on, when the judgment of the court was being enforced, may writ of execution na, that was the first
time that the estate of Ching, his son Alfredo being the appointed administrator learned of the judgment of the court.
What Alfredo Ching did as administrator was to file a motion to quash the writ of execution and to declare the
judgment null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of Mr. Ching. Initially, the court set it aside,
however, the judge was only a temporary judge. With the new judge (permanent judge), he, in a motion for
reconsideration reversed or set aside the original order and said that the judgment is valid. Umakyat yan sa SC on
the issue of whether service of summons by publication was proper. The SC said No. The question is pwede ba ang
publication since the action is in rem as argued by the plaintiff because it is a real property? Ching said this is still a
personal action. SC said, CORRECT. The mere fact that the subject of the action is a real property of course it is a
real action because it involves a reconveyance, title or possession of a real property however not because it is
already a real action it is already an action in rem. No!
What is the meaning of an action in personam? This is still an action in personam. So an action to recover title or
possession of real property is not an action in rem or an action aganst the whole world like a land registration
proceeding or a probate of a will. It is an action in personam so much so that the judgment is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given the opportunity to be heard. An action in personam and an in
rem differ in that the former is directed against a specific person while the latter is directed against the thing or
property of a person and seeks judgment with respect to the thing as against the whole world.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam. Why? Because it binds only a
particular person although concerns a right to a real property.
Okay na roon ha? Wag paghaluin kasi ang classification ng in personam and in rem that is classification as to object.
The classification of a real versus personal action is a classification as to cause or foundation, ha? Ang ibig lang
sabihin dito, ang pairing. Ang pair, pagka in personam, ano ang pair nya? In rem. Ang real action, ano ang pair
noon? Personal action. In other words, yun ang maga-asawa, hindi ibig sabihin na kung in rem, real action. Ay sus!
Mali. Parang ano yan, nagkapalit ng mag-asawa yan. Wag nyong pagpalitin yan. Yan ang importante dyan. Now
the other important case aside from Ching.
We go to the next point... Let us now discuss Rule 2.
The title of Rule 2... I’ll give you a tip ha. Whenever you study the rules or any law for that matter, tingnan nyo ang
title and you will notice in each title there is a subtitle. So the title here of our Rule 2 is Cause of Action. Then
Section 1 meron syang subtitle “Ordinary civil actions, basis of.” Yan ang pinag-uusapan, at least you will know
kung ano ang pinag-uusapan. Rule 2 speaks of cause of action then you will go down and read the law, so all of
these talks about cause of action. You will already have a general idea if you look at the title and subtitles. Ibig
kong sabihin although hindi mo pa nababasa lahat, malalaman mo na more or less. Let’s say you want to go on a
tour, say in Italy. Now before ka pumunta, tingnan mo ang mapa. Ah dito pala kami pupunta, we’ll go to Rome then
to Florence then go up to Venice. Mga ganyan ha? You look at the map. Mahirap din pagnagtravel ka bababa ka
then aakyat ka na naman. Kung nagtotour kam you look at the map para di ka mailto and more or less you have an
idea in the map where you are going then you read a literature of each place, what you can eat there, what is the nice
food there, okay? Yun ang titingnan mo so you will already know what you will do there and what to eat. Alam ko
kayong mga Kapampangan mahilig sa eating and of course the food there is really good. You cook well there. Yan
ang ibig sabihin so you would be expecting what to eat. So here, we are now going to discuss Cause of Action.
SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. -- Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.”
Q: Is it necessary that every action must be based on a cause of action?
A: Not necessary. Only ordinary civil action.
Q: What is that civil action where it is not necessary/must be based on a cause of action?
A: Special civil actions need not necessarily be based on a cause of action, because ehere, only ordinary.
Kumbaga sa kwan, kung may siopao ka ordinary, may siopao kang special. “Pag ordinary ito dapat meron, may
laman sya ito, ganito, otherwise hindi yan siopao na ordinary. Do you get that? Pero ang special siopao, it is no
longer necessary to have that element, ha called a cause of action. Oh yun lang ang ibig kong sabihin.
Q: Now, what is now a cause of action?
A:
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.
✍it is the act or omission by the defendant against the right of the plaintiff.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Q: What are the elements/essential requisites of a cause of action?
A: There are three (3) requisites of a cause of action: (1) there must be a right pertaining to the plaintiff; (2) there
must be a correlative obligation of the defendant to respect plaintiff’s right; and (3) the act or omission committed
by the defendant in violation of plaintiff’s right (aka “delict” or “wrong”).
✍Therefore, an action must always involve a right and it is also a requisite before the court can exercise judicial
power because judicial power is defined as the power of the court or tribunal to resolve a controversy involving
rights. Meaning rights that are recognized by law. If a right is not recognized by law, wala. Do you get that?
Now, there are many kinds of rights from its origin. There are rights which we call “inalienable rights”. In other
words, inherent rights.
Q: What are these inherent rights?
A: Right to life, liberty and property or the pursuit of happiness.
So that is why in our Constitution, in the due process clause, it states that ”No person shall be deprived by the State
ha of his life liberty or property without due process of law”.
Q: But anyway, may the State deprive a person of his life, of his liberty, or his property?
A: Yes, mag-due process lang.
Kaya kung minsan sabi ng ibang justices ng Supreme Court, ang death penalty daw unconstitutional,
Katarantaduhan yan! Why, Because the Constitution only prohibits the State, cannot deprive us of life, the only
condition is due process. Provided there is due process kaya nga pwede kang patayin, wag lang nilang sabihin na
unconstitutional daw. Kabuangan yan. Hindi ba? Sana sinabi dyan ng Constitution “No person shall be deprived of
life by the State”. Klaro talaga yan under any circumstances. What the State may deprive life, liberty or property
provided there is due process. Kaya yung Echegaray noong araw..Alam nyo ang ibang justices nagpapasanto-santo
akala nila. Hay. You know the trend now that death penalty because nga of our evolving sense of decency. We no
longer consider killing somebody decent but that doesn’t mean to say that that is unconstitutional! Okay? Let
Congress do it. To say outright that death penalty is unconstitutional is simply wrong.
There are certain instances that I was pointing out to you that some rights are being invoked when it does not exist.
There are rights that are inalienable or inherent rights like the right to life, liberty or property. Inherent yan. Meron
naman given right. Hindi yan inalienable rights which is given by the State. Under our Constitution, that is why
when you read the Bill of Rights it is more on what the State cannot do. Hindi ba? “No person shall be deprive”, so
the State cannot deprive any person. It is more of a prevention. Why? Because it is inherent so hindi ito pwedeng
galawin ng State. So they are more of exclusions or prohibition. So pati sa religion, that State cannot establish a
religion. It is a prohibition against the State to do this because again, it is inherent. Meron din naman yung State
nagbibigay, under the Regalian doctrine..gaya nga ng sinabi ko yung Public Land Act because the State owns, it can
also give. Binibigay nya sa iyo. Now, take note ladies and gentlemen rights under the Bill of Rights is only a defense
against the State ha? Do you get that? It is not a defense against any other individual. That is why for instance,
tayong mga lalaki. Lets’s say a husband comes home 3 o’clock in the morning, then the wife would say “ikaw ha,
san ka na naman galing, lasing ka na naman” Nag-accuse na yung wife, then you tell the wife “You don’t give me a
right to due process of law to explain where I went, you just make a conclusion. You already the accuser, the judge,
everything!” Can you invoke due process with your wife? No ha! The right to due process is only to right the
citizens from the strong arms of the state not from the strong arm of the wife! Tandaan nyo yan. Leche! Unless the
law legislates. Kasi ganito yan, prior to the Labor Code noon ha, freedom to contract but because of the exervcise of
police power gumawa na ang State ng minimum requirements in employment. Example, minimum wage law,
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
another example sa Labor, 8-hour labor. Okay? Pagsumobra sa 8 hrs. bayaran na yan ng overtime. According sa
research, ang tama lang na oras na pagtrabaho per day is 8 hours, beyond that extra na yan. Noong araw walang
limit yan so general welfare of the working. Mga mothers, when they bear children meron na silang maternity leave.
Pero wag dapat unreasonable and oppressive. Ano ba ang gagawin ng law, ang minimum wage is 5k per hour, ay
confiscatory na yan kumpadre!
Then No. 2, as we learn in Constitutional Law, it must be demandable and enforceable. Okay? So, there must be an
obligation so one is a right then obligation. Then there must be an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect
plaintiff’s right. Even if there is a right if there is no more obligation, wala ang second element. Example yang
enforceability. O, nagprescribe na, may right na naviolate on the part of the plaintiff pero nagprescribe, wala ng
obligasyon, napaso na eh. Do you get that? Wala ng obligation or wala pang demand. Dapat magdemand ka. What
did we learn in Civil Code? It is not enough that an obligation has been created but the obligation as a rule do not
become due and demandable. Halimbawa may usapan tayo na bayaran mo ang utang on this date, hindi nabayaran
eh wala naming demand, so you are not in delay. You are not in mora solvendi yan ang sabi ni Manresa! Kanino ba
kayo sa obligation, kay Dean Navarro? Putang-ina, edi ang galling nyo. Hindi Ba? So you are not in delay unless
there is a demand. There is therefore no obligation. Yan yung ibang ina-argue na sa court ha. Wala daw demand.
Yung iba Katanga din. Hindi nila alam na dalawa ang demand. One is extra-judicial. Extra-judicial, the mere fact
na nagfile ka na ng kaso that is already demand. Aba sabi ko lintik, imagine some lawyers would raise that kaya
nga ang sagot ko dyan, from the school where I came from, I was taught that the law says that there are two (2)
kinds of demand, one is what he is talking about. Eh ang judicial kaya nga nagfile na ng action for collection of sum
of money kung hindi nagbayad ng utang, demand na yan. Ano ba sya!? Ewan ko sinong teacher nya sa OBLICON,
definitely hindi si Dean Navarro. Kaya pag mga ganyan yan, sabihin nyo “in my school, in AUF, heto ang turo sa
amin, ewan ko sa inyo kung sino ang nagturo dyan”. Leche! So ayun ha, then the delict or wrong committed by the
defendant, the act or omission.
Now, the next point is...Now by the way, is there a diff bet. Okay so let’s go now to Sec. 3.
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. – A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action.
Q: How many actions may a party sue for a single cause of action?
A: The law says, Sec. 3 “one suit for a single cause of action”
And here Sec. 3 states “A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action”.
Q: What is splitting of a single cause of action?
A: “If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action” (Sec. 4)
✍it is the practice of dividing a single or one cause of action into different parts and making each part a subject of a
separate complaint or suit.
Q: What is the effect of splitting a single cause of action?

A: If two or more complaints are brought for different parts of a single cause of action, the filing of the first may be
pleaded in abatement, here you can ask for its dismissal of the other or if it is “a judgment upon the merits in any
one” is now a bar to file the others.
✍So hindi bawal ang splitting.
Q:Now, what is the reason behind the law here against splitting of a single cause of action?

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
A: Is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits or repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to the same
subject of the controversy; To protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation (guguluhin ka), to avoid the costs
and incidents to numerous suits.
✍That is not conducive to the proper administration of justice!
Q: How do we determine whether or not a cause of action is single? (Take note, the rule against splitting applies
only when there is one or single cause of action. Sec. 3 provides “one suit for a single cause of action)?
A: Where there is only one act or omission then, there is only a single cause of action.
✍Because a cause of action is defined as an act or omission. So therefore, to identify whether a cause of action is
single, it means that when there is only one act or one delict or wrong committed by the defendant then that is a
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated.
✍All those rights violated must be prayed for in one complaint.
✍In other words, whether the case falls within or without the rule against splitting, depends upon whether the wrong
for which the redress is sought is one and the same in both actions. Whether different grounds for relief for the same
wrong are set forth.
May I illustrate this. For instance, a debtor borrows money from a creditor. In their agreement, the debtor must pay
the principal on this date and he also has to pay interest. Then on the date due the debtor fails to pay. The creditor
demands payment. What the plaintiff did was to file an action first - to collect the principal. Then later, he filed
another action to collect for the interest. There are two rights violated here - the right to recover the principal and
also the right to be paid the interest. So there are two (2) rights, there is however only one act or omission. More
appropriately in this case an omission dahil hindi nakabayad. Do you get that? So there is only one act or omission.
You cannot file two cases first for the principal and then another action for the interest because that is splitting.
There is only but a single cause of action and what is that single cause of action? Failure to pay. Isa lang yan ha.
Now, this is illustrated by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Industrial Finance Corporation v. Apostol (collection
of unpaid loan), who wants to recite?
DISCONNECTED (30 MINS. BEFORE DISMISSAL!)
RULE 2 - C/O GARCIA
RULE 3 - C/O HENSON
RULE 4 - BLANZA:
NOTE: LAST TOPIC BEFORE IS THE CASE OF RAYMOND V. CA ON PERSONAL ACTIONS
The term resides must be distinguished from the term domicile.

Reside – must be viewed and understand in its popular sense. What is the popular sense, meaning actual, physical
habitation of the person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies personal presence and actual stay.
RULE 4 – VENUE OF ACTIONS
Section 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein
the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be
commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
ESUERTE V. CA14
Tan filed an action for damages against Esuerte & Jayme (petitioners) with the CFI of Cebu. The case emanated
from a previous incident between the parties wherein Tan (resident physician) shouted and humiliated petitioners
in the hospital located in Bacolod City, where all of them are working.
The incident reached the Discipline and Grievance Committee. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case on
the ground of improper venue since Tan, at the time of the filing of the case was actually residing in Bacolod City
which was however denied by the CFI.
ISSUE: WON the venue was improperly laid?

HELD: Yes.
Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance. —

xxx xxx xxx
(b) Personal Actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendants or any of the
defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the
plaintiff.
The choice of venue for personal actions cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is given to the plaintiff but not
to the plaintiff's caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. The rule on venue, like other
procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and
evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding. The option of the plaintiff in personal actions
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is either the place where the defendant resides or may be found or the
place where the plaintiff resides. If plaintiff opts for the latter, he is limited to that place.
"Resides" in the rules on venue on personal actions means the place of abode, whether permanent or
temporary, of the plaintiff or defendants as distinguished from "domicile" which denotes a fixed
permanent residence, venue of personal actions should be at the place of abode or place where plaintiffs
actually reside, not in domicile or legal residence.
There is no question that private respondent as plaintiff in the Civil Case is a legal resident of Cebu City. Her
parents live there. However, it cannot also be denied that at the time of her filing of the complaint against
petitioners, she was a temporary resident of Bacolod City. She was then employed with the Corazon Locsin
Montelibano Memorial Hospital, Bacolod City, as resident physician. Moreover, the acts complained of were
committed in Bacolod City. The private respondents were all residents of Bacolod City at the time of the bringing
of the action. Though Tan's employment was only temporary there was no showing when this employment will
end. Justice would be better served if the complaint were heard and tried in Bacolod City where all the parties
resided.
Section 2. Venue of personal actions.– All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff
or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides,
or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
14
GR No. L-53485; Feb. 6, 1991
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
✍Meaning of “principal” as held in the case of Marcos-Araneta v. CA15 means the real party in interest who is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. 16
Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents.– If any of the defendants does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said
defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where
the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
SUMMARY:
Nature of Action Party Venue

Personal Action Domestic Corp.- principal place of
(both D & P) business as stated in the
Articles of
Incorporation
NRD-found in Where he may be found
PH in the PH
Personal Action – NRP Where the defendant
isolated transaction resides17
Real Action wherein the real
property involved, or a
portion thereof, is
situated.
Note: unlawful detainer

& forcible entry cases =
in the MTC where the
property is situated.
Affects the Personal NRD-not found Where the plaintiff

Status of the Plaintiff in PH18 resides
Affects defendant’s where the property or
property located in PH any portion thereof is
situated or found.
✍Actions in rem/quasi in rem, courts only need to acquire jurisdiction over
the res.
👉Under the revised rules, you can raise the ground of improper venue in your MTD, Answer and Affirmative
Defense, otherwise, it is deemed waived.
PUNSALAN V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA19
One of the two (2) defendants, both are indispensable parties, the other did not raise the issue of improper
venue. SC held that the action cannot proceed, the court must resolve the issue of improper venue first.
15
GR No. 154096; August 22, 2008
16
Sec. 2, Rule 3, ROC
17
Times, Inc. v. Reyes; G.R. No. L-28882 May 31, 1971
18
Sec. 3, Rule 4, ROC
19
GR No. L-55729; March 28, 1983
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Section 4. When Rule not applicable.– This Rule shall not apply-
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive
venue thereof.
✍ Example of par. (a) – in libel cases20
REQUISITES IN THE APPLICATION OF PAR. (B):

 the agreement must be before the action is filed;
 the phrase is exclusive or restrictive
POLYTRADE CORP. V. BLANCO21
Parties agreed that the venue shall be in Naga. Plaintiff, who resides in Pampanga, filed the damages case in
Pampanga. The word used is “may”. SC held that it was not exclusive or restrictive hence it can be filed in
Pampanga.
UNIMASTER V. CA22
Contract stipulation - “all suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed with/in the proper Courts of Quezon
City."
UNIMASTER filed the case in Tacloban. SC held that absent additional words and expressions definitely and
unmistakably denoting the parties' desire and intention that actions between them should be ventilated only
at the place selected by them, Quezon City — or other contractual provisions clearly evincing the same desire and
intention — the stipulation should be construed, not as confining suits between the parties only to that one
place, Quezon City, but as allowing suits either in Quezon City or Tacloban City, at the option of the plaintiff
(UNIMASTERS in this case).
👉Example of restrictive words: solely, exclusively, to the exclusion of other courts.
HOECHST PHILIPPINES, INC V. TORRES23
Contract stipulation – “In case of any litigation arising out of this agreement, the venue of any action shall be in the
competent courts of the Province of Rizal.” - VALID
Torres filed with CFI Isabela a complaint for breach of a distributorship contract against petitioner.
Considering the nature and volume of the business he has with petitioner, there is nothing oppressive in his being
required to litigate out of his province. After all, for practical reasons, there seems to justification also for petitioner
to see to it that all suits against it be concentrated in the Province of Rizal, as otherwise, considering the nationwide
extent of its business, it would be greatly inconvenienced if it has to appear in so many provinces everytime an
action is filed against it. We are convinced both parties agreed to the venue in controversy with eyes wide open.
20
Art. 360, RPC- where it was (1) published; (2) displayed; or (3) exhibited, regardless of the place where the same was written, printed or
composed.
21
GR No. L-27033; Oct. 31, 1969
22
GR No. 119657; Feb. 7, 1997
23
GR No. L-44351; May 18, 1978
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
SWEET LINES, INC. V. TEVES24
Ticket stipulation – “14. It is hereby agreed and understood that any and all actions arising out of the conditions
and provisions of this ticket, irrespective of where it is issued, shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of
Cebu.” – VOID
Public policy is ". . . that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a
tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good ... Under this principle" ... freedom of contract or
private dealing is restricted by law for the good of the public. Clearly, Condition No. 14, if enforced, will be
subversive of the public good or interest, since it will frustrate in meritorious cases, actions of passenger cants
outside of Cebu City, thus placing petitioner company at a decided advantage over said persons, who may have
perfectly legitimate claims against it. The said condition should, therefore, be declared void and unenforceable, as
contrary to public policy — to make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services.
PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORP. V. TECSON25
Mobile Subscription Agreement - "Venue of all suits arising from this Agreement or any other suit directly or
indirectly arising from the relationship between PILTEL and subscriber shall be in the proper courts of Makati,
Metro Manila. Subscriber hereby expressly waives any other venues.” - VALID
In 1996, Tecson applied for six (6) cellular phone subscriptions with PILTEL then he filed a complaint for "Sum of
Money and Damages" in the RTC of Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte. PILTEL moved to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue.
A contract of adhesion is just as binding as ordinary contracts. It is true that this Court has, on occasion, struck
down such contracts as being assailable when the weaker party is left with no choice by the dominant bargaining
party and is thus completely deprived of an opportunity to bargain effectively. Nevertheless, contracts of adhesion
are not prohibited even as the courts remain careful in scrutinizing the factual circumstances underlying each case to
determine the respective claims of contending parties on their efficacy.
In the case at bar, respondent secured six (6) subscription contracts for cellular phones on various dates. It would be
difficult to assume that, during each of those times, respondent had no sufficient opportunity to read and go over the
terms and conditions embodied in the agreements. Respondent continued, in fact, to acquire in the pursuit of his
business subsequent subscriptions and remained a subscriber of petitioner for quite sometime.
A contract duly executed is the law between the parties, and they are obliged to comply fully and not selectively
with its terms. A contract of adhesion is no exception.
DACOYCOY V. IAC26
The real action was filed not in the place where the property is located. The judge motu propio dismissed the case.
– WRONG
Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at this
stage of the proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of first instance (now RTC),
24
GR No. L-37750; May 19, 1978
25
GR No. 156966; May 7, 2004
26
GR No. 74854; April 2, 1991
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss
as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be
rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is
deemed waived.
Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly
said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically
wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial
court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu
proprio dismissing the case.
✍ In cases covered by Summary Procedure, the judge can dismiss motu propio based on improper venue.
RULE 5
UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS
Section 1. Uniform procedure. – The procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in
the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only
to either of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Section 2. Meaning of terms. – The term “Municipal Trial Courts” as used in these Rules shall
include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
RULE 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Section 1. Pleadings defined.– Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
PLEADINGS
asserts a claim raises a defense
o complaint answer
o counterclaim
o cross-claim
o third (fourth, etc.)-
party complaint
o complaint-in-
intervention
Section 2. Pleadings allowed.– The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-
claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him or her.
An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to
the answer.
✍ Reply -
 answers the affirmative defense;
 is only required to be filed to deny an actionable document.
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
✍ Rejoinder – In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the
same is based solely on an actionable document.27
Section 3. Complaint. – The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or
causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
Q: What should be stated in the complaint?

A: The elements of a cause of action -
 right of the plaintiff;
 correlative obligation of the defendant to respect plaintiff’s right;
 the act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of plaintiff’s right.
Q: What is the test in determining the sufficiency of the complaint?

A: Whether upon the facts, a favorable judgment can be rendered against the defendant establishing the: (a) existing
right of the plaintiff; (b) existing obligation of the defendant; and (c) act or omission of the defendant in violation of
that plaintiff’s right.
Q: Is the Prayer for Relief part of the allegation of the cause of action?
A: No. It is limited to the three (3) elements of a cause of action.
✍It is the allegations of the complaint that determines the nature of the case and the jurisdiction of the court. (e.g.
between incapable of pecuniary estimation and real actions)
✍The prayer may give light to the nature of the action instituted (is it a real action, incapable of pecuniary
estimation, sum of money, etc.)
Section 4. Answer. – An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses.
✍ An Answer is a responsive pleading just like a Reply.
Section 5. Defenses. – Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him
or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality,
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
2 Kinds of Defenses:
i. Negative – Sec. 5 (a)
ii. Affirmative – Sec. 5 (b)
I. NEGATIVE DEFENSE
Q: How should a negative specific denial be made?

27
Sec. 10, Rule 5, ROC
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
A: A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to support his or her
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so much of it as is true
and material and shall deny only the remainder. (Specific Denial - Sec. 10, Rule 8)
Example –
“I specifically deny the allegations of paragraph …, the truth of the matter is that I never signed a Promissory
Note.”
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made [to] the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (last par. Sec.
10, Rule 8)  this is still a specific denial provided it must be made in good faith.
CAPITOL MOTORS V. YABUT28
Yabut denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief the promissory note. Capitol Motors filed a motion
for judgment on pleadings.
Q: What is the effect if the party failed to specifically deny?

A: Material averments in a pleading asserting a claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
SC held that it can only be invoked in good faith when defendant is not reasonably expected to know those facts.
In this case, Yabut knew. He executed the PN  he expected to know that! It was done in bad faith hence he is
deemed to have admitted the facts alleged in the petitioner’s complaint.
Q: What are the instances when you can invoke the last paragraph of Sec. 10, Rule 8 on specific denial?
A: On the following instances –
 Action to recover damages (tort);
 Recover of damages in hospitalization;
 Doctor’s fee;
 Moral damages;
 Compensatory damages.
Q: What is unliquidated damages in Sec. 11, Rule 8?

A: Damages that are uncertain or not yet established (e.g. moral damages)
👉Before asking for a judgment based on the pleadings, first asked for a hearing on unliquidated damages.
The denial is not a simple denial rather the denial must be a specific denial and when you say a specific denial it is
that denial that is sanctioned by Sec. 10 of Rule 8.
Q: What happens if you don’t do that even if you say specifically?

A: The general denial does not become specific simply because you used the word “specifically”.
Q: How to make a specific denial?

A:
(1) You must specify the material fact/s that you are denying
(2) Set forth the basis to support your denial (what is for you the truth that happened)
Q: What is the reason/purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial in accordance with Sec. 10, Rule
8?
28
GR No. L-28140; Mar. 19, 1970
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
A: (1) to compel the defendant to specify the matters which he intends to disprove; he has to disclose the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial so that the trial of the cause would be limited to the issues and avoid
necessary delays and surprises during trial. You lay out your cards on the table. So that the court will know what
evidence should the party present. (Ex. Where an action for reconveyance is filed by a P against a D. P says I am
the owner then D will say I am the owner, without any allegation of his version that the P is not the owner)
II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Sec. 5 (b), Rule 6)
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or
her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and
avoidance.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
✍ The enumeration in Sec. 5 (b), Rule 8 is not exclusive because of the phrase “and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.” (e.g. ultra vires in Corporation Code, laches, in pari delicto)
Q: Why does the law describe Affirmative Defense as a new matter?

A: It is a new matter because it is something that is not mentioned in the Complaint.
Q: What is this new matter, which while hypothetically admitting the material averments in the pleadings of the
complainant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him?
A: Because when you raise an affirmative defense, what you are saying is assuming that the material averments of
the complaint are admitted are true, nonetheless, palagay mo na totoo lahat ng sinasabi mo (hypothetical only), but
it will bar or prevent recovery because of prescription, fraud, etc. 1st set of grounds.
Q: What are the other grounds for affirmative defense?

A: Par. 2, Sec. 5 (b) 2nd set of grounds ([1]court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; [2] there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same cause; [3] action is barred by a prior judgment)
✍ Additional Grounds for Affirmative Defenses under Sec. 12 (a), Rule 8:

1. the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. venue is improperly laid;
3. plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Sec. 5 (b), 1st par., Rule 6 Sec. 5 (b), 2nd Sec. 12 (a),
par., Rule 6 Rule 8:
Grounds o fraud o court o court has no jurisdiction
o statute of limitations has no over the person of the
o release jurisdiction defending party;
o payment over the
o illegality subject o venue is improperly laid;
o statute of frauds matter;
o estoppel o plaintiff has no legal
o former recovery o there is capacity to sue;
o discharge in bankruptcy another
action o the pleading asserting the
o any other matter by way of
pending claim states no cause of
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
confession and avoidance. between the action; and
same
parties for o a condition precedent for
the same filing the claim has not
cause (litis been complied with. (e.g.
pendentia); Family Code on
conciliations, Katarungang
o that the Pambarangay Law,
action is exhaustion of
barred by a administrative remedies)
prior
judgment
(res
judicata)
Basis Substantive Law Procedural Aspect of Procedure

(Civil Code)
👉All of the above-grounds have been deleted in the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure except those under Sec. 5
(b), 2nd paragraph, Rule 8 as provided under Sec. 12, Rule 15, to wit:
“Section 12. Prohibited motions. – The following motions shall not be allowed:
(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:
1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;” x x x x
Q: How will the Court rule on these affirmative defenses?

A:
Affirmative Defense Sec. 12 (a), Sec. 5(b), 2nd par., Rule 6 Sec. 5(b), 1st par., Rule 6
Under Rule 8:
Grounds o no jurisdiction over the o no jurisdiction over the o fraud
person of the defending subject matter o statute of limitations
party o release
o that there is another o payment
o venue improperly laid action pending between o illegality
the same parties for the o statute of frauds
o plaintiff has no legal same cause (litis o estoppel
capacity to sue pendentia) o former recovery
o discharge in
o no cause of action o action is barred by a
bankruptcy
prior judgment (res o any other matter by
condition precedent not judicata)
way of confession and
been complied avoidance.
Court action The court shall motu proprio resolve the above The court may conduct a
affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar days summary hearing within
from the filing of the answer. (Sec. 12[c], Rule fifteen (15) calendar days
from the filing of the
answer.
Such affirmative defenses

shall be resolved by the
court within thirty (30)

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
calendar days from the
termination of the
summary hearing.
(Sec. 12[d], Rule 8)
c/o BLANZA-PARTIALLY COMPLETED
DISCUSSION ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE UNDER Sec. 12 (a),
Rule 8:
I. the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party; - previously discussed
II. venue is improperly laid; - previously discussed
III. plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
IV. the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
V. a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
“3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;” 29
Q: When does a party or plaintiff lack the legal capacity to sue?

A: A plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue:
(1) When does not possess the necessary qualification to appear at the trial such as when plaintiff is not in the
full exercise of his civil rights (ex. a person is a minor  a minor cannot on his own appear in court; when he
is an incompetent one of the grounds for being an incompetent is when one is under civil interdiction, it is an
accessory penalty that under the law sometimes imposed under Crim. Law when the imprisonment impose is 12
years and 1 day “prision temporal”) ; they must be assisted by legal guardian or guardian ad litem as provided
under Sec. 5, Rule 3:
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. – A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be
sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
✍If he sues all alone, then he has no legal capacity to sue.
(2) When he does not have a character or representation which he claims (which is of course a matter of
evidence)
Q: What does this mean?

A: He is suing in a representative capacity.
Sec. 3, Rule 3:
Section 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a

representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the
case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust,
a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal
except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
Q: Is the lack of legal capacity to sue the same with lack of legal personality?
A: No.
Lack of Legal Capacity to Sue Lack of Legal Personality to Sue

Refers to the disability of the plaintiff to Refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not
be a party to a case a real party in interest.
29
Sec. 12 (a)3, Rule 8
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
✍In which case the ground for the
dismissal would be “that the complaint
does not state a cause of action” (#4 of
Sec. 12, Rule 8 “That the pleading
asserting the claim states no cause of
action”
✍it is not only limited to “that he is not a real party in interest”, it may also cover a situation where the
allegation itself of the complaint does not state the ultimate facts constituting a party’s cause of action.
Q: What are the ultimate facts that should be allege by the party for him to state a cause of action?
A: Elements of a cause of action (right of the plaintiff, obligation of the defendant to respect plaintiff’s right,
the act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of plaintiff’s right)
Example: (1) he is just a lessee/tenant then he files an action for recovery or conveyance of title, he does not
even claim that he is the owner or that a condition precedent has not been complied with (exhaustion of
administrative remedies, barangay conciliation, referral to family council, etc.)
Other Grounds under Sec. 6 (b) Rule 6:

 fraud
 statute of limitations
 release
 payment
 illegality
 statute of frauds
 estoppel
 former recovery
 discharge in bankruptcy; and
 any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
✍These were already studied in Civil Code!
However the second paragraph:
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
“that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause” (aka “litis pendentia”)
Q: What are the elements or requisites of pendency of another action?

A:
(1) identity of parties in the two actions or at least as represents the same interests (ex. where the parents have
already litigated on the same issue, then the children will re-litigate; the owner of a property );
(2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for (ex. there shall only be one action for a single cause of action;
Now how to we determine the singleness of a cause of action? It is determined if there is only but one delict/there is
only one act or omission. ex is based on a promissory note, you cannot sue just for principal, then another case for
the interest, that will be splitting of causes of action!)to avoid multiplicity of suits (Q: How should the rules be
constructed? A: Liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action)
(3) relief must be founded on the same facts (meaning the evidence you presented in the first will also be the
evidence you will present in the second) [evidentiary test]

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
(4) identity of the particulars (parties, rights, reliefs) such that any judgment that may be rendered in one action will,
regardless of which party is successful, always amount to res judicata in the other.
Q: What is the rule when two (2) cases are pending?

A: You can ask to abate the other)
✍Under the new rules, all grounds for affirmative defense must be raise in the Answer except for some)
CASES:
The wife filed a case against the husband for abandonment against her and their minor children and she prayed for
maintenance and support, alimony pendente lite, accounting of the conjugal funds and properties. After that
action was filed, here comes the husband instituting a separate complaint against the wife also for abandonment
committed on the same occasion and pray that the wife be ordered to live with him and accounting of conjugal
funds and delivery of properties also. The wife filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint of the husband on the
ground of lis pendens.
Q: Pwede ba yan?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: There is identity of parties, the identity of issues and reliefs. Sino ba talaga ang nag-abandon? Okay? And the
judgment in one will always amount to res judicata in the other so the second action filed by the husband therefore
be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens. Okay?
Husband files an action for legal separation on the ground of adultery of the wife. In the same action, the wife
filed a counterclaim for maintenance and support of their children. Subsequently, the wife filed another
independent action also for support against the husband.
Q: Will the second action prosper? (Remember a counterclaim is a claim of the defendant against the plaintiff).
A: No. Same parties, assertion of the same rights and a judgment in one will be res judicata to the other.
If the cause of action has already been asserted as a counterclaim, that cannot be a subject of an independent
action.
ARCEO V. OLIVEROS
So in this case, Arceo filed an action for compulsory redemption under the Public Land Act of the land sold by his
sister. Defendant Oliveros moved to dismiss on the ground of lis pendens. There is another pending action where
Arceo is the defendant and Oliveros is the plaintiff. And in that first case, Oliveros impugned the extra-judicial
settlement executed by Arceo and his sister where the sister renounce her right to the lot. Pinapa-annul yan ni
sister. Binenta ni sister ung share nya, si brother naman iniimpugn nya but that is already raised in the
counterclaim.
When you took up Criminal Procedure, under Sec. 1 of Rule 111 it states:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless
the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
Now, because of that rule, nagkaroon ng maraming komplikasyon dyan ha. And one of the complications there is
the case of Casupanan v. Jaroya and Cancio v. Isip.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Cancio v. Isip
The case emanated in Pampanga. There were three (3) checks issued by the defendant, so because of that the payee
filed criminal cases - one for violation of BP22 and another set of criminal cases for Estafa under the RPC. The
BP22 cases were dismissed for failure to prosecute, so what survived are the criminal cases for Estafa.
After presenting one witness, later on because of the absence of the complainant so the prosecution filed a Motion to
dismiss the criminal case but the motion was subject to a condition (without prejudice to the right of the offended
party to file the appropriate value of the checks in a civil case). Because of that motion, the court granted it
dismissing the case without prejudice. Later on, the offended party filed the appropriate civil case stating there that
these three (3) checks were supposed to be payment of debt. Defendant filed a MTD saying that in the criminal
cases that were dismissed, there was already a civil case deemed instituted with the criminal action and when the
criminal action was dismissed due to failure to prosecute, the civil action deemed instituted with it was also
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Because the ground there is failure to prosecute, that is already dismissal with
prejudice.
Note: Under Rule 17, if the dismissal is for failure to prosecute, that dismissal is with prejudice. It will be
considered a dismissal on the merits meaning it cannot be re-filed.
The trial court dismissed the civil case.

Q: Was the TC correct in dismissing the civil case?
A: No.
SC held that the civil action that was dismissed with the criminal action is the civil action arising from the crime.
This new civil action is an action arising from a contract. Iba ito.
Is there identity of parties - YES
Is there identity of rights? - NO (In the criminal case, the right asserted is civil liability arising from the offense
charged, while in the second case, the civil liability arising from a contract of loan)
Recall the 5 sources of obligation: law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, quasi-delict.
The civil action deemed instituted with the criminal case is the civil action arising ex-delicto and the basis of that is
Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code which states “ARTICLE 100. Civil Liability of Person Guilty of Felony. —
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.”
The civil action is civil action ex-delicto, arising from crime. The new civil action is an action ex-contractu. So the
rights asserted are not the same. There is no identity of rights or cause of action. There is no identity of rights nor
identity of reliefs demanded. No litis pendentia kasi iba ang basehan.
Q: Is this not splitting because it involves the same act?

A: No.
Q: How do we determine the singleness of a cause of action?

A: It is determined if there is only but one act or omission.
However, the Supreme Court said, there is under Article 31 of the Civil Code states:
“When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,
such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.”
In short, there is no litis pendentia if one action is criminal (civil action arising from a crime) and another civil
action arising from other sources of obligation such as law, quasi-delict, quasi-contract. Pwede yan, hindi yan
splitting although it arose from the same act.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Let us say there is a person who was a victim of a vehicular accident. He filed a criminal case and in that criminal
case the civil action arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted; No waiver, no reservation of prior filing,
can he file another civil action based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana? YES. No litis pendentia. Why? Because
the civil action in the criminal case is one arising from the crime, in the second case it is for quasi-delict or tort.
Doon sa criminal case, pwede yung driver lang. Dito iinclude mo na ang employer nung driver kasi hindi naman
pwede masali ang employer sa criminal kasi hindi naman sya ang author of the criminal act, but here, pwede sya.
Remember the general rule that he who is the author of the tortuous act is the one generally only held to be liable,
hindi ba? However, there is a thing called VICARIOUS LIABILITY. Even if a person who is not the author of the
injury, nonetheless under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it enumerates that even if you are not the author of the
injury nonetheless you are held responsible. Example, the parents with respect to their minor children, the teacher
with respect to their students (elementary only!), employer because he did not supervise his employee properly when
he is driving, especially common carriers.
Q: What about the four (4) remaining sources of obligations, can you sue under a contract at the same time another
under law, at the same time another action for quasi-delict?
A: No; that is only allowed if the other case is criminal.
Ex. Under Art. 32 of the Civil Code, persons who violates the constitutional rights of another are liable for damages.
Can you file another case for torts? NO! Only when the other case is a criminal case.
HSBC V. COA
X filed an action against Y for annulment of mortgage. Y (defendant) filed an action for X (mortgagor) for
foreclosure of the mortgage.
Q: May the first action be abated on the ground of lis pendens?

A: No.
Same parties - YES

Same rights asserted - NO (the cause of action of X, let’s just say is for fraud of the mortgagee, while HSBC
asserts the non-payment of X’s debt)
The decision upholding the validity of the mortgage in the first case will not bar an action for foreclosure.
Conversely, where the validity of the mortgage is declared void or annulled, then that’s the only time it will bar
foreclosure. It did not comply with the last requisite - THAT A JUDGMENT IN ONE CASE REGARDLESS OF
WHO PREVAILS, WOULD ALWAYS BE A RES JUDICATA TO THE OTHER.
Here, let us say upheld ang validity ng mortgage, then the bank is not barred from foreclosing. On the other hand,
if the mortgage was declared void, then that is the only time that the bank is barred from foreclosing.
Dapat whichever prevails between the two (2) cases, it will result ALWAYS in res judicata to the other.
RAMOS V. EBARLE 182 SCRA
The heirs of Manuel Ramos (surviving widow and their children) filed an action in the RTC against the defendant
to declare null and void a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Ramos during his lifetime in favor of the defendant.
The property involved is 46 hectares but they are only asking for the annulment only to the 23 hectares because
allegedly, the sale executed by Manuel was without the consent of the wife. After that, the heirs filed an amended
complaint containing the same allegations but with additional cause of action: that the DOAS executed by Manuel
is a fictitious sale because the real intention of the parties is merely to mortgage the property. In short, the heirs are
now asking that the entire 46 hectares be given to them. Defendant opposed it due substantial amendment. The
trial court denied the admission of the amended complaint.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
What did plaintiffs did is that they filed another action - embodying the same allegations contained in the rejected
Amended Complaint 59:23
“4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action”30
✍ Would he be entitled to the relief demanded or to the judgment in favor of the claimant? If the answer yes, then that is a
pleading that states a cause of action is sufficient.
Q: When does a pleading fails to state a cause of action?

A: When the complaint do not: a) state the obligation; b) or the complaint does not state the act or omission committed by
the defendant;
Q: What is the other concept of no cause of action?

A: If he is not a real party in interest.
Examples:
i. plaintiff-tenant files an action to recover title and possession of the property which the plaintiff being merely a
tenant cannot assert ownership;
ii. The case of the Province of Cebu where it donated several parcels of land to a school. Later on, after many years
the province claimed that there was a violation of the conditions of the donation so it demanded for the
return/recovery of the properties donated. The PTA interfered and filed an action for quieting of title. The case
was dismissed because the PTA is not a real-party-in-interest. It cannot assert ownershipit is not the one who
will directly be benefited or injured to the avails of the suit. The benefit must be: (1) direct and (2) material (not
merely inchoate or in the future).
iii. VCS Commercial v. CA. The lessor wants to evict the lessee. Lessee filed a case for reversion of title. The
allegation there states that while the lessor is the registered owner but the land is a public land. When the title
was issued, the property was still a public land. There was no declaration that it was already an alienable land of
public domain. SC held that the lessee cannot file the reversion because it does not claim ownership over the
property. Its right is merely inchoate in the sense that if title is reverted to the State or to the government, then
you will apply for free patent. But that is inchoate. (Note: Reversion for government; if private, reconveyance).
So how can he be benefited or injured?
Q: How should an affirmative defense based on the claim states no cause of action?
A: By looking at the four (4) corners of the complaint. The court is not allowed to admit evidence aliunde31. Because
when you say failure to state a cause of action, irrespective of whether it is true or not is beside the point, the test is if
assuming it is proven, can a valid judgment be rendered for the plaintiff/claimant or assuming hypothetically, P is able to
prove his material allegations, would he be entitled to the relief demanded by him? If yes, then the complaint states a cause
of action. If not, then the complaint does not state a cause of action.
LIM V. DELOS SANTOS32
The case involves the sale of subdivision lots and that the buyers filed a complaint in the CFI of Rizal, QC Branch on the
alleged failure of the defendants to construct the necessary roads that would serve as outlets in accordance with the
requirements and specifications of existing laws and regulations. Defendant filed a MTD on the ground that the
complaint states no cause of action, and that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue. The CFI held that the contract
does not stipulate that the developer undertook to construct the ingress and egress. It also allowed the presentation of
defendant’s evidence and ruled that there was no cause of action.
SC held that the defendant-movant is deemed to have hypothetically admitted all the averments of the complaint
irrespective whether it is true or not. It is improper for the trial court to allow the presentation of evidence aliunde.
30
Sec. 12 (a)4, Rule 8
31
from another source; from elsewhere
32
GR No. L-18137; Aug. 31, 1963
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
The taking of evidence upon the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was, in itself, an irregular procedure
not authorized by the rules, since it is precisely in the case of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action
where no evidence may be alleged or considered to test the sufficiency of the complaint except the very facts pleaded
therein and in the event, the judge may not inquire into the truth of the allegations, and find them to be false ,
before a hearing is had on the merits of the case.
“A condition precedent has not been complied” Sec. 12 (a) (5), Rule 8:
✍ A MTD can be filed for this ground under the Family Code on counseling, Katarungang Pambarangay Law – that
before a case may be filed in court, the parties must have to undergo conciliation before the barangay . Kung wala yan,
dismissible yan. You have to comply with this.
✍In Administrative Law, the exhaustion of administrative remedies – meaning you cannot go to court immediately.
Q: When can you invoke the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies?

A: When an administrative body is exercising quasi-judicial function because of their expertise siting as a tribunal (ex.
intellectual property rights with IPO, NLRC, GSIS, SSS, Bureau of Mines).
✍ You must exhaust all the remedies in the Executive Department. There are certain laws that you must do one thing.
PNB V. HIPOLITO33
PNB filed a complaint against Hipolito, et. al. The complaint alleges that the defendants obtained various loans with the
bank and the defendants executed Promissory Notes; that despite repeated demands they failed to pay the balance of their
obligation; that on May 7, 1957, defendants offered a plan of payment; that, for unknown reasons, the plan did not
materialize. Defendants filed a MTD on the ground of prescription because it appears that the 10-year period reckoning
from the date of the promissory notes has already prescribed. The trial court granted the motion.
Q: Was the trial court correct in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription?
A: No. Because there is an allegation in the complaint that in 1957 (before the expiration of the 10-year period), the
parties have agreed to a mode of payment; Meaning there was an oral agreement that interrupted the running of the
prescription period.
SC: It is a fundamental principle that in a MTD, the defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the allegation of fact
contained in the complaint. The complaint here does not indicate clearly that prescription has already set in. Why?
Because there is an allegation concerning the defendants’ offer of plan of payment in May 1957. This allegation or offer
is hypothetically admitted which in this plan of payment, which if true, works as a renewal of the obligation.
It is true that defendants attached to the motion a joint affidavit of merit wherein they deny having made an offer of a
plan of payment. Such denial, however, being a contrary averment of fact, would be proper in the answer to the
complaint but not in a motion for dismissal, for the contradictory allegations would require presentation of evidence.
Q: What is the effect if one files an Affirmative Defense based on prescription?

A: Read the nature of an affirmative defense (par. [b]): (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless
prevent or bar recovery by him or her. x x x x Meaning, you hypothetically admit. We are not there yet whether it is true
or not. In this case, there was an allegation that there was a plan of payment would in effect renew the loan agreement
starting that date in 1957.
✍Case of LIM V. DELOS SANTOS re-discussed:
When a ground for dismissal is based on no cause of action, the court must determine only on the basis of the allegations –
the four (4) corners of the complaint. Evidence aliunde is not allowed. The period to determine if the allegation is true
or not is not at that stage of the proceedings. Whether it is true or not is determined on the presentation of evidence. To
33
GR No. L-16463; Jan. 30, 1965
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
judge it, it must be determined by the plain allegations of the complaint. So that is why the SC said “it is elementary that
the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action should be deemed to have admitted the truth of the facts
averred therein. The taking of evidence upon the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was, in itself, an
irregular procedure not authorized by the rules, since it is precisely in the case of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
cause of action where no evidence may be alleged or considered to test the sufficiency of the complaint except the very
facts pleaded therein.” That is why the SC said that the judge should have not inquired into the truth of the allegations and
to find them to be false. Why? This proceedings must be determined at the trial, when evidence is already presented.
Why? Because you have to give opportunity to plaintiff to prove that there was really a plan of payment. So such
offer hypothetically admitted would work now as a renewal of the defendants’ obligation.
Q: What if the Affirmative Defense was denied, what is the defendant’s remedy?
A: Appeal after a judgment on the merits.
“(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment
on the merits.”34
Note: ONLY the following grounds are allowed in a Motion to Dismiss:

1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (Sec. 12, Rule 15)
CONTINUATION OF RULE 6...
Section 6. Counterclaim. – A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing
party.
✍The counterclaim is also a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff.

✍Since it is a complaint, it is based on a distinct and independent cause of action (elements).
✍The defendant becomes the plaintiff in respect to the matter he pleaded; there will b e now two (2) simultaneous
action pending between the parties.
Q: How many kinds of Counterclaim are there?
A: Two (2) kinds: (1) Compulsory under Sec. 7, Rule 6 and Permissive under ____________.
REQUISITES OF A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM:

 Must arise arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter
of the opposing party’s claim
 Its adjudication does not require the presence of third parties
 Must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof(except in an
original action before the RTC)
 Must be due and demandable.
✍Basis of the 4th RequirementSec. 8, Rule 11:
SEC. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. -- A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a

defending party has at the time he or she files his or her answer shall be contained therein.
✍If it is not yet due, the ground is lack of cause of action/failure to state a cause of action.
Q: If the defendant also has a claim against the opposing party, where should he allege the counterclaim?
A: In the Answer (Sec. 8, Rule 11) “answer shall be contained therein” Meaning shall be contained in his/her
Answer.
Q: What if after the Answer was filed, the cause of action matured?
A: By supplemental pleading before judgment under Sec. 9, Rule 11:
34
Sec. 12[e], Rule 8
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. – A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his or her pleading may, with the permission of the court,
be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment.
✍The third requisite (must be within the jurisdiction of the court).

GENERAL RULE: both as to amount and nature
EXCEPTION: in the RTC in its exercise of original jurisdiction, only as to amount but not as to nature (ex.
unlawful detainer and forcible entry)
Q: What is the amount?
A: MTC P300,000 or P400,000 [in Metro Manila]; RTC exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 [in Metro Manila].
Q: If the counterclaim is only P200,000 in the RTC, is that considered compulsory?

A: Yes, per opera-pera lang yan; As to amount only but not as to nature.
Example of “as to nature”, the counterclaim is Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer, that is not allowed, because that
is a real action, nature yan, hindi pera-pera lang. Remember that ha?
✍If these four (4) elements concur, you must always raise that in your Answer.
Q: What happens if the defendant does not raise a counterclaim in his Answer?
A: It is deemed barred forever. “A compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless
otherwise allowed by these Rules” (last sentence, Sec. 7, Rule 6)
Now, that is the same as Sec. 2 of Rule 9 which states:
Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. – A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-
claim, not set up shall be barred.
Q: When now is a counterclaim considered permissive?
A: It is considered permissive if none of those four (4) requisites of the compulsory counterclaim concur. (may isa
lang na wala dyan, hindi na yan compulsory)
✍So, if you do not raise it, you are not barred. Magiging tawag na lang dyan permissive.
Examples:
o an unpaid loan but defendant said plaintiff also has a debt, that falls to the first requisite (does not arise out
of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim; entirely different obligation);
o Plaintiff sues for a collection under a Promissory Note, defendant files a counterclaim that plaintiff
bumped his car (quasi-delict) thus demanding from plaintiff for payment of damages (different
transactions; thus permissive only);
o Plaintiff files for recovery or reconveyance of a real property.

Q: Is the claim of the defendant for the necessary expenses for the preservation of the land including all
expenses which was spent by the defendant as a builder, sower, planter in good faith a compulsory claim?
A: Yes (arises out of the same transaction);
Regarding this last paragraph “not raised in the same action is barred unless otherwise barred by the rules”, we have
two cases regarding it:
✍If a counterclaim is filed in the MTC, it must be within the jurisdiction of the MTC both as to nature and amount.
Now do not forget the ruling in the case of
AGUSTIN V. BACALAN35
35
GR No. L-46000, March 18, 1985
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
Nature of the action: unlawful detainer (at the time when the jurisdiction limit of the MTC only P10,1000). The
case was filed in the city court of Cebu. Defendant said he already paid the rentals then he filed a counterclaim of
damages which amounted to P50,1000. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal to the CFI, the
decision was reversed. It awarded the damages in the amount of P16,000. In the Court of Appeals, the CFI was
sustained regarding the dismissal of the complaint but it set aside the award of damages in the counterclaim; that
since the complaint for damages filed with the MTC was beyond its jurisdiction, it has no jurisdiction so the RTC
being an appellate court derives its jurisdiction from the MTC and that no award can be given.
SC: The court can award to that extent only ((P10,1000). The excess (of P6,000) is deemed waived.
CALO V. AJAX INTERNATIONAL36
Supplier (Ajax International) sued in the city court of Manila around P2,000 (the limit then is at P10,000). On the
other hand Calo filed a civil case in CFI Manila demanding for the delivery of the undelivered wire rope or to
forego the P2,000 claim. Ajax filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it should have been raised as a
counterclaim in the city court because it arises out of or connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting
the subject matter.
SC: Although it arises out of or connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter,
nonetheless, that is not the only element that will make it compulsory. The claim of attorney’s fees is P12,000
which is beyond the jurisdiction of the city court.
✍Even if it is within the amount of the MTC, it is not compliant to the nature since Calo prays for the delivery of
the undelivered wire rope, the nature of a specific performance which is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
✍Counterclaim must be in the same action while permissive can be setup in a separate action.
Section 8. Cross-claim. – A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-
claim may cover all or part of the original claim.
✍must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the “original action”
Example: Vehicular accident
Plaintiff versus A & B (not sure who is negligent between the two). Then A can file a cross-claim against B or B
against A.
✍Relate this to Sec. 9 Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims:
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. – A counterclaim may be asserted against an original

counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
Cross-claim (Sec. 8) Counter-counterclaims/counter-cross-

claims (Sec. 9)
Against a co-party Against an original counter-claimant
and/or original cross-claimant
Q: Should the cross-claim be also within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the case?
36
GR No. L-22485, Mar 13, 1968
MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
A: Yes (all the elements must also exist).
Atty. Escolin’s position: There is no problem in the RTC but in the MTC, the excess must be deemed waived
applying the principle in the case of Agustin v. Bacalan and also the elements of the cross-claim must exist as in the
case of counterclaims. [Note: no actual case on this yet!]
Q: What is the next kind of a responsive pleading?

A: a Reply
Section 10. Reply. – All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to
interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or
supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable
document to his or her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters
alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based
solely on an actionable document.
Q: What is a Reply?
A: A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new
matters alleged in, or relating to, an actionable document. (par. 2, Sec. 10, Rule 6)
It is a responsive pleading.
Recall the 2 kinds of pleading: (1) asserts a claim; (2) responds [Answer and Reply]
An Answer is a pleading controverting the allegations of the Complaint or any pleading that raises a claim
(complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third, fourth-party complaint).
Reply - is to controvert new matters raised (they refer to the Affirmative Defense)
✍Under the new rules, A reply is only required is the new matters is based on an actionable document.
✍a Reply responds to the new matters raised in the Answer;
✍New matters raised in the Affirmative Defense only when it is based on an actionable document.
Q: What is an actionable document?

A: Is one where a written instrument or document is the very basis of the cause of action or defense.
Example: a Promissory Note

Meaning taken from Sec.7, Rule 8:
Section 7. Action or defense based on document. – Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the
original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the
pleading.
Q: How to contest such document?

A: Sec. 8, Rule 8:
Section 8. How to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, or
attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution
of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and
sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused.
Q: What is the effect or consequence if the plaintiff fails to file a Reply on the new matter which is founded on an
actionable document?
A: the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted. (Answer taken from Sec. 8, Rule
8)
Q: What is the form of the Reply?

A: The reply must be under oath and it must specifically deny the due execution of the actionable document (I deny,
hindi yan tunay, peke yan!) and shall set forth what he or she claims to be the facts.
Q: What if it is not under oath?

A: There will be a technical admission of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document.

MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT

Understanding Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“If you learn to remember you will forget, but if you learn to understand, you will not forget”

Let us first define or understand the concept of jurisdiction.

So, that’s the first thing that I think we should learn.

VITAL GOZON V. CA2

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

II. According to Object

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

✍Usually, this applies to cases in rem or quasi in rem done by publication

Q: What is the thing there?

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

Q: Why was it necessary to put it in the present Constitution?

c) Administrative/Executive Powers - the power to appoint

Q: Is there a limitation on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court?

II. COURT OF APPEALS

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo

“1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

Q: Can you go to the CA?

Q: Can you also go to the SC?

Q: Now, can the Court of Appeals entertain the petition?

✍Exclusive appellate jurisdiction, so ibig sabihin “exclusive”, hindi concurrent.

Q: Now, ano itong quasi-judicial agencies and instrumentalities of the government?

Q: So, why is it judicial in nature?

Q: Now, what are the exemptions?

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

Q: Question of fact, when?

ST. MARTINS FUNERAL HOMES V. NLRC8

Q: You know what is original and appellate?

NEXT MEETING -CONT. ON THE JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS…

Q: So when nag-eexercise ng original si Sandiganbayan?

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

III. JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Sec. 19 Exclusive + Original

Sec.21 original jurisdiction in other meaning concurrent with other courts

these are extraordinary writs…concurrent

✍This is the second instance of original concurrent jurisdiction of the RTC.

Now, Sec. 19, BP129

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

✍Do not confuse “subject” with other terms.

Q: What aspect of real property to be considered real action?

Real Action Personal Action

OUANO V. PGTT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CORP.10

✍Take note of the amounts there: P20,000 and P50,000;

Remaining provisions of Sec. 19, BP 129 Notes

✍So halimbawa may binili kang sugar galing

✍Pwede via bus (RO-RO), pag sa barko nagpadala at

(hindi pa bayad taxes and utang)

✍Or the value of property exceeds P300,000 or exceeds

Categorization of the actions within the jurisdiction of the RTC:

(1) Subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation

BLANZA, HENSON-HIZON & GARCIA, S.

In other words, the payment of money becomes merely incidental.

✍ This ruling was reiterated in the case of Raymond v. CA:

RAYMOND V. CA check citation

Involves condominium in Makati (Galleria de Magallanes) so may condo association dyan.

More basic issue yung DID YOU VIOLATE DEED OF RESTRICTIONS?

Similarly in the case of…

Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case?

Defendant said NO because amount of attorney’s fees claimed is only P10,000.

So conflict between No.1 and no.8.

Second is conflict between #1 and #2. What is #1 of Sec.29 of BP129?

Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation13 v. Real Action