General Principles in

Remedial Law
Nature, Basis and Source of Remedial
Law
Distinguish Remedial Law with Substantive Law

Substantive law – Creates, defines, and regulates CDR rights and duties concerning life, liberty, or property, the
violation of which gives rise to a cause of action

Remedial law – Prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created by substantive law

Judicial Power
Includes the duty of the courts of justice

1. To settle actual controversies involving rights, which are legally demandable and enforceable; and
2. To determine WON there has been GAD-LEJ grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government [Sec. 1, Art. VIII, Constitution]

Prospectivity/Retroactivity of Rules of Procedure

General rule: May be modified at any time to become effective at once, so long as the change does not affect
vested rights -- actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage

NOTE: there are no vested rights to rules of procedure -- they do not create new or remove vested rights, but only
operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing

Exceptions: Procedural rules do not apply to pending actions:

1. where the statute itself or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its
operation;
2. if applying the rule to pending actions would impair vested rights;
3. when to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice;
4. if doing so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the courts.

Rule-Making Power of SC
Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, of the Constitution provides that:

a) The SC shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning: CPAIL

1) the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights

2) pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
 3) admission to the practice of law
4) the Integrated Bar, and
5) legal assistance to the underprivileged

b) Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.

The SC has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or even establish new rules for a more simplified and
inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases.

Also includes the power to create rules via jurisprudence.

Construction of ROC
The ROC shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding [Sec. 6, Rule 1]

Scope of Application of ROC

The ROC shall apply
 in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the SC [Sec. 2, Rule 1].
 It will apply to certain proceedings if so provided by law

It shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. [Sec. 3, Rule 1]

It does not apply to: ELCINO

1. Election cases
2. Land registration cases
3. Cadastral cases
4. Naturalization cases
5. Insolvency proceedings, and
6. Other cases not provided for in the ROC

Except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient [Sec. 4, Rule 1]

Limitations on the Rule-Making Power of the SC

The rules shall: SUN

 Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases

 Uniform for all courts of the same grade; and
 Not DIM diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. [Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution]

Power of SC to Amend and Suspend Procedural Rules

General Rule: Compliance with procedural rules

Exception:

 Every court shall have power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to
law and justice. Sec. 5(g) of Rule 135
 SC may suspend its own rules or to except a particular case only in the most exceptional circumstances and for
the most persuasive of reasons based on the discretion of the courts

o In order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed
o Substantial rights must reign supreme over technicalities. The over-arching aim of procedure is to achieve
substantial justice.
o The reasons which would warrant suspension of the Rules include:

 The existence of special and compelling circumstances

 The merits of the case
 A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension
 A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous or dilatory, and
 The rights of the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
 Transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security
Jurisdiction of Courts
To whom Judicial Power is vested?
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law [Par. 1, Sec. 1, Art. VIII, Constitution].

The SC is the one and only court that is created and vested with judicial power by the 1987 Constitution. All
other courts, which are therefore lower in the legal and administrative hierarchy, are created and vested with
judicial power only by virtue of law.

Court v Judge Court Judge

A court is an entity possessing a personality separate and distinct from the men who compose or
sit on it

Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. The continuity of a court and the
efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the
judge presiding over it.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction of a Court

It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in
question belong

It includes the power of judicial review , which is the power of the courts to test the validity of
executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution

Vested by the Constitution or a pertinent law.

 a body that purports to be a court is not a court if there is no law that has vested it with judicial power
 an administrative body may have been vested with the power to settle actual controversies by a law but
it is not a court because it is not part of the judicial department of the government
 None of the parties can enlarge or diminish it or dictate when it shall attach or when it shall be removed.
That is a matter of legislative enactment which none but the legislature may change

Jurisdiction over the Person of a Party

 Definition: Refers to jurisdiction over the person of a party that must be acquired by that specific
court through modes provided in procedural rules
 May be conferred by consent, expressly or impliedly given, or it may, by an objection, be prevented
from attaching or removed after it has attached
 Necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case only in an action in personam. It is not a
prerequisite in an action in rem or quasi in rem, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res
 Kinds
 o Over the plaintiff – acquired upon the filing of the complaint.
o Over the defendant – acquired by either:
 voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority; or
 by service of summons
o Over non-parties
 principle of equity
 under proper conditions, thru the voluntary appearance of that person before the court
 Thus, judgment may be directed against one who, although not a formal party in the case,
has assumed or participated in the defense

Jurisdiction over the Issues

The SC had occasion to note that in some instances it has been held that the court must also have
jurisdiction over the issues – that is, the issue being tried and decided by the court be within the issues
raised in the pleadings

Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by:

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

A trial court would be acting beyond its jurisdiction if it grants relief to a party beyond the
scope of the pleadings

Jurisdiction over the Res

“Res,” in civil law is a “thing” or “object.” It includes object, subject matter or status

Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired

 Custodia Legis : By seizure of the thing under legal process whereby, it is brought into actual custody
of the law; or
 Potential jurisdiction of over the res : From the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special
provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. (power of the
court over the property is impliedly recognized by law)

Jurisdiction v. the Exercise of Jurisdiction

 Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.
 Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction.
 And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of
judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.
Error of Jurisdiction v Error of Judgment
Error of jurisdiction
 Definition: Complaint where the court is without/excess of jurisdiction or with GAD-LEJ
 Remedy: extraordinary writ of certiorari XPN: Sec. 8, Rule 40 allows an RTC with original jurisdiction
over a case brought on appeal from a lower court without jurisdiction over subject matter to decide case
on the merits
 Effect: Decision is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal XPN: when party
raising the issue is barred by estoppel

Error of judgment
 Definition: One which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
 Remedy: by appeal
 Effect: Erroneous judgment is NOT a void judgment

How Jurisdiction is Conferred and Determined

Conferred by law

 By the statute in force at the commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for its
retroactive application
 Cannot be the subject of compromise: No compromise upon the jurisdiction of courts shall be valid [Art.
2035, Civil Code]
 Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive, not procedural law [See Sec. 1, Art. VIII, Constitution]

XPN: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction subject to exceptions

Determined by the allegations in the complaint

Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein

Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas set up by the defendant in his answer or in a motion to dismiss,
otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims

XPN: The MTCC does not lose jurisdiction over ejectment cases by mere allegation of a tenancy relationship.
However, if after hearing, tenancy is in fact shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Also called: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Definition: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may
well be within their proper jurisdiction.
XPN

a. estoppel
b. challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to LOJ
c. unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant
d. amount involved is relatively small
e. question involved is purely legal
f. judicial intervention is urgent
g. may cause great and irreparable damage
h. violate due process
i. issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot
j. When no other PSA remedy
k. strong public interest is involved, and
l. In quo warranto proceedings

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

Also known as doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction

Definition: Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it continues until the case is finally terminated.

NOT affected by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance -- new legislation

XPN:
 Where there is an express provision in the statute; and
 The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment

Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal.

Court shall dismiss the claim – when it appears from the pleadings or evidence that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter [Sec. 1, Rule 9] The court has a clearly recognized right to determine its
own jurisdiction in any proceeding

The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss or may be raised
as an affirmative defense in the answer [Sec. 6, Rule 16]

Exception: Doctrine of Estoppel by Laches (Jurisdiction by Estoppel) -- a party may be

barred from questioning a court’s jurisdiction after invoking the court’s authority in order to secure
affirmative relief against its opponent, when laches would prevent the issue of lack of jurisdiction from being
raised for the first time on appeal by a litigant whose purpose is to annul everything done in a trial in which it
has actively participated (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy)

When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject
matter, it is submitted that the court should not remand the case to another court with the proper
jurisdiction. Its only has authority to dismiss and not to make any other order
Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
A case must be filed before the lowest court possible having the appropriate
jurisdiction

Applied where court have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter.

A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition

XPN: The SC has allowed direct invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue writs of
certiorari for exceptional and compelling circumstance SPF-BPA

1. There are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition
2. Dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy
3. Demanded by the broader interest of justice
4. The challenged orders were patent nullities
5. To avoid future litigations
6. Analogous circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case

Courts of General v Special Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of special commercial courts falls within the general original jurisdiction of Regional Trial
Courts, because it consists of the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission which was
transferred under R.A. 8799 to Regional Trial Courts per se; hence, the designation “Special Commercial
Courts’ simply refers to those specified branches of Regional Trial Courts which the Supreme Court has
designated to exercise the said former jurisdiction of the SEC.

Constitutional and Statutory Courts

Constitutional court – court directly created by a constitutional provision -- only one example: the
Supreme Court [Sec. 1, Art. VIII, Constitution]

Constitutionally-mandated court –court whose creation by Congress is mandated by a

constitutional provision, of which there is only one example: the Sandiganbayan [Sec. 4, Art. XI,
Constitution]

Statutory court – refers to a court created by statutory law – B.P. Blg. 129

Courts of Law v Courts of Equity

Courts of Law -- Settle cases according to law.

Courts of Equity -- Resolve issues presented in a case, in accordance with the natural rules of fairness
and justice, and in the absence of a clear, positive law governing such issues.

Philippine courts are basically courts of law, not courts of equity. Equity, which has been aptly described as
a "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law. [GF Equity,
Inc., v Valenzona (2005)]
Courts of law, being also courts of equity, may not countenance such grossly unfair results without doing
violence to its solemn obligation to administer fair and equal justice for all. [Carceller v. CA (1999)]

Doctrine of Judicial Stability

Also Known as Doctrine of Non-Interference

Definition: Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere or review with each other’s
orders or judgment.

 The doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an
appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is co-
equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter
 Rationale: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and
over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers
acting in connection with this judgment.

When not applicable

Where a third-party claimant is involved – this is in consonance with the well-established principle that no
man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Original Jurisdiction
Under Sec. 5(1), Art. VIII, Constitution

1. Cases affecting APC – with RTC [Sec. 21(2), B.P. 129]

 Ambassadors
 Other public ministers, and
 Consuls

2. Petitions for CPM Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus against:

 Court of Appeals – exclusive [Sec. 17, R.A. 296]
 Court of Tax Appeals – exclusive (En banc)
 Sandiganbayan – exclusive [P.D. 1606 as amended]
 Commission on Elections – exclusive [Sec 7, Art. IX, Constitution]
 Commission on Audit – exclusive [Sec. 7, Art. IX, Constitution]
 RTCs -- with CA [Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129]
 Civil Service Commission -- with CA [R.A. 7902]
 Central Board of Assessment Appeals -- with CA [P.D. 464; B.P. 129; R.A. 7902]
 NLRC -- with CA [R.A. 7902]
 Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies -- with CA [B.P. 129; R.A. 7902]
 against lower courts and bodies – with CA + RTC

NOTE:
o SC A.M. No. 07-7-12 provides that if the petition involves an act/omission of a QJA, the petition shall only
be cognizable by the CA and must be filed there.
o Parties seeking to question the resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases or non-
administrative cases, may file an original action for certiorari with the SC, not with the CA, when it is
believed that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Other Original Jurisdiction of SC

 Petitions for writ of kalikasan – with CA [Sec. 3, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases]
 Petitions for quo warranto – with CA + RTC
 Petitions for writs of habeas corpus – with CA + RTC
 Petitions for writ of amparo – with CA + RTC + SB [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and
 Petitions for writ of habeas data – with CA + RTC + SB [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

Appellate jurisdiction
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm (MARRR) on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, FJ/O 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 TITA + P 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. [Sec. 5(2), Art. VIII,
Constitution] XPN: appeals from QJA – even only on a question of law alone – may be brought to the
CA, via Rule 43 of the ROC.

By way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45)
against:

1. CA
2. Sandiganbayan
3. RTC
a. Pure questions of law [Sec. 1, Rule 45] and
b. Cases falling under Sec. 5, Art. VIII, Constitution (see above)
4. CTA in its decisions rendered en banc
5. MetC, MTC, MCTC in the exercise of their delegated jurisdiction, where the decision, had it been
rendered by RTC, would be appealable directly to the SC [Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended]
The SC may resolve factual issues in certain exceptional circumstances:

a. The conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures

b. The inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible
c. There is grave abuse of discretion
d. The judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
e. The findings of fact are conflicting
f. There is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based
g. The finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record
h. The CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion
i. The findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case
j. Such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties

Court of Appeals
Original Jurisdiction
1. Actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC – exclusive [see: Sec. 9(2), BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule 47]
2. Petitions for CPM against – with SC
 RTCs
 Civil Service Commission
 Central Board of Assessment Appeals
 Other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43
 NLRC
3. Petitions for writ of kalikasan – with SC [Sec. 3, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases]
4. Petitions for CPM against lower courts and bodies -- with SC, RTC
5. Petitions for quo warranto -- with SC, RTC
6. Petitions for writs of habeas corpus -- with SC, RTC
7. Petitions for writ of amparo -- with SC, RTC, SB [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and
8. Petition for writ of habeas data -- with SC, RTC, SB [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction

By ordinary appeal

 From judgments of RTC and Family Courts [Sec. 9(3), B.P. 129, as amended; Sec. 14, R.A. 8369]
 Over decisions of the MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction
[Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

By petition for review

 From judgments of the RTC rendered in its appellate jurisdiction [Sec. 22, B.P. 129, as amended; Rule
42; Sec. 9, B.P. 129]
 From decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the Civil Service Commission and other QJA mentioned
in Rule 43 [Sec. 9(3), B.P. 129]
 From decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
Sandiganbayan
Exclusive original jurisdiction
Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases

involving:
1. Violations of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
2. Violations of R.A. 1379 or An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have
Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor
3. Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC), where one or more of the principal accused are
occupying the following positions in government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
the time of the commission of the offense:
a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989 (R.A. 6758), specifically including:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and
provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads
ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other city department heads
iii. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher
iv. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
v. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial
director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher
vi. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of GOCC, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations
b. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under R.A. 6758
c. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
d. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution
e. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under R.A. 6758
4. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of section 4 (as amended) in relation to their office
5. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14-A
6. Petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1986

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under E.O. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether (see exceptions)
 in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or
 of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided

XPN 1: RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information

 Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or

 Alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or
acts in an amount not exceeding P1 million

Subject to rules promulgated by SC, the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC shall be tried in a
judicial region other than where the official holds office

XPN 2: Exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC, MeTC, MTC,
and MCTC, as the case may be, where none of the accused are:

 occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, or

 military and PNP officers mentioned above

Concurrent Original Jurisdiction

 Petitions for writs of amparo -- with SC, CA, RTC [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and
 Petition for writs of habeas data -- with SC, CA, RTC [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

Regional Trial Courts

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

Test (principal nature of an action):

 Capable of pecuniary estimation: If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered
 Incapable of pecuniary estimation: Where the basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, and the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought, such actions are cases where the subject of the litigation is

An action to nullify a Deed of Assignment and Conveyance is NOT one involving a subject matter
incapable of pecuniary estimation if the plaintiff also seeks to the transfer of possession and control of
properties.

HOWEVER, if the principal nature of an action to cancel a contract to sell, where the defendant has
already taken possession of the property, involves a determination on whether a suspensive condition
has been fulfilled – then the subject matter involved is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation

ALSO, in an action to redeem a land subject of a free patent was characterized by the SC as one whose
subject matter was incapable of pecuniary estimation since the reacquisition of the land was merely
 incidental to and an offshoot of the exercise of the right to redeem the land, pursuant to Sec. 119 of CA
141.

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation [Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Francisco
Pastor, G.R. No. 138896 (2000)]

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

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

c. If the amount involved exceeds P300,000 outside Metro Manila or exceeds P400,000 in Metro
Manila in the following cases [B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]:

1. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the amount refers to demand or claim [Sec.
19(3)]
2. Matters of probate (testate or intestate), where the amount refers to gross value of estate [Sec.
19(4)]
3. In all other cases where the amount refers to the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs [Sec. 19(8)]

d. All actions involving the contract of marriage and family relations [Sec. 19(5), B.P. 129, as
amended by R.A. 7691], and all civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original
jurisdiction of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Note: This jurisdiction is deemed modified by Sec. 5, R.A. 8369, the law establishing the Family Courts.
However, in areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases within their jurisdiction shall be adjudicated
by the RTC [Sec. 17, R.A. 8369; 1 Riano 147, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

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

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

g. Intra-corporate controversies

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

2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among

 stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right
to exist as such entity

3. Controversies in election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such

corporations, partnerships or associations

4. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in state of suspension of

payments in cases where corporation, partnership of association possesses sufficient property to cover all its
debts but foresees impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where
corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under
management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee [Sec. 52, Securities and Regulations
Code]

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

Concurrent original jurisdiction

a. With SC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls [Sec. 21(2), B.P. 129; Sec.
5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution]

b. With SC and CA 1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and
bodies
2. Petitions for quo warranto
3. Petitions for writs of habeas corpus [Sec. 9(1), 21(2), B.P. 129; Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution]

c. With SC, CA and Sandiganbayan: petitions for writ writs of amparo [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of
Amparo] and habeas data [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

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

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

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

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Exclusive original jurisdiction
a. Where the value of personal property, estate, or amount of demand does not exceed P300,000
outside Metro Manila or does not exceed P400,000 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, in the following cases:

1. Civil actions
2. Probate proceedings (testate or intestate)
3. Provisional remedies in proper cases

[Sec. 33(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

b. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (FEUD)

Note: When defendant raises questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot
be resolved without deciding issue of ownership, the latter issue shall be resolved only to determine the
former issue [Sec. 33(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

c. All civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
assessed value of property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or does not
exceed P50,000 in Metro Manila [Sec. 33(3), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

d. Inclusion and exclusion of voters [Sec. 49, Omnibus Election Code]

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

Delegated jurisdiction
of 1st level courts assigned by SC to hear and decide cadastral and land registration cases covering
 a. Lots where there is no controversy or opposition
b. Contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, the value is to be ascertained:
1. By the claimant’s affidavit
2. By agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; or
3. From corresponding tax declaration of the real property MTC decisions in cadastral and land registration
cases are appealable in the same manner as RTC decisions [Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

1st level courts

1. Metropolitan Trial Court – in each metropolitan area established by law [Sec. 25, B.P. 129], particularly
Metro Manila [Sec. 27, B.P. 129]
2. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities – In every city not part of a metropolitan area [Sec. 29, B.P. 129]
3. Municipal Circuit Trial Court – in each circuit comprising such cities and municipalities grouped together
pursuant to law [Sec. 25, B.P. 129]
4. Municipal Trial Courts – in municipalities not comprised within a metropolitan area and a municipal circuit
[Sec. 30, B.P. 129]

7. Shari’a Courts
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts
a. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under the Code
of Muslim Personal Laws;
b. All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of estate of deceased Muslims, probate
of wills, issuance of letters of administration of appointment administrators or executors regardless of the
nature or aggregate value of the property;
c. Petitions for the declaration of absence and death for the cancellation and correction of entries in
the Muslim Registries;
d. All actions arising from the customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not
specified which law shall govern their relations; and
e. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus and all other auxiliary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction [Art. 143(1), P.D. 1083]

Concurrent jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts (concurrent

with existing civil courts)
a. Petitions of Muslim for the constitution of the family home, change of name and commitment of
an insane person to an asylum
b. All other personal and legal actions not mentioned in par. (d) of the immediately preceding topic,
wherein the parties involved are Muslims

Except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Municipal Circuit Court (now MTC under B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
c. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the
property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims [Art. 143(2), P.D. 1083]

Appellate jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts

Over all cases tried in Shari’a Circuit Courts within their territorial jurisdiction [Art. 144, P.D. 1083]
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Shari’a Circuit Courts

a. All cases involving offenses defined and punished under P.D. 1083
b. All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have been married in
accordance with Art. 13, P.D. 1083 involving disputes relating to 1. Marriage
2. Divorce recognized under P.D. 1083
3. Betrothal or breach of contract to marry
4. Customary dowry (mahr)
5. Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce
6. Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts (mut’a); and
7. Restitution of marital rights

c. All cases involving disputes relative to communal properties

[Art. 155, P.D. 1083]

The Shari’a District Court or the Shari’a Circuit Court shall constitute an Agama Arbitration Council
[Art. 160, P.D. 1083] in cases of divorce by talaq and tafwid [Art. 161, P.D. 1083] and subsequent marriages
[Art. 162, P.D. 1083] The Shari’a Circuit Court may also constitute a council to settle amicably cases involving
offenses against customary law which can be settled without formal trial [Art. 163, P.D. 1083]

Jurisdiction over Cases Covered by

The Revised Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases, The Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure, and
Barangay Conciliation
Cases covered by Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases
The Revised Rules shall govern the procedure in actions before the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs
for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed PHP 200,000 exclusive of interest and
costs [Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, February 1, 2016]

Note: The limit has been raised to PHP 300,000, to take effect on August 1, 2018 [A.M. No. 08-8-7-
SC, July 10, 2018]. However, this was superseded in a later resolution, amending the jurisdictional amount of
these courts under Republic Act No. 7691 to PHP 400,000 for the MeTCs and PHP 300,000 for the MTCCs,
MTCs, and MCTCs, exclusive of interest and costs, to take effect on April 1, 2019. [SC Resolution, February 26,
2019]

Applicability
All actions which are purely civil in nature, where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is
solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money
 The claim or demand may be:

1. For money owed under a contract of lease, loan, services, sale, or mortgage
2. For liquidated damages arising from contracts
3. The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money
claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of the LGC [Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, February 1, 2016]

Cases covered by Rules on Summary Procedure

1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (FEUD), irrespective of the amount of damages or
unpaid rentals sought to be recovered Attorney’s fees awarded shall not exceed PHP 20,000

2. All other cases, except probate proceedings where the total amount of the plaintiff‘s claim does
not exceed PHP 100,000 (outside Metro Manila) or PHP 200,000 (in Metro Manila), exclusive of interest and
costs
[Sec. 1, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC]

Cases covered by Barangay Conciliation

The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in
the same municipality or city for amicable settlement of all disputes.

Except:

1. Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions
3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding P5,000
4. Offenses where there is no private offended party
5. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
6. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities,
except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
7. Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or
upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice [Sec. 408, Local Government Code]
8. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities, since only individuals
shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents [Section 1, Rule
VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; also see SC Administrative Circular No. 14-93]
9. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or
further continued, specifically:
a. A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention
b. A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his liberty or one
acting in his behalf
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin
and support pendente lite
d. Where the action may be barred by the Statute of Limitations
10. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relationship
11. Where the dispute arises from the CARL
 12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be directly filed in court
[Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 14-93]
Note: Barangay conciliation is a condition precedent for filing a case. The failure to comply with a condition
precedent is a ground for a motion to dismiss under Sec. 1(j), Rule 16 but the dismissal is without prejudice
[Sec. 5, Rule 16]

G. Totality Rule
For purposes of determining jurisdiction over the case, where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be
the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of
the same or different transactions [Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]