CIVIL PROCEDURE

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL ESPEJO

2020 - 2021
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
BASIC PRINCIPLES
AVIA PREVIA - a Latin saying or greeting which means “may difficult
paths be easy to walk.”
DEFINITION OF LAW
It is a rule of human conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by
legitimate authority for common observance and benefit.
1. It is a RULE OF HUMAN CONDUCT – because it is men
who is governed by law.
2. It is JUST – it presumed to be just.
3. It is OBLIGATORY – upon all human beings who will be
under the majesty of the law.
4. It is PROMULGATED BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY – with
particular reference to statutes, we know that it is
Congress that promulgates law. When it comes to the
Rules of Court, it comes from the rule-making power of
the Supreme Court under Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution.
5. It should be of COMMON OBSERVANCE – nobody is
supposed to be above the law. Nobody is supposed to be
exempt from the application of the law. Ignorantia legis
neminem excusat, which means that ignorance of the law
excuses no one.
6. It is presumed to be FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL those who
follow the law.
TWO BRANCHES OF THE LAW
1. Substantive Law
2. Remedial Law
(1) SUBSTANTIVE LAW
§ It is that branch of law which creates, defines, and regulates
rights.
DISCUSSION
We know this. We are in 3rd year already and majority of our
subjects were substantive law – the Revised Penal Code, Civil Code,
the Constitution, Transportation Law, and anything else. Most of
what we have studied belong to substantive law, that branch of law
which creates, defines, and regulates rights.
If you have a right, for example, to be paid such as when a classmate
borrows money from you, that also comes from substantive law –
the law on mutuum or simple loan.
§ Substantive law, for example, provides for the creation of
obligations and contracts.
EXAMPLE:
Maja enters into a contract of sale with Pia. Maja has the right to
be paid by Pia. She already sold and transferred ownership over the
thing to Pia. Therefore, that right of Maja to be paid by Pia is
created by the substantive law – the law on Sales or the general law
on Obligations and Contracts.
Let us suppose that Pia breached the contract by not paying the
purchase price. Maja, under the Civil Code, is an unpaid seller who
may compel Pia to pay the price. How does she do that? This is
where remedial law comes in. Maja would have to look at remedial
law and find out the procedure on how to compel Pia to pay the
price.
1
** If substantive law creates the right to be paid, it is remedial law
that actually fleshes out the remedy in order for Maja to be paid.
Simple as that.
(2) REMEDIAL LAW
Remedial law may be called as remedial, adjective, or procedural
law.
§ It is that branch of law which prescribes the methods of
enforcing rights and obligations or for obtaining redress for
their invasion.
SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL LAW
“WHAT” and “WHY” “HOW”
The cause The effect
The substance The procedure
Provides the cause of action Provides the right to take
action
Cannot exist without remedial Cannot exist without
law. What use is a right if you substantive law. A remedy
cannot enforce it. applies only if a right exists.
DISCUSSION
Substantive law provides “what” is your right and “why” do you
have that right. When you talk about remedial law, it answers the
question “how” are you going to enforce the right, “how” are you
going to ensure that the obligation is actually paid up as well.
Substantive law, therefore, is the cause while remedial law is the
effect. Substantive law is the substance, remedial law is the
procedure. This is my right, how do I enforce my right?
Substantive law provides the cause of action and I want you to pay
attention to the term cause of action. We will be learning more of
that when we go to Rule 2 and Rule 3. When you talk about
remedial law, it provides the right to take action.
*Take note, however, not a lot of authors will tell you this. But in
my opinion, when you talk about substantive law, it cannot exist
without remedial law. What use is a right if you cannot enforce it?
You have that right, but there’s actually no law or rule that would
govern the manner by which you are supposed to obtain redress
for the violation of your right. Remedial law, also if you ask me, it
cannot exist without substantive law because a remedy applies only
if a right exists.
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
There is this rule that we will be going back to over and over again
in the course of the semester and even if I teach you different
remedial law subjects in the future: The law does not deal with
trifles - de minimis non curat lex.
Q: What does it mean?
A: You cannot file a suit that is not found within a right. You cannot
file an action in court that is intended simply to fix or to humiliate
another person named the defendant.
That’s the way I see substantive law and remedial law, by the
analogy that I would like to make: the relationship between
substantive law and remedial law is that they are not separate
branches, but they are actually two sides of the same coin. One
cannot exist without the other. For example, you have one side,
that side of the 10-peso coin with a face/person, but you don’t have
the back part of the coin. That is not supposed to be legal tender.
It’s the same thing here. Without remedial law, you cannot enforce
substantive law. Without substantive law, there is nothing to
enforce.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW
1. PUBLIC ASPECT – afford remedies:
a. To the State against an individual (ex. Criminal
Procedure); or
Criminal Procedure is a branch or aspect of remedial law that
governs how the prosecution of criminal offenses is supposed to be
made. It’s the State against the individual, People vs. Robea Reyes,
for example.
b. By an individual against the State (ex. Habeas
Corpus or Writ of Amparo)
For example, a petition of a writ of habeas corpus, which you will
be learning in Special Proceedings.
What is this habeas corpus- Produce the body or explain why you
are detaining a person against a will. That is the writ of habeas
corpus which I presume that you already learned in Constitutional
Law. In martial law and its relation to the writ of habeas corpus, I
know that you’ve learned that already.
And then the newer version, the writ of amparo. To differentiate a
writ of habeas corpus from a writ of amparo: in a writ of amparo, it
is an individual filing an action against the State itself. It is actually
the law enforcement agencies, the Philippine National Police or the
AFP, who are suspected of detaining a person. For example, an
enforced disappearance and the remedy there is a writ of amparo.
Let me tell you, however, that neither the writ of habeas corpus or
the writ of amparo are Filipino inventions. In fact, let me just opine
that nothing in the Philippines is ever a Filipino invention. I
challenge you to tell me anything in Philippine law, a procedural
remedy or concept that comes specifically from Philippine law and
I will give you plus points. Again, my contention is that nothing
comes originally from Philippine law.
For example, writ of amparo actually comes from Mexico. We also
have this writ of continuing mandamus under the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases. If you’ve gone through
Environmental Law, I’m sure you are familiar with that already,
coming from the case of MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay ordering the clean-up of Manila Bay by the means of a writ of
continuing mandamus. That is not again a Filipino invention. That is
actually an invention of India.
So that’s Public. It’s either State against the individual or individual
against the State.
Q: What about Private?
A: Private aspect of the Remedial Law affords a remedy to an
individual against another individual. So it’s a citizen against a
citizen. Perfect example there is our course for the semester, Civil
Procedure.
Civil Procedure – it is the body of rules that sets out rules and
standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. It is
divided into three distinct set of provisions, to wit:
1. Rules 1-56 or Civil Procedure proper – which is our subject for
this semester;
2. Rules 57-61 or Provisional Remedies – which is actually part
and parcel a continuation of Civil Procedure which are writs
and processes available during the pendency of the action to
preserve and protect certain rights and interests pending
rendition and for the purposes of the ultimate effects of a final
judgment;
2
3. Rules 62-71 or Special Civil Actions – which is again a
continuation of Civil Procedure. They are civil actions
governed especially by the special rules and generally by the
Rules of Court ordinary civil actions. Kung sa halo-halo pa, naa
ni siyay ice cream. Kung sa mami pa, naa ni siyay itlog. ‘Di ba?
Kay special man. As supposed to an ordinary civil action, which
we will be talking about when we discuss the Rules of Court.
4. Rules 72-109 or Special Proceedings – rules governing
miscellaneous proceedings dealing on specific issues. A special
proceeding is defined as a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a right, status, or a particular fact.
5. Rules 110-127 or Criminal Procedure – the legal process for
adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal Law.
That’s what? 28 rules lang na. Compared to Civil Procedure
that actually spans Rules 1-71 of the Rules of Court. So taas
gyud kaayo ang Civil Procedure. That’s the reason why we are
given 5 units. But if you ask me, 5 units is actually not enough
if we are really going to discuss every provision in specific and
greater detail.
6. Rules 1-133 or Evidence – my favorite subject in all of the law
and this is the subject I am most known. Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by the Rules of Court, in ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. When you go
to third year, I am your prof in Evidence, ipa-memorize jud
nako na sa inyoha kanang meaning sa evidence.
7. Jurisdiction – It is deemed included in all branches of Remedial
Law, but the main law here is actually B.P. 129, as amended.
Why do I say that jurisdiction is actually part and parcel of Philippine
Remedial Law? As supposed, you know your substantive law, you
know your rights, you know the obligations of the other party. So
you know that you have something to enforce. Now, you know
already and you know the procedure because you’ve discussed Civil
Procedure. You know Civil Procedure, but you do not know which
court has jurisdiction over the remedy that you have chosen. What
will eventually happen probably to your case? It is susceptible to
have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a court over the case
that you have.
Q: Where is Remedial law applied?
Substantive law actually deals with everything that we do in our
daily lives. When you cross the street to buy cigarettes- that’s a
contract of sale. That’s governed by substantive law. You apply
substantive law whenever you drive – traffic laws and regulations,
‘di ba? That’s substantive law. The question is where do you
specifically apply remedial law?
A: Exclusive ang venue where we apply remedial law because it is
applied by and before the judiciary or the courts of justice pursuant
to Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 2. In what courts applicable. – These Rules shall apply in all
courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
There is what we call a uniform and general applicability of the
Rules of Court to all courts of justice pursuant to Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)
of the Constitution which mandates that the procedural rules to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade. But we go back to Rule 1, Sec. 2 here, except as
otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. Because there could be
certain civil actions or cases that we file in court that might be
governed by a set of rules.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
For example, you filed a case for collection of a sum of money. You
want to collect from your classmate who borrowed money from
you, but then there’s this pandemic. What are you gonna do?
Where are you gonna go? You go to court, file an action, and then,
what will govern the filing and prosecution of that action? What will
govern will be the Rules of Court, the rules on Civil Procedure. But
when the Supreme Court otherwise provides, different rules will
apply.
Example of a civil case where it’s not the Rules of Court that is
applicable, but something else, a different set of rules.
Rule on small claims cases. When a case falls under the rule on small
claims, we will not apply the Rules of Court. What will we apply?
We apply the rule on small claims. (to be discussed under
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court) but that is an example. A
civil case that is subject to different rules, not necessarily Rules of
Court.
Q: What is a court?
In common parlance, a court may be described as a judicial tribunal
or a body, an entity duly constituted for the hearing and
determination of cases. It is the place where you go to file a case
against your classmate who borrowed moneyu from you.
There’s actually a technical definition of a court.
A court is an entity vested with a portion of the judicial power.
Portion? What to we mean by portion of the judicial power? You
mean to say that the RTC or the MTC there at the Hall of Justice in
Ecoland, their judicial power is not full? Only a portion? There is an
explanation to why it is only a portion of judicial power, because of
Art. VII, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Meaning, there can be no 2 Supreme Courts- that would be
unconstitutional.
So only a portion. It is shared among all of these different courts
from the SC to the CA to the RTC to the MTC, but only a portion.
They cannot handle every type of case, because the different types
of cases or the subject matter of litigation is a portion among the
different courts in the land pursuant to the concept of jurisdiction
which we will be discussing later on. Because technically speaking,
when you talk about enumeration of jurisdiction of different courts
that is an apportionment of the judicial power vested upon the
courts. That is why they are only vested with a portion of such.
Q: What is judicial power?
A: We can still find that under the same provision of the
Constitution which explains what the judicial power includes and it
includes:
SECTION 1. x x x Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Q: What is judicial power?
Judicial power is the power to adjudicate and the power to review
decisions when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
3
It is always discussed in the cases the phrase grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. And it is
always in Supreme Court cases.
Q: What specific proceeding or type of case brought to the SC if
there is grave abuse of discretion?
Special civil action on certiorari under Rule 65.
It is always mentioned and familiar to us already without us
knowing about it consciously and that is pursuant to the expanded
definition of judicial power. Because again traditionally speaking,
settling actual controversies and determine whether or not rights
are demandable, that’s judicial power. But the Constitution
expanded the meaning of judicial power which includes specifically
now the grave abuse of discretion. Why? Actually it is caused by the
Marcos regime where the common impression we have you know
during the time of Marcos it was really so corrupt and Marcos acted
capriciously and arbritrarily always. We can always hear this even
in our history books. So the reason why the framers of the
Constitution, influenced by perceived abuses of the Marcos, came
up with the expanded definition of judicial power as an additional
element to our system of checks and balances. So imagine how
powerful a court is.
Now, what is a judge. Anyway, what about a judge? It it the same
with a court? When the judge renders a decision, a court renders a
decision. Well, you have to really identify the diverse terms.
Sometimes, we might mistakenly assume a court is the physical
building where the judge is. But as we previously noted already, it
is actually an entity vested with a portion of judicial power. So it is
not actually a building.
What about a judge? A judge is a public officer authorized to hear
and decide cases. He/she is a magistrate charged with the
administration of justice. A judge is the officer presiding over the
court. In the Philippines, take note that a judge in an ordinary court
is simply called a judge. But when a judge sits in a collegiate court,
the collegiate court is a multi-member court like the SC, Court of
Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. There is
more than one (1) judge and we call them justices. But basically
they are the same, they are still judges.
What a justice is, is actually a judge in a collegiate court. But the
more important thing you have to remember is the difference
between a court and a judge. So a judge is a human being.
COURT JUDGE
A court is a creation of law. A judge is a human person, a
With the exception of the creation of nature. He has civil
Supreme Court, which is a personality but also imbued
constitutional court, all other with special qualifications that
courts are created by statute. allow him to discharge
functions conferred upon him
by law.
It has no physical existence. He is a physical being.
A court, “dies” only when it is A judge may be separated fom
abolished by statue. Unless the court by his retirement,
abolished by law, a court resognation, removal and,
remains in perpetuity. ofcourse, his death.
So what about the Sandiganbayan? Isn’t it a creation of the
Constitution since it is mentioned there? No, it is created by a
statute. So a court has no physical existence. It is an abstract. There
could be a courthouse that’s where physically litigating, but it is not
the court. The court is the creation of the law. That’s just the
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 4
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

building. And take note a judge may be separated from the court
by his retirement, resignation, removal.
When a judge dies, does it necessarily mean that there is no longer
a court? No, because a court dies only when abolished as such.
Unless it is abolished by law, a court remained in its perpetuity. So
even if the judge dies, the court still subsists. The judge will be
replaced, but there is still a court.
2) In a limited sense, when a judge is appointed to preside
over a MCTC.
a. A circuit court is one which comprises such
cities or municipalities as group by a law.
Concept of circuit trial court: There is a single
court, but a judge may find himself presiding
over several salas.

Now take note the difference between a judge acting as court and CLASSIFICATIONS OF COURTS:
a judge acting in his personal or individual capacity must be 1) Superior and inferior courts
preserved. There must be delineation. That guy might be a judge a. Superior – those exercising supervisory
but he is not the court. What he does personally and individually is
authority over lower courts
no business of the court. It just so happens that a judge is presiding
b. Inferior – those whose decisions are subject to
over the court. Now if that is not the rule, take note that a judge is
not answerable for any wrongs done by him in his individual review by higher tribunals (e.g. MTC)
capacity. Because you cannot sue a court. Not in the usual way but 2) Courts of general jurisdiction and courts of special
a court can be made party through a special civil action on certiorari jurisdiction
if there is grave abuse of discretion. That is only the time a court a. Courts of general jurisdiction – those that take
can be a party to the case. But ordinarily, you cannot file a criminal cognizance of all cases of a particular nature
case against the court but you can file it against the judge in his (e.g. RTC)
individual capacity. A court cannot possess personal life. b. Courts of special jurisdiction – those taking
cognizance only of a few specified matters
Can there be a court without a judge? Yes, because its existence is i. Family court, probate court, small
not affected by the removal or death of a presiding judge. Thus, claims court
there can be technically a court without a judge but it may only
ii. In Philippines, it doesn’t mean that if
exercise its main functions through a judge. A judge must be
the court is a probate court, it
appointed to that court by the Judicial and Bar Council. When a new
judge is appointed to preside over the same court, the judge exclusively hears cases relating to
continues the proceedings already instituted. He does not begin probate matters. It may handle other
cases anew. There is no trial de novo. Trial de novo is you start from cases which would make it a court of
scratch. For example, in a case filed by A against B. A already general jurisdiction.
finished presenting his evidence. So is the defendant’s turn because
that’s how adversarial system works. So prosecution first, then the COURTS OF GENERAL COURTS OF SPECIAL
accused. JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
Those which take cognizance Courts of special jurisdiction
Is the order of trial the same in all criminal cases? -No. Ex. Unlawful of all cases without a are those taking cognizance of
aggression or self-defense particular nature. the few specified matters.

Q: If the accused already plead guilty, why is still there a need to
present evidence?
A: [Suggested answer] Evidence is still presented for purposes of
proving the justifying circumstance invoked by the accused.
Suppose in a normal trial, the prosecution already presented its
evidence. During the pendency of the case, the judge died. He was
replaced by another judge, trial resumed. What would the judge do?
Will he require the prosecution to present its evidence again? -No,
there should be no trial de novo. The new judge will just start from
where the trial stopped.
Q: Can there be a judge without a court?
A: No. Technically speaking, an officer is a judge only when he has
a court to preside over.
For example, a Regional Trial Court, that is a court of general
jurisdiction. If you look at BP 129 Sec. 19, 20 and 21. Section 19,
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. So that is everything that the
RTC can hear.
Examples of Courts of Special Jurisdiction:
• A family court, only family cases under the Family Courts
Act.
• Probate Court. Probate is the court that handles
inheritance. Last will and testament, that is a probate
court.
• Small claims court, small claims only. How much is small
claims now? 300, 000. So Only a certain class of cases.
ORIGINAL COURTS APPELLATE COURTS
Where cases commence. Where cases are reviewed.

Take note: RA 11459 also known as “Judges-at-Large Act of 2019”
which amended BP 129. Judges-at-large are those appointed with
no permanent sala or courthouse and those who may be assigned
by the Supreme Court as acting or assisting judges. This is a
recognition from the Congress that we have a very few judges.
Q: Can a judge preside over more than one court?
A: Yes, in the following instances:
1) When a judge is appointed to preside over another court
in a pairing or assisting capacity; and
The MTC, that is a purely original court. You file cases before the
MTC for the first time. You cannot appeal going to the MTC.
An RTC is both an original and appellate court. If the decision that
you want to appeal comes from the MTC, you appeal before the
RTC. If you file the case for the first time before the RTC, you appeal
before the court of appeals. Unless it is a pure question of law in
which cases we are given the option to go to the Supreme Court
directly.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 5
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

What about a small claims court? You can only imagine a small What is this law promulgated by the legislature that creates courts,
claim, definitely that's not millions so the hearing is summary. I'm BP 129. You have to have a copy of this, the amended provisions.
sure you've heard about a summary procedure.
• In an MTC acting as a small claims court, it really involves COLLEGIATE COURT NON-COLLEGIATE COURT
small claims only, but can you appeal before the RTC? No. Pertains to collegial or multi- All other courts such as RTC
Because a MTC acting as a small claim court's decisions member decision-making. It and MTC are non-collegiate.
cannot be appealed. They are final and executory. decides by the majority votes
of its members. In the
But I lost and the adverse party has no evidence at all still, I lost - Philippines, It's the Supreme
what's my remedy? You might be surprised to find out that the Court, CA, CTA, and
remedy there will be a Petition for Certiorari under rule 65. Sandiganbayan.
Provided theres grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or We call the judges justices We call them judge only.
excess of jurisdiction. But the question is where do you file it. To
the supreme court? No. You file before the RTC. We'll discuss more Section 5. The Inherent powers of the Court.
on that when we reach jurisdiction. Rule 135, Section 5. Inherent powers of court. — Every court
shall have power:
CRIMINAL COURTS CIVIL COURTS a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate
Decide purely criminal cases. Decide only civil cases. presence;
b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a
An example of a purely criminal court is the so-called drugs court or person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
RTCs specially designated for cases related to dangerous drugs. investigation under its authority;
Take note that there is no civil aspect in a drugs case. But that's just c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
an example for the sake of it because in reality RTCs whether processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of
designated as a drugs court or not, they also handle civil cases. court, in a case pending therein;
d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
What about a purely civil court? -MTC acting as a small claims court ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any
since it does not hear the public aspect of criminal cases under the manner connected with a case before it, in every
rule of procedure of small claims cases. manner appertaining thereto;
e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a
case pending therein;
COURTS OF LAW COURTS OF EQUITY f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a
Tribunals deciding cases by Tribunals proceeding case pending therein, and in all other cases where it
applying the law. according to the precepts of may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
equity or fairness. g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice;
All courts in the Philippines are supposed to be both courts of law h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or
and courts of equity. They apply both the law and principles of other paper to be filed and used instead of the
equity. No Philippine court is only a court of law or court of equity, original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its
they are both. records and proceedings.

Q: What's an example of principle of law and principle of equity or

justice. Give me an example of principle of equity. DISCUSSION
A: unjust enrichment? a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;

Q: But isn't our principles on unjust enrichment always confined If there is someone that would make improper acts before the
under the provisions of the civil code on quasi contracts? What immediate presence of the court, what can the court do? Cite the
else. The one that binds you to your word. person in contempt.
A: estoppel.
c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes,
Q: Estoppel is both a substantive law concept and at the same and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending
time an equitable concept. What else? therein;
A: Laches
Someone did refused to obey, what is the remedy here? Contempt.
Q: what is latches?
A: when one party sleeps on his rights. d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
Inordinate delay. Why does the court assume that you dont have a connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining
cause of action when there is laches? Since it took you so long to thereto;
file. Maybe the cause of action is not meritorious that's why you
didnt file it immediately. This is the administrative control and supervision by the court over
its personnel.
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS STATUTORY COURTS
Created by the constitution Those created by the e) to compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending
itself such as the Supreme legislature. therein;
Court.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
To compel. What power of the court is this? Subpoena powers of
the court.
Since the accused has the right to secure the attendance of the
witnesses, evidence in its behalf. What's the mode if the witness
does not testify voluntarily for him? Subpoena. There are 2 types of
subpoena. Subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum
Subpoena ad testificandum - you testify
Subpoena duces tecum - you bring documents and testify.
f.) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a
case pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be
necessary in the exercise of its powers;
When you are a witness you take an oath. You swear to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. That’s
having an oath before the court. That’s the way the court can hold
you to perjury, false testimony, if you do not speak the truth before
the court.
g.) To amend and control its process and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice;
h.) To authorize copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or
other paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to
restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.
We just need to remember this.
Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
So this is the provision, Rule 135 Sec. 5.
IMPORT OF RULE 135
Means to carry jurisdiction into effect
Rule 135, Sec. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect - When
by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all
auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it
into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the
procedure to be followed in the exercise such jurisdiction is not
specifically pointed out by law or by these Rules, any suitable
process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears
conformable to the spirit of said law or Rules.
What is this in means to carry jurisdiction into effect? It is
recognition by the Supreme Court in making the Rules of Court that
it cannot provide for every eventuality or possibility in litigation.
That there may be instances where it may not be found in the Rules
of Court but it is still important for the court to proceed. Even
though there is no procedure that governs, it might still be
important for the courts to proceed. What will it do in that situation?
It can exercise in a suitable discretion to adopt process or mode of
proceeding provided it is conformable to the spirit of the law or the
Rules of Court.
REYES v. LIM
G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003
Facts:
• Reyes entered into a Contract to Sell with Lim whereby
Reyes agreed to sell to Lim a parcel of land under the
following terms: (1) total purchase price is P28,000,000.00;
(2) the down payment is P10,000,000.00, paid to Reyes
upon signing of the Contract; and (3) the balance of
P18,000,000.00 shall be paid on or before March 8, 1995
6
but only if the tenants or occupants of the property have
vacated the same.
• Reyes claimed that he had difficulty in ousting the tenants
such that, on March 9, 1995, Reyes offered to return the
P10 million down payment to Lim, which Lim rejected.
Upon verification, Lim found out that Reyes had already
sold the property to Line One Foods Corporation on March
1, 1995 for P16,782,840.
• Reyes filed a Complaint for annulment of contract and
damages against Lim. On March 6, 1997, Lim requested in
open court that Reyes be ordered to deposit the P10 million
down payment with the cashier of the RTC of Paranaque.
The trial court granted this motion.
• Reyes questions this order on the ground that requiring him
to deposit the P10 million down payment is not among the
provisional remedies enumerated in the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Reyes stresses the enumeration in the Rules is
exclusive. Not one of the provisional remedies in the Rules
applies to this case. Reyes argues that a court cannot apply
equity and require deposit if the law already prescribes the
specific provisional remedies which do not include deposit.
HELD:
• The instant case is precisely one where there is a hiatus in
the law and in the Rules of Court. If left alone, the hiatus
will result in unjust enrichment to Reyes at the expense of
Lim. The hiatus may also imperil restitution, which is a
precondition to the rescission of the Contract to Sell that
Reyes himself seeks. This is not a case of equity overruling
a positive provision of law or judicial rule for there is none
that governs this particular case. This is a case of silence or
insufficiency of the law and the Rules of Court. In this case,
Article 9 of the Civil Code expressly mandates the courts to
make a ruling despite the “silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws.” This calls for the application of
the equity, which “fills the open spaces in the law.”
• Thus, the trial court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction
may validly order the deposit of the P10 million down
payment in court. The purpose of the exercise of equity
jurisdiction in this case is to prevent unjust enrichment and
to ensure restitution.
• There is also no plausible or justifiable reason for Reyes to
object to the deposit of the P10 million down payment in
court. The contract to Sell can no longer be enforced
because Reyes himself subsequently sold the property to
Line One.
• Thus, since Reyes is demanding to rescind the Contract to
Sell, he cannot refuse to deposit the P10 million down
payment inn court. Such deposit will ensure restitution of
the P10 million to its rightful owner.
• There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains
a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains
money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. In this
case, it was just, equitable, and proper for the trial court to
order the deposit of the P10 million down payment to
prevent unjust enrichment by Reyes at the expense of Lim.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Q: What is the difference between a Contract to Sell and a
Contract of Sale?
A: In contracts of sale the vendor loses ownership over the property
and cannot recover it unless and until the contract is resolved or
rescinded, while in contracts to sell, title is retained by the vendor
until full payment of the price.
When will the reservation end? - Upon payment of the purchase
price or the consideration.
How do you differentiate the remedy in a contract to sell? Rescission
will not apply.
Precisely, because there is no contract to speak of. It just an
agreement that upon payment of the purchase price, that is the
time that I will execute contract of sale.
DISCUSSION
Reyes, the one who has the obligation to evict the tenant said I have
a difficulty in ousting the tenants such that in March 9, 1995, Reyes
offered to return the P10 million down payment, which Lim
rejected. Apparently, maybe because he is so interested in the
property? But upon verification, Lim found out that Reyes already
sold the property to Line One Foods Corp. on March 1, 1995 for
P16,782,840.
Technically speaking, there is nothing really wrong on what Reyes
did by selling it to somebody else because it is not a double sale, if
you recall? Remember in a double sale situation, both contacts
must be valid contacts of sale. It is in Art. 1544. What Reyes did here
is, he filed complaint for annulment of contract and damages
against Lim.
On March 6, 1997, Lim requested in open court that Reyes be
ordered to deposit the P10 million down payment with the cashier
of the RTC Paranaque. The trial court granted this motion. What
should happen is Reyes is ordered to deposit the money in court
since it is not his. Because it seems that the contract to sell will not
push through anymore.
Reyes questions this order on the ground that requiring him to
deposit the P10 million down payment is not among the provisional
remedies enumerated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He is
right! If you look at the enumeration from Rule 57 to 61, there is
nothing there which says deposit. It is not a provisional remedy
provided by the Rules. And none of the provisional remedies
enumerated by the Rules is applicable to their situation. And Reyes
argues that the court cannot apply equity and require deposit if the
law already prescribes the specific provisional remedies which do
not include deposit.
What did the Court say? The instant case is precisely one where
there is a hiatus in the law and in the Rules of Court. If left alone,
the hiatus will result in unjust enrichment to Reyes at the expense
of Lim. Why? It is not his money. He is not entitled that money
because he already sold the property. Meaning, the supposed
contract to sell will not push through. The contract to sell will not
ripen to contact of sale anymore. So why keep the money? And so
the Supreme Court also says, the hiatus may also imperil restitution,
which is a precondition to the rescission of the Contract to Sell that
Reyes himself seeks. Although, this is different because you do not
rescind a contract to sell.
This is not a case of equity overruling a positive provision of law or
judicial rule for there is none that governs this particular case. This
is a case of silence or insufficiency of the law and the Rules of Court.
7
In this case, Article 9 of the Civil Code expressly mandates the courts
to make a ruling despite the “silence, obscurity or insufficiency of
the laws.” This calls for the application of the equity, which “fills the
open spaces in the law.”
Thus, the trial court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction may
validly order the deposit of the P10 million down payment in court.
The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction in this case is to
prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
Thus, since Reyes is demanding to rescind the Contract to Sell, he
cannot refuse to deposit the P10 million down payment inn court.
Such deposit will ensure restitution of the P10 million to its rightful
owner.
Right? There is no procedure in the Rules of Court about this. But it
is a means that the court actually adopted to carry jurisdiction into
effect. That is one of those examples. And there is unjust
enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another
against the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good
conscience. In this case, it was just, equitable, and proper for the
trial court to order the deposit of the P10 million down payment to
prevent unjust enrichment by Reyes at the expense of Lim.
In a more recent case of Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. Villarin,
the Supreme Court stated:
In LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION vs. VILLARIN, ET AL., G.R.
No. 175727, March 6, 2019, the Supreme Court stated that,
based on jurisprudence, a deposit order is an extraordinary
provisional remedy whereby money or other property is placed
in custodia legis to ensure restitution to whichever party is
declared entitled thereto after court proceedings. It is
extraordinary because its basis is not found in Rules 57 to 61 of
the Rules of Court on Provisional Remedies but rather, under
Sections 5(g) and 6 of Rule 135 of the Same Rules pertaining to
the inherent power of every court “to amend and control its
process an orders so as to make them conformable to law and
justice;” as well as to issue “all auxiliary writs, processes and
other means necessary’ to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
* This is a perfect example. This is a good case
ENFORCEMENT OF WRITS AND PROCESSES
Rule 135, Sec 3
1. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, injunction
a. Issued by CA/SC-nationwide
If issued by CA/SC, the enforceability is nationwide, wherever you
are in the country.
b. Issued by RTC-region-wide
What is the implication here? There is nothing mentioned about the
MTC? Take note, MTC cannot issue certiorari. It cannot issue
prohibition. It cannot order mandamus. There is no quo warranto
that is filed in the MTC. Habeas corpus, that is in RTC; it is special
proceeding. It is only injunction that the MTC can issue. Injunction
but only writ of preliminary injunction, it cannot be a final
injunction. I’m you can’t still understand but MTC can issue
preliminary injunction especially in cases falling within its
jurisdiction. I will explain this later on especially when we go to the
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
jurisdiction of the RTC in an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Don’t be disturbed in that terminology yet.
2. Other writs (by all courts)- nationwide [arrest warrant,
subpoena, writ of amparo]
Arrest warrant, of course that is enforceable nationwide. Subpoena,
provided it falls within the parameters that is in Rule 21. We will
discuss that when the time comes. And you have writ of amparo
also.
3. Search Warrant- generally territorial.
If issued by a court in Davao City, then it is only in Davao City.
*Take note: Municipal Trial Court, cannot issue Certiorari, they
cannot issue prohibition. It cannot command the mandamus. There
is no Quo Warranto that can be filed.
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
DISCUSSION
Q: What is jurisdiction?
It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a
case. Jurisdiction is the power in which the courts are vested for
administering justice that is for hearing and deciding cases. It is
jurisdiction that actually enables a court to act.
So, when you say that "there is no jurisdiction", it simply means that
the court has no power. Remember the meaning of jurisdiction,
because it is a technical term. It is given a particular definition by
law. Its definition is doctrinal.
If it is a technical term, meaning it is either given a statutory
definition, like a contract of sale or to sell, so how is it defined
Article 1458, defines a contract of sale, so you have to memorize
that definition.
If it is not given a statutory definition or a definition by law, it is a
doctrinal definition, meaning, the definition that the Supreme
Court provided.
*NOTE: We are not allowed to use our own words. We have to use
the language of the law. Every time that we define something and
the definition is given either by law or by a case, you have to
remember that definition.
The term Jurisdiction comes from the Latin words Juris or Law and
Dicere or to speak, which literally means now, taken together,
Jurisdiction is to speak the law.
CONCEPTS OF JURISDICTION
DISCUSSION
There are actually two meanings or concepts of jurisdiction,
somehow you might have gotten that meaning or understanding of
the term jurisdiction from Criminal Procedure because remember
in Criminal Procedure, the venue is jurisdictional. Meaning, if the
crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that
particular court, you have to file that before that court, otherwise
it can be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. That is the Criminal
Procedure rule. At least, that I remember.
8
First would be as a concept denoting authority or as a concept
denoting the area of responsibility, again because of criminal
procedure
So, in the first sense, meaning a concept denoting authority,
jurisdiction is a practical authority granted a formally constituted
legal body or officer to deal with and make pronouncements on
legal matters. So that is the authority of the court.
In the second sense, embodying the issue of the first, Jurisdiction
is also the power to administer justice within a defined area of
responsibility. That is the reason why we have rules on the venue
in the Rules of Court, like for Civil Cases, you have Rule 4, a venue
of Civil Actions and that would depend on whether an action is
personal. We will not act to that yet. We will act to that when we
go to Rule 1.
THE PRINCIPLE ON THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY OF JURISDICTION
DISCUSSION
The court defines as a situation where a court is called upon to
decide a particular situation and release the parties from their
correlative competitions but if it would result in adverse
consequences for the parties, the court will go beyond its power to
avoid negative consequences in the release of the parties (Naga
Telephone Company v. CA, G.R. No. 107112, February 24, 1994.)
*Take note of this case.
NAGA TELEPHONE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. 107112| February 24, 1994
Facts: Here, Naga Tel.Co. was a telephone company which
rendered long distance telephone service in Naga City. Then,
Camarines II Electric Cooperative, Inc., was a private corporation
established for the purpose of creating an electric power. In
1977, Natelco and Casureco entered into a contract for the use
by Naga of the Electrical post of casureco. So, in consideration
of that, Natelco, would install free of charge, ten (10) telephone
connections for the use of Casureco.
As to the period, how long was it. It was mentioned, “as long as
the party of the first part”, meaning Naga the telephone
company had need. Of course, overtime. Daghan na kaayo
nagpataod ug telephone lines. So, the Electric Post of Casureco
were already overburdened by this connections. So here
Casureco filed a case to release it from its contract with Nataleco
invoking Article 1267 of the New Civil Code. You
remember this Article?
“When the service becomes so difficult as it is already beyond
the contemplation of the parties, So the court may authorize the
release of the other party. This is related to the doctrine of rebus
sic stantibus (in International Law, when the states enter into a
treaty, they usually consider the circumstances prevailing at the
time of the treaty. So, overtime, if there has already been
changes in the circumstances, the parties may be authorized
from the release of the treaties because the circumstances now
are different from the circumstances before. That was the
argument of Casureco.
Issue: Did court apply here the doctrine of equity jurisdiction?
Ruling: So the Supreme Court said, “yes” we can apply Article
1267 because it has already become so difficult. It was
manifested beyond the contemplation of Casureco because at
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 9
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

that time, there were just few people who subscribed to
telephone connections but now daghan na kaayo. So we can
apply Article 1267.
But Article 1267, authorizes the release of a party from that
agreement. So, if we apply Article 1267, Casureco would be
released from the contract and Naga would now remove the
telephone connections. But the Supreme Court said that this
would cause undue inconvenience on the part of the public
because a lot of people have already been subscribing to the
services of Natelco.
According to the Supreme Court, the contract was unfair. We,
therefore, release the parties from their correlative obligations
under the contract. However, our disposition of the present
controversy does not end here.
We have to take into account the possible consequences of merely
releasing the parties therefrom: petitioners will remove the
telephone wires/cables in the posts of private respondent,
resulting in disruption of their service to the public; while private
respondent, in consonance with the contract will return all the
telephone units to petitioners, causing prejudice to its business.

DISCUSSION We shall not allow such eventuality. Rather, we require, as ordered

Where a person by his contract charges himself with an obligation
possible to be performed, he must perform it, unless its
performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, by the law,
or by the other party, it being the rule that in case the party desires
to be excused from performance in the event of contingencies
arising thereto, it is his duty to provide the basis therefor in his
contract.
by the trial court:
1) petitioners to pay private respondent for the use of its
posts in Naga City and in the towns of Milaor, Canaman,
Magarao and Pili, Camarines Sur and in other places
where petitioners use private respondent's posts, the
sum of ten (P10.00) pesos per post, per month, beginning
January, 1989; and

You're not supposed to be excused from the performance of your 2) private respondent to pay petitioner the monthly dues of
obligations as stated in the contract that you, yourself have entered all its telephones at the same rate being paid by the
into. That is not allowed. public beginning January, 1989. The peculiar
circumstances of the present case, as distinguished
In the Civil Code, Article 1267. When the service has become so further from the Occeña case, necessitates exercise of
difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the our equity jurisdiction.
parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in
part. Beautiful! But did you happen to notice, that it was not prayed by
the parties. In effect the RTC and the Supreme Court decided on
But its very very general. How does this play now in the factual issue their own. That is the exercise of the equity of jurisdiction.
of the case? What are the facts? of course, this NaTelCo (Naga
Telephone Company), its a telephone company which operates in The Supreme Court can go beyond. The courts can go beyond the
Naga City, but private respondent Camarines Sur Elective contracts of the parties to make the result more equitable for all
Cooperative Incorporated, is a private corporation established for the parties.
the purpose of operating an electric power service in the same city.
On November 1, 1977, the parties entered into a contract for the JURISDICTION EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
use, by petitioner Natelco in the operation of its telephone service
the electric line posts of private respondent in Naga City. Natelco AS TO ITS NATURE
and Casureco entered into a contract for the use by Naga of the
electric posts of Casureco. In consideration of that, Natelco, would Jurisdiction is the authority to Where a court has jurisdiction
instal free of charge, ten (10) connections for the use of Casureco. act upon or decide a case. over a subject matter, the
decision on questions arising
In their contract it provide that the term or period of this contract Refers to the authority to from the case is an exercise of
shall be as long as the party of the first part has need for the electric decide a case, NOT the orders such jurisdiction.
light posts of the party of the second part it being understood that or decisions rendered therein.
this contract shall terminate when for any reason whatsoever, the (Because decisions and orders
party of the second part is forced to stop, abandoned its operation are exercises of jurisdiction.)
as a public service and it becomes necessary to remove the electric
lightpost.
NOTE: Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its
In other words, what was stipulated in here, "forever and ever, we jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment which does not affect
have a contract". its authority to decide a case, much less divest the court of the
jurisdiction. Everything else that the court does in a case, is called
In exchange for what? an EXERCISE of its jurisdiction.
In exchange of ten (10) telephone lines, free of charge, but it so
happened that as years passed because this was a case decided in ERROR IN JURISDICTION ERROR OF JUDGMENT
1994, there were so many subscribers of Natelco, such that there
were so many telephone lines in the electric posts of Casureco. AS TO ITS NATURE

So, now it goes to court saying that "I want to get out of this Committed by the court when Committed by the court when
contract because its already becoming too burdensome for the it entertains a case over which it issues ERRONEOUS orders in
operations of Casureco." but Natelco is saying that "It is not allowed, it has NO AUTHORITY. a case over which IT HAS
we have a contract." PROPER jurisdiction. It has
jurisdiction in the first place.

EXAMPLES
Example:
a.) Small claims case.
It was filed before the
Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court took cognizance of the
case.
Wrong! Because it is not given
such jurisdiction, even if it’s
the Supreme Court.
b.) Action for Unlawful
detainer or Forcible Entry.
These cases fall within the
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
jurisdiction of the MTC. It
cannot be filed before the
Regional Trial Court.
Now, if you still file it with the
RTC [And RTC entertains it].
That is now an ERROR IN
JURISDICTION.
AS TO REMEDIES
Special Civil Action for
Certiorari under Rule 65.
LACK OF JURISDICTION
Without jurisdiction means
lack or want of legal power,
right or authority to hear and
determine a cause or causes,
considered either in general or
with reference to a particular
matter. It means lack of power
to exercise authority.
EXAMPLES:
A Municipal Trial Court under
BP. 129 has jurisdiction to try a
case where the claim or
demand does not exceed
300,000 outside of Metro
Manila or 400,000 in Metro
Manila.
So if the MTC tries a case
where the demand is, let us
say 1 million, what will happen
there? It acts WITHOUT
JURISDICTION. It has NO
jurisdiction in the first place.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 10
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC. vs. APURILLO
GR No. 168746 | November 5, 2009
Example:
Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of
jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power
a.) Criminal case.
of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with
respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions
Less serious physical injuries.
which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in
respect of it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack or
The Court denied bail even if
want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a
bail here is a matter of right .
cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference
to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise
So, it has jurisdiction over the
authority.
case of less serious physical
injuries, but it committed an
NOTE: MTC in Metro Manila is called Metropolitan Trial Court. Not
error of judgment in denying
Municipal Trial Court. In Davao it’s called Municipal Trial Court in
bail.
Cities. If it’s within a Municipal, it’s called “Municipal Trial Court”.
CLASSES OR TYPES OF JURISDICTION
A.) GENERAL vs. SPECIAL
1.) GENERAL JURISDICTION - Where the power to adjudicate
all controversies, except those expressly withheld from
the plenary powers of the court.
Example: B.P. 129, with respect to the Regional
Trial Court, lists the cases that fall under its
General Jurisdiction.
Ordinary Appeal. Provided it is
2.) SPECIAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION - Which restricts the
a Final Judgment, Final Order.
court’s jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject to
The remedy is Ordinary
such limitations as may be provided by the governing law.
Appeal.
Example: RTC acting/designated as a Family
Court is limited only to family cases,
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
enumerated under the Family Court’s act.
An act, though within the
B.) ORIGINAL vs. APPELLATE
general power of a tribunal,
board or officer is not
1.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Power of the court to take
authorized, and invalid with
judicial cognizance of a case instituted FOR THE FIRST
respect to the particular
TIME under conditions provided by law.
proceeding, because the
conditions which alone
Example: The Municipal Trial Court cases. All
authorize the exercise of the
the cases under the Municipal Trial Courts are
general power in respect of it
ORIGINAL cases.
are wanting.
2.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION - Authority of a court, higher in
rank, to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower
Now, let us suppose, the claim
court which tried a case now elevated for judicial review.
is BELOW the jurisdictional
parameter. Let us say, 150,000
Example: Regional Trial Court. There are
pesos only. If the MTC awards
original cases which are filed for the first time
damages ABOVE 300,000 or
but there are also those under appellate
400,000 as the case may be,
jurisdiction if a decision of a Municipal Trial
then the MTC EXCEEDS its
Court is appealed to it.
jurisdiction.
C.) EXCLUSIVE vs. CONCURRENT
Meaning, the MTC can only
award UP TO 300,000 or
(1) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION - Exclusive power to a case to
400,000, as the case may be.
the exclusion of all other courts at that stage. So, it’s only
with the Supreme Court that you can file a case which is
exclusive.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Example: In a Municipal Trial Court, you can file, exclusively, before
it cases for Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry. Small claims, also
exclusively before small claims court.
How about the Supreme Court? Can you recall in constitutional law
when you want to question the factual basis for the declaration of
Martial Law, which court do you go? Supreme Court only right? It’s
only the Supreme Court. You cannot go to the Court of Appeals.
(2) CONCURRENT/CONFLUENT/COORDINATE
JURISDICTION - It is a power conferred upon different
courts, whether of the same or of different ranks, to take
cognizance of the same stage of the same case of the
same or different judicial territory.
In relationships, it’s like “Not exclusively dating”, it can be
shared, because it is not exclusive. It’s like open-
relationship.
Example: Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus can be filed
before the RTC, CA, or the SC, subject to the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
The following are the elements of Jurisdiction:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the parties;
3. Jurisdiction over the res; and
4. Jurisdiction over the issues
**The case that explains that is the case of DE JOYA VS. MARQUEZ
G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006). This case explains the
requisites as well. Also read the case of PLATINUM TOURS AND
TRAVEL, INC. VS. JOSE M. PANLILIO (G.R. NO. 133365, SEPTEMBER
16, 2003) although they have the same content.
DE JOYA vs. MARQUES
GR No. 162416 | January 31, 2006
XXX Justice Florenz D. Regalado explains the requsites for the
exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such
jurisdiction, thus: XXX
• JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER: This is
acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory
pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
• JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER: This is
conferred by law and, unike jurisdiction over the parties,
cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or
agreement of the parties.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belongs and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes and defines the courts and
their powers.
It is the authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action
or to administer a particular kind of relief (EL BANCO ESPAÑOL
FILIPINO versus PALANCA, 37 Phil., 921).
PARTICULAR KIND OF ACTION – Forcible entry and unlawful
detainer actions may only be entertained by the MTCs.
11
PARTICULAR KIND OF RELIEF – Certiorari under Rule 65 is a kind of
relief that annuls or modifies the proceedings of a court or tribunal.
It may be filed in the RTC, CA or SC.
DISCUSSION
KEY TERMS:
• CASES OF THE GENERAL CLASS – Different laws apportion
jurisdiction among the several courts in the land, what these
general class of cases are. There is usually a listing in these laws
as to what cases, for example, an RTC or an MTC has
jurisdiction over.
• SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY – Jurisdiction is conferred by the
sovereign authority. It is one way of saying that, actually,
courts have jurisdiction simply because there’s a law that
grants them that jurisdiction or confers upon them such
jurisdiction.
• ENTERTAIN PARTICULAR KIND OF ACTION – Forcible entry
and unlawful detainer actions may only be entertained by the
MTCs. In other words, you can only file these actions otherwise
known as interdictal actions before these inferior courts. The
municipal trial courts.
• ADMINISTER PARTICULAR KIND OF RELIEF – This refers to the
remedy given by law. Example of that is a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65, which is a kind of relief that annuls or
modifies the proceedings of a court or tribunal (if there is
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power).
This particular relief, certiorari, as a special civil action, it may
be filed in the RTC, CA or SC (concurrence of jurisdiction).
The question, therefore, of whether a court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter, calls for interpretation and application of the
law of jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the
different courts in the Philippines.
POSTULATES TO REMEMBER ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Emanating from the sovereign authority that organizes
courts, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
(VICTORIA MANUFACTURING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION versus
VICTORIA MANUFACTURING CORP., G.R. No. 234446 July 24, 2019).
The conferring law may be the Constitution, or the statute
organizing the court or tribunal, or the special or general statute
defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal, but it must
be in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
DISCUSSION
When you talk about a general statute defining jurisdiction, we
have there BP 129 or the judiciary Reorganization Act. Example of
a statute that defines jurisdiction would be the law that created in
a way and then changed the nature of the court of tax appeals. That
is a special law. The CTA has now become a collegiate court,
meaning there are several judges. The court will have a several
members who will decide according to the vote of their members.
Thus, a court, in exercising jurisdiction over the subject matter and
all incidents affecting its exercise, would be in error if it applied a
law that was not yet in force at the time the action was filed before
it.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Ø The court cannot anticipate that there will be a law that
will be passed even if the passage of that law is eminent
because a law that has not yet been passed is not yet a
law.
EXAMPLE:
Republic Act No. 7691, which took effect on April 15, 1994,
amended BP 129 and expanded the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court. It also provided that the jurisdictional amounts of cases
triable by the MTC after 5 years from the effectivity of the law shall
be adjusted to P200,000.00, then to P300,000.00 after another 5
years.
Suppose that, on April 1, 1999, MTC Judge B. Gum took cognizance
of a case where the claim of the Plaintiff in his complaint was
P150,000. Take note that the jurisdictional amount for money
claims cognizable by the MTC at that time was only up to P100,000
because it was only on April 15, 1999 that the amount went up to
P200,000. The judge cannot apply a law that was not yet in force at
the time of the filing of the complaint.
Ø What will happen here? Even if it will just be in 2 weeks
until the expanded jurisdiction would take effect because
the plaintiff did not wait and filed it immediately in the
MTC, the judge has no recourse but to dismiss the case
because the court at that time has no jurisdiction over the
expanded amount.
Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied but must appear
clearly from the law or it will not be held to exist, but it may be
conferred on a court or tribunal by necessary implication as well
as by express terms. (SALVADOR, ET AL. versus PATRICIA, INC., G.R.
No. 195834, November 9, 2016)
Thus, a court has no jurisdiction over a matter that is not an action
provided by law or the Rules unless the matter involves a wrong
that requires judicial action, and for which there is no adequate
remedy at law. (Example: Reyes vs Lim)
It cannot be conferred by:
1. The agreement of the parties;
2. The court's acquiescence;
3. The erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction;
4. The waiver of objections;
5. The silence of the parties.
DISCUSSION
1. The agreement of the parties;
Example: Plaintiff filed a case against the defendant but
it was in the wrong court. It was supposed to be in the
MTC not in the RTC based on BP 129. “Let’s just settle this,
I will not re-file since it is too costly, but I will lower my
claim.” No, you cannot do that.
2. The court's acquiescence;
Example: Even if the court allows but does not have
jurisdiction, it is still not allowed.
3. The erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction;
Example: A client wanted to eject squatters on his land,
the problem is the remedy of forcible entry could no
longer be availed of because it already exceeded the 1-
year period form the discovery of the Force, Intimidation
12
and Strength. It was filed in the MTC. However, the MTC
ruled that they don’t have jurisdiction. In that case, the
court is in erroneous belief that it didn’t have jurisdiction.
If, the RTC, for example, assumes jurisdiction over that
case, it will also be in error. Remember, that subject
matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred if there is an
erroneous belief of the court that it has jurisdiction.
4. The waiver of objections;
Example: A argues that this case is dismissible on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the complaint, and then later on, A withdraws
such objection. Will that affect the action on
objectionability of the subject matter jurisdiction of the
case? NO, because even if there is waiver of objections,
jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred
that way.
5. The silence of the parties.
Ø This will be discussed in the cases under jurisdiction
by estoppel.
Take note that subject matter jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted therein, a matter that can be resolved only after and as a
result of trial.
Take note, jurisdiction cannot be made depend upon the defenses
set-up in the answer, or upon the motion to dismiss. Otherwise,
the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the
defendant. [Serrano vs Munoz (HI) MOTORS INC., G.R. No. L-25547,
November 27, 1967]
DISCUSSION
What determines jurisdiction? – What was alleged by the plaintiff.
The court need only look at complaint of plaintiff to determine
whether or not it has jurisdiction. The jurisdictional facts will have
to come from the complaint filed by the plaintiff.
Why should not the court look at the answer or the motion to
dismiss filed by the defendant? An example below would illustrate
the absurdity if jurisdiction can be affected by what is stated in the
answer or in the motion to dismiss.
Example:
Pia filed a complaint before the RTC against Maja alleging that Maja
secured a loan from Pia in the amount of 1M. (If it exceeds 300k or
400k in Metro Manila, the RTC has jurisdiction). Based on the
allegation in the given example, the RTC has jurisdiction under
Section 19, number 8 of BP 129 which provides that:
Section 19 of BP 129:
(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 thousand pesos (300,000.00) or, in such other cases in
Metro Manila where the demand, exclusive of the
abovementioned item, exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(400,000.00).
The RTC clearly has jurisdiction based on the complaint of PIA.
Assuming, Maja filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter because Maja claims
that the loan is not 1M but only 250k instead. And now, Maja
alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction but it should be the MTC
that has jurisdiction.
Take note, that if jurisdiction over the subject matter where
dependent on the defenses set-up in the answer or in the motion
to dismiss, the RTC will have to dismiss the case based on a mere
allegation of Maja, the defendant.
Assume further, for example, because her complaint before the
RTC was dismissed, Pia who really needed money just file a case
before the MTC against Maja, this time, just claiming the amount
of 250k. And based on the allegation, MTC has jurisdiction under
Section 33, number 1 of BP 129 which vests upon the MTC exclusive
original jurisdiction.
Section 33 of BP 129:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the
grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
That where there are several claims or causes of action
between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of
the same or different transactions;
So, the MTC has jurisdiction. Pia is correct in filing it before the MTC
after the case was dismissed by the RTC at least based on her
allegation.
Assuming again, Maja once again filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the MTC has no jurisdiction because she claims that the
loan is not 250k, and it is actually 1M.
What is the effect? Take note that if jurisdiction over the subject
matter were dependent on the defenses set up in the answer or in
a motion to dismiss, the MTC will have to dismiss again, based on
the mere allegation of Maja, the defendant. So, regardless of what
happens, Maja always wins.
Thankfully, the rule is very clear that: SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION is determined by the allegations of the complaint
and it is not dependent, it is unaffected by the defenses set-up in
the answer or in the motion to dismiss. [Serrano vs Munoz (HI)
MOTORS INC., G.R. No. L-25547, November 27, 1967]
Ø Because otherwise, it will just be a travesty. No case can
ever stick, if we base jurisdiction over the subject matter
on the allegations or defenses set-up by the defendant.
RULE OF THUMB: It is not affected of whatever theory or defenses
the defendant may set-up in his answer or in his motion to dismiss.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: This can be found in R.A 9700, which
amended RA 6657. RA 9700 is the CARPER Law or Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program Extension Rehabilitation. RA 6657 is CARL
or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which was passed way
back during the time President Corazon Aquino. In year 2006, they
13
came up with RA 9700 which now amended RA 6657 to contain this
additional provision:
RA 9700
SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. - No court
or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining
to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under
Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an
allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in
nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or
tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or
the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify
within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian
dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the
DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases
referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office,
the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in
cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to
the Court of Appeals. xxx
DISSCUSSION
What is the effect of this provision?
Remember that the general rule is that the jurisdiction over the
subject matter is not to be affected by whatever the defendant sets
up as a defense in his answer or in his motion to dismiss.
Suppose there is a case between A and B. Then, B is now saying that
“this is actually an agrarian dispute because the subject matter of
the controversy is an agricultural land. Not to mention the fact that
I am a tenant.” What will be now the effect? Instead of a court to
continue with the case because it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case, it is actually mandated by law to refer the case
the DAR. That is actually the instance where the defenses set-up by
the defendant in his answer or in his motion to dismiss can affect
jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court will not act on the
case which is the very nature of the conferred subject matter
jurisdiction – which you can immediately act on the case. But here,
no. This is the exception to the rule.
CHAILESE DEV’T CO., INC. vs. DIZON
G.R. 206788, February 14, 2018
Eventually, it all boiled down to the question whether the case
should be referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Q: Which came first here? The filing of the case or the effectivity
of RA 9700?
A: The filing of the case.
Q: Why is it that RA 9700 which contained that provision of
mandatory referral to the DAR made applicable in this case, when
in fact, what we need to determine the case according to the law
enforced at the time that the case was filed?
A: Because it is settled in a long line of cases that a procedural law
can be applied retroactively. Moreover, in this case, the Court held
that the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR to rule on Agrarian cases
by adding a clause which mandates the automatic referral of cases
upon the existence of requisites therein, clearly highlighted the
jurisdiction of the DAR.
Q: This by virtue of a Republic Act, right. It is enacted by the
Congress. Why is it considered procedural in nature? Because
there is a general rule that when it is procedural in nature, it can
be given retroactive effect. But here, this is a law, issued or
promulgated by the Congress. Why is it procedural?
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
A: Since the law explicitly provides for the jurisdiction over such a
case, which is basically one of the branches of remedial or
procedural law.
Q: The defendants here contended that they are farmers. Was
there anything else that bolstered their belief that this is an
agrarian dispute? Apart from the fact that they are claiming to be
farmers, what else are they claiming to be? Were they not
claiming to be agricultural tenants?
A: Yes, they were claiming that they were also agricultural tenants.
Q: What kind of agricultural tenant are they? Are they current
agricultural tenants? Or were they claiming that there was a
previous tenancy agreement with the owner of the land, for
example?
A: According to the respondents herein, prior to being transferred,
they are already tenants of the subject landholdings which are then
a hacienda devoted to agricultural purposes.
It was a hacienda before, and these development companies, they
will not maintain that as a hacienda. They will simply divide the
lands and sell it as residential properties so they can maximize their
profits.
Q: How did the Supreme Court treat of the allegation of the
defendant that they were agricultural tenants, or previous
agricultural tenants over the land, which necessitated the Court
below referral to the Department of Agrarian Reform?
A: The Court here said that there was no evidence adduced as to
the contention of the respondents that they were really agricultural
tenants. Therefore, since one of the requisites in order for the case
to be automatically referred to DAR is that there must be a proof.
Q: But isn’t it that what is provided under the codal provision is “a
mere allegation” is enough or sufficient in order for the automatic
referral to take effect or to be triggered?
A: The Court here said that contrary to the Court of Appeals’
conclusion and as opposed to the first requisite, an allegation
would not suffice to establish the existence of the second requisite
which states that one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker or
tenant. Proof still must be adduced if the person making such
allegation.
Q: What is the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling that, the second
requisite has to be proven by facts, but in the first requisite, its ok
not be so?
A: The Court ruled using statutory construction to decide
categorically as to the parties’ procedural rights and obligations.
Q: How did the Supreme Court apply statutory construction?
A: Here, based on the first requisite, the Court said that the use of
the word “an” prior to the word “allegation” indicate that the latter
qualifies only immediately subsequent statements; that is that the
case is agrarian in nature.
Therefore, the second requisite which states that “one of the
parties is a farmer, farmworker or tenant” is not covered by the
word “allegation”. The word “allegation” merely qualified the first
requisite, which relates to the agrarian nature of the land.
Q: The Court here spoke about the quantum of proof required to
prove tenancy, what was that? Or what is the evidentiary
obligation of a party if he claims to be a tenant?
A: The Court said that it must be proven with adequate proof.
14
Basically, you have to adduce evidence. It is not enough that you
will just allege, because alleging is different from proving, and
alleging only applies to this first requisite that there is an allegation
from any one or both of the parties that the case is agrarian in
nature. And “proving”, applies to the second requisite that one of
the parties is a farmer, farmworker or tenant.
CHAILESE DEV’T CO., INC. vs. DIZON
G.R. 206788 | February 14, 2018
§ Based on the said provision, the judge or prosecutor is
obligated to automatically refer the cases pending
before it to the DAR when the following requisites are
present:
a) There is an allegation from any one or both of
the parties that the case is agrarian in nature;
and
b) One of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or
tenant.
§ In this case, the presence of the first requisite is satisfied
by the allegation made by the respondents in their
Answer with Counterclaim.
§ The allegations in petitioner’s complaint make a case for
recovery of possession, over which the regular courts
have jurisdiction. However, in response thereto, the
respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaim,
assailing the jurisdiction of the regular court to rule on
the matter on the ground that it is agrarian in nature,
which thus complies with the first requisite.
§ Anent to second requisite, the Court finds that the
respondents failed to prove that they are farmers,
farmworkers, or are agricultural tenants. XXX Mere
allegation would not suffice to establish the existence of
the second requirement. Proof must be adduced by the
person making the allegation as to his or her status as a
farmer, farmworker, or tenant.
§ The use of the word “an” prior to allegation indicate that
the latter qualifies only the immediately subsequent
statement, i.e., that the case is agrarian in nature.
Otherwise stated, an allegation would suffice only
insofar as the characterization of the nature of the
action.
§ Had it been the intention that compliance with the
second element would likewise be sufficient by a mere
allegation from of the parties that he or she is a farmer
farm worker, or tenant, the legislature should have used
the plural form when referring to “allegation” as the
concurrence of both requisites is mandatory for the
automatic referral clause to operate.
§ Further instructive is this Court’s ruling in the previously
cited case of Chico. Therein, the Court held that for the
purpose of divesting regular courts of its jurisdiction in
the proceedings lawfully began before it and in order for
the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, the elements of a
tenancy relationship must be shown by adequate proof.
It is not enough that the elements are alleged. Likewise,
self-serving statements in the pleadings are inadequate.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court said, there is no problem with respect to the
first requisite, because there was an allegation, and that is deemed
sufficient. But with respect to the second requisite: you should be
a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, mere allegation would not suffice.
Proof must be adduced by the person making the allegation as to
his or her status as a farmer, farmworker, or tenant.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
SIDE CASE DISCUSSION
PEDRO CHICO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 122704 | JANUARY 5, 1998
That the Court held that for purposes of divesting regular courts
of their jurisdiction on the proceedings lawfully began before it,
and in order for DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, the elements of
a tenancy relationship must be shown by adequate proof, and
not only by self-serving statements.
GR: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not affected by the
defenses or allegations made by the defendant in his answer or
in his motion to dismiss.
XPN: The provision on the automatic referral to the DAR, as
introduced by RA No. 9700 or the Carper Law.
But a qualification is this case of Chailese Development
Company, Inc. vs. Dizon et al., because here, it tells us what
would be enough to trigger that provision that automatically
refers the matter to the DAR.
EFFECTS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
FIRST: If the complaint is filed before a court bereft of subject
matter jurisdiction, the only power that court has is to dismiss the
case.
SECOND: A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over
the subject matter produces no legal effect (Victoria
Manufacturing Corp. Employees Union vs. Victoria Manufacturing
Corp. | G.R. NO. 234466 | JULY 24, 2019).
DISCUSSION
So, it is VOID. Whatever judgment the court renders, whatever
orders it issues, while the case is pending, produces no legal effect
whatsoever.
Take note of the case, this is emphasized. Not mention the fact that
it is a fairly new case. This is required to be read.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF THE PARTIES
What is this? This is the power of the court to render judgment
which is binding upon the parties to the case.
Who are the parties to the case?
Ordinarily, in an ordinary civil action:
1. The Plaintiff
2. The Defendants
There are two main parties because, later we will know that there
are other parties which makes the case more complicated and
more difficult for the court to resolve. For now, let us stick with
jurisdiction over the person of the parties which are the Plaintiff
and the Defendant.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE PLAINTIFF
It is acquired by the time that he files his/ her complaint.
The mere fact that he files his compliant, the court acquires
jurisdiction over his person because the plaintiff who files a
complaint before the court is deemed to recognize the authority of
the court over his person. By filing the complaint, he accepts that
15
the court has the power to grant him the relief that he demands
and cannot later on maintain that the court cannot bind him as he
is already estopped from doing so.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT
Acquired by:
1. His voluntary appearance in court and his submission to
its authority; or
2. The coercive power of legal processes exerted over his
person.
DISCUSSION:
It is conferred by either service of summons upon the defendant or
his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its
authority. You go to the court; you enter your appearance and ask
the court for relief such as filing of motion for extension of time to
file an answer.
Q: Why is there acquisition of jurisdiction by voluntary
appearance?
A: It is because ordinarily in an action filed in court in a civil case,
the defendant would not know anything, the defendant would not
have any idea that somebody filed a case against him until he
receives coercive processes by the court. It is because jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant may also be acquired by the
coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person. This is
what rule 14 states and that is summons.
Q: What is summons?
A: Summons is a writ issued by the court, commanding the
defendant to answer the complaint within the period specified by
law.
In other words, the summons is like a notice to the defendant
informing him of a case filed against him and the summons already
include the copy of the complaint. So, you have to answer within
the period specified herein, otherwise, you may be declared in
default. If you failed to answer within the period, you cannot
anymore participate during trial. It is triggered by the receipt of
summons. When you receive summons in the ordinary course of
procedure, the court already acquires jurisdiction over your person.
Ordinarily that is what happens because voluntary appearance is
the exception rather than the general rule.
Jurisdiction over the person is subject to waiver unlike jurisdiction
over the subject matter which is conferred by law and cannot be
waived.
Q: How is the jurisdiction over the person waived?
A: Let us say you are the defendant and never received summons
because it was your neighbor who received the summons from the
sheriff and eventually you were informed that there was a case and
you got the copy through your neighbor but service of summons
there was improper. So, if you answer anyway within the time
period provided by the rules, then you are deemed to have waived
the defect in the service of summons upon your person.
CARSON REALTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. RED
ROBIN SECURITY AGENCY
G.R. NO. 225035 | FEBRUARY 8, 2017
The courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing
of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the
defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service
of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
in court and their submission to its authority, as provided in
Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is
by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that
the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file
answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift
order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered
voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however,
is tempered only by the concept of conditional appearance, such
that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge,
among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be
considered to have submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general
rule on voluntary appearance;
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set
forth in an unequivocal manner; and
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading
or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the
court for resolution.
DISCUSSION
GR: One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
If you pray for something before the court or you file a motion to
that effect, or you appear and ask that the hearing of the case be
rescheduled, you are deemed to have already submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court.
XPN: Except when there is conditional appearance such that a
party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others,
the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to
have submitted to its authority.
Q: What is the effect of lack of jurisdiction over the person?
A: The effect is that any judgment or order issued by the court is
not binding upon a party over whose person the court did not
acquire jurisdiction.
For example, a case was filed by the plaintiff and the court
issued summons to be served upon the defendant, but
the defendant was never really served with summons, he
never received it. Subsequently the court said let us
proceed, even without the defendant’s presence, so
there is ex-parte hearing and adjudication of the case, the
court declared the defendant in default and issued a
judgment in default. Now the court, after the period
within which to appeal, the court issued a writ of
execution. Is the writ proper? It has no effect because the
court never had jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant who is subjected to the writ of execution.
16
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR THING IN DISPUTE
Jurisdiction over the “res” or the “thing” in dispute may be acquired
by seizure. It applies generally to actions involving the personal
status of the plaintiff and property within the Philippines.
BIACO VS. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK
G.R. No. 161417 | February 8, 2007
Q: What was the case that was filed here against the defendant?
A: A judicial foreclosure of a mortgage.
Q: Was there service of summon in this case? Upon whom?
A: Yes, upon Ernesto.
Q: There was a contention here that the defendant never really
received summons, because rather than the defendant receiving,
it was the spouse who received the summons. Is this correct?
A: Yes. According to this case, the service of summons was received
only by the husband but it was supposed to be for Maria Teresa.
Q: What was the contention now of the defendant, that there was
no personal service of summons?
A: That the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
Q: Was there a need to serve summons in order for the court to
proceed?
A: Yes. The summons should be served upon Ma. Teresa. It was not
for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but for the
satisfaction the requirements of due process.
Ø But take note here, the Supreme Court here said that
whether or not summons is required to obtain
jurisdiction over the person of the parties or for the
provisions of Rule 14 to be applicable, it will really
depend on the nature of the action.
Q: Did the Supreme Court say that it depends on the nature of the
action?
A: Yes, the Court said that the proceeding which was for judicial
foreclosure, was an action quasi in rem.
Q: What are the three types of action? Insofar as Rule 14 is
concerned?
A: (1) action in personam; (2) action in rem; and (3) action quasi in
rem.
BIACO VS. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK
G.R. No. 161417 | February 8, 2007
§ The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction
depends on the nature of the action, i.e., whether the action
is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service
of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court likewise
apply according to the nature of the action.
§ An action in personam is an action against a person on the
basis of his personal liability.
§ An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead
of against the person.
§ An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the
property.
§ In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
the case.
§ In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired
either:
(1) by the seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law (e.g.,
attachment); or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which
the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
§ Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the
defendant, not for the purpose of vesting the Court with
jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.
§ The court explained citing El Banco Español-Filipino vs.
Palanca (G.r No. L-111390|March 26, 1918), that
foreclosure and attachment proceedings are both actions
quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of the
(non-resident) defendant is not essential.
§ (very categorically the Supreme Court said): Service of
summons on a non-resident defendant who is not found in
the country is required, not for purposes of physically
acquiring jurisdiction of his person but simply in pursuance
of the requirement of fair play, (meaning, due process), so
that he may be informed of the pendency of the action and
the possibility that property belonging to him or in which he
has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of a
resident, and that he may thereby be accorded an
opportunity to defend in the action, should he be so minded.
DISCUSSION
It is only when the action is in personam that jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is required. That’s what the Supreme Court
said. So, it depends on the action.
An action in personam is an action against the person on the basis
of his personal liability. Remember that in an action in personam,
you’re really filing it against the person. Let’s say you are collecting
on a loan. Upon whom do you collect the loan? Upon the person.
So, it’s an action in personam. You want to enforce his personal
liability.
An action in rem, on the other hand, is an action against the thing
itself, instead of against the person. An example of that will be Land
Registration proceedings. The action is against the thing, you don’t
care who the defendant is.
An action quasi in rem which is in the case in Biaco v. Philippine
Countryside, action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage, is one,
where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property. Who is the defendant here in a judicial
foreclosure of mortgage? The one who has a debt or obligation. It
just so happened that the debt is secured by a mortgage.
If there is a mortgage on a debt secured by a person, in case he
cannot pay, the property which was given by way of mortgage, may
17
be sold so the proceeds may be applied to the debt of the debtor
or the one who has an obligation.
In that situation, you are actually filing against the person but when
you foreclose on a mortgage, the purpose of that is - to enforce
personal liability, the debt, through the property given as security.
That is why, it is called an action quasi in rem.
Personam In Rem Quasi In Rem
Against WHOM
The person The thing Obligation or Lien
Need to acquire jurisdiction over the person?
Necessary for the Not a prerequisite Not a prerequisite
court to validly try to confer to confer
and decide the jurisdiction on the jurisdiction on the
case. court. court.
- Provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res.
In actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person is
not the end all and be all of whether or not the case can proceed,
because jurisdiction over the person in these cases can be
substituted by jurisdiction over the res or the thing in dispute. So
that is what Biaco is saying.
Q: What can the plaintiff do for the case to proceed even if the
defendant cannot be summoned based on what we have
discussed so far? What can he do, knowing that jurisdiction over
the person is only applicable in an action in personam?
A: (Biaco vs. Philippine Country Side Rural Bank and jurisdiction over
the res)
Because jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary
for the court to validly try and decide the case only in an action in
personam: The plaintiff can simply convert his action into an
action in rem or quasi-in-rem.
Q: How do you convert?
DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R No. 194751|November 26, 2014
HELD: Jurisdiction over the thing or res is the power of the court
over an object or thing being litigated. The court may acquire
jurisdiction over the thing by actually or constructively ceasing
or placing it under the court’s custody.
Q: How is this done?
Example:
A has a debt from B. Normally, he will file an action for collection,
to compel A to pay the debt. The problem is he cannot be
summoned; he cannot be found. So, if he is not summoned, the
case cannot proceed without the court obtaining jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.
Q: What can he do now in order for the court to proceed, even
without summoning the defendant under Rule 14?
A: Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which is about Preliminary
Attachment.
Q: What is this preliminary attachment?
A: You are afraid that your debtor/defendant will not be able to pay
the debts. But he has property in the Philippines which you can use
as payment for the debt owed to you and there is intent to defraud
you and you are afraid that you are being lied to by the defendant.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
In this case, what you can do is to pray for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment so that the property of the defendant who
could not be summoned can be attached; placed in the custody of
court actually or constructively. And by converting your action into
that, by asking for a writ of preliminary attachment, the action in
personam, which is collection of a sum of money, has become an
action quasi in rem.
Q: In that situation, is there a need for the defendant to be
summoned for purposes of proceeding with the filing of the case?
A: The answer is not anymore.
JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
This is the authority of the court to try and decide issues raised in
the pleadings of the parties. This is acquired by the court after the
defendant files his answer or in procedural parlance, when the
“issues are joined”, unlike subject matter jurisdiction which is
acquired upon filing.
DISCUSSION
Q: What is an issue?
A: The answer is very simple, there is an issue if the plaintiff and
the defendant do not agree about it.
In a criminal case, if the prosecution and the accused do not agree
about it, that is when it is an issue. Because if they both agree on it,
then there is not an issue, there is no controversy or conflict.
It becomes an issue in a civil case if the plaintiff and the defendant
do not agree. For instance, the plaintiff says the defendant has a
debt and the defendant says otherwise. So, what is the issue there?
Whether or not the defendant has debt obligation from the plaintiff.
Because clearly, they do not agree about it.
In Procedural parlance, there is a term that the issues are already
joint.
How does it happen? If the court can already see which facts or
contentions the plaintiff and the defendant do not agree on.
Where can the court find that? In the pleadings.
How do you determine jurisdiction over the issues? How does the
court obtain jurisdiction over (the matters in the pleading or) the
issues? By looking at the pleadings.
Plaintiff said this and in the answer of the defendant he does not
agree, that is the issue.
General Rule: Everything can be found in the pleadings (and) when
you talk about issues or jurisdiction over the issues, it is obtained
by the submission of pleadings.
Exceptions: But jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred
1. By the agreement of the parties such as in a pre-trial
order or stipulation like in Rule 18 Section 2; purpose and
nature of pre-trial.
Ø What does the court consider there? Simplification
of the issues, possibility of obtaining stipulations or
admissions of facts, the advisability of preliminary
reference of the issues to a commissioner – they
tackle the issues there in Rule 18 during pre-trial.
18
Ø Also, in pre-trial brief, a party should submit a
pretrial brief where he writes there the main factual
and legal issues to be tried.
Ø Definitely, these factual or legal issues are matters
that the plaintiff and the defendant do not agree
upon; that is when a matter is an issue.
2. By implied consent of the parties as by failure of a party
to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the
pleadings; meaning even if it is not in the pleadings, it can
still be considered an issue over which the court has
jurisdiction.
Ø An example of that would be Rule 10 Section 5 of the
Amended Rules where when issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all
respect as if they have been raised in the pleading.
Ø So, even if it is not in the pleadings, but the parties
consented to this issue being brought before the
court, then it is as if it is already written in the
pleadings; the court still acquires jurisdiction over
such issues.
Just to summarize everything that we’ve learned regarding the
elements or requisites of jurisdiction, we have:
CHESTER DE JOYA VS. JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ
G.R. NO. 162416 | JANUARY 31, 2006
XXX Justice Florenz D. Regalado explains the requisites for the
exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such
jurisdiction, thus: XXX
Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by law
and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on
the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties.
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by
the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before
the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired
by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or
respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the
court to him, generally by the service of summons.
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and
conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by
their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times
by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided
in Sec. 5, Rule 10.
Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the
subject of the litigation). This is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus
placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment (or preliminary
attachment) or garnishment; or by provision of law which
recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or
subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land
registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real
property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Just read the elements of Jurisdiction in this case of De Joya v
Marquez. It’s a summary of everything that we have learned so far.
SUMMARY:
JURISDICTION OVER THE GOVERNED BY
Subject Matter Substantive Law
(BP 129, Constitution, etc.)
Person Procedural Law
(Example: Rule 14)
Res Procedural Law
(Example: Rules Governing
Attachment)
Issues Procedural Law
(Example: Submission of pleadings,
pre-trial rules, etc.)
DISCUSSION
Take note there are four elements of jurisdiction; subject matter,
person, res, and issues. Take note also that only one element of
jurisdiction is actually governed by substantive law and that is
Jurisdiction over the subject matter.
When you talk about jurisdiction over the person, it is governed by
procedural law; what law is that? Rule 14 by way of an example and
jurisprudence saying that voluntary appearance will also result in
obtention of jurisdiction over the person of a party.
Jurisdiction over the res, (is governed by) procedural law. An
example of that is Rule 57 governing attachment, preliminary
attachment, to be exact. That is procedural law not substantive law.
Issues: is (governed) also of procedural law. Why? Because it is
determined by the submission of pleadings primarily. So, it is only
jurisdiction over the subject matter that is governed by substantive
law.
As to secondary limitation, subject matter is governed by
substantive law and determined by looking at the allegations of the
complaint.
Person: again you need to remember what governs it; you have
voluntary appearance or service of summons. But remember that
jurisdiction over the person is only required in actions in personam,
according to the case of Biaco. It can be substituted by jurisdiction
over the res which is done by seizure; actual or constructive seizure
of property.
Issues: how is it determined? As a second tier or qualification, again
by the pleadings. This time, instead of just looking at the complaint
as in jurisdiction over the subject matter, you look at both the
complaint and the answer of the defendant. Take note of that just
by way of review or summary of what we have learned so far.
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION
Doctrine of Continuity of Jurisdiction or Doctrine of Adherence of
Jurisdiction, states that jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until
the case is finally terminated. (Marino, Jr., et al vs Gil Gamilla, et al.,
GR No. 132400, January 31, 2007).
So, you cannot be deprived of power to hear over a case. Jurisdiction
is referred to as “continuing” in view of the general principle that
once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues
until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that
jurisdiction (20 AM Jur 2d, Courts 147). This principle also means
19
that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by
subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance. The Court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains
that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
General Rule: The moment you assume jurisdiction and jurisdiction
is proper, it continues; nothing can divest you of that.
XPN: When may a court lose jurisdiction already attached to it?
Exceptions:
1. When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for the
continued exercise of jurisdiction (Rilloraza vs Arciaga, 21
SCRA 717).
a. An example would be where a penal statute
which divests a court of jurisdiction is passed
and the statute itself provides that it is to be
given retroactive effect provided that the effect
is favorable to the accused, the court should
not proceed to hear the case anymore.
2. Second, where the law penalizing an act which is
punishable is repealed by a subsequent law, the court
should not proceed anymore.
a) The reason is that the State loses the power to
prosecute when the law is repealed, hence the
court has no more power to decide. (People vs
Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000).
b) Thus, where the repealing law wholly fails to
penalize the acts which constituted the
offense defined and penalized in the repealed
law, the repeal carries with it the deprivation of
the court’s jurisdiction to try, convict, and
sentence persons charged with violations of
the old law prior to the repeal.
PARDON vs AMNESTY
PARDON AMNESTY
Only the offender is relieved Obliterates the offense, not
of the effects of the crime, but only the acts of the offender
the conviction remains
Example: You’re trying a case against a particular accused and then
the President, with the concurrence of Congress, issues an amnesty
of the offense of which the accused is charged. What happens? The
court should stop, because it no longer has jurisdiction over an
offense that no longer exists.
3. When the accused is deprived of his constitutional right
such as where the court fails to provide counsel for the
accused who is unable to obtain one and does not
intelligently waive his constitutional right (Chavez vs
Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663)
4. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction
is terminated, abandoned or declared void (Seven vs
Pichay, 108 PHIL 419) Thus, the jurisdiction of a court in a
guardianship proceeding and all incidents thereof exists
as long as the case is terminated, by dismissal or
otherwise, the court ceases to exercise the power and
authority to try said case or any incidental matters
thereof.
§ “After final judgment or decree has been rendered and
the parties dismissed, the jurisdiction of the court is
exhausted…” (21 C.J.S. 147)
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
§ After termination, by dismissal or otherwise, of litigation
in one court…any exclusive jurisdiction or freedom from
interference it may have possessed is at an end, and
another court may deal with the property or subject
matter which, by the former suit, was not withdrawn
forever from subsequent litigation.” (Id, p. 816.)
§ A petition for accounting, etc., which is an incident of a
guardianship proceeding, should be filed in the court
where the guardianship proceedings are pending. But
once the guardianship proceeding is terminated, said
petition can no longer be filed in the same case, but must
be filed as a separate case, in the same court, or in any
other court of competent jurisdiction.
GR: The authority of the court first acquiring jurisdiction must
prevail.
XPN: Where the proceeding in the court first acquiring
jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned, or void, then another
court of concurrent jurisdiction may take jurisdiction of the
same subject matter (14 Am. Jur. 445)
5. When the statute expressly provides, or is construed to
the effect that it intended to operate as to actions
pending before its enactment (Bengzon vs Inciong, 91
SCRA 284)
6. Once appeal has been perfected (Alma vs Abbas, 18 SCRA
836) a court is divested of jurisdiction.
Ø But there is what we call residual jurisdiction.
That is the only thing a court can do once there
is an appeal.
7. When the law is curative (Garcia vs Martinez, 90 SCRA
331)
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY
Should one branch be permitted to equally assert, assume or retain
jurisdiction over a case or controversy over which another
coordinate or co-equal branch has already resumed its jurisdiction,
We would then sanction undue interference by one branch over
another. With that, the judicial stability of the decrees or orders of
the courts would be a meaningless precept in a well-ordered
administration of justice. (Parco vs CA, 111 SCRA 262).
BARROSO v. JUDGE OMELIO
G.R. No. 194767 | October 14, 2015
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the
regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary
principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere
by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief
sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded
on the concept of jurisdiction: 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.
Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution
order has been issued is considered as still pending, so that all
the proceedings on the execution are still proceedings in the
20
suit. A court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent
power, for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its
ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold
otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate
forum in the resolution of incidents arising in execution
proceedings-Splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly
administration of justice.
WHAT IS THE PROPER REMEDY?
To be sure, the law and the rules are not unaware that an issuing
court may violate the law in issuing a writ of execution and have
recognized that there should be a remedy against this violation.
The remedy, however, is not the resort to another co-equal body
but to a higher court with authority to nullify the action of the
issuing court. This is precisely the judicial power that the 1987
Constitution, under Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of
and which this Court has operationalized through a petition for
certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
CLAIM THAT TRO WAS NOT SOUGHT AGAINST A CO-EQUAL
COURT OR JUDGE?
It is not a viable legal position to claim that a TRO against a writ
of execution is issued against an erring sheriff, not against the
issuing Judge. A TRO enjoining the enforceability of a writ
addresses the writ itself, not merely the executing sheriff x x x
As already mentioned above, the appropriate action is to assail
the implementation of the writ before the issuing court in whose
behalf the sheriff acts, and, upon failure, to seek redress through
a higher judicial body, xxx.
EFFECT ON THE WRIT?
Applying the foregoing ruling, it is quite clear that, in this case,
the issuance of the subject writ of preliminary injunction was
improper and, thus, correctible by certiorari. Herein respondent
judge does not have jurisdiction to hinder the enforcement of
an order of a co-equal court. He must be aware that said co-
equal court had the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to correct
its own issuances if ever there was, indeed, a mistake. There is
no question, therefore, that subject writ of preliminary
injunction is null and void.
DISCUSSION
Judge Omelio, from the RTC of Davao, when he was still the judge
there, issued a TRO on a writ of execution issued by Branch 16 of
Judge Carpio.
According to the doctrine of judicial stability, you cannot do that. If
you do that, judicial stability and a well-ordered administration of
justice will be meaningless.
What is the proper remedy? According to Barroso vs Omelio, if you
really feel that the writ of execution is improper, the remedy is not
to issue a TRO. The remedy there of the affected party will be to file
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
What about the claim here that the TRO was not sought against a
co-equal court or judge, but rather, it was to enjoin a sheriff from
enforcing a writ of execution? According to the Supreme Court, the
claim is unavailing, because who is the sheriff? A sheriff is simply an
officer of the court, and it is the sheriff that implements the order
issued by the court. So, it’s not a good argument to make.
What is the effect on the writ? Any writ of preliminary injunction or
restraining order against an order of a co-equal court, according to
the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference, is null and void.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 21
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
GR: When the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring specialized knowledge and
expertise of an administrative tribunal, then the court should
decline from determining a controversy, even if technically
speaking it has jurisdiction. (Baviera vs Paglinawan, 515 SCRA 171,
2007)
into consideration, not for purposes of appeal but
for the purpose of availing the so-called
extraordinary writs and remedies afforded by the
Rules of Court.
Relational Hierarchy

It may seem related to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies.

XPNs: Said doctrine is not an absolute or inflexible rule. The Court

recognized several exceptions found in the case of Republic vs
Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, 7 March 2007):
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking
the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to
make the rule impractical and oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; DISCUSSION
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
If you look at the hierarchy, it looks like an organizational chart of
(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable
the courts in the judiciary. You start from the bottom with different
damage;
species of municipal trial courts. In Metro Manila, you call them
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
Metropolitan Trial Courts, in Davao City, you call them the MTCC,
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
and then in municipalities, you have the MTCs and MCTCs.
remedies has been rendered moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
If you look at Sharia jurisdiction, you also have Sharia circuit courts.
remedy;
You cannot just practice Sharia Law, you have to take a separate
(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
bar examination for you to practice Sharia Law.
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.
From MTCs, you go now to the court which has supervisory
DISCUSSION
authority over the MTCs, and that would be the RTCs. With respect
Remember the general rule on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to Sharia Circuit Courts, we have Sharia District Courts. In case you
and the exceptions. There are twelve exceptions. That will be a lost in a case filed before the RTC or Sharia District Courts, you go
good question in the exam: what are the exceptions to the doctrine to CA, then from CA to SC. This is relational hierarchy. It talks about
of primary jurisdiction? So, that is an enumeration question. the hierarchy between and among the courts in the judiciary.
For the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, read as well the case of San Take note also that there are courts which are of the same level as
Miguel Properties, Inc. vs BF Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 169343, 5 August the CA – they are the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals.
2015. This talks about primary jurisdiction given to the NHA, now Therefore, any decision made by the SB or CTA, you go to the SC.
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Take note of
how the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is applied in this case. Expanded Relational Hierarchy
This means that hierarchy of courts and recourses or resorts that
you can do in cases filed before those lower courts can also be
JUDICIAL HIERARCHY referred to special tribunals.
Judicial hierarchy is understood in two ways:
1. Relational hierarchy of courts – the relationship between
and among the several courts of the judiciary in terms of
jurisdiction and supervisory authority.
• We have discussed about supervisory authority
when we discussed about MTC being an inferior
court over which the RTC has supervisory authority.
It also means that you look at hierarchy of courts in
terms of relationship between the courts for
purposes of making an appeal.

b. Doctrinal hierarchy of courts – a limitation on a litigant’s

right of recourse in cases where there exists, between
several courts, a concurrence of subject matter
jurisdiction.
• As opposed to relational hierarchy of courts,
doctrinal hierarchy of courts would now be taken
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 22
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The question
now is: Where should AAA file her petition? She now examines the
laws:

SC’s Jurisdiction
Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,

other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus. xxx

CA Jurisdiction
BP 129, Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,

DISCUSSION:
[While under the relational hierarchy of courts, we have MTCs going
to RTCs to CA then to SC], apart from these courts, we must not
forget that the Constitution and some statutes have created other
tribunals outside of the judicial branch which also have
adjudicatory powers. This means they have functions similar to
courts and that they also settle actual controversies between
parties. Their decisions and orders are subject to the power of
review of either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.
Special Tribunals Special Courts
• COMELEC CTA
• COA SB
• CSC Sharia District Courts and
Sharia Circuit Courts
• Other quasi-judicial
Family Courts
bodies (e.g. those
RTCs specially designated to
mentioned in Rule 43,
handle drugs, heinous crimes,
Section 1)
IP, corporate, forestry, and
agrarian just compensation
cases
Q: Why do we need to know relational hierarchy?
A: Relational hierarchy is important because it illustrates how a
party may elevate its case on appeal.
For example, by relational hierarchy, a party who loses a case
before the RTC and wishes to appeal would know that his appeal
will not be made to a lower court (MTC) but to the next higher court
which is the CA, as a general rule. I say general rule because there
are certain situations where the decisions of the RTC will be directly
appealable to the SC.
• This hierarchy therefore is like a ladder or a flight of stairs.
• Appeal is usually made by going up, not down, one step.
• By way of exception, an RTC case can be directly appealed or
elevated to the SC pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the
1987 Constitution. (To be discussed in the next set of notes.)
PROBLEM:
AAA, a former student of Atty. E, filed a case before the MTC which
she lost, convinced that there was a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the MTC,
she remembered from Atty. E’s lectures that the proper remedy is
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction; xxx
RTC Jurisdiction
BP 129, 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 xxx
AAA found out that jurisdiction over her planned petition for
certiorari is actually shared by three courts. In other words: there
is concurrence of jurisdiction.
REPUBLIC v. SERENO
G.R. 237428 | May 11, 2018
HELD: As provided by no less than the 1987 Constitution,
specifically Article VIII, Section 5(1) thereof, the SC has the
power to exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus. The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the
Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
these extraordinary writs.
DISCUSSION
As to why they are called as extraordinary writs, they are
supposedly writs of last resort, meaning, there is no plain,
adequate, or speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law and
there is really grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal that you want to question
in the case of certiorari.
When jurisdiction is concurrent or shared by several courts, this is
when the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is applicable. This doctrine
has been the subject of several questions in the past including the
bar examination for Remedial Law in 2017.
Q: What is this doctrine of hierarchy all about?
A: According to Riano, the ladderized scheme of our judicial system
requires that lower courts should initially decide on a case before it
is considered by a higher court. A higher court will not entertain
direct recourse to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in such
appropriate lower courts. Concurrence of jurisdiction does not give
the prospective petitioners unbridled freedom of choice of forum.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
So, in the case of AAA, she has 3 choices, RTC, CA, or SC. Can you go
directly to the SC? Again, this is not a guarantee to an unbridled
freedom of choice of court forum. You are not allowed to choose
according to your convenience.
The first actual mention of hierarchy of courts was in the case of
People v. Cuaresma.
PEOPLE v. CUARESMA
G.R. No. 67787 | April 8, 1989
HELD: This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be
taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an
absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefor will be directed. There is after all a
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the
venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs.
A becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly
indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the
Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court
of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when
there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy.
PURPOSE of HIERARCHY COURTS
1. The hierarchy of courts serves as the general
determinant of the appropriate forum for such petitions
(Trillanes IV v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451,
March 14, 2018)
2. This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a
constitutional filtering mechanism designed to enable
the Court to focus on the more fundamental and essential
tasks assigned to it by the highest law of the land (Gios-
Samar, Inc. v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019)
The SC emphasized that recourse to it must be reserved to the most
deserving cases. It cannot be treated as a trial court because the SC
is not a trier of facts.
In short:
• When there is concurrence of jurisdiction among courts,
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts requires that recourse
must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising
concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court.
o So when you file a certiorari in MTC, and there
is concurrence of jurisdiction within RTC, CA
and SC. It is in RTC where it is to be filed.
o So, AAA should file her petition before the RTC
and not the CA or SC.
Q: What is the rationale of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
HEIRS of HINOG v. MELICOR
G.R. No. 140954 | April 12, 2005
HELD: The rationale for this rule is two-fold:
(a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of
this Court; and
(b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases,
23
which in some instances had to be remanded or
referred to the lower court as the proper forum under
the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to
resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of
facts.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. VASQUEZ
G.R. No. 99289-90 | January 27, 1993
HELD: We discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on
the part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the same may be said
of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before us, to
disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by
seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the
same is available in the lower courts in the exercise of their
original or concurrent jurisdiction, or is even mandated by law
to be sought therein.
This practice must be stopped, not only because of the
imposition upon the precious time of this Court but also because
of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in
the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or
referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules
of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since
this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the
judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it
unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling
circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling
for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.
Q: What are the exceptions of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
BARROSO v. OMELIO
G.R. No. 194767 | October 14, 2015
HELD: The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the
hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be
ignored without serious consequences. The Court may act on
petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious
and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy.
For exceptionally compelling reasons, the Court may exercise its
discretion to act on special civil actions for certiorari filed
directly with it. Examples of cases that present compelling
reasons are:
1. those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that must
be addressed at the most immediate time;
2. those where the issues are of transcendental importance,
and the threat to fundamental constitutional rights are so
great as to outweigh the necessity for prudence;
3. cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists
that will guide the lower courts on such issues;
4. where the constitutional issues raised are better decided
after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with
the concurrence of the majority of those who participated
in its discussion;
5. where time is of the essence;
6. where the act being questioned was that of a constitutional
body;
7. where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law that could free petitioner from
the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their
constitutional rights; and
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
8. the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of public
policy, the broader interest of justice, or where the orders
complained of are patent nullities, or where appeal can be
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
DISCUSSION
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS
(1) Those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that
must be addressed at the most immediate time;
There is this recent jurisprudence questioning the constitutionality
of the Family Code. A famous lawyer who is part of LGBTQ
questioned the constitutionality of the Family Code because
apparently there is violation of equal protection clause in as much
as the Family Code only defines a marriage between a man and a
woman. According to them, it is violative of equal protection
because that is not a cover or protect those who are not male or
female. So they file a case for declaratory relief in the SC
questioning the constitutionality of the Family Code, a genuine
issue of the constitutionality.
So what happened during the oral argument? Justice Leonen
reprimanded the petitioner and questioned him “Did you even try
to secure a marriage license? Were you denied such marriage
license?”. They said none. So meaning how will you say it is a
genuine issue of constitutionality when you’re not really affected.
There is no actual case or controversy. You’re simply wasting the
time of the SC. So the lawyer was reprimanded and cited in
contempt.
(2) Those where the issues are of transcendental
importance, and the threat to fundamental
constitutional rights are so great as to outweigh the
necessity for prudence;
So in your constitutional law, have you encountered a case where
the SC cites of transcendental importance that affects fundamental
rights. So this a perfect case as example. The case of Oposa v.
Factoran, Jr., where the SC upheld the right of the people to a
balance and healthful ecology not only for the present generations
and generations yet unborn.
Another case is Republic v. Sereno, a quo warranto case against a
sitting Chief Justice who is otherwise an unimpeachable officer and
can therefore only be removed by impeached under the
Constitution. But the SC took cognizance of the quo warranto.
(3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet
exists that will guide the lower courts on such issues;
It is a case about the succession whether or not successional rights
are denied on the illegitimate child or child born out of wedlock.
(4) where the constitutional issues raised are better
decided after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate
body and with the concurrence of the majority of those
who participated in its discussion;
(5) where time is of the essence;
Like the cases of Trump, Trump is filing cases regarding electoral
fraud despite the nearing proclamation of presumptive winner
Biden. They are rushing the filing of cases.
(6) where the act being questioned was that of a
constitutional body;
24
(7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free
petitioner from the injurious effects of respondents'
acts in violation of their constitutional rights; and
(8) the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of
public policy, the broader interest of justice, or where
the orders complained of are patent nullities, or where
appeal can be considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy.
Stated otherwise:
• The Supreme Court will disregard the doctrine and
entertain direct recourse to it if there is a proper
invocation of paramount or transcendental importance
of the action.
• This paramount or transcendental importance standard
was the reason why the SC entertained direct resort to it
in a petition for quo warranto filed by the Solicitor-
General against former CJ Sereno.
Q: What was the exception that was used by the SC in justifying
direct recourse to it against the orders of Judge Omelio
A: The last exception: “where the orders complained of are patent
nullities”
Q: Why was the order of Judge Omelio a patent nullity?
A: It was a patent nullity because it violated the doctrine of judicial
stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a co-equal court.
Q: Why was there an interference on the part of Judge Omelio?
A: There was a writ of execution issued by Judge Carpio of Branch
16 and then, the person against whom the execution was supposed
to be implemented or the one who lost the case, asked Judge
Omelio to stop the execution of judgment ordered by Judge Carpio.
The Supreme Court held that both are co-equal branches. Judge
Omelio should not interfere with the order of Judge Carpio, of a co-
equal court. You cannot issue a writ of injunction to restrain the
implementation of that writ of execution.
DISCUSSION
According to the Supreme Court, actually that’s paramount or
transcendental importance as well. If you look at the 8 exceptions,
that will fall under paramount or transcendental importance of the
action.
This “paramount or transcendental importance” standard was the
reason why the Supreme Court entertained direct resort to it in a
petition for quo warranto filed by the Solicitor-General against the
former Chief Justice Sereno, in the case of Republic v. Sereno. You
should read the case of Republic v. Sereno if only to relate that case
in the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, but you need to read the entire
case.
REPUBLIC v. SERENO
G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018
HELD: Direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue such writs is allowed when there are special
and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out
in the petition. In the instant case, direct resort to the Court is
justified considering that the action for quo warranto questions
the qualification of no less than Member of the Court. The issue
of whether person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or
exercises public office is matter of public concern over which the
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
government takes special interest as it obviously cannot allow
an intruder or impostor to occupy public position. The instant
petition is case of transcendental importance.
DISCUSSION
This is what the Supreme Court said, that this case is of
transcendental importance. You know the result of Republic v.
Sereno, right? Chief Justice Sereno was removed from office. What
happened to the fact that she is an impeachable officer under the
Constitution and therefore, should only be removed by way of
impeachment? This is not already included in our discussion, but
the Supreme Court in Republic v. Sereno made a distinction
between qualifications prior to entering office and qualifications
while in office.
Qualifications prior to Qualifications while in office
entering office
Those acts by Sereno, such as Continuing qualifications, or
dishonesty in her SALN, those what you do while you are
were qualifications prior to already in the office, that is
occupying the office. And for the one that is subject of
these qualifications, the impeachment.
question of whether these
qualifications that allow you
to occupy the office were
present in the first place, can
be questioned by way of quo
warranto.
When you look at quo warranto, it’s supposed to be subject to the
doctrine of judicial hierarchy. Why? Because you can file quo
warranto before the RTC or CA. But in this case, the quo warranto
was filed directly to the Supreme Court.
What happened after that? The Solicitor-General next filed a quo
warranto petition against ABS-CBN directly before the Supreme
Court.
One issue there was whether or not the ownership of ABS-CBN was
Filipino because the Constitution states that franchises (e.g. mass
media) should follow certain Filipino ownership requirements. Not
to mention, was there a violation on the part of ABS-CBN with
regard to the conditions of their franchise? That’s a question of fact.
It requires presentation of evidence. You cannot go to the Supreme
Court and just ask the Court to receive your evidence. That’s not
allowed. Take note that this is no longer the case. Why? Because of
the case of Gios-Samar v. DOTC.
GIOS-SAMAR v. DOTC
G.R. No. 217528 | March 12, 2019
HELD: We take this opportunity to clarify that the presence of
one or more of the so-called “special and important reasons” is
not the decisive factor considered by the Court in deciding
whether to permit the invocation, at the first instance, of its
original jurisdiction over the issuance of extraordinary writs.
Rather, it is the nature of the question raised by the parties in
those “exceptions” that enabled us to allow the direct action
before us.
To be clear, the transcendental importance doctrine does not
clothe us with the power to tackle factual questions and play the
role of a trial court. The only circumstance when we may take
cognizance of a case in the first instance, despite the presence
of factual issues, is in the exercise of our constitutionally-
expressed task to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of
25
the President’s proclamation of martial law under Section 18,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Accordingly, for the guidance of the bench and the bar, we
reiterate that when a question before the Court involves
determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution
of the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question
regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons,
such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the
case. Such question must first be brought before the proper trial
courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and
resolve factual questions.
DISCUSSION
This is the best ever case in relation to the doctrine of judicial
hierarchy. This is the most scholarly discussion ever by the Supreme
Court about this doctrine. This is mandatory reading for my
students. The Supreme Court here explained each exceptions.
The SC held that the special and important reasons is not the
decisive factor considered by the Court in deciding whether to
permit the invocation at the first instance of its original jurisdiction
over the issuance of extraordinary writs.
So those 8 exceptions in the case of Barroso v. Omelio were
explained by the SC and where each of the exceptions came from.
The SC made the observation that it was the nature of the question
raised by the parties in those “exceptions” that enabled us to allow
the direct action before us.
The only circumstance when the court may take cognizance of a
case in the first instance, despite the presence of factual issues is in
the exercise of exercise of its constitutionally-expressed task to
review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President’s
proclamation of martial law under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution. That’s the only time supposedly that the Supreme
Court will act like a trial court, as a trier of facts. Because ordinarily,
the Supreme Court is only a court that entertains pure questions of
law. If you want to present an evidence, you go to the RTC or even
the CA because the CA can receive evidence provided it does not
conduct trial de novo.
It does not really matter now if the issue you are bringing to the SC
is “paramount or transcendentally important”, because beginning
from the case of Gios-Samar, the SC will not entertain that if there
is a factual question. It should only be questions of law.
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that, direct recourse to
the Supreme Court is allowed only to resolve questions of law,
notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or transcendental
importance of the action.
What is the effect?
Atty. JZE’s submits: For me, I can forget the 8 exceptions found in
Barroso v. Omelio. Because now, the important rule to remember
is if it is a legal question and of paramount or transcendental
importance, the SC will take it up. But if there is a factual issue, co-
mingled with a legal question – No. The SC will not entertain it even
if it is found in the 8 exceptions in Barroso v. Omelio.
Fair warning: if you don’t read it in its entirety, let’s see what’s going
to happen.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
We’re talking about subject matter jurisdiction, or a class of cases
where the court is empowered to act.
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Q: So, where can you find the basis of the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court?
A: Article VIII of the Constitution.
ARTICLE VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
DISCUSSION
We discussed this already. Judicial power is vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. I
already explained that.
The second paragraph talks about the concept or definition of
judicial power. Take note, the second paragraph encompasses both
the:
1. Traditional concept of judicial power – which is the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies;
and
2. Expanded concept of judicial power – which is to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
COMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Q: What about the composition of the Supreme Court?
A: You can find that in Section 4.
ARTICLE VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief
Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in
its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which
under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided
with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or
resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence
26
of at least three of such Members. When the required number
is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided,
that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
DISCUSSION
1st Paragraph: “The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief
Justice,” meaning, there is only one chief justice and fourteen (14)
associate justices.
In the United States, there is no specific number of justices in the
Supreme Court. Right now, there are 9 or maybe 8 and the majority
are appointed by Donald Trump. There’s this discussion that if
Biden is eventually installed as the President of the US, in order to
make it a more favorable Supreme Court, they will add to the
number of justices appointed to the Supreme Court. That is not the
case here. We only have 15 justices in the Supreme Court.
2nd Paragraph: It also talks about which cases should be heard en
banc. At least, constitutionally speaking, those that have
constitutional issues.
3rd Paragraph: If, for example, there is one absent from the
deliberations or one who recused or inhibit, he should not join in
the deliberations or vote. “And in no case without the concurrence
of at least three of such Members” in division. We’re talking about
in division.
Take note: “When the required number is not obtained, the case
shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of
law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en
banc.” Like the case of Gios-Samar which is also en banc and
penned by or under the ponentia of Justice Jardeleza.
ARTICLE VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts
but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
DISCUSSION
“The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts,” which it has done
by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and its later amendments.
There are at least 2 major amendments to B.P. 129.
“But may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof,” meaning, whatever it is that
the Congress will do in making a law, if the effect would be contrary
to the powers given to the Supreme Court in Section 5, that law
would be unconstitutional. Let’s go to that Section 5.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
ARTICLE VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
(2) 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.
(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.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
(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 underprivileged. 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 rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
DISCUSSION
1st Paragraph: We understand what is habeas corpus, since it was
already discussed in Constitutional Law. Not to mention the fact,
that it should have been discussed in Persons and Family Relations.
There is a portion in Persons where it talks about the Family Courts
Act and its jurisdiction over cases involving habeas corpus. For
example, children who are kidnapped by a parent. That is habeas
corpus.
2nd Paragraph: “Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari” – take note that these are different modes. You all
understand appeal. It is a continuation of the trial in the court a
27
quo. It is for the purpose of determining if whether the act of the
court a quo is correct or proper.
Certiorari, on the other hand, is under Rule 65. It involves grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That
is certiorari.
[Proceeds with reading the remaining part of 2nd paragraph.]
“All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.”
Q: What do we remember in Criminal Procedure in relation to
these criminal cases? It is provided in the Constitution that the
Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. What is the mode
of appeal in that situation?
How many penalties are we talking about here?
A: There are three – reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, and
death.
Q: If it’s reclusion perpetua, what is the mode of appeal or review?
What about life imprisonment, or death?
A:
1. If it is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the mode
of appeal or review is a notice of appeal.
2. If it is death penalty, it is automatic review.
Q: “All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.”
What is the mode of review?
A: That’s the time that you apply Rule 45 certiorari.
“Promulgate rules,” which is the Rules of Court and related
issuances. (This will be discussed later)
Based on these provisions, the Supreme Court has:
1. Original jurisdiction –
Meaning, you’re allowed to file the case directly before the
Supreme Court for the first time. It’s not a continuation of any case
below the Supreme Court, but you’re filing it for the first time. It is
an independent action.
Although, sometimes, the independent action that you file (for
example, Rule 65 on special civil action for certiorari), it could be
questioning what happened in a court below. But technically
speaking, you’re filing it for the first time.
2. Appellate jurisdiction
This is now a continuation of the appellate process, or continuation
of the trial process. Meaning, from the Court of Appeals, for
example, you go to the Supreme Court by way of review. It could
also be from the Regional Trial Court, and then you go directly to
the Supreme Court. That is appellate jurisdiction.
2 TYPES OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Regarding original jurisdiction, it could be:
1. Exclusive original
2. Concurrent original
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
This refers to cases in which the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction. This means that
parties file these cases directly with the Supreme Court as if it were
regular trial court. Except, there is no presentation of evidence
similar to the procedure in Rule 132. Verily, the Supreme Court is
not a trier of facts.
Q: What are these cases that can be filed only with the Supreme
Court?
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SC
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL (Can only be filed with the SC)
Compared to dating, exclusively dating; only meant for each other.
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the:
Prohibition, to stop the court from proceeding because
there is an error of jurisdiction.
Mandamus, it is a petition where you seek to compel the
performance of a ministerial act. Ministerial, meaning
you do not have jurisdiction whether you do it or not. It
is a positive duty given by law.
Against whom?
▪ The Court of Appeals under the Judiciary Act of 1948
section 17;
▪ The COMELEC under Article 9 section 7;
▪ The COA under Article 9 section 7;
▪ The Sandiganbayan under R.A. 10660
▪ The Court of Tax Appeals under PD No 1125 as
amended; and
▪ The Ombudsman in criminal cases*
Sir: I put an asterisk because it will require a lot of explaining later
on because the jurisprudence on the matter are actually conflicting.
Take note that, with the exception of the Ombudsman, all the
enumerated tribunals are collegiate in character.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction on election contests
involving the position of the President and Vice
President (Art. VIII, Sec. 4, last paragraph);
DISCUSSION
So what is a perfect example of this? Remember the case of Bong
Bong Marcos? And the Supreme Court assigned this case to who?
To Justice Leonen. Now they are trying to inhibit it. Because instead
of having a positive result from the recount, what it did was it
instead gave Lenie Robredo an advantage.
Compare him to Robredo, believe it or not Robredo took the Bar
Exam twice. So going back, the results actually gave Lenie an
advantage over BongBong Marcos and I don’t think anything is
gonna happen but when you are talking about election contests,
that’s the Supreme Court.
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction in cases questioning the
factual basis for the declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or the extension thereof (Art. VII, Sec. 18, third
paragraph);
28
4. Exclusive original jurisdiction over disciplinary
proceedings against members of the judiciary and
attorneys (Rule 56-A of the Rules of Court on Original
Cases)
DISCUSSION
You know what? Right now the usual thing that happens would be
that the Supreme Court no longer takes that. They consider
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers at least as an imposition of
its time.
The procedure right now is that once the Supreme Court receives a
complaint through the Office of the Bar confidant, it will now refer
it to the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP and it is there where
is going to be an investigation.
The IBP committee on bar discipline will now determine whether or
not there would be a penalty, whether to disbar, suspend, or
absolve. And in that situation, it will simply forward its
recommendations to the Supreme Court and that is the time the
Supreme Court will decide.
5. Injunction in agrarian cases and others specified by law.
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
Regarding certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Rule 65 petitions)
per se, jurisdiction can be exclusive or concurrent, depending on
the tribunal, board or officer involved.
Key to Remember:
The key to remember here is to determine whether the tribunal is
collegiate.
• If collegiate, then the certiorari, prohibition, mandamus
will only be filed exclusively with the Supreme Court.
• If non-collegiate, then definitely, the Supreme will only
exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
Exception again is the Ombudsman in criminal cases which we will
go to later on.
CERTIORARI V. COA & COMELEC
DISCUSSION
Under the Constitution, there are 3 constitutional commissions,
namely the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, and
the Civil Service Commission. (COMELEC, COA, CSC)
If these tribunals commit grave abuse of discretion or act without
jurisdiction, how will their actions be reviewed? The governing rule
here is Article IX - A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution which
provides:
Section 7. XXX Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by
law, any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof
Take note however that, in a sense, there are three types of
certiorari, did you know that? Or did you only know the two? I don’t
even think that everybody knows the two.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
3 TYPES OF CERTIORARI
1. Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
• But this is for pure questions of law. Kindly look
at Rule 45 right now in your codal provisions. So
you can see there, appeal by certiorari. Take
note of the first provision, Section 1, it states
pure questions of law.
2. A Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65;
• which we have been discussing ever since we
started class; and
3. The lesser known Rule 64 Certiorari.
• Yes, there is this Certiorari. Now if you have
your codals with you, you can start looking at it
now.
Q: What type of certiorari do we employ against the COMELEC and
the COA?
A: To be technical about it, it is a Certiorari brought under Rule 64.
Why?
Because under Rule 64, which is review of judgments and final
orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and The
Commission on Audit.
Under Section 1. This rule shall govern the review of judgments and
final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit.
But, Under Section 2. Mode of Review, a judgement or final order
or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission
on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme
Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
DISCUSSION
So what you are actually filing here is a Rule 65 Certiorari, but it is
subject to the rules specifically applicable to a Rule 64 petition. So
technically speaking, it is Certiorari but it is filed under Rule 64 in
relation to Rule 65.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Q: What about the Civil Service Commission?
DISCUSSION
Why is the Civil Service Commission not included? Well, remember
that under Article IX-A. Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides
that unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, and
there is actually a law that is provided.
R.A. No. 7902, which divests the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases decided by the Civil Service Commission and conferred
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the judgements, decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of the Civil Service Commission to the
Court of Appeals.
Q: What is your mode of review now if Civil Service Commission?
The answer is by a Petition for Review under Rule 43.
So what is under Rule 43? It is there where you can find the quasi-
judicial bodies, including the Civil Service Commission. So that is the
mode review.
29
SANDIGANBAYAN
DISCUSSION
Again another collegiate court. Under Section 7. Decisions and final
orders shall be subject to review on certiorari by the Supreme Court
in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
So what is this? This is appeal. This is not a special civil action for
certiorari because this is again, appeal by certiorari because we are
talking about Rule 45.
Take note however of the dichotomy:
that there is a dichotomy, because again, there are 2 main types of
certiorari.
● When the Law says “review on certiorari by the Supreme
Court in accordance with Rule 45” against the
Sandiganbayan, it talks about an appeal.
So technically speaking, this is exclusive appellate
jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction.
So is there a possibility that Appeal is not what you file? Yes. it is
allowed.
● If the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion, the remedy can be certiorari under Rule 65,
over which the Supreme Court has exclusive original
jurisdiction.
Please remember that because it gets quite confusing later on
when we reach Rule 45 and Rule 42, you will be confused. So as
early as now I clarified this to you. Take note of the dichotomy.
TAKE NOTE:
If you are simply appealing then Rule 45 (Pure questions of law)
That is exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, NOT
original jurisdiction.
But, If there is grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, what Certiorari is the proper Certiorari to file?
It now Rule 65 Certiorari which is under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Gets? Very Good.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
DISCUSSION
Under Section 19 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended, Review by
Certiorari, so what is this review by certiorari? That is actually
appeal by certiorari. That is not Rule 65 Certiorari.
A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc
may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on
certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
That is appellate jurisdiction. So again, the dichotomy:
● When the law says “a verified petition for review on
certiorari pursuant to Rule 45” against the CTA, that talks
about an appeal. In that situation, you are talking about
the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
NOT its original jurisdiction.
But once again.
● If there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, the remedy is a certiorari under
Rule 65 over which the Supreme Court has exclusive
original jurisdiction.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
I hope you are not confused. It is very clear. One is appeal, the other
one is not. It is an original action being filed before the Supreme
Court.
It's not a continuation of the proceedings in the Court of Tax
Appeals.
OMBUDSMAN IN CRIMINAL CASES
Unlike decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
cases where the rules of procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
provides for a remedy of appeal to the Court of Appeals by way of
a verified Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,
there is no specific appeal or remedy provided for resolutions or
orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal and non-
administrative cases which are considered final and unappealable.
When any law or rule tells you that the decision is final and
unappealable, you are not allowed to take an appellate remedy.
You cannot appeal.
Q: How do you question it?
A: You have no other way to appeal it or to question it but by means
of Certiorari because you cannot appeal. The law said that it is final
and unappealable. You're left with Certiorari.
Q: Where do you file it? If it a decision of the Ombudsman, for
example, finding probable cause against a respondent in an
administrative case, cognizable by the Ombudsman. You want to
contest that finding of probable cause.
R.A. 6770, Sec. 14. Restrictions. - XXX No court shall hear any
appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings
of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure
question of law.
Pure questions of law? Supposedly, pure questions of law are under
Rule 45, right? Because if it is a Rule 65 Certiorari, it's not supposed
to be pure question of law. It is triggered by grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That is always
to be alleged in your petition.
Let's distinguish now. What does the cases say if it is a ruling of the
Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases, finding
probable cause for example?
ESTRADA v. DESIERTO
G.R. No. 156160⏐Dec. 9, 2004
HELD: The remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the
Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal
cases or non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari (Rule
65) with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals.
DISCUSSION
It's the case where the Supreme Court gave an imprimatur to the
administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The ruling of the SC is very clear. Filing of probable cause tainted
with GAOD Where do you go? Supreme Court What's the modality?
Rule 65 Certiorari
Then, there’s the recent case of Carpio-Morales
30
CARPIO-MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 217126-27⏐Nov. 10, 2015
HELD: The second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 provides
that no appeal or application for remedy may be heard against
the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, with the exception
of the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
This paragraph, which the Ombudsman particularly relies on in
arguing that the CA had no jurisdiction over the main CA-G.R. SP
No. 139453 petition, as it is supposedly this Court which has the
sole jurisdiction to conduct a judicial review of its decisions or
findings, is vague for two (2) reasons:
(1) it is unclear what the phrase "application for remedy" or
the word "findings" refers to; and
(2) it does not specify what procedural remedy is solely
allowable to this Court, save that the same be taken only
against a pure question of law. The task then, is to apply
the relevant principles of statutory construction to resolve
the ambiguity.
Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the
remedy against "decision or findings" of the Ombudsman to a
Rule 45 appeal and thus - similar to the fourth paragraph of
Section 27, RA 6770 - attempts to effectively increase the
Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without its advice and
concurrence, it is therefore concluded that the former provision
is also unconstitutional and perforce, invalid.
DISCUSSION
Do you remember the topic Powers of the Supreme Court? The
Congress has the power to apportion the jurisdiction of the several
courts. But, you are not allowed to give to the Supreme Court of a
case under its jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence.
There is supposed to be autonomy among the three co-equal
branches of government. Is it not the implication here? That when
you appeal, it should only be in the Supreme Court on pure
questions of law.
Effect of this case:
Subject matter jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeals, not with
the Supreme Court. That is the effect of this Carpio-Morales case.
Compare it with Estrada vs. Desierto, the Supreme Court was very
categorical in saying that it should be filed with the Supreme Court
and what is the modality? In Estrada vs. Desierto, it's original action
for certiorari before the Supreme Court, not with the Court of
Appeals. That's very clear.
CARPIO-MORALES case ESTRADA Case
Subject matter jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction That it should be filed with
lies with the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
not with the Supreme Court
Modality
Rule 65 certiorari but It it's original action for
should not be with the certiorari (Rule 65) before the
Supreme Court but with the Supreme Court, not with the
Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
What case should now govern? Estrada vs. Desierto or Carpio-
Morales vs. Court of Appeals? It's confusing. Not to mention the
fact that it is written that it should be pure questions of law and
when you talk about pure questions of law, that's Rule 45.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
AAA and BBB, had a case. It was the same as this - finding of
probable cause. They know this Carpio-Morales vs. Court of
Appeals, a 2015 case. They used this and directly filed our Certiorari
to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Division denied it
because according to the Supreme Court, primary jurisdiction
should be with the Court of Appeals based on Estrada vs. Desierto.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed alerting the Court to its own
ruling in the case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals, which was
decided En Banc, but it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Upon
denial of their MR, there was not even an acknowledgment that
they have a ruling in the case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals.
Or, actually it was filed with the Court of Appeals and dismissed by
the Court of Appeals because it is the Supreme Court that has
jurisdiction, or something to that effect.
Even then, the Supreme Court reverted to its ruling in the case of
Estrada vs. Desierto that it should be with the Supreme Court, not
with the Court of Appeals.
Q: Can we use the Carpio Morales v. CA ruling instead of Estrada
v. Desierto case?
A: Whenever there are 2 conflicting decisions, cite both cases.
Remember both cases.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER ELECTION CONTESTS
INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
Article VII, Section 4. XXX The Supreme Court, sitting en banc,
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the President or Vice-President,
and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CASES QUESTIONING
THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
AND SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Article VII, Section 18. xxx the Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days
from its filing.
DISCUSSION
Based on the case of Gios-Samar, the Supreme Court said that this
is the only time that it will act like a trial court and receive evidence.
Only in this case - Article VII Section 18, last paragraph.
Q: What is the actual remedy?
LAGMAN v. MEDIALDEA
G.R. No. 231658⏐July 4, 2017
HELD: It can be observed that the proper remedy is to file a
"Petition for Review of the Factual Bases for the Declaration of
Martial Law" or "Petition Under the Third Paragraph of Section
18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution" or simply "Petition" or
"Petition for Review."
31
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND
ATTORNEYS
Rule 56-A, Section 1. Original cases cognizable. Only petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, disciplinary proceeding against members of the
judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the
Supreme Court.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRITS OF
INJUNCTION IN AGRARIAN CASES
Republic Act No. 9700, Section 20: Section 55 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. -
Except for the Supreme Court, no court in the Philippines
shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ
of preliminary injunction against the PARC, the DAR, or any
of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case,
dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in
connection with the application, implementation,
enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform.
DISCUSSION
We discussed this when we were talking about how jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined - allegations of the complaint
not affected by the allegations in the answer or motion to dismiss.
If you want to stop implementation of agrarian reform, there is no
way that you can get an injunction from the CA or the RTC. You have
no recourse but to go to the SC.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction to issue Writs of Injunction in
other laws or rules
Republic Act No. 9176 or the Electric Power Industry Reform
Act of 2001
Section 78. Injunction and Restraining Order. - The
implementation of the provisions of this Act shall not be
restrained or enjoined except by an order issued by the
Supreme Court of the Philippines.
DISCUSSION
You want to restrain the application or implementation of this
EPIRA, you have no choice. You have to go to the Supreme Court.
Republic Act No. 8975, Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance
of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Mandatory
Injunctions. – No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue
any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or
preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or
any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether
public or private acting under the government direction, to
restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:
(a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way
and/or site or location of any national government project;
xxx
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Rule 2, Section 10 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases provides that, except the Supreme Court, no court can
issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against lawful
actions of government agencies that enforce environmental
laws or prevent violations thereof.
Section 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order
(TRO) and preliminary injunction. – Except the Supreme Court,
no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against
lawful actions of government agencies that enforce
environmental laws or prevent violations thereof.
DISCUSSION
So for example, you are a polluter, and that you have a business
which you think will be in danger if the DENR or CENRO will
implement such environmental regulations, and so you want to
have it stopped. You go the Supreme Court. Good luck with that.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL
Concurrent means shared. And remember that when there is
concurrent jurisdiction, we apply the Doctrine of Hierarchy of
Courts.
1. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals
in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the:
a. Regional Trial Court (Sec. 21 (1), B.P. Blg. 129);
b. Civil Service Commission (R.A. No. 7902);
c. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (P.D. No.
464; B.P. Blg. 129; R.A. No. 7902);
d. NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295
SCRA 494; R.A. No. 7902)
2. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals
and the Regional Trial Court in petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and
bodies, and in petitions for quo warranto and habeas
corpus. This jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts (Secs. 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; Art. VIII, Sec.
5, 1987 Constitution)
3. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the Regional Trial
Court in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers
and consuls (Sec. 21(2), B.P. Blg. 129; Art. VIII, Sec. 5, 1987
Constitution of the Philippines).
4. Petition for Writ of Kalikasan (with RTC and CA) and Writ
of Continuing Mandamus (with CA)
5. HABEAS CORPUS (with RTC and CA)
6. WRIT OF AMPARO (with RTC, SB, CA)
CASES AFFECTING AMBASSADORS, PUBLIC MINISTERS AND
CONSULS
“Concurrent original jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court in
cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls (Sec. 21
(2), B.P. Blg. 129; Art. VIII, Sec. 5, 1097 Constitution of the
Philippines). “ (See No. 3 above)
Q: Who are these ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls?
What is the difference between them?
A: Ambassadors are sovereign representatives. They enjoy
immunity from prosecution in the territory of the receiving State.
On the other hand, a consul is not a political representative of the
32
sending state but rather a commercial representative of the
sending State. Hence, a consul is not immune from suit.
Q: What are these cases all about?
A: According to Justice Isagani Cruz: “Under international law,
diplomats, and even consuls to a lesser extent, are not subject to
the jurisdiction of the court of the receiving State, save in certain
cases, as when immunity is waived either expressly or impliedly. In
such instances, the Supreme Court can and probably should take
cognizance of the litigation in view of possible international
repercussions.”
DISCUSSION
So if it is a case involving let us say an ambassador, you can either
file it before the Regional Trial Court or the Supreme Court.
Q: When will the Supreme Court take jurisdiction?
A: If it has possible international repercussions. Because it could be
this way: the US ambassador to the Philippines owes a debt to his
neighbor. So he descends into the level of a private individual
because he enters into a contract. So he did not pay.
Q: Now, where will you file the case against said ambassador?
A: You have a choice between the RTC and the Supreme Court.
Q: But the question is when will the Supreme Court take
cognizance of the case? Does it have international repercussions
that said ambassador did not pay his debt?
A: In that situation, it is better to file it with the RTC.
Q: Now what if the US ambassador marries a Filipina and then,
the Filipina wanted to file a declaration of nullity, where should
the case be filed? Should it be filed with the Supreme Court?
Should the Supreme Court take cognizance because it could cause
an international scandal?
A: We do not know that. There is still no jurisprudence to that
effect. Even I could not locate the reason behind the legislative
intent with respect to this Constitutional provision. But in American
jurisprudence, it depends. If it is in relation to his functions as a
diplomat or as an ambassador, then the Supreme Court should take
cognizance. But if it is in relation to his private dealings, then lower
courts may take cognizance.
THE RULES OF PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 29, 2010)
PART III. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 7. WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Section 3. Where to file. – The petition shall be filed with the
Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of
Appeals.
DISCCUSION
This is a situation where there is an environmental damage of such
magnitude that it affects a lot of people. That is the time when you
apply for a writ of kalikasan with the Supreme Court or with any of
the stations of the Court of Appeals.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
RULE 8
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
Section 2. Where to file the petition. – The petition shall be filed
with the regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or
with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
DISCUSSION
This is when there is neglect on the part of government agencies,
for example, to implement environmental laws. In that situation,
you can file a continuing mandamus to command them to perform
their ministerial functions under these environmental laws. This
came from the case of Concerned Residents of Manila Bay vs.
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.
HABEAS CORPUS
RULE 102
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends. – Except as
otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus
shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto.
Q: What is this all about?
A: It questions illegal confinement or detention. This is where a
person is deprived of his constitutional right to be free or when
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto.
Q: Where do you file it?
A: It may be filed either with the RTC, CA, SC, and even Family
Courts.
Section 2. Who may grant the writ. – The writ of habeas corpus
may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof,
on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any
member thereof in the instances authorized by law, and if so
granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and
may be made returnable before the court or any member
thereof, or before the Court of First Instance, or any judge
thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits. It may also
be granted by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on
any day and at any time, and returnable before himself,
enforceable only within his judicial district.
DISCUSSION
You see there in Section 2: Court of First Instance. Remember that
the then Court of First Instance is presently the Regional Trial Court.
CONFUSION WITH FAMILY COURTS ACT OF 1997
Now there is confusion because under Section 5 of Republic Act No.
8369, the family courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over petitions for habeas corpus.
Earlier, we learned that it is concurrent. Now, why is it exclusive in
this particular law? Here comes the case of Madrinan vs. Madrinan.
MADRINAN vs. MADRINAN
G.R. No. 159374 | July 12, 2007
FACTS: Husband left the conjugal abode and took their three
sons away from the wife. Wife filed a petition for habeas corpus
33
of the three sons in the CA, alleging that petitioner’s act of
leaving the conjugal dwelling and going to Albay and then to
Laguna disrupted the education of their children and deprived
them of their mother’s case. She prayed that petitioner be
ordered to appear and produce their sons before the court and
to explain why they should not be returned to her custody.
The husband questioned the jurisdiction of the CA, claiming that
under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 8369, otherwise known
as the Family Courts Act of 1997, family courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas
corpus filed by respondent.
HELD: RA 8369 did not divest the CA and the SC of their
jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of
minors. RA 8369 reveals no manifest intent to revoke the
jurisdiction of the CA and the SC to issue said writ. Said law
should be read in harmony with the provisions of RA 7902 that
family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and SC in
petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at
issue.
DISCUSSION
Take note that under RA 8369, the family courts are vested with
original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, not in habeas corpus
cases. Writs of habeas corpus which may be issued exclusively by
the family courts under said law pertain to the ancillary remedy that
may be availed of in conjunction with the petition for custody of
minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.
In general, habeas corpus is still concurrent between the RTC, CA,
and the Supreme Court.
WRIT OF AMPARO
Section 3. Where to File. – The petition may be filed on any day
and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where
the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
DISCUSSION
This writ of amparo pertains to enforced disappearances where the
suspects are agents of the State or law enforcement agents such as
the AFP or PNP. This is the remedy available in this particular
situation.
Q: Where can you file that?
A: It may be filed with the RTC, Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court, or any justice of the said courts. Such writ shall
be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
APPELATE JURISDCITION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is laid down in
Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx
(2) 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:
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
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.
DISCUSSION
To be more specific, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction
by way of petition for review on certiorari or appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 against the:
(a) Court of Appeals;
(b) Sandiganbayan;
(c) Regional Trial Courts.
Those are the first three. Again, we are talking here about the Rule
45 certiorari. That is a mode of appeal. On the other hand, the Rule
65 certiorari is an original action. That is not a mode of appeal.
Q: On what does the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction by
way of Rule 45?
A: On the following:
1. On pure questions of law (Sec. 1, Rule 45);
2. In cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law
or treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost,
assessment, toll or penalty;
3. In cases involving the jurisdiction of a lower court (Sec. 5,
Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines);
(d) Court of Tax Appeals in its decisions rendered en banc
(R.A. No. 9282 which amended P.D. No. 1155).
Finally, we have R.A. No. 9851, otherwise known as the Philippine
Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide,
and Other Crimes against Humanity.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851
Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian
Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity
Section 18. Philippine Court, Prosecutors and Investigators. –
The Regional Trial Court of the Philippines shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes punishable under this
Act. Their judgments may be appealed or elevated to the Court
of Appeals and to the Supreme Court as provided by law.
Q: Which court has exclusive jurisdiction over these cases?
A: The Regional Trial Court. But, their judgments may be appealed
or elevated to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court as
provided by law.
DISCUSSION
So, if we are talking about the International Humanitarian Law of
the Philippines, you file it with the RTC which has original
34
jurisdiction. Their judgments may be appealed or elevated to the
Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court.
Take note that there is a difference between “appealed” and
“elevated.” When you appeal, you appeal with the Court of Appeals.
Q: Can you directly appeal to the Supreme Court?
A: No. But, you can still elevate it but not by way of appeal. There
can still be review but not by virtue of an appeal. How? By way of
Rule 65—grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Q: Where do you go?
A: To the Supreme Court.
Q: Can you still appeal on pure questions of law?
A: Yes, directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
JURISDICTION OF COURT
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is laid down in
Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
(2) 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.
xxx
To be more specific, the SC has appellate jurisdiction by way of
petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule
45) against the:
a. Court of Appeals;
b. Sandiganbayan;
c. Regional Trial Courts; and
d. Court of Tax Appeals in its decisions rendered en banc.
On What? -On pure questions of law (Sec. 1, Rule 45)
In cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality
of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty;
PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER
Appeals or petition for review are remedies that simply continue
from the case decided by the court of origin.
So let’s say for example, the Regional Trial Court rendering the
decision in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. If you are
aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, where do you go? You go to
the CA, now, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. So what
actually happens there is that in the case where you lost, you
elevate that to the CA, is simply a continuation with whatever
happened in the RTC.
But when you talk about the Rule 65 remedies, (certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, or say, the petition for certiorari under rule
65), they are not appellate recourses. You are not appealing here;
they are original cases filed before the proper courts. Disassociate
from the notion that when you talk about special civil action for
certiorari that this is a mode of appealing, no. This is an original case.
You are invoking the original jurisdiction of the court where you
elevated the case.
Example:
Suppose a party is aggrieved by the decision of the CA and avers
that the same was tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. What is the remedy?
A: A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 before the
Supreme Court. This is your remedy, under Rule 65 because there
was grave abuse of discretion.
Take note that if a party avails of this remedy, he is invoking the
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
This remedy is not an appeal. It is not considered a continuation of
the case before the CA and is an original case filed before the
Supreme Court.
Another example:
Suppose that a party is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of
Appeals but there was a simple error in judgment that he cannot
say that there was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. What is his remedy?
A: The aggrieved party may appeal before the Supreme Court. This
is the time where an appeal is made. We are not talking here of
jurisdiction, we are not talking here of grave abuse of discretion –
we are simply talking here that the court made a mistake.
Take note that this appeal is just a continuation of the case before
the CA.
The aggrieved party is invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, not its original jurisdiction.
In such case, the proper remedy is appeal by certiorari under Rule
45, raising only questions of law. Its not an ordinary appeal. Its
appeal by certiorari. It is very clear from the Rule 45.
But why only questions of law? Why not questions of fact? Simple,
BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT A TRIER OF FACTS.
Passing upon a factual issue is not within the province of the
Supreme Court. The findings of facts of the CA are not generally
reviewable by the Supreme Court. Also, factual findings of the trial
35
court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding
on the SC. (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Lazaro-Baldazo, GR. No.
170815, February 2, 2007). Disregard the case citation, anyway
what I am concerned about is simply the doctrine.
It is not the function of the Supreme Court to determine the weight
of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. However, factual
issues may be delved into and resolved where the findings and
conclusions of the trial court or the quasi-judicial bodies are
frontally inconsistent with the findings of the CA.
TO SUMMARIZE:
It is possible that the case is from the RTC. The RTC, in rendering
the decision will make factual findings, findings regarding the
applicability or non-applicability of the law that is involved in the
litigation. When it is elevated to the CA, remember that the CA can
try facts. The CA’s jurisdiction is not limited to hearing only matters
of law, or questions of law, no. It is a court that can also tackle
factual issues. If there is an inconsistency, there will be a question
of fact. But when the CA simply adopts the factual
recommendations and findings of the RTC, that will be the factual
findings already. The CA will only make factual findings in case of
inconsistency.
The principle you have to remember, as a general rule, the SC is not
a trier of facts.
Q: When is a matter a factual question or a legal question? How
do you determine?
A: QUESTION OF FACT vs QUESTION OF LAW
There is a question of fact when doubt or difference arises as to the
truth or falsehood of the alleged facts, and there is a question of
law where the doubt or difference arises as to what law is on a
certain state of facts. (Cano vs Chief of PNP, Et. Al., GR No. 139368,
November 21, 2002).
Q: What’s an example of a question of fact?
• Did A kill B. That’s a question of fact.
• Has the obligation sued upon by the plaintiff, has been
paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished?
When it comes to a question of law, the question is that in case
there was non-payment, what is the law applicable. How does the
law apply assuming there was still non-payment.
Cancio vs. Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation
GR. Bo. 182307 | June 06, 2018
DOCTRINE: There is a question of fact when the issue presented
before this court is the correctness of the lower courts'
appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties. To
determine whether a lower court erred in the appreciation of
evidence, this Court must also examine the records to see if
there was evidence that was overlooked or if certain pieces of
evidence were given undue weight. Simply arguing that the facts
are not disputed will not evade raising questions of fact before
the Supreme Court.
It’s not actually the appellation given by the parties to it. The parties
cannot say that it is a purely legal question when in fact is actually
presents matters needing factual determination. Again, the SC is
not a trier of facts. When you present a petition that asks it to
examine the evidence, to re-appreciate the evidence in the case,
that is no longer a question of law. What happens here is that your
recourse is improper.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
QUESTION OF LAW QUESTION OF FACT
For a question to be one of If the issue invites a review of
law, the same must not involve the evidence presented, the
an examination of the question posed is one of fact.
probative value of the
evidence presented by the
litigants.
Apply the law. Apply the law on evidence.
In a jury trial, it is determined In a jury trial, it is determined
by the judge. by the jury.
In a question of law, the Court should not care about the evidence
extant in the case. Here, what will the court do? The Court will
simply apply the law. It will construe the law in such a way that will
fit the controversy before the parties.
In countries like America where there is a jury, when it comes to
questions of law, the judge determines that since the judge is
presumed to know the law. If it is a question of fact, it is determined
by the jury. They make factual determinations, such as guilty or not
guilty.
Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc. vs. City of Pasig
G.R. No. 176667 | November 22, 2007
DOCTRINE: The test of whether a question is one of law or of
fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party
raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can
determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a
question of fact.
What’s the jurisdictional consequence when we talk about this
question of fact, question of law?
JURISDICTIONAL CONSEQUENCE
Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII, of the Constitution provides that the
Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over “all cases in
which an error or question of law is involved.” Only questions of law
may be raised under a petition for review under Rule 45 because
the Court is not a trier of facts and the factual findings of lower
courts are final, binding or conclusive on the parties and to the
Court (United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Spouses Uy, G.R. No.
204039, January 10, 2018).
If you are raising for example, in addition to a question of law, a
question of fact. Appeal should be made before the CA or different
remedy altogether.
While jurisprudence is replete of examples where the SC
entertained direct recourse to it if the case, though raising a
question of fact, invokes compelling reasons, such as the
transcendental or paramount importance of the case, this
exception to the rule has recently been clarified in Gios-Samar, Inc.
vs. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.
*Take note of this case.
Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC
G.R. No. 217158 | March 12, 2019.
DOCTRINE: Accordingly, for the guidance of the bench and the
bar, we reiterate that when a question before the Court involves
determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution
of the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question
regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons,
such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the
36
case. Such question must first be brought before the proper trial
courts or the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and
resolve factual questions.
DISCUSSION
The situation is it is the RTC or a quasi-judicial agency that renders
a decision. You are aggrieved by the decision. You want to go
straight to the Supreme Court. You cannot go to the Supreme Court
if there is still factual issues need to be determined.
Principle to Remember:
GR: The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, when the law
provides for the remedy of appeal by certiorari to the Supreme
Court (certiorari under Rule 45), the petitioner may only raise pure
questions of law, as a general rule.
DISSCUSSION
Under Section 1. The petition shall raise only questions of law which
must be distinctly set forth if you are filing an appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45.
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.- A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by
law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for
review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of
law which must be distinctly set forth.
What are these instances, under the law where you file a Rule 45
petition to the Supreme Court and yet you are allowed to raise
factual questions?
*IMPORTANT!
XPN: When SC may hear both questions of fact and law in a
petition for review
• Rule on Writ of Habeas Data
Sec. 19. Appeal - Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule
45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or
both. The period of appeal shall be five (5) working
days from the date of notice of the judgment or final
order. The appeal shall be given the same priority as
in habeas corpus and amparo cases.
This is an exception under Rule 45, Sec. 1, where the petition shall
raise only questions of law.
• Rule on Writ of Amparo
Sec. 19. Appeal - Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule
45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or
both. The period of appeal shall be five (5) working
days from the date of notice of the judgment or final
order. The appeal shall be given the same priority as
in habeas corpus cases.
• Rules of Procedure in Environment Cases (RPEC) Writ of
Kalikasan
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 37
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

Exceptions to Rule that the Supreme Court is not a Trier of

Section 16. Appeal - Within fifteen (15) days from the
date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial of
motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.
DISCUSSION
There are three exceptions, Writ of Amparo, Writ of Habeas Data,
and Writ of Kalikasan.
A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW
A mixed question of fact and law refers to one the solution of which
depends on both fact and law. In resolving a mixed question, a
reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide
relevant legal issues at the same time.
Example:
Cancio vs Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation
G.R No. 182307, June 06, 2018
Negligence, that is, a failure to comply with some duty of care
owed by one to another, is a mixed question of law and fact.
There is a question of law as to the duty of care owed by a
defendant to a plaintiff. The existence of negligence, however,
is determined by facts and evidence, which makes it a question
of fact.
DISCUSSION
Because you need to remember there are varying degrees of
diligence under the law. There is ordinary diligence or diligence as
provided for in the contract of the parties. But the default diligence
under the Civil Code is diligence of a good father of a family. There
could also be extraordinary diligence in case of common carriers,
under the law where the requirement is extraordinary diligence,
not simply diligence of a good father in the family. But existence of
negligence is determined by facts and evidence which makes it a
question of fact. To determine what degree of care is required
under the circumstances you apply the law. But to determine
whether the party actually complied with that degree of care that
will be determined by the facts of the case. That is a mixed question
of fact and law.
Facts
1. When it inquires into the factual basis for the declaration
of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus;
2. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
3. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd,
or impossible;
DISCUSSION
Sometimes, you cannot understand why the Court
decided that way because there are no such facts. It
seems like it was just cut and paste from other case.
4. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
5. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
6. When the finding of facts are conflicting;
DISCUSSION
It means the RTC and CA do not agree as to the proper
finding of facts. So the Supreme Court might delve into
factual questions.
7. When in making its findings the CA went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
8. When the findings are contrary to the trial court;
9. When the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
10. When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the
petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the
respondent;
11. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by thee evidence
on record; and
12. When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
could justify a different conclusion.
*Note: Apart from familiarizing, you have to look why is it that the
Supreme Court has the possibility to look into factual issues.

TREATMENT OF A MIXED QUESTION SUMMARY

For purposes of review, a mixed question of fact and law is treated Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
as a question of fact. As such, appellate recourse should be bought
before the Court of Appeals, as a general rule, and not the Supreme Mode Against From what cases
Court. Appeal by Court of Appeals, Cases before these
Certiorari under Sandiganbayan, courts where an
DISCUSSION Rule 45 (pure Regional Trial error of judgment
There are quite a lot of exceptions to the rule that Supreme Court questions of law) Courts, Courts if Tax is involved
is not a trier of facts. Example, you file a Rule 65 petition before the Appeals in its
Supreme Court or maybe you file a quo warranto before the decisions rendered
Supreme Court. Are there any instances when the Supreme Court en banc (RA 9282)
can act as if it is a trial court and determine the applicable facts of Appeal by Court of Appeals, Writ of Amparo
the case? There are. And there are twelve exceptions. Certiorari under Sandiganbayan, Writ of Habeas
Rule 45 (questions Regional Trial Data
of fact or law) Courts
Court of Appeals Writ of Kalikasan
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
Take note that if it is an error of jurisdiction and not error of
judgment, again it is not Rule 45 but Rule 65 as the case may be.
Moreover, remember in Writ of Kalikasan, there is concurrence of
jurisdiction.
TWO LIMITATIONS ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER
1. It cannot increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC
without its consent.
Article VI, Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
2. It cannot diminish the jurisdiction of the SC as defined in
Sec 5.
• Article 8, Sec 2. The Congress shall have the
power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
• No law shall be passed reorganizing the
judiciary when it undermines the security if
tenure of its Members.
38
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
BP 129
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;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Court; 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 of Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Take note: The list of quasi-judicial agencies is mentioned in Section
1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS [EXCLUSIVE]
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of Regional Trial Courts under Sec. 9[2], B.P. 129
§ Rule 47, Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The
annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed
of or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial
or petition for relief.
Exclusive original jurisdiction to issue certain orders under RA
9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)
§ This is our original Anti-Terrorism Law. I'm not talking
about the new Terrorism Law yet, because we are not
sure if it will stand scrutiny before the Supreme Court.
Example: You want to wiretap a person suspected of terrorism or a
suspected terrorist, you go to the Court of Appeals to secure an
order to wiretap if you're the police, or any law enforcement official.
Section. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications. -The provisions of Republic Act
No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary
notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of
Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any
mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use
of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken
or written words between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons
or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
What else?
We have, the secrecy of bank deposits, I think you have discussed
that it in your Constitutional Law. They are not allowed to look at
your Php 5,000.00 in the bank, because you may be blackmailed
that "Why do you have so much money in the bank? You have Php
5,000 in your bank account, so let's blackmail him." that is now
allowed. That is why we have the secrecy of bank deposits act (R.A.
1405).
If you are suspected of the crime of terrorism or you're affiliated
with a terrorist group, the Court of Appeals can actually, allow the
examination, or gathering of relevant information about the
deposits, placements, etc. from a bank or financial institution. Only
the Court of Appeals can do that.
You cannot go to the RTC and ask for that order.
Section. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank
Deposits, Accounts, and Records. - The provisions of Republic
Act No. 1405 as amended, to the contrary notwithstanding, the
justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to
handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the
existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose
that: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or, conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or
group of persons; and (3) of a member of such judicially declared
and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons,
may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer
and the members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by
the anti-terrorism council to:
(a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in a bank or
financial institution; and
(b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information
about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and
records from a bank or financial institution. The bank or financial
institution concerned, shall not refuse to allow such
examination or to provide the desired information when so,
ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of
Appeals.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions under R.A. No. 10168,
An act defining the crime of financing terrorism:
§ Extend freeze order issued by the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC);
§ Determine the basis of the freeze order.
DISCUSSION
For the Anti-Money Laundering Council to have it extended it has
to go to the Court of Appeals and no other court.
Example:
If you're the person aggrieved for example, your bank account that
has an amount of Php 5,000.00 has been frozen because you are
suspected of terrorism, then you can question that. Where do you
go? To the Court of Appeals to determine the factual basis of the
freeze order. Only the Court of Appeals can hear these petitions.
Section. 11. Authority to Freeze. – The AMLC, either upon its
own initiative or at the request of the ATC, is hereby authorized
to issue an ex parte order to freeze without delay: (a) property
or funds that are in any way related to financing of terrorism or
acts of terrorism; or (b) property or funds of any person, group
39
of persons, terrorist organization, or association, in relation to
whom there is probable cause to believe that they are
committing or attempting or conspiring to commit, or
participating in or facilitating the commission of financing of
terrorism or acts of terrorism as defined herein.
Take note: These two (2) petitions can only be filed before the
Court of Appeals.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
[CONCURRENT]
Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the:
(a) Regional Trial Court;
(b) Civil Service Commission;
(c) Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
(d) Other Quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43;
and
(e) National Labor Relations Commission (St. Martin
Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494)
DISCUSSION
You need to remember when you are talking about certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus, these are Rule 65 petitions.
With the particular case of certiorari and prohibition, again that is
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Prohibition, also the same thing, grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Mandamus, on the other hand, is a petition to compel the
performance of ministerial acts. Acts that do not need discretion,
that is a ministerial act.
DISCUSSION
National Labor Relations Commission (St. Martin Funeral
Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494)
In St. Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC, G.R. No. 130866,
September 16, 1998, the Supreme Court held that following the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the petition for certiorari against
the NLRC must first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
Q: If you really look at it, it seems that the Supreme Court said
that, file it with the Court of Appeals. So its like an exclusive
original jurisdiction?
A: No, because the law still says that the jurisdiction between
the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals is still concurrent.
Q: What if you are filing a Rule 65 petition against the NLRC and
you're raising only pure question law and it is of paramount
importance?
A: The Supreme Court will apply the exception in GIOS-SAMAR
vs DOCT, so technically speaking it is still allowed. Theoretically
speaking you can still go to the Supreme Court, but based on St.
Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC, it's before the Court of appeals.
In fact, if you read this case the Supreme Court was even
questioning, "that is not an appeal" according to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court said that is not really an appeal, the
Supreme Court said it's a supposed appeal.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 40
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

In that case, the Supreme Court recognized the fact that Rule 65 Court Subject Matter
petitions are not appellate recourses, but since the law says Regional Trial Court Petition for writ of habeas
appeal, "okay, the supposed appeal under Rule 65 of the Rules data which does not involve
of Court petition or Special Civil Action for certiorari, but you do public data files of
not file it before us, you file it before the court of appeals." so government offices.
that is the case of St. Martin A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC Funeral Homes
vs. NLRC. Venue is the RTC of the place:

Concurrent and original with the Supreme Court and the Regional
Trial Court to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies and writs of quo warranto and
habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Previously the Court of Appeals could issue these writs only in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction, meaning only in connection with the
case appealed to it (Section 9[1] B.P. 129)
Take note: Even in its original or appellate jurisdiction, the Court of
Appeals can issue these extraordinary writs.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
(A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, January 22, 2008)
Section 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a remedy
available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
DISCUSSION
They collect and gather information about a person, so that is the
subject of Writ of Habeas Data.
Q: Why do I say that it is concurrent original jurisdiction?
A: In Section 3, there are actually two (2) types of a writ of habeas
data, that can be prayed for.
First, the one that you file before the Regional Trial Court;
Second, the that you file before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or the Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public
data files of the government offices.
So, if you're filing a writ of habeas data to compel the production of
information that is stored in the files of government offices, then
it's the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the Sandiganbayan.
But, if it is not a public data file of government offices, where do
you file it? you file it before the Regional Trial Court.
Section. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed with the
Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides,
or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the
petitioner.
1. Where the petitioner
resides; or
2. Where the respondent
resides; or
3 Where the data or
information is gathered,
collected or stored.
Petitioner chooses where.
Sandiganbayan Petitions fir writ if habeas
Court of Appeals data which concerns public
Supreme Court data files of government
offices
• Concurrent and original with the Supreme Court, the
Regional Trial Court, and the Sandiganbayan to issue
Writs of Amparo under Section 3 of A. M. No. 07-9-12-
SC, September 25, 2007.
Section. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day
and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where
the threat, act, or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The
writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
DISCUSSION
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ
shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any
of their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any
justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where
the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or
to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or
omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.
Q: What is a writ of Amparo?
A: It is a writ that addresses supposed violations of your
constitutional rights to liberty. Why? because the government is
suspected of enforcing your disappearance, in the words you were
kidnapped. You are being detained without any court order
whatsoever before, let's say the PNP or the AFP, but there is no
warrant, also they did not inform anybody, that is enforced
disappearances. So, that may be filed before the Supreme Court,
Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 41
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a Writ of Amparo is a

remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and DISCUSSION
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful Do you understand what is within the Philippine Competition Act?
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private Unfair competition, that's it. Anti-trust laws, that is what I want you
individual or entity. to research. What is Anti-trust laws?

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced

disappearances or threats thereof. Appellate Jurisdiction

• Concurrent and original with the Supreme Court to issue

1.) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal
a Writ of Kalikasan
from the Regional Trial Court and the Family Courts. So the Court
of Appeals has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over that. (Sec. 9[3], B.P
• Concurrent and original with the Supreme Court and the
Blg. 129)
Regional Trial Court to issue a writ of continuing
mandamus
2.) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review
RULE 7 WRIT OF KALIKASAN (A.M. 09-6-8-SC)
from the Regional Trial Court rendered by the RTC in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction. [Sec. 22, B.P. Blg. 129; Rule 42, Rules
Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to
of Court; Sec. 9, B.P. Blg. 129]
a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
interest group accredited by or registered with any government DISCUSSION
agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with Now, can you see the difference?
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving If the decision is rendered by the RTC or Family Courts, for that
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the matter, in its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, the remedy to the SC is by
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or way of ORDINARY APPEAL. [This is Rule 40 in relation to Rule 41]
provinces.
However, if the decision of the RTC is rendered in the exercise of its
RULE 8 WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS (A.M. 09-6-8-SC) appellate jurisdiction (I.e the MTC rendered a decision and then it
was appealed to RTC then RTC now renders a decision) How do you
Section 1. Petition for continuing mandamus. - When any appeal that? The mode of review will be a PETITION FOR REVIEW.
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof [This is under Rule 42]
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or In the case of ENEMECIO VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (419
station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an SCRA 82)
environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or
ENEMECIO VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such
419 SCRA 82 | January 13, 2004
right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may
FACTS: Agustina Enemecio (Enemecio) is a utility worker at the
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
Cebu State College of Science and Technology, College of
certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that
Fisheries Technology (CSCST-CFT). Servando Bernante
the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation,
(Bernante) is an Assistant Professor IV of CSCST-CFT.
and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is
On March 30, 1998, Enemecio filed an administrative complaint
fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner
for gross misconduct, falsification of public documents,
by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the
malversation, dishonesty and defamation against Bernante
respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition
before the Office of the Executive Dean of CSCST-CFT. This was
shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
subsequently indorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas (Ombudsman).
• Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court in the issuance of a restraining order, preliminary
Enemecio also filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint
injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any
against Bernante for falsification of public document. The
case involving the powers, duties, and responsibilities of
Ombudsman jointly tried the two cases. On January 13, 2000,
the Securities and Exchange Commission that falls the Ombudsman rendered a decision dismissing the
exclusively within its jurisdiction (Section 179, R.A No. administrative complaint. On the same date, it likewise
11232, Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines).
dismissed the criminal complaint against Bernante finding no
probable cause to indict Bernante for falsification of public
• Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the Supreme document. The Ombudsman denied Enemecio’s motion to
Court in the issuance of a restraining order, preliminary reconsider the dismissal of the criminal complaint in its Order of
injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against February 28, 2000.
the Philippine Competition Commission in the exercise
of its duties of functions (Section 47, R.A. 10667, or the Thereafter, Enemecio filed a special civil action for certiorari
Philippine Competition Act). before the Court of Appeals, assailing the resolutions which
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
dismissed the criminal complaint and denied the motion for
reconsideration. Applying the ruling in Fabian vs. Desierto, the
appellate court dismissed Enemecio’s petition for having been
filed out of time. It also stated that the proper remedy available
to Enemecio was a petition for review under Rule 43 and not a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals
denied Enemecio’s motion for reconsideration in its Order of
December 7, 2000. Hence this petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed
before the Court of Appeals is the proper remedy to question
the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed with the Ombudsman.
No
RULING: It is clear from the records that Atty. Fernandez filed
with the Court of Appeals a certiorari petition assailing the
Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order dismissing the criminal
case, not the administrative case against Bernante. For this
reason, the appellate court in its December 7, 2000 Resolution
rectified itself and stated that Fabian does not apply to
Enemecio’s petition as the Fabian ruling applies only to
administrative disciplinary actions.
Even if we consider Enemecio’s petition before the Court of
Appeals as questioning the dismissal of the administrative case
against Bernante, the action must also fail. Appeals from
decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
actions should be brought to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
In any event, jurisprudence now holds that where the findings of
the Ombudsman on the existence of probable cause in criminal
cases is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may file a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 65. Since
Enemecio filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals,
instead of the Supreme Court, she availed of the wrong remedy
in the wrong forum. Hence, the instant petition should be
dismissed outright.
DISCUSSION
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from
the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the Civil Service
Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals and other
bodies mentioned in Rule 43 (Sec. 9[3], B.P. Blg 129) and of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
So this is a petition for review under Rule 43. It’s a different species
of petition for review.
So who are the agencies under the power of review of CA? It can be
found under Rule 43.
Rule 43. Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-
Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals Section 1. Scope.
This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders
of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final
orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial
agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among
these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board
of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social
Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents,
42
Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian
Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission,
Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine
Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
authorized by law.
DISCUSSION
Under R.A. No. 9282, the judgments and final orders of the Court
of Tax Appeals are no longer appealable by way of petition for
review to the Court of Appeals. Judgments of the Court of Tax
Appeals rendered en banc are appealable to the Supreme Court by
way of Rule 45 [Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9282]. This is pursuant to the
doctrine of non-interference.
Section 11. Section 18 of the same Act is hereby amended as
follows:
"SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. - No civil
proceeding involving matter arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local
Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein
provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed
with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.
"A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the
CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a
petition for review with the CTA en banc."
"SEC. 19. Review by Certiorari. - A party adversely affected by a
decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure."
So, Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals are now co-equal
courts. They have the same level.
3.) Exclusive Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review
from the decisions of the Philippine Competition Commission in
cases over which it has jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
The cases in Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) can be civil
cases. So if you want to question the act of the PCC, then you go
EXCLUSIVELY before the Court of Appeals.
4.) Exclusive Appellate jurisdiction over decisions and Final
orders of the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Commercial
Court in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing
Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799.
DISCUSSION
So, these are “Intra-corporate disputes”. This will be discussed
when we go to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 43
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

5.) Exclusive Appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Municipal MTCs acting as cadastral and Ordinary Appeal
Trial Courts in Cadastral or Land registration cases pursuant to land registration courts
its delegated jurisdiction (Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by (Under its DELEGATED
R.A. No. 7691). jurisdiction in Sec. 34, BP 129)
NOTE: MEMORIZE THIS!!!
DISCUSSION
In the bar exam, there could be questions like “What is the mode
This is a very special appellate recourse. It is the ONLY case where of review in the following case” and then “to which court”, then
the decision of the Municipal Trial Courts is appealable directly to what if it’s for 2% each for example.
the Court of Appeals instead of the Regional Trial Court.
3.) There is only one instance when the Municipal Trial Court’s
This is because decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in these cases are Decision is appealable directly to the CA and this is under Section
appealable in the same manner as decisions of Regional Trial Courts. 34 of BP 129. The delegated jurisdiction.
(Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129)
4.) Under the St. Martin Case, the mode of appeal (or more
appropriately, the mode of review) against the NLRC is a petition
SUMMARY-JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS for certiorari under Rule 65.

1.) Under BP 129, there is only one type of case in the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the CA which is annulment of the judgments
of the RTCs.
DISCUSSION
So when you say “exclusive Original” you are filing an original case
before the CA. You are invoking its Original jurisdiction, not its
appellate jurisdiction. It is exclusive in the sense that you cannot
file an action for annulment of judgment of the RTC before the
Supreme Court. Even if it is on pure questions of law. It can ONLY
be filed before the Court of Appeals.
DISCUSSION
This is not really “Appeal”. The Supreme Court said “is that really an
appeal?”, that is just a ‘supposed’ appeal.
5.) The only remaining government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions, whose decisions and final resolutions are directly
appealable to the Supreme Court are the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) and the Commission on Audit (COA). What’s the mode
of review/recourse here? Petition for certiorari brought under Rule
64 in relation to Rule 65. Note that the CA no longer reviews the
Commission on Tax Appeals (CTA).

REMEMBER: The NLRC no longer directly reviewable by the SC via

2.) The exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA can be invoked by
either an ordinary appeal or a petition for review in the following
manner:
special action for certiorari under Rule 65. So where do you go first?
Court of Appeals.
6.) As contrasted with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals can
hear both questions of fact and questions of law.

SUMMARY OF TYPE OF APPELLATE REMEDY TO FILE/TAKE TO 7.) Since the Court of Appeals can be a trier of facts, it has the power
THE COURT OF APPEALS to try and conduct hearings like a trial court.

CASE MODE DISCUSSION

Cases heard originally by the
RTC
Cases heard originally by the
Family Courts
Cases heard on appeal by the
RTC from the MTC
Decisions, resolutions, orders
or awards of the CSC, CBAA
and other bodies mentioned
in Rule 43 and of the Office of
the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary
cases
So, the CA can actually receive evidence.
Ordinary Appeal
Even if the CA is not a trial court, it has the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts
Ordinary Appeal
necessary to resolve factual issues in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings [Section 9(3), BP 129, as
Petition for Review under
amended by RA 7902].
Rule 42
The CA may pass upon factual issues as when a petition for
[Reason: because it is not the
certiorari is filed before it or in petitions for writ of amparo or
original jurisdiction of the RTC
habeas data or in case of actions to annul the judgment of the RTC
that you are questioning here
over which the CA has original jurisdiction.
but its Appellate jurisdiction]
However, this DOES NOT MEAN that the Court of Appeals should
Petition for Review under
conduct a TRIAL DE NOVO (All the time) in a case appealed before
Rule 43
it.
TRIAL DE NOVO - A New Trial. To try all over again. Start from zero,
as if what happened in the RTC does not bear anything.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
*CASE IN POINT:
LINGNER & FISHER GMBH VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT
G.R. NO. L-63557 | OCTOBER 28, 1983
FACTS:
DEUTCHE MILCHWERKE DR. A. SAUER (DMW for brevity) was a
firm in West Germany manufacturing PRODUCTS (probably
chemicals) under the trademarks FISSAN, etc. Private
respondent Philippine Chemical Laboratories, Inc. (PHILCHEM,
for brevity) is a local company which apparently also
manufactures and sells chemicals.
On February 28, 1963, DMW and PHILCHEM executed a so-called
Agency AGREEMENT the basic provision of which was that
PHILCHEM would be the exclusive importer of the PRODUCTS
into the Philippines. The benefit to PHILCHEM would be the
profits realized from re-sale in this country of imported
PRODUCTS.
It appears that, subsequently, the DMW interests were acquired
by LINGNER & FISHER GMBH LINGNER for brevity).
On July 20, 1979, PHILCHEM presented a claim to LINGNER for
P1,055,000.00 under the ROYALTY CLAUSE. No settlement
having been arrived at, PHILCHEM, on August 6, 1980, filed a
complaint against BEECHAM alone, but later amended and
included LINGNER therein, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
Two issues were being raised:
1.) The first was whether or not LINGNER was doing
business in the Philippines; and
2.) The second was whether or not LINGNER could be
validly summoned through the Law Firm as its agent.
The Law Firm submitted a special appearance in the case on
behalf of LINGNER, and, also on behalf of LINGNER, moved for
dismissal on the grounds (a) that LINGNER was not a foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines and hence could
not be sued locally, and, (b) that LINGNER could not be served
with summons through the Law Firm.
The Trial Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, assuming that
LINGNER could be sued in this jurisdiction, and holding that
LINGNER can be served with summons through the Law Firm.
LINGNER went on certiorari to the Intermediate Appellate Court
where it reiterated the plea that summons could not be validly
served on it through the Law Firm; and it also requested that a
hearing be held, conformably to the provisions of Section 9(3) of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, on the question of whether or not
LINGNER was doing business in this country.
The Appellate Court held that summons served through the Law
Firm was valid on the strength of Johnlo Trading Co. vs. Flores
(88 Phil. 741 [1951]); and it further ruled that receiving evidence
on whether or not LINGNER was doing business in the
Philippines could not be justified under the cited Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals should hold an original and
full trial of a main factual issue in this case.
44
RULING: No.
The Appellate Court acted correctly in denying the request for
an evidentiary hearing. Evidence necessary in regards to factual
issues raised in cases falling within the Appellate Court's original
and appellate jurisdiction contemplates "incidental" facts which
were not touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or respondent
Court. The law could not have intended that the Appellate Court
would hold an original and full trial of a main factual issue in a
case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts.
The Appellate Court acted correctly in denying the request for
an evidentiary hearing. Evidence necessary in regards to factual
issues raised in cases falling within the Appellate Court's original
and appellate jurisdiction contemplates "incidental" facts which
were not touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or respondent
Court. The law could not have intended that the Appellate Court
would hold an original and full trial of a main factual issue in a
case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts.
DISCUSSION
Here, a party filed for motion before the CA to conduct an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not there was proper
service of summons upon Lingner and Fisher by the RTC. That’s
what they wanted.
But according to the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court acted
correctly in denying the request for an evidentiary hearing.
Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues raised in cases falling
within the Appellate Court's original and appellate jurisdiction
contemplates "incidental" facts which were not touched upon, or
fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could not have
intended that the Appellate Court would hold an original and full
trial of a main factual issue in a case, which properly pertains to
Trial Courts.
So, while the Court of Appeals can actually conduct hearings to
receive evidence, it should not be as if there is a new trial. ONLY
INCIDENTAL FACTS which were not touched upon or fully heard by
the trial in RTC. So, remember, NO TRIAL DE NOVO.
NOTE:
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) - Old name of the Court of
Appeals, before BP 129.
Court of First Insance (CFI) - Old name of the Regional Trial Court,
before BP 129.
Justice of the Peace Courts - Equivalent of the inferior courts,
before BP 129.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court is provided primarily by
Sections 19-29 of BP 129, as amended, and also by other special
laws and rules.
Among all the courts, the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
In other words, there are a lot of cases falling under the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court compared to let’s say, the Court of
Appeals or the Municipal Trial Court, where only a specified or
special type of cases are cognizable by the inferior court. Even the
Court of Appeals, there are only a few cases that are being handled.
DURISOL PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 121006 | February 20, 2002
ISSUE: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition
for issuance of new duplicate owner’s certificate of title? Yes
HELD: Petitioner argues that the then CFI had no jurisdiction
when the case was remanded to it by the then IAC because as a
a cadastral court, the CFI had limited jurisdiction.
The first paragraph of Rule 47, Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only
on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. In a
petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional
discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction
means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not
have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not
vest it with jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
The RTC, formerly the CFI, is a court of general jurisdiction. All
cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided
for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall
under the jurisdiction of the RTC. But the RTC is also a court of
limited jurisdiction over, among others, cadastral and land
registration cases. All proceedings involving title to real
property, or specifically land registration cases, including its
incidents such as the issuance of owner’s duplicate certificate
of title, are matters cognizable by the regional trial courts. It
has been ruled that the regional trial courts have jurisdiction
over all actions involving possession of land, except forcible
entry and illegal detainer.
DBP, after petitioner unjustly refused to comply order to
surrender the seven certificates of title, filed a petition under
Section 107 of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529), to
wit:
Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates. --- Where it is
necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any
involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered
owner against his consent of where a voluntary instrument
cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the
holder to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the
party in interest may file a petition in court to compel the
surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after
hearing, may order the registered owner or any person
withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and
direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such
45
surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is
not amenable to the process of the court, or if for any reason
the outstanding owner’s duplicate certificate cannot be
delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as
well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof.
Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
The term "court" in the above-quoted section refers to Courts of
First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts, as provided in Section
2 of the Property Registration Decree.
It should be noted, however, that when the CFI took cognizance
of the remanded case, the distinction between the CFI acting as
a land registration court with limited jurisdiction, on the one
hand, and a CFI acting as an ordinary court exercising general
jurisdiction, on the other hand, has already been removed with
the effectivity of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529).
The amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits. The
change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring
upon the designated trial courts the authority to act not only on
applications for “original registration” but also “over all petitions
filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising from such applications or
petition.”
DISCUSSION
Specifically, because under Section 19 (6) of BP 129, all cases the
jurisdiction of which is not specifically provided by law within the
jurisdiction of any court, then it falls within the jurisdiction of the
trial court.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (SECTION 19, BP 129)
▪ In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
▪ Over actions involving title to or possession of real
property or an interest therein, where the assessed
value of such property exceeds P20,000 (outside Metro
Manila), or exceeds P50,000 (Metro Manila);
▪ Over actions in admiralty or maritime jurisdiction where
the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 (outside Metro
Manila), or exceeds P400,000 (Metro Manila);
▪ Over matters of probate, testate or intestate, where the
gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 (outside
Metro Manila), or exceeds P400,000 (Metro Manila);
▪ Over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions;
▪ 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 P300,000 (outside Metro Manila),
or exceeds P400,000 (Metro Manila);
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(Under special laws and rules)
(1) Acting as a Special Agrarian Court, over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to land owners, and the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657 (Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law);
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
Let’s not worry about that prosecution of criminal offenses, that’s
criminal procedure, not civil procedure. We go to the
determination of just compensation. That’s practically the whole
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian
Court. Now what usually happens here? How do they become
Special Agrarian Courts when in fact we have the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR)? It is the DAR that actually implements
Agrarian Reform Law in the Philippines. And it has an adjudicatory
arm, the so-called Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB), we have a provincial adjudicator, we have regional
adjudicator. So, it’s like the MTC and RTC, those are also the levels
of the DARAB.
So what triggers RTC’s Agrarian Jurisdiction?
Under the law, the Land Bank is first charged with the responsibility
of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the
compensation to be paid for their taking. Through notice sent to
the landowner pursuant to Section 16(a) of RA 6657, the DAR
makes an offer. In case the landowner rejects the offer, a summary
administrative proceeding is held and afterward the provincial
(PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator
as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, fixes the
price to be paid for the land. If the landowner does not agree to
the price fixed, he may bring the matter to the RTC acting as a
Special Agrarian Court. This in essence is the procedure for the
determination of compensation cases under RA 6657.
o To implement the provisions of RA 6657, particularly
Section 50 thereof, Rule XIII, Section (u) of the DARAB
Rules of Procedure provides:
- Land Valuation Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. – The decision of the Adjudicator on
land valuation and preliminary determination and
payment of just compensation shall not be
appealable to the Board but shall be brought
directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as
Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall
be entitled only one motion for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION
You may ask the question: If it is the adjudicator who first fixes just
compensation to lands subject to Agrarian Reform and then if you
are the landowner, you do not agree with the valuation of the
DARAB, that’s the time when you can go the RTC, is it an appeal?
No. it is not.
TAKE NOTE THAT THIS IS STILL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
▪ The fact that the decision of the Adjudicator on land
valuation and preliminary determination and payment of
just compensation “shall be brough directly to the
Regional Trial Courts” does not mean that the RTC is
exercising appellate jurisdiction.
▪ The valuation of property in eminent domain is
essentially a judicial function which cannot be vested in
administrative agencies. (Export Processing Zone
Authority v. Dulay, GR No. L-59603)
DISCUSSION
In that situation, you are not actually going to the RTC by way of
appeal, you are invoking its original jurisdiction, its judicial function
to determine just compensation.
46
Q: What happens if you are still not satisfied with the decision of
the RTC, acting as a special agrarian court, for the matter of just
compensation? What is now your appellate recourse?
A: Jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the SAC resides in the
Court of Appeals via a Rule 42 petition for review, which may raise
either questions of fact, or of law, or mixed questions of fact and
law.
LAND BANK v. J.L. JOCSON AND SONS
G.R. No. 180803 | October 23, 2009
FACTS: The subject property is a 27-hectare portion of two
parcels of tenanted rice land located in Negros Occidental
covered by TCT T-72323 and T-72324 in the name of Respondent
J.L. Jocson and Sons.
The property was placed under the coverage of the
government’s operation land transfer pursuant to PD 27 and
awarded to the tenant-beneficiaries by the DAR which valued
the compensation therefor in the amount of P250,000 following
the formula in PD 26 and E0 228. The valuation was later
increased to P900,000 after computing the annual interest due
on the property which amount respondent withdrew in 1997,
without prejudice to the outcome of the case. This prompted
respondent to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC) against
Petitioner Land Bank, the Dar and the Tenant-beneficiaries.
The SAC adopted a higher valuation, P93,000/Hectare, which
the DAR had applied to a similar landholding belonging to one
Pablo Estacion adjacent to respondents. Petitioners filed motion
for reconsideration which the SAC denied, prompting petitioner
to appeal to the Court of Appeals via petition for review
pursuant to Section 60 of RA 5547 vis a vis Rule 42 of the Rules
of Court.
The appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s petition for lack
of jurisdiction because aside from the fact that the factual
findings were not controverted, the main issue of whether PD
27 and EO 228 should govern in determining the value of the
property involved pure questions of law and as such is
cognizable only by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: What is the appropriate mode of appeal from decisions
of RTCs acting as Special Agrarian Courts? Petition for review
under Rule 42.
HELD: The case is cognizable by the CA. Citing the case of
Gabatin vs. LBP, the court held that a petition for review under
Rule 42 of the Rules of court and not an ordinary appeal under
rule 41, is the appropriate mode of appeal from decisions of
RTCs acting as SACs. In Gabatin, the Court sustained the
appellate court’s assumption of jurisdiction over an appeal from
the SAC even if its dismissal had been sought on the ground that
the issues presented before the appellate court were purely
legal in nature. Clearly, jurisdiction over appeals from decisions
of the SAC resides in the Court of Appeals via a Rule 42 petition
for review, which may raise either questions of fact, or of law,
or mixed questions of fact and law.
DISCUSSION
Normally, if it is just the Regional Trial Court, you file an appeal from
its decision, you go via ordinary appeal under Rule 41. But acting as
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
a Special Agrarian Court, the Supreme Court has clearly designated
it to be Rule 42 petition for review. You need to remember that.
(2) Acting as a Special Commercial Court, over intra-corporate
disputes and corporate rehabilitation cases (Section 5.2 of RA
8799 or the Securities Regulation Code)
DISCUSSION
This should be discussed under Corporation Law, let us focus about
its relevance in Remedial Law.
So, intra-corporate disputes, what are these?
TWO TESTS TO DETERMINE WON A CONTROVERSY IS
CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTE
SAN JOSE v. OZAMIZ
G.R. No. 190590 | July 12, 2017
HELD: Under the relationship test, there is an intra-corporate
controversy when the conflict is:
(1) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the
public;
(2) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the
State insofar as its franchise, permit, or license to operate is
concerned;
(3) between the corporation, partnership, or association and its
stockholders, partners, members, or officers; and
(4) among the stockholders, partners, or associates themselves.
On the other hand, in accordance with the nature of
controversy test, an intra-corporate controversy arises when
the controversy is not only rooted in the existence of an intra-
corporate relationship, but also in the enforcement of the
parties' correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation
Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the
corporation.
DISCUSSION
In other words, the conflict is only within the corporation, intra, not
inter, because an inter means between. So, if it is inter-corporate,
it means it is a dispute by one corporation against the other. Thus,
if it is an intra corporate dispute under the securities regulation
code, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction over it, acting
as a special commercial court.
Q: Does this mean that the SEC can be divested once the case is
alleged to be an intra-corporate controversy?
(Meaning, like what was previously discussed in jurisdiction over the
subject matter that is determined only by the allegations of the
complaint regardless of whatever is stated in the answer. If there is
allegation if it is an agrarian dispute and that the defendant is a
farmer, farm worker or tenant, then the RTC is obliged to transfer it
to DAR.
The moment that there is an allegation that there is an intra-
corporate controversy, Securities and Exchange Commission cannot
do anything but to dismiss the case and just indulge the parties to
file the case in the RTC.)
A: Not necessarily.
Why? We have this case here:
47
Roman Jr vs. SEC
(G.R. No. 196329 | June 01, 2016)
Under the Securities Regulation Code, jurisdiction on intra-
corporate disputes has already been transferred to the RTC,
acting as the special commercial court. Despite the said transfer,
however, the SEC still retains sufficient powers to justify its
assumption of jurisdiction over matters concerning its
supervisory, administrative, and regulatory functions.
Beyond doubt, therefore, the authority of the SEC to hear cases
regardless of whether an action involves issues cognizable by
the RTC, provided that the SEC could only act upon those
disputes which are merely administrative and regulatory in
character (meaning, it is only the administrative function of the
SEC or regulatory, not adjudicatory.)
In other words, the SEC was never dispossessed of the power to
assume jurisdiction over complaints, even if these are riddled
with intra-corporate allegations, if their invocation of authority
is confined only to the extent of ensuring compliance with the
law and the rules, as well as to impose fines and penalties for
violations thereof; and to investigate even motu proprio
whether the corporations comply to the Corporation Code, the
Securities Regulations Code (SRC) and the implementing rules
and regulations.
DISCUSSION
EXAMPLE:
Y is an investor, a stockholder of ABC Corporation. Y is filing a case
as a stockholder/investor against ABC Corporation, in his own
personal capacity. Now, Y want ABC Corporation to follow the rules
and regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission
and the Corporation Code. Now by definition using the nature of
the controversy test, that is intra-corporate, so, it is the RTC, right?
But it will actually fall under the administrative or regulatory
functions of the SEC and therefore, it is still allowed in SEC instead
of the Regional Trial Court.
conclusion: Thus, parties cannot simply aver that the matter is an
intra-corporate controversy to divest the SEC of its jurisdiction over
pending cases before it. As explained by no less than the SC, the SEC
still has jurisdiction over matters concerning its expansive
supervisory, administrative, and regulatory functions. (But not
adjudicatory. There is difference between the two and we need to
remember that.)
As we previously noted:
The Court of Appeals exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
decisions and final orders of the RTC acting as a Special Commercial
Court in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-
Corporate Controversies under the Republic Act No. 8799.
With respect to Intra-corporate controversies, the question now
would be: What is the mode of review?
Is it petition for review? Ordinary appeal? Appeal by certiorari?
What is it? This is the part where it gets convoluted. The laws will
be shown but you will also be provided later on, to a simplification
of it.
Q: What is the mode of review? – Rule 43 of the ROC.
A: The interim rules for corporate rehabilitation and intra-
corporate controversies, is a petition for review under Rule 43.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 48
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

Under the A.M. 04-9-07-SC, A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER
RULE 43:
All decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim
Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of
Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under
Republic Act No. 8799 shall be appealable to the Court of
Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court.
- If it is after the approval of the rehabilitation plan, then it
is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Section 2. Review of Decision or Order on Rehabilitation Plan
- An order approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan can
only be reviewed through a petition for certiorari to the Court
of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within 15 days
from the notice of the decision or order.

What do we remember in Rule 43? Is it the mode of review against DISCUSSION

decisions under the civil service commission? What else? There are
too many.
COMMENT: Take note that Rule 43 describes a remedy that
specifically applies to quasi-judicial bodies, not to courts of justice.
Q: Why Rule 43?
A: (Rationale by Atty. YY) It was because special commercial court
or RTC acting as a special commercial court is not actually acting as
a court, not really, not that much, because it acts like a quasi-
judicial body. And if you are talking about intra-corporate
controversies, there is specific rules or rules of court for such
matter.
Thankfully for us, there is no need to worry about it because we
have new rules for such matter. There is 2008 rules that have been
superseded already by the 2013 rules.
NEW RULES:
The Court most recently promulgated AM No. 12-12-11-SC or the
Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure (2013 Rules) on August
27, 2013.
It is a certiorari within 15 days, compared to the Rule 64 certiorari,
it is different because it is within 30 days. So, they are different in
terms of period. But this one is Rule 65, and to the Court of Appeals.
To summarize:
Golden Cane vs. SteelPro
G.R. No. 198222 | April 04, 2016
Under the 2013 Rules, the Rehabilitation Court’s final order
approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan is no longer
subject to appeal; it can only be reviewed through a petition for
certiorari. The 2013 Rules narrowed the scope of appellate
review from errors of law and fact under Rule 43, to errors of
jurisdiction or abuse of discretion under Rules 65. It effectively
lends more credence to the factual findings and the judgments
of rehabilitation courts.
DISCUSSION
Rule 43 is no longer applied for purposes of rehabilitation plan.
Remember that once a rehabilitation plan is already approved, that
is equivalent to the case is over in cases of rehabilitation. Only
implementation of the rehabilitation plan is needed.

The 2013 Rules eliminated the remedy of appeal from the For Rule 65, it is errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion
rehabilitation court’s approval or disapproval of the rehabilitation only on the rehabilitation court, the special commercial court, the
plan. (So, the procedural remedies would be a motion for RTC.
reconsideration.)
SUMMARY: REMEDY AGAINST RTC ACTING AS SPECIAL
RULE 6: PROCEDURAL REMEDIES COMMERCIAL COURT
ORDER REMEDY NOTES
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. – A party may file a Any order issuedby MOTION FOR No relief can be
motion for reconsideration of any order issued by the Court the Court prior to RECONSIDERATION extended to the
prior to the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan. No relief can be the approval of the WITH THE RTC party aggrieved by
extended to the party aggrieved by the court’s order on the Rehabilitation Plan (No Certiorari is the court’s order
motion through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 (Interlocutory allowed on the motion
of the Rules of Court. orders) through a special
civil action for
An order issued after the approval of the rehabilitation plan can certiorari under
be reviewed only through a special civil action of certiorari, Rule 65.
under the Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Any order issued CERTIORARI ---
after the approval UNDER RULE 65
DISCUSSION of the WITH THE CA
We are talking about corporate rehabilitation, not intra-corporate Rehabilitation plan
disputes per se, and later on we will imply if what other remedies An order approving CERTIORARI This includes the
are available in judgment of RTC on an intra-corporate dispute. or disapproving a UNDER RULE 65 dismissal of the
rehabilitation plan WITH THE CA petition for
No relief can be extended to the party aggrieved by the Court’s or any other final rehabilitation,
order on the motion through a special civil action for certiorari order because it
under the Rule 65. So, you filed a motion for reconsideration, but amounts to a
then you lost, it was denied. Can you file a Rule 65 petition? failure of
According to the second sentence, it is not allowed. rehabilitation. It is
considered a final
So, you make that dichotomy: order.
- If it is an order prior to the approval of a rehabilitation
plan, your remedy is motion for reconsideration, Rule 65
on certiorari is not allowed.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
If it is interlocutory, only motion for reconsideration to the RTC is
allowed. if it is a final order, Rule 65. Later on, we will learn that
under Rule 65, when we were talking about interlocutory orders,
one who questions the interlocutory orders, usually, it is under
Rules 65 petition. It is provided for under the law. However, the SC,
under these rules, eliminated this remedy of certiorari and limited
it to motion for reconsideration only, before the RTC, acting as a
Special Commercial Court.
Let us go back to the other intra-corporate controversy. What is the
remedy against the RTC?
Here, it is limited to the rehabilitation, the Rules do not actually say
and take note that in the incarnations of rules that allegedly or
modify or abrogate the 2003 Rules, there is no mention about other
intra-corporate disputes. So, Atty. JZE’s position is that because of
the silence of the subsequent Rules, Rule 43 may still be allowed.
Just try to remember that. This may not be asked in the BAR but
this may be asked in the exam.
FINAL VS. INTERLOCUTORY ORDER:
A Final order is one that is An Interlocutory order is one
finally disposes of the case, that leaves something still to
leaving nothing else for the be done by the trial court with
Court to be done. respect to the merits of the
case.
DISCUSSION
A Final order is one that is finally disposes of the case, leaving
nothing else for the Court to be done.
- This means that the case is over, there is already a
judgment.
- Example, you filed a motion to dismiss and was granted.
It means that the case is dismissed, is there anything left
to be done? None, because it was already dismissed.
- So, what is your remedy to a final order? Usually, it is a
remedy of an ordinary appeal.
An Interlocutory order is one that need some things still to be done
by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case.
- After issuing the order, there is still something to be done
because the case is still not over.
General Rule: If there really is a grave abuse of discretion with
respect to the issuance of the interlocutory orders, the remedy
there of the aggrieved party will be to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.
Exception: That in rehabilitation; Interlocutory Orders in
corporate rehabilitation cases for those orders prior to the
approval of the rehabilitation
49
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(Under Special Law and Rules)
1. Family Court
Under Special Law and Rules, acting as a Family Court over the
actions enumerated under Section 5 of R.A. 8369 and also those
under R.A. 9262.
What are these actions enumerated in Section 5 of the Family
Courts Act?
NON-CRIMINAL CASES UNDER THE FAMILY COURTS ACT
1. Petition for guardianship, custody of children, habeas
corpus in relation to the latter;
2. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof;
3. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of
nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status
and property relations of husband and wife or those living
together under different status and agreements, and
petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
Ø The Family Courts Act actually recognizes that the
family court can have jurisdiction over disputes where
the parties are actually not lawfully married; those
living in, those who cannot get married, or those who
are under an impediment to marry
4. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
5. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the
provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known
as the Family Code of the Philippines;
Ø Example: Petition for Declaration of Presumptive
Death for the purpose of remarriage
6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned; dependent or neglected children, petitions
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental
authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential
Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986),
and other related laws;
7. Petitions for the consummation of the Family Home.
Ø That is under the Family Court. The exclusive original
jurisdiction there is to the Regional Trial Courts
specially designated as Family Courts.
Q: When may a family issue be determined by a non-Family Court?
A: Stated under the last paragraph of Section 5 of R.A. No. 8369, “If
any question involving any of the above matters should arise as
an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident
shall be determined in that court.”
It will be the regular courts that determines the issue. That’s the
time when a non-Family Court determine a family issue.
Side Comment: It is very easy to make an essay question out of this
especially that the SC has a trend of using the last/obscure
sentence/paragraph of a provision as basis for the bar question.
2. Writ of Habeas Data
Under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, over a petition for
issuance of a writ of habeas data which does not involve public
data files of government offices (Section 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
This was already discussed under the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals. If it involves public data files of
government offices, the petition for the writ of habeas data will be
heard either the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the
Supreme Court. They are the ones with concurrent jurisdiction; the
RTC doesn’t have concurrent jurisdiction, it is exclusive.
3. Philippine Competition Act
Under Section 44 of Republic Act No. 10667 or the Philippine
Competition Act, over all criminal and civil cases involving violations
of the Philippine Competition Act and other competition-related
laws. This is under the Mercantile Law; Intellectual Property Law or
the Law on Corporations.
4. Property Registration Decree
Under PD 1529, Section 17, the application for land registration
shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city
where the land is situated. We know that this CFI is already the RTC
now.
Other proceedings under PD 1529 that should be filed with the
Regional Trial Court as well:
1. Section 32; Petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of registration;
2. Section 36; Cadastral registration;
3. Section 70; Adverse Claims;
4. Section 108; Amendment and alteration of certificates.
This is under Land Titles and Deeds but just remember that the
jurisdiction is under the Regional Trial Court.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1. With the Supreme Court in actions affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
2. With the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo
warranto and habeas corpus;
Ø But with respect to the Regional Trial Court, what is
the only lower court and body under it? Municipal
Trial Court.
3. With the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the
Sandiganbayan to issue Writs of Amparo;
4. With the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to issue
Writs of Continuing Mandamus.
Ø This came from the case of Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay v Metro Manila Development Authority.
5. With the Municipal Trial Court in petitions for indirect
contempt under Rule 71, Section 5, where such contempt
has been committed against the Municipal Trial Court.
Where filed with the Municipal Trial Court, appeal shall
be made with the Regional Trial Court.
Ø Remember that there are two kinds of contempt;
there is direct contempt and there is indirect
contempt. When you say direct contempt, the blatant
disrespect or misbehavior was made in the court’s
immediate presence. Like when you go inside the
court without wearing barong and instead wearing
pajamas; that is contemptable because you are not
50
respecting the dignity of the court. You should be
there properly dressed.
Ø But under this rule, what we are talking about here is
indirect contempt, which to summarize it, consists
disobedience with the orders of the court. Let’s say
for example, the Municipal Trial Court issued an order
against you, a squatter, not to add any illegal
structure, but still you added a bedroom and had it
rented like a professional squatter. You violated the
order of the court.
Ø Where can you be cited in contempt? You can have it
in the same Municipal Trial Court or it can also be filed
with the Regional Trial Court. The only difference
being that if you file it before the Municipal Trial
Court, at least, you still have the remedy of appeal
which can be made before the Regional Trial Court.
6. With the Municipal Trial Court in the issuance of
Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) or Permanent
Protection Orders (PPOs) pursuant to Republic Act No.
9262.
Ø There is also another kind of Protection Order which
is the Barangay Protection Order issued by the
Punong Barangay. The longevity is only 15 days.
Ø The Temporary Protection Order can be extended
for as long as there is a necessity to protect the
victim from violence. Later on, it can become a
Permanent Protection Order after determination
after notice and hearing.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Section 22, BP 129)
Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts (MTCs)
in their respective territorial jurisdictions. The decisions of the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall
be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals.
DISCUSSION
This is under Section 22 of BP 129. Naturally, whose decision are
you appealing to the Regional Trial Court? It is impossible for the
Regional Trial Court to have jurisdiction over other courts aside
from the Municipal Trial Court.
It is not ordinary appeal anymore. As explained in the earlier
discussions, if it is only one level (like MTC to RTC) it is ordinary
appeal. But, if you are appealing a judgment made by the Regional
Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (MTC to RTC
to CA), then that is by way of a petition for review under Rule 42.
Remember, this is important.
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
(Section 23, BP 129)
Under Section 23 of BP 129, certain branches of the Regional Trial
Court may be designated by the Supreme Court to handle
exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases
(which is not existing anymore as it is already under the jurisdiction
of Family Courts), agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases
which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and
agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court
may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 51
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
In fact, we also have a drugs court. But it doesn’t mean that it will Actions in admiralty and
not hear anymore other cases. It is only a designation. Again, the maritime jurisdiction [Section
Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction. 19(3)]
Matters of probate, both
RTC if:
testate and intestate [Section
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 19(4)]
Demand, claim, or gross value
Any other demand, exclusive
of the estate or the property
This refers to items no. 3, 4, and 8 under Section 19 of BP 129. of interest, damages of
exceeds P300,000 or
whatever kind, attorney's
P400,000, as the case may be
Where Money Is the Parameter (B.P. 129) fees, litigation expenses, and
Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. – Regional Trial Courts costs or the value of the
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: property in controversy
[Section 19(8)]
xxx If demand, claim, or gross
value does not exceed these Automatic MTC
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he amounts
demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim If the demand, claim, or gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00); or P400,000 in Metro Manila, that will be lodged in the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court.
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where
the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand NOTES:
pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, 1. CASES UNDER ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos JURISDICTION
(200,000.00); Includes two kinds of cases:
1) Those involving acts committed on the high seas or other
Xxx navigable waters; and
2) Those involving contracts and transactions connected
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, with shipping and employed on the high seas or navigable
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, waters
and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other Example
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos There is a collision between ships. That is admiralty and maritime
(200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) jurisdiction if it happens in the high seas.

READ IN RELATION TO: 2. “ANY DEMAND, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST…”

R.A. 7691
Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and
Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act,
shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of
Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall
be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
The phrase “exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs” implies that only
the amount of the main claim will be used in determining
jurisdiction. Remember, only the main claim.
3. PROBATE, BOTH TESTATE AND INTESTATE
Testate means that there is a will involved in the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person.
Intestate means that the deceased left no will. That is what we call
intestacy.

Gross value of the estate means the total of all the assets that make
What is the commonality between these provisions?
up the deceased’s estate before the removal of any of their debts.
There is money involved. There is the 300,000 or 400,000 in Metro
Manila again.
A probate court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be
part of the estate. All that the court could do is to determine
whether they should or should not be included in the list of
properties to be administered.

The phrase “the value of the property in controversy”—recall the

provisions states P300,000 and P400,000—that refers to personal
property only. If the subject of controversy is real property, we
follow different parameters, which is the assessed value of the
property. How much is that?
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
WHERE ASSESSED VALUE IS USED
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx
(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) x x x
xxx
DISCUSSION
That is when the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. So, the “value
of the property in controversy” that is found in Paragraph 8 is
deemed to include only personal property, because if it is real
property, Section 19(2) sets the jurisdictional parameters.
Example:
Maja seeks to recover title to agricultural land from Yassi. She
previously sold it to Yassi in 2020 for P500,000.
TRUE or FALSE: Because the amount of the consideration is
P500,000, the action shall be lodged in the RTC.
ANSWER: FALSE. Take note that the action, which is to recover
title over the property previously sold, is a real action, or one
founded on the privity of real estate, or involves title to or
possession of real property or an interest therein. That is the one
in Paragraph 2 of Section 19. Maja seeks to recover ownership
or an interest in property, not the consideration for sale.
The value used to determine jurisdiction is therefore the
assessed value, not the market value or fair market value.
DISCUSSION
Maja seeks to recover ownership or an interest in property, not the
consideration for sale. Therefore, the amount of the consideration
does not matter. The only essential element is the assessed value
of the property, because fair market value is not the same as
assessed value.
That’s what you need to remember. When you say assessed value,
that is the value of the property for purposes of taxation. That is
the difference between assessed and fair market value.
What’s fair market value? It’s the price that a willing buyer would
pay and a willing seller would accept. That is the fair market value.
So, what is used to determine jurisdiction is assessed value, not
market value, or fair market value.
REAL ACTION vs PERSONAL ACTION
REAL ACTION PERSONAL ACTION
Founded on the privity of real
Any other action that is not
estate, it affects title to or
founded on the privity of real
possession of real property,
estate
or an interest therein.
The parameter to determine The parameter to determine
whether it is the RTC that has whether it is the RTC that has
jurisdiction is the assessed jurisdiction is the amount of
value of the real property. If the claim or demand or value
the assessed value exceeds of personal property. If
52
P20,000 or P50,000 as the amount or value exceeds
case may be, the RTC has P300,000 or P400,000 as the
jurisdiction. case may be, the RTC has
jurisdiction.
A personal action is
A real action is commenced commenced and tried where
and tried in the proper court the plaintiff or any of the
which has jurisdiction over principal plaintiffs resides, or
the area wherein the real where the defendant or any
property involved, or a of the principal defendants
portion thereof, is situated. resides, at the election of the
plaintiff.
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER: For real actions, real property is
ALWAYS involved. Any action that relates to other property like
personal or incorporeal property, even if it involves title or
possession is considered a personal action.
HEIRS OF SEBE v. HEIRS OF SEVILLA
G.R. No. 123456 | December 2, 2020
FACTS: Spouses Generoso and Aurelia Sebe had been the owner
for over 40 years of two unregistered lots in Dipolog City with a
total assessed value of P9,910.00. Sevilla then caused the Sebes
to sign document entitled affidavits of quitclaim. Being illiterate,
they relid on Sevilla’s explanation that what they signed were
“deeds of real estate mortgage” covering a loan that they got
from him. Although the documents which turned out to be
deeds conveying ownership over the two lots to Sevilla for
P10,000.00 were notarized, the Sebes did not appear before any
notary public.
Using the affidavits of quitclaim, Sevilla applied for and obtained
free patent titles covering the two lots. Subsequently, he
mortgaged the lots to Technology and Livelihood Resource
Center for P869,555.00. Despite demands by the Sebes, Sevilla
refused to return the lots, Spouses Sebe and their daughter,
Lydia filed with the RTC of Dipolog City a complaint against
defendants Sevilla and Technology and Livelihood Resources
Center for annulment of document, reconveyance and recovery
of possession of two lots, which had a total assessed value of
P9,910.00, plus damages. In his answer, Sevilla insisted that he
bought the lots from the Sebes in a regular manner. While the
case was pending before the RTC, Generoso died so his wife and
children substituted him. Parenthetically, with Sevilla’s death,
his heirs substituted him as respondents in this case.
The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter considering that the ultimate relief that the
Sebes sought was the reconveyance of title and possession over
two lots and that had a total assessed value of less than
P20,000.00. The RTC has jurisdiction over such actions when
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, otherwise,
jurisdiction shall be with the first level courts. RTC concluded
that the Sebes should have filed their actions with the MTC of
Dipolog City.
The Sebes filed a motion for reconsideration and pointed out
that the RTC mistakenly classified their action as one involving
title to or possession of real property when, in fact, it was a case
for the annulment of documents and titles that Sevilla got. Since
such action was in incapable of pecuniary estimation, it squarely
fell within the jurisdiction of the RTC as provided in Sec. 19 of BP
129 as amended.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
To prove their point, the Sebes cited the case of De Rivera and
Corpioso. But the RTC denied the Sebes’ motion for
reconsideration and pointed out that the Copioso ruling had
already been overturned by the Sps Haguete vs. Sps Embudo.
Before Haguete, cancellation of titles, declaration of deeds of
sale as null and void and partition were actions incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Now, the RTC said that the jurisdiction
over actions of this nature depended on the valuation of the
properties. In this case, the MTC had jurisdiction because the
assessed value of the lots did not exceed P20,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sebes’ action involving the two lots
valued at less than P20,000 falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTC? NO
HELD: The Sebes claim that their action is, first, for the
declaration of nullity of the documents of conveyance that
defendant Sevilla tricked them into signing and, second, for the
reconveyance of the certificate of title for the two lots that
Sevilla succeeded in getting. The subject of their action is, they
conclude, incapable of pecuniary estimation.
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."
“Title" is different from a "certificate of title" which is the
document of ownership under the Torrens system of
registration issued by the government through the Register of
Deeds. While title is the claim, right or interest in real property,
a certificate of title is the evidence of such claim.
The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of the
nullity of the documents or the reconveyance to the Sebes of
the certificates of title covering the two lots. These would
merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the
issue of which between the contending parties is the lawful
owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their possession.
Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not
defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their property by
making them sign documents of conveyance rather than just a
deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The action is,
therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful
owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over which is determined
by the assessed value of such lots.
Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of the suit
is ₱9,910.00. Clearly, this amount does not exceed the
jurisdictional threshold value of ₱20,000.00 fixed by law. The
other damages that the Sebes claim are merely incidental to
their main action and, therefore, are excluded in the
computation of the jurisdictional amount.
DISCUSSION
Thus, that is your reason why you have ownership or possession
over property.
Where it is contended that the action involves title to or possession
of real property or any interest therein, jurisdiction is not
automatically vested in the RTC. Take note that that is no longer
with the RTC. You have to look at the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.
53
Again, look at the parameter of P20,000 or P50,000 in Metro Manila.
If the value exceeds those amounts, it will be the RTC which has
jurisdiction. If that amount or lower, then it is the Municipal Trial
Court or the Metropolitan Trial Court, as the case may be, has
jurisdiction.
HEIRS OF SEBE VS. HEIRS OF SEVILLA
G.R. No. 174497 | October 12, 2009
The Sebes claim that their action is, first, for the declaration of
nullity of the documents of conveyance that defendant Sevilla
tricked them into signing and, second, for the reconveyance of
the certificate of title for the two lots that Sevilla succeeded in
getting. The subject of their action is, they conclude, incapable
of pecuniary estimation.
ISSUE: The Supreme Court determined that the controversy was
ultimately about which among the parties has valid title to the
two lots and would thus be legally entitled to the certificates of
title covering them.
HELD:
The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of the
nullity of the documents or the reconveyance to the Sebes of
the certificates of title covering the two lots. These would
merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the
issue of which between the contending parties is the lawful
owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their possession.
Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not
defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their property by
making them sign documents of conveyance rather than just a
deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The action is,
therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful
owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over which is determined
by the assessed value of such lots.
DISCUSSION
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF DOCUMENTS OF CONVEYANCE
For example, you have a deed of sale, but you are contending that
it is null and void. You want to have it annulled or declared null and
void. Is that a real action in that sense? Or is it capable of pecuniary
estimation or is it incapable of pecuniary estimation?
The ultimate issue is: Was there fraud?
So, the action is therefore about ascertaining which of these parties
is the lawful owner. That is title to or possession of real property or
interest therein, in which case the action is considered as a real
action, and the jurisdiction of the court will be determined by the
assessed value of the lots.
LET’S GO BACK TO:
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
P300,000.00 (outside Metro Manila), or exceeds P400,000.00
(Metro Manila).
NOTES:
1. “Damages of whatever kind” means actual and compensatory,
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated and exemplary (under
the civil code). More on kinds of damages later on when we
discuss docket fees.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
You have to remove these damages in the computation in
determining whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction.
Example: If your action is to recover a monetary obligation in the
amount of P250,000, but you also claimed moral damages in the
amount of P 200,000, so, the total is already P 450,000. Does it
mean that the RTC has jurisdiction? Nope. You have to remove the
damages to know who has the jurisdiction. But remember that
when we talk about damages, while we remove them in the
computation in the jurisdictional parameter, it will be included in
the computation of docket fees, filing fees.
2. Attorney’s fees are not actually paid to the lawyer
(professional fee). It is paid to the prevailing litigant. The
governing rule here is Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
3. Litigation expenses are actually variable and estimated
amounts. No litigant can determine in advance how much he
will eventually incur as expenses in prosecuting a claim. (The
longer it takes, the more you pay your lawyer, the more
litigation expenses you incur.) Both attorney’s and litigation
expenses are part of damages. (Not included in the
computation of jurisdictional threshold but is part in the
computation of docket fees.)
4. Costs are actually different from attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses. These are “judicial costs” as mentioned under
Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Consult Rules 141 and 142 for
this.
JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS PURELY FOR DAMAGES
Example: A complaint of purely damages. “AAA criticized BBB as
the ugliest creature in the world. Then BBB knew.” This is a case of
a public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect.
Under the Civil Code, you can prosecute a civil case for damages
alone against AAA (disregarding criminal case of libel) Let us
suppose that BBB filed a civil case against AAA.
Q: What would BBB claim?
A: Purely damages.
Q: What will happen if we remove damages from his claim in
computing the jurisdictional threshold? How will we determine
jurisdiction in cases which are purely damages?
A: 2 Rules to remember to determine jurisdiction:
1. If the claim for damages is merely incidental or ancillary to
the main cause of action, do not include the amount of
damages in determining jurisdiction.
Example 1:
Art. 1191. The power to rescind in obligations is implied in
reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not
comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and
the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of
damages in either case.
As we will see later on, rescission and specific performance are
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus belong to the
jurisdiction of the RTC. The damages claimed are merely incidental
to the main cause of action.
54
Example:
a. Rescission plus damages in the amount of P200,000
=> RTC, even if the amount of damages claimed is
cognizable by the MTC. (damages is only incidental.
The main claim is rescission which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation)
Example 2:
In Davao City, CCC borrowed exactly P300,000 from DDD. CCC did
not pay so DDD sued her to collect the debt. She included the
accrued interest of P30,000, P50,000 as moral damages and
P25,000 as exemplary damages. The total claim therefore is
P405,000.
Q: Should the RTC have jurisdiction over the case?
A: Take note that even if the total amount claimed exceeds the
jurisdiction of the MTC, the MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction
because the main claim does not exceed P300,000.
This can be found under Administrative Circular No. 09-94.
Administrative Circular No. 09-94
2. The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and
Section 33 (1) of BP 129, as amended by RA No. 7691, applies to
cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases
where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one
of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
2. Where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or
one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Damages as the main cause of action
Art. 2176. Whoever by his act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is so pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Example: When A was driving, he ran over B. There is no criminal
intent therefore there is no criminal act. The act is not criminal if
the mind is not criminal. According to Art 2176, A should pay B
damages due to his negligence.
Q: What will be the cause of action of the plaintiff?
A: An action for damages. That is the main cause of action under
Article 2176.
Damages as one of the causes of action
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.
The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute
a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends;
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect, or other personal condition.
Ø In this situation, the main claim for damages (a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief) will be
the basis of jurisdiction because it is not just an incidental
relief that you are praying for. It is the main cause of
action or one of the main causes of action.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation:
- It means “where the value of the case cannot be estimated”
(Spouses de Leon v Court of appeals, GR. No. 104796, March 6,
1998).
- You cannot equate it with sum of money
If there is a case here that you really have to remember, it is:
RUSSELL vs. VESTIL
G.R. 119347 | March 17, 1999
TEST TO DETERMINE W/N THE ACTION IS INCAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION:
ü Ascertain the nature of the principal action or
remedy sought.
“RUSSELL RULES”
1. If it is primarily for the recovery of sum of money, the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation,
whether jurisdiction is in the MTC or the RTC depends
on the amount of the claim.
§ Discussion: Here is where 300k and 400k applies.
2. However, where the basic issue is something other
than right to recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence
of, the principal relief sought, this court has
considered such where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by the RTCs.
§ Discussion: Even if there is a monetary
component to your action or the case you filed
before the court but the said monetary
component is merely incidental. It’s not really the
aim or the purpose of you filing the case. The aim
is not really for recovery of money but it might
include an award of money.
Apart from listing down the rules that we need to remember, the
SC also listed the cases that are incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
LISTING OF INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION CASES:
1. Specific performance (delivery of property in case of
breach of contract);
2. Support;
3. Foreclosure of mortgage;
4. Annulment of judgment;
5. Actions questioning the validity of a mortgage;
6. Actions to annul a deed of sale or conveyance;
55
7. Actions for recovery of the price paid in a contract;
8. Actions for rescission, which is a counterpart of a
specific performance.
SITUATION
CAUSE OF ACTION REMEDIES
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
BREACH OF CONTRACT may (with damages if claimed)
lead to different remedies: RESCISSION (with damages if
claimed and may also include
mutual restitution)
DAMAGES only
NOTES:
§ There is no such thing as an “action for breach of
contract.”
§ Breach of contract is a cause of action, but not the action
or relief itself. Breach of contract may be the cause of
action in a complaint for specific performance or
rescission of a contract.
§ It is therefore erroneous to entitle a complaint as one for
breach of contract.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE:
§ This is referred to in Article 1191 as “fulfilment of the
obligation”.
§ What do you ask of the court if you file an action for
performance?
o TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANT TO PERFORM
HIS OBLIGATION – It is not the money you are
asking for. It is something you want the
defendant to give.
§ Take note that specific performance is a remedy available
only if the obligation to be compelled is an obligation to
give (real obligations).
DISCUSSION:
Why is it again not allowed for a personal obligation to be
compelled by specific performance? Because it would violate the
Constitutional proscription against involuntary servitude. (not that
related to Civil Procedure but for purposes of correlating to other
subjects) What are the exceptions to the rule on involuntary
servitude? There are three: (1) as punishment for a crime where the
accused is duly convicted; (2) in cases of war, national emergency
or calamity or may be called upon to render military or civil service;
and (3) a return-to-work order issued by DOLE.
APPLYING RUSSELL:
§ In an action for specific performance, the issue is whether
the defendant can be compelled to perform his obligation.
The amount of the obligation is merely incidental, making
an action for specific performance incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
§ Thus, an action for specific performance to compel the
defendant to execute a deed of conveyance covering a
parcel of land with an assessed value of 19K is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The main issue is
whether or not there is a right to compel specific
performance.
o Discussion: So, it is only secondary, the value of
the property or the damages that you are
asking for is merely incidental.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
RESCISSION:
§ Merely counterpart of Specific Performance. In action for
rescission, you are not really asking for money.
§ Rescission is an action to annul a contract because of
substantial or fundamental breach.
§ What do you ask of the court if you file an action for
rescission?
o TO DETERMINE IF THE BREACH IS
SUBSTANTIAL AND IF SO, DECLARE IT
RESCINDED.
§ In an action for rescission, the issue is whether the
obligation was substantially breached.
§ Take note that, while there may be mutual restitution of
amounts received as a result of rescission, rescission has
to be declared first.
§ The amount of the obligation to be rescinded is merely
incidental, making an action rescission incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
SSS vs. ATLANTIC GULF
G.R. No. 175952, April 30, 2008
If the controversy lies in the non-implementation of the
approved and agreed dacion en pago, it is a suit for specific
performance and one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Therefore, jurisdiction is vested upon the regional trial court.
SPS. PAJARES vs. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY
G.R. No. 212690, February 20, 2017
Remarkable Laundry entered into a contract with Spouses
Pajares designating them as an outlet for laundry services. In
their contract, there is quota of 200kilos of laundry each week.
If they fail to meet their quota, they are still contractually
obliged to pay Remarkable for 200 kilos. The spouses ceased
operations. Remarkable claimed amounts representing the
minimum. The spouses did not pay.
Remarkable filed an action for “breach contract and damages”
to claim 200k, the amount representing the unpaid minimum
quota before the RTC, plus another 80k total as damages,
attorney’s fees and costs.
ISSUE: Did the RTC have jurisdiction?
o If the action filed is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, RTC has jurisdiction.
o If the action is capable of pecuniary estimation, MTC
has jurisdiction.
HELD: No. A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the
accessory obligation contained in the penal clause is actually an
action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation.
Petitioners’ responsibility under the above penal clause involves
the payment of liquidated damages because under Article 2226
of the NCC the amount the parties stipulated to pay in case of
breach are liquidated damages.
Breach of contract may also be the cause of action in a
complaint for damages filed pursuant to Article 1170 of the NCC.
It provides:
o Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and
those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages.
56
Since the total amount of the damages claimed by the
Respondent in its Complaint filed with the RTC on September 3,
2012 amounted only to 280k, said court was correct in refusing
to take cognizance of the case (Spouses Romeo Pajares and Ida
T. Pajares vs. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, 2017).
SUPPORT:
Isn’t that money? More often than not, it is paid in terms of money.
Q: Why is support considered to be incapable of pecuniary
estimation when in fact it can be expressed in terms of money and
support is necessarily paid in money?
A: Three (3) reasons for that:
1.) Support entails a declaration of entitlement to support as
provided under the Family Code.
That is what is really in need of determination first by the trial
court. So, it caters the questions: “are you entitled to
support?”, “are you one of those enumerated by the Family
Code where there is an obligation to give and receive support?”
2.) When you sue for support, you are compelling a person to
perform his legal obligation and you are not suing him simply
for a sum of money; and
3.) Finally, the amount of support varies. It cannot be fixed. It
depends upon the need of the person entitled to receive
support as well as the ability of the person obliged to give
support.
As what we have learned in Persons and Family Relations,
support varies. There is no such thing as res judicata in support.
Do you understand res judicata, right? Bar by prior judgment?
That is not applicable to cases for support.
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
Even if the judgment to be annulled is expressed monetarily or has
a monetary component, the issue here is whether the grounds for
annulment (Rule 47), lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, are
present. Again, not the money component.
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE AND ACTIONS QUESTIONING THE
VALIDITY OF A MORTGAGE
A mortgage is a security for the fulfillment of an obligation. It is not
the monetary obligation itself that you are suing upon but merely
the security therefor. You are asking the court to enforce the
accessory contract.
DISCUSSION: But you need to remember that if there is a monetary
obligation expressed in the amount of the main obligation secured
by the mortgage, in a foreclosure of mortgage, you are actually
exercising the right to choose among the different remedies
available to somebody who is unpaid of the obligation. You can go
after the main amount, like an action for collection, or you can go
and foreclose the mortgage, so when you foreclose a mortgage, you
are focusing more on the pledge. You are securing that you are
going to be paid. You are asking the Court to enforce the accessory
contract.
Q: What happens when you foreclose a mortgage?
A: The mortgaged property will be sold at public auction and the
proceeds will be applied to the principal obligation or contract. The
accessory contract is incapable of pecuniary estimation while the
principal obligation is the one capable of pecuniary estimation. (But
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
you chose the security contract, the accessory contract, so that is
the reason why it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It is not the
money that you go after.)
When a party questions the validity of a mortgage, he is not suing
on a specific amount. Rather, he is contending that the contract is
null and void. Validity or lack thereof is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
There are other actions that are deemed incapable of pecuniary
estimation based on other cases decided by the Supreme Court.
Like in Bardillon vs. Barangay Masili, an action for expropriation.
BARDILLON VS. BARANGAY MASILI
G.R. NO. 146886 | APRIL 30, 2003
An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of sum of
money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its
authority and right to take property for public use. As such, it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the
regional trail courts.
Although just compensation is capable of pecuniary estimation, but
the first stage or the first question to answer in an eminent domain
suit would be whether the expropriation is proper. Like, is there
propriety in the taking? Is it for public use? As to the payment of
just compensation, that will only happen later.
Another one is Mendoza vs. Teh.
MENDOZA VS. TEH
G.R. NO. 122646 | MARCH 14, 1997
Likewise falling within its jurisdiction are actions “incapable of
pecuniary estimation”, such as the appointment of an
administratrix (female administrator) for an estate.
We also have Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) vs.
Uy.
BCDA VS. UY
G.R. NO. 144062 | NOV. 2, 2006
Section 19 of BP 129 shows that a Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisprudence has recognized
complaints for injunction with a prayer for temporary restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction as such.
Now, let us reason this out, so that we can remember:
• Injunction is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
• The RTC has jurisdiction over all actions that are incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
• Therefore, it is only the RTC that can grant all types of
injunction.
Q: Have we properly reasoned this out?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: Because there are different kinds of injunction:
• Main action for injunction
• Provisional remedy of preliminary injunction
57
The injunction referred to in Bases Conversion case that is incapable
of pecuniary estimation is a main action for injunction, which falls
under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, on the other
hand, can be prayed for before and granted by a Municipal Trial
Court.
Q: But what’s the basis?
A: Injunction is defined as a judicial writ, process or proceeding
whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act.
It may be filed as a main action before the trial court or as a
provisional remedy in the main action (EVY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. VALIANT ROLL FORMING SALES CORP. |
G.R. NO. 207938 | OCTOBER 11, 2017).
So, there really are two kinds of injunction. One as a main action,
the other as a provisional remedy for the main action.
The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or
ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction under Rule 58 which
cannot exist except only as part or as an incident of an independent
action or proceeding.
DISCUSSION
Let’s recall the example earlier on Article 26 of the Civil Code as to
prying over another’s residence, meddling or interfering with the
private life or family relations, intriguing another to be alienated to
his friends, vexing or humiliating another. So, what are the
remedies again? Damages, prevention or injunction, and other
relief. So here, it can be that your main action for damages, and
that you also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, so that he will stop doing the said unlawful thing.
Applying BP 129:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, And Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed 300,000 pesos or in Metro Manila where such personal
property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed
400,000 pesos. (x x x)
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER: A main action for injunction is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation over which the RTC has exclusive
jurisdiction. However, the provisional remedy of preliminary
injunction can be prayed for before and granted by the MTC in a
proper case filed before it.
OTHER EXAMPLES (INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION)
• Where the issue in the case is whether or not an assignment
of rights is a nullity, the action is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation (Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill | 88 SCRA 623).
• An action seeking to annual a resolution of a government-
owned and controlled corporation is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation (Polomolok Water District vs. Polomolok
General Consumers Association, Inc. | G.R. No. 162124,
October 19, 2007).
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
INIEGO VS. PURGANAN
G.R. NO. 166876 | MARCH 24, 2006
According to respondent Judge, what he referred to in his assailed
order as not capable of pecuniary estimation is the cause of action,
which is a quasi-delict, and not the amount of damage prayed for.
From this, respondent Judge concluded that since fault or
negligence in quasi-delicts cannot be the subject of pecuniary
estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction.
Held: NO
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and
effectively for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages
suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious acts and are
therefore capable of pecuniary estimation.
The damages claimed in such actions represent the monetary
equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the defendant,
which are thus sought to be recovered by the plaintiff. This money
claim is the principal relief sought and is not merely incidental
thereto or a consequence thereof.
Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous. It is crystal clear
from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, that what
must be determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the
action.
A cause of action is "the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the
plaintiff." On the other hand, the "subject matter of the action" is
"the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money, lands,
chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted,
and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant."
Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, is not actionable by itself. For such
fault or negligence to be actionable, there must be a resulting
damage to a third person. The relief available to the offended party
in such cases is for the reparation, restitution, or payment of such
damage, without which any alleged offended party has no cause of
action or relief. The fault or negligence of the defendant, therefore,
is inextricably intertwined with the claim for damages, and there
can be no action based on quasi-delict without a claim for damages.
DISCUSSION
So, what must be determined to be capable or incapable of
pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject of
the matter of the action. The cause of action is quasi-delict, but
what is the main action or subject matter, it is an action for
damages. Therefore, capable of pecuniary estimation.
Recovery of personal property
An example of an action seeking to recover personal property is an
action for replevin under Rule 60. This action is capable of
pecuniary estimation. The basis of jurisdiction is the value of the
personal property sought to be recovered (Bar 1997, No.1 [e]).
It is not a real action although it involves title or possession of
property, it is not real property but personal property, so it is a
personal action.
NOTES:
Take note, if what is to be recovered is personal property,
jurisdiction depends on the amount. If the amount does not exceed
58
P300,000 or P400,000, as the case may be, the MTC has jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the RTC has jurisdiction.
If what is to be recovered is real property, you have to consult to
paragraph 2 of section 19. If its assessed value exceeds P20,000 or
P50,000, as the case may be, the RTC has jurisdiction. Otherwise,
you go to the MTC.
Other examples incapable of pecuniary estimation
An action for partition of a real property located in Taytay Rizal with
an assessed value of P2,000, the resolution of which involves the
determination of hereditary rights, is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation and thus, should be filed in the RTC.
Hypothetical case:
AA entered a contract of lease with BB, whereby AA would rent
BB’s building in the amount of 100k per month. After one
month, CC went to the building where she demanded from AA,
the rental payment. CC also brought with her supposed title
over the rented property. A few hours later, BB also went to AA
demanding payment of the rent. AA does not know whom to
pay the rentals.
Q: What remedy does AA have?
A: The remedy is Rule 62, Interpleader.
Rule 62, Interpleader.
Section 1. When interpleader proper. – Whenever conflicting
claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made
against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject
matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed
by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting
claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several
claims among themselves.
DISCUSSION
It is like you file a case, but you are not a party in interest, you bring
the party to the court and they litigate against each other. But you
need to remember that the law simply says “same subject matter”,
which means that the subject matter can be anything. It can be
money, or property which can be real property or personal
property, or it can simply be the performance of an obligation.
Q: Are actions for Interpleader capable of pecuniary estimation?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: So which court has jurisdiction in an action for interpleader?
A: We need to determine first if actions for interpleader capable of
pecuniary estimation.
An interpleader action may be commenced in the RTC or in the
MTC depending on the subject matter, the amount of the claim or
the value of the property involved.
In interpleader that is a personal action:
1. If the subject matter is personal property which is valued
at not more than P300k and the case is filed outside
Metro Manila, the MTC, MTCC or MCTC has jurisdiction
over the action. If the personal property is valued at more
than P300k and the case is filed outside Metro Manila, it
is the RTC that has jurisdiction.
2. If the case is filed in Metro Manila, the Metropolitan Trial
Court has jurisdiction if the personal property is valued
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
not more than 400k. if the personal property is valued
more than 400k, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction.
In interpleader that is a real action:
1. If the subject property is real property which has an
assessed value of not more than P20k and the case is filed
outside Metro Manila, the MTC has jurisdiction. If the real
property is valued more than 20K, the RTC has jurisdiction.
2. If the real property is filed in Metro Manila, the
Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction if the real
property has an assessed value of not more than P50,000.
If the real property is valued more than P50,000, the RTC
has jurisdiction.
In interpleader that is incapable of pecuniary estimation (neither
personal action nor real action):
If the subject property of the interpleader suit is one that is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction. For example, a performance of an obligation.
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE MTC
R.A. 9262, Section 10. Where to Apply for a Protection Order. –
Applications for BPOs shall follow the rules on venue under
Section 409 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its
implementing rules and regulations. An application for a TPO or
PPO may be filed in the regional trial court, metropolitan trial
court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court with
territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the
petitioner: Provided, however, That if a family court exists in
the place of residence of the petitioner, the application shall
be filed with that court.
DISCUSSION
A temporary protection order can be issued ex-parte or one that
does not involve a conduct of hearing. Technically speaking, when
we are talking of family court, that is just the Regional Trial Court
that is specially designated.
CATCH ALL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction. –
xxx
(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;
xxx
An example of this is an action for the annulment of judgment of
the MTC which is brought under Rule 47.
DISCUSSION
If the law does not provide which court has jurisdiction over a
particular case or which court or tribunal, then it is the RTC by
default who has jurisdiction over such cases.
If we recall the Court of Appeals, remember the CA has exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of RTC
and specifically provided under Rule 47 and the grounds are
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
59
Q: Now, can the judgment of MTC be annulled? Is there any
prohibition under the law for a litigant for example to file an
action to annul the judgment of the MTC?
A: Of course! There is an action to annul the judgment of the MTC
and in that action the RTC has jurisdiction under Rule 47 of the
same grounds and procedure we follow.
RTC v. QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS
To accurately determine whether the jurisdiction is lodged before
the RTC or a quasi-judicial body, you have to examine the law
administered by such agency and read the decided cases especially
since the Supreme Court is always issuing jurisprudence delineating
the jurisdiction of the RTC and jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial
tribunals.
Editor’s note: ATTY. JZE’S HACK/SHORTCUT in determining the
jurisdiction between RTC or Quasi-judicial tribunal.
Q: What law will ultimately be used to resolve the controversy in
the case?
A:
(1) If the resolution of the case ultimately boils down to
application of a special law within the competence of an
administrative or quasi-judicial agency, the RTC has no
jurisdiction. It will be the quasi-judicial tribunal or agency
who has jurisdiction.
(2) If the resolution of the case can be had without reference
to these special laws, the RTC has jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
In other words, if the case can be resolved more on the application
of a general law (such as Civil Code, RPC, or the Constitution, etc.),
then RTC has jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court decided a case mirroring my shortcut. So what
happened in this case?
HALAGUEÑA v. PAL
G.R. No. 172013 | October 2, 2009
ISSUE: Which tribunal has jurisdiction over the alleged
discriminatory and unconstitutional provisions of a CBA?
The assailed provision included one that set the retirement age
for cabin personnel (compulsory retirement of 55 for females
and 60 for males).
HELD: The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the
Labor Code. Rather, it requires the application of the
Constitution, labor statutes, law on contracts and the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW), and the power to apply and interpret
the constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial
courts, a court of general jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Remember that in Labor Law, the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
arbitrators have original jurisdiction to hear and decide all
unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the CBA. Regular courts have no power to set
and fix the terms and conditions of employment. Absent any
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 60
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

arbitration clauses in the CBA, labor tribunals would have

jurisdiction. DISCUSSION
The decisions of the MTC can be appealed exclusively to the RTC,
So if there is provision in arbitration between the management and except when we are talking about the delegated jurisdiction of the
the union, it is going to be the voluntary arbitrator that will MTC over cadastral or land registration proceedings, because in
arbitrate. Otherwise, it would go to the labor tribunals (DOLE, that situation, you are going to appeal directly to the CA.
NLRC).
Take note, the decisions of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
Q: Can you file this in the RTC instead? jurisdiction over judgments of the MTC shall be appealable by
A: The issue in the case was whether Section 144, Part A of the PAL- petition for review to the CA. Need I elaborate further why it is
FASAP CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional. Here, the primary petition for review? Again, it depends on the step that we take:
relief of the petitioners is the annulment of the above-mentioned
provision, which allegedly discriminates against them for being RELIEF
female flight attendants. MTC to the RTC Ordinary Appeal
RTC to the CA in the exercise of its Ordinary Appeal
The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. original jurisdiction under Rule 41
Rather, it requires the application of the Constitution, labor
Judgment rendered by the RTC in its Petition for review
statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the Elimination of
appellate jurisdiction (meaning MTC case under Rule 42 to be
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the was appealed to the RTC then the RTC filed to the CA
power to apply and interpret the constitution and CEDAW is within
renders judgment)
the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of general jurisdiction.

Q: Are we going to apply here the Labor law?

MODES OF REVIEW OF RTC DECISIONS
A: NO. We are not going to apply Labor law only, but rather we need
to refer to the Constitution in addition to labor statutes and other
Original Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41
laws of general application. Thus, the RTC has jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
Appellate Petition for Review under Rule 42
Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by
Jurisdiction
reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a
collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the Special Petition for Review under Rule 42
jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice Jurisdiction (SAC)
(RTC) and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC. In such situations, Special Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41
resolution of the dispute requires expertise, not in labor Jurisdiction RA 8369, Sec. 14. Appeals –
management relations nor in wage structures and other terms and (Family Court) Decisions/orders of the court shall be
conditions of employment, but rather in the application of the appealed in the same manner and subject
general civil law. Clearly, such claims fall outside the area of to the same conditions as appeals from the
competence or expertise ordinarily ascribed to labor arbiters and ordinary RTCs
the NLRC and the rationale for granting jurisdiction over such claims Pure questions of Petition for Review under Rule 45
to these agencies disappears. law

REMEMBER THE HALAGUEÑA RULING AS SHORTCUT TO
DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF TRIAL COURTS AND QUASI-
JUDICIAL BODIES!
Editor’s note: While Halagueña ruling will help us in the bar, our
professor still wants us to read the assigned cases in the syllabus.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION (SECTION 22, BP 129)
Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of
the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda
and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by
the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial
Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review
to the Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when
the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the decision or judgment sought to be
reviewed.
Q: What case do we use when we are talking about the appellate
or review jurisdiction over judgments or decisions of the
Ombudsman?
A: Unlike decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases where it is specifically provided in the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman that it should be by way
of a petition for review under Rule 43, there is no specific appeal or
remedy provided for resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman
in criminal and non-administrative cases under the Ombudsman
Law (RA 6770) and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman which determined that these cases are considered
final and unappealable.
Under RA 6770
Section 14. Restrictions – XXX No court shall hear any appeal or
application for remedy against the decision or findings of the
Ombudsman, except for the Supreme Court, on pure question of
law.
NOTE: Certiorari on pure question of law is supposed to be a Rule
45 certiorari (see Rule 45, Section 1). Once again, we distinguish:
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 61
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

ESTRADA v. DESIERTO CARPIO-MORALES v. CA (en GATCHALIAN v. OMBUDSMAN

G.R. No. 156160
December 9, 2004
The remedy of aggrieved
parties from the resolutions of
the Office of the Ombudsman
finding probable cause in
criminal cases or non-
administrative cases, when
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion, is to file an original
action for certiorari (Rule 65)
with this Court (SC) and not
with the Court of Appeals.
banc)
G.R. No. 217126-27
November 10, 2015
The second paragraph of
Section 14, RA 6770 provides
that no appeal or application
for remedy may be heard
against the decision or
findings of the Ombudsman,
with the exception of the
Supreme Court on pure
questions of law.
The second paragraph of
Section 14, RA 6770, which
attempts to effectively
increase the Supreme Court’s
appellate jurisdiction without
its advice and concurrence is
unconstitutional and
perforce, invalid.
EFFECT: Subject matter
jurisdiction lies with the CA,
not with the SC.
G.R. No. 229288 | August 1, 2018
HELD:
CRIMINAL CASES ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
(Finding of probable
cause)
Special Civil Action for Appeal under Rule 43 or a Petition
Certiorari under Rule 65 for Certiorari under Rule 65
before the Supreme before the Court of Appeals.
Court
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court here said that the reliance on Carpio-Morales
v. CA, well it’s not really a point. The matter is while the petitioners
in this case (Gatchalian v. Ombudsman) was contending that it
should be with the Court of Appeals based on the decision in the
case of Carpio-Morales, the SC here said that the Carpio-Morales is
not the only en banc case. Another en banc case is the case of Info
Tech which reinstates Estrada v. Desierto.
But again, when you talk about administrative cases, appeal under
Rule 43 or a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA if it
is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION
This is confusing. We even applied Carpio-Morales v. CA in a case
that we had before the SC that it (jurisdiction) should be with the
CA, not directly with the SC. And then, it seems that the SC ignored
the case of Carpio-Morales v. CA. It did not mention this case
whatsoever, because they would still apply the case of Estrada v.
Desierto where jurisdiction is lodged with the SC. Now, I found this
case:

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILS. v.

COMELEC (en banc)
G.R. No. 159139 | June 6, 2017

HELD: The Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause may

only be assailed through certiorari proceedings before this Court
on the ground that such determination is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion. Not every error in the proceedings or every
erroneous conclusion of law or fact, however, constitutes grave
abuse of discretion. It has been stated that the Ombudsman may
err or even abuse the discretion lodged in her by law, but such
error or abuse alone does not render her act amenable to
correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari.

DISCUSSION
So we have 2 contradicting en banc cases here: Carpio-Morales,
declaring RA 6770 to be unconstitutional the effect being is you
should file it with the CA and Info Tech, where the SC en banc said
that it’s really the case of Estrada v. Desierto (that is applicable).
Later on, although this is not an en banc case, but it refers to the
doctrine in Info Tech, the SC made this decision:
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
DISCUSSION
Among all the courts, it is only the MTC whose subject matter
jurisdiction is wholly ORIGINAL. It does not have appellate
jurisdiction. MTC does not supervise any courts.
Its original jurisdiction, however, can be EXCLUSIVE and
CONCURRENT under the current state of the law and the rules.
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of
the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there
are several claims or causes of action between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in
all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes
of action arose out of the same or different transactions;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases,
the defendant raises the question of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue
of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue
of possession.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property
or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for tax
purposes, the value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by
R.A. No. 7691)
DISCUSSION
The important part in No. 3 here is the last sentence: “that in cases
of land not declared for tax purposes” meaning, there is no assessed
value. What will be the parameter of jurisdiction? How do we
determine whether the MTC or RTC has jurisdiction? The value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
SECTION 33 (SIMPLIFIED)
1. Civil actions where the amount of the demand does not
exceed P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila;
62
What are we talking about here? You are demanding payment of
money because here, the law says amount of the demand.
2. Civil actions where the value of the personal property does
not exceed P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila;
Are there cases where the subject matter is a personal property?
We are not talking here about money, but certain personal
property and its value does not exceed P300,000 or P400,000 in
Metro Manila. What kind of case is this? What about an action for
recovery of possession of personal property? That’s replevin, right?
So we are talking about that here.
We can also categorize here an interpleader action (example given
here is there are two parties who had an argument on where should
the mushroom be planted).
3. Probate proceedings where the value of the estate does not
exceed P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila;
Take note that the type of property does not matter (under #3),
whether it is real property or personal property that we are talking
about. In probate proceedings, the value of the estate, including
real property and/or personal property does not exceed P300,000
or P400,000 in Metro Manila.
Q: What are probate proceedings?
A: These are proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
deceased persons. This is not actually part of Civil Procedure
proper, because you can find that in the Rules of Court for Special
Proceedings.
4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases;
In forcible entry, it is applicable in cases wherein a squatter settles
in your property employing [FISTS]: force, intimidation, stealth,
threat or strategy.
In unlawful detainer, the possession of the defendant was lawful in
the beginning. It could be because there was a contract of lease, or
the owner allowed the defendant to stay in the property. But later
on, the possession of the defendant became unlawful because he
did not pay for the rent and then there is already a demand to
vacate on the part of the owner. “Leave because you have not been
paying rent.” Take note that these are interdictal actions, which will
be discussed later, and these must be instituted within 1 year.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases involve title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein. So, they are also
considered as real actions. Anything that has to do with real
property, title, possession, or interest is a real action. Anything else
is a personal action.
If it involves a demand to pay a sum of money, that is a personal
action. If the subject matter is a personal property, that is also a
personal action because it does not refer to real property.
5. Real actions where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000 in Metro
Manila.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Take note that these are real actions, other than forcible entry and
unlawful detainer. This is different. For example, recovery of
possession of real property, accion publiciana, accion
reivindicatoria. These are the real actions involved. There are other
real actions, but those enumerated are the most prevalent.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Rule 71, Section 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the
charge for indirect contempt has been committed against a
Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or
against an officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed with
such court. Where such contempt has been committed against
a lower court, the charge may be filed with the Regional Trial
Court of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but the
proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject
to appeal to the Regional Trial Court of such place in the same
manner as provided in section 11 of this Rule. (4a; Bar Matter
No. 803, 21 July 1998)
DISCUSSION
After that, we have concurrent original jurisdiction under Rule 71,
which was already discussed when we were talking about the
jurisdiction of the trial court – petition for indirect contempt.
RA 9262, SECTION 10. Where to Apply for a Protection Order. –
Applications for BPOs shall follow the rules on venue under
Section 409 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its
implementing rules and regulations. An application for a TPO or
PPO may be filed in the regional trial court, metropolitan trial
court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court with
territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the
petitioner: Provided, however, That if a family court exists in the
place of residence of the petitioner, the application shall be filed
with that court.
DISCUSSION
We also discussed this – the issuance for a temporary protection
under or a permanent protection order under R.A. 9262.
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
BP 129, Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any
Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ
of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
DISCUSSION
It also has special jurisdiction under Section 35. These are urgent
matters. In fact, we’re talking here about the right to liberty, so this
is important.
What if all RTC judges attended a convention or seminar and only
MTC judges are available, don’t tell me bail cannot be allowed or a
petition for the writ of habeas corpus cannot be filed. So, it is
important that there is someone available in the absence of RTC
judges. That is why it is a special jurisdiction.
Someone was arrested in Digos and then there was an outbreak in
the police station where he was detained. There was also an
63
outbreak in all courts, so all courts were closed, even the municipal
trial courts. So, he could not apply for bail. But that is not the
situation being referred to in Section 35. Here, it talks about a
situation where there are no RTC judges, but there are MTC judges.
DELEGATED JURISDICTION
BP 129, Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land
registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the
Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots the where the value of which does
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such
value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in
the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691)
DISCUSSION
This delegated jurisdiction involves cadastral or land registration
cases, which are supposed to be within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC. But here, it can be with the MTC under the
delegated jurisdiction, provided, that the lots have no question or
controversy or opposition. Or if the lots are contested, but the
value does not exceed P100,000. So, the MTC can hear these
cadastral and land registration cases.
Take note: Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the
same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. In other
words, from the Municipal Trial Court and directly to the Court of
Appeals by way of ordinary appeal.
I know that what I’m saying is correct because I’ve already done it
and it’s really the Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to Section 33(1) of B.P. 129:
BP 129, Section 33.
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount
of the demand does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged x x x
DISCUSSION
My point here is that the personal property, the estate, or amount
of demand does not exceed P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro
Manila.
• By process of elimination, if such civil actions or probate
proceedings do not fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC based
on the amount of the claim or value of personal property, then
jurisdiction will belong to the MTCs.
• It is that simple. So, if it is P400,000 below, MeTC. If it is
P300,000 and below, MTC. If you exceed, then it is
already with the RTC.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 64
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

• Take note that “interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's TOTAL 710,000
fees, litigation expenses, and costs” are excluded in
determining jurisdiction. However, they are included in the If you look at the right side, you have 6 claims. We will remove now
determination of the filing or docket fees to be paid. the:
1. Interest of Debt No. 1
Judiciary has a lot of money, believe it or not. 2. Interest of Debt No. 2
3. Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses
TOTALITY RULE (last part of Section 33(1)) 4. Moral Damages – because it says “damages of whatever
BP 129, Section 33. kind”
Where there are several claims or causes of action between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the ONE. Exclude interest, AAA’S CLAIMS
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all damages of whatever Principal of Debt No. 1 150,000
the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of kind, attorney's fees, Interest of Debt No. 1 20,000
action arose out of the same or different transactions. litigation expenses,
Principal of Debt No. 2 200,000
and costs in
DISCUSSION determining Interest of Debt No. 2 40,000
EXAMPLE: AAA filed a case before the Manila RTC against BBB on jurisdiction. Moral Damages 200,000
the following causes of action: Attorney’s Fees and 100,000
Litigation Expenses
1. FIRST, to collect on a loan which fell due on January 14, 2020 ADJUSTED TOTAL 350,000
in the amount of P150,000.000 plus interest on such loan in
the amount of P20,000.000; All that is left is Principal Debt No. 1 and Principal Debt No. 2, with
2. SECOND, to collect on a loan which fell due on August 15, 2020 the adjusted total of P350,000.000.
in the amount of P200,000.00 plus interest on such loan in the
amount of P40,000.00; The next rule is:
3. THIRD, because BBB compelled her to litigate instead of just 2. The amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
paying the debt, AAA claimed attorney’s fees and expenses of claims in all the causes of action.
litigation in the total amount of P100,000; and
4. FOURTH, because BBB’s failure to pay caused her serious But you should have already deducted those in the first rule:
anxiety, AAA also included a claim for moral damages in the interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
amount of P200,000. expenses, and costs. So, you will only use the two demands – the
P150,000 and P200,000.
Now, we will apply the rules that we need to remember when we’re
talking about in cases where there are many causes of action in one TWO. The amount of AAA’S CLAIMS
complaint. the demand shall be Principal of Debt No. 1 150,000
• Adding everything up, AAA’s total claims against BBB the totality of the
Principal of Debt No. 2 200,000
amounted to P710,000.00. claims in all the causes
• BBB filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC has of action. ADJUSTED TOTAL 350,000
no jurisdiction over the case. Should the court grant or deny
the motion to dismiss? Q: So, does the RTC have jurisdiction?
A: NO. Remember that the complaint is filed in Metro Manila,
AAA’S CLAIMS which means that the total claim should be more than P400,000.00
Principal of Debt No. 1 150,000 for the same to be cognizable by the RTC.
Interest of Debt No. 1 20,000
Principal of Debt No. 2 200,000 If this happened in Davao, then it should be filed with the RTC. Take
note of these two rules.
Interest of Debt No. 2 40,000
Moral Damages 200,000 Because AAA’s total claim is only P350,000.000, the case should
Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses 100,000 have been filed before the MeTC. BBB’s motion to dismiss should
TOTAL 710,000 be granted.

THE RULES WE NEED TO APPLY Take note: The TOTALITY RULE has no application in cases where
1. Exclude interest interest, damages of whatever kind, the main claim is for damages. Recall that under Administrative
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs in Circular No. 09-94, the exclusion of damages of whatever kind
determining jurisdiction. applies only to cases where the damages are merely incidental to
or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases
ONE. Exclude interest, AAA’S CLAIMS where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of
damages of whatever Principal of Debt No. 1 150,000 the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered
kind, attorney's fees, in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Interest of Debt No. 1 20,000
litigation expenses,
Principal of Debt No. 2 200,000 Based on the example given, there was a claim for moral damages,
and costs in
determining Interest of Debt No. 2 40,000 attorney’s fees, and expenses for litigation. Remember that these
jurisdiction. Moral Damages 200,000 are not the main cause of action. The main cause of action was
Attorney’s Fees and 100,000 really the recovery of money.
Litigation Expenses
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 65
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

SPS. PAJARES v. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY DISCUSSION

G.R. No. 212690 | February 20, 2017 • When we talk about accion interdictal, these actions are
summary proceedings. We will learn later on that forcible
HELD: A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory entry and unlawful detainer fall under the Rules on Summary
obligation contained in the penal clause is actually an action for Procedure, but when we talk about accion publiciana and
damages capable of pecuniary estimation. Petitioners’ accion reivindicatoria, these require full-blown trial.
responsibility under the above penal clause involves the • In accion interdictal or accion publiciana, the plaintiff merely
payment of liquidated damages because under Article 2226 of alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title.
the Civil Code the amount the parties stipulated to pay in case What distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a
of breach are liquidated damages. possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a
reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) is that the first is
Thus, the totality of damages principle finds no application in the limited to the question of possession de facto. (Reivindicatory
instant case since the same applies only when damages is action deals with possession de jure).
principally and primarily demanded in accordance with the • In cases of accion interdictal, the jurisdiction is ALWAYS with
specification in Administrative Circular No. 09-94 which reads: the MTC regardless of the assessed value of the property.
‘In cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of What matters here is that the action has been filed within 1
action… the amount of such claim shall be considered in year. If the accion interdictal cannot be had because the 1-year
determining the jurisdiction of the court.’ period has already lapsed, the action can still be filed with the
MTC based on the assessed value of the property.
Since the total amount of the damages claimed by the • In cases of accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria, we
respondent in its Complaint filed with the RTC on September 3, must look at the assessed value of the property first. If the
2012 amounted only to P280,000, said court was correct in assess value does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000, as the case
refusing to take cognizance of the case. may be, the MTC has jurisdiction even if the action does not
qualify as one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. In excess
FORCIBLE ENTRY, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, ACTIONS INVOLVING of these amounts, the RTC already has jurisdiction.
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY
These are the actions referred to in Section 33 paragraphs (2) and Accion
(3), of BP 129. There are three remedies available to the owner or Interdictal
possessor to judicially recover possession of real property: (Unlawful Accion Accion
1. Accion Interdictal – Action for forcible entry and unlawful Detainer, Publiciana Reivindicatoria
detainer Forcible
• Who has a better right to possess. Entry)
2. Accion Publiciana – Plenary action to recover possession Also Ejectment Possessory Reivindicatory
• The question here is still better right to possess known suit action action
3. Accion Reivindicatoria – Action to recover possession as
based on ownership Aim To recover To recover To recover
• Recovery of possession based on ownership possession de possession de possession
facto, with no jure, based on
Actions Involving Title to or Possession of Real Property reference to independently ownership
1. Accion Interdictal – summary proceeding to recover property ownership or of title
based on the better right to possess. It covers forcible entry title
and unlawful detainer actions under Rule 70 which must be What The plaintiff The plaintiff Ownership or
brought within a period of one year. plaintiff merely merely alleges title
proves alleges proof proof of a better
The important thing to remember here is that there is period of one of a better right to possess
year. right to without claim of
• As to forcible entry – one year from the date of dispossession possess title
• As to unlawful detainer – one year from the date of last without claim
demand of title
Period One (1) year 10 years from Being a real
Q: Beyond 1 year, what’s going to happen? within from date of the date of action over
A: You are not allowed to file accion interdictal but you are still which actual entry possession by immovables,
allowed to file accion publiciana. to file on the land or another person 30 years from
action from the date (Article 555 of the date when
2. Accion Publiciana – ordinary civil proceeding to recover the of last the Civil Code) the owner has
better right of possession of real property independently of demand to been deprived
title, except in cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, vacate (Rule of his property.
although any of the special circumstances mentioned is 70, Section 1; (Article 1141
present, where the one-year period for bringing such action Article 1147 of the Civil
has already expired. of the Civil Code)
Code)
3. Accion Reivindicatoria – seeks the recovery of possession
based on ownership before the trial court in an ordinary
proceeding.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
Accion interdictal, an ejectment suit. Accion publiciana, for
possessory action. For Accion reinvindicatoria, reinvindicatory
action.
What is the purpose? For accion interdictal, to recover possession
de facto. For Accion Publiciana, to recover possession de jure,
independently of title. Ownership is not important. What the
important thing is the better right to possess. For Accion
reivindicatoria, to recover possession based on ownership. Again,
that is still possession de jure because possession based on
ownership is legal possession.
What does the plaintiff prove? In AI, the plaintiff merely alleges
proof of a better right to possess without claim of title. In AP, the
plaintiff merely alleged a proof of a better right to possess without
claim of title. AR would be ownership of title.
PERIOD
a. Accion Interdictal - one (1) year from date of actual entry
on the land or from the date of last demand to vacate
b. Accion Publiciana - ten (10) years from the date of
possession by another person.
c. Accion Reivindicatoria - this is 30 years. Being a real
action over immovable, thirty (30) years from the date
when the owner has been deprived of his property.
Q: What if assessed value is not alleged in the complaint?
A: Recall that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
the allegations in the complaint. If the plaintiff fails to make the
proper allegations that would vest jurisdiction to the trial court, the
latter can indeed order the dismissal of the action.
If the court would be strict, the dismissal is justified because the
assessed value is not alleged in the complaint, the jurisdictional
facts that would vest jurisdiction over the case by the court.
LARESMA v. ABELLANA
G.R. 140973 | November 11, 2004
HELD: The complaint does not contain any allegation of the
assessed value of Lot 4-E covered by TCT No. 47171. There is,
thus, no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC had
exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the respondent.
Moreover, as gleaned from the receipt of realty tax payments
issued to the respondent, the assessed value of the property in
1993 was P8,300. Patently then, the MTC and not the RTC, had
exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the respondent. Hence,
all the proceedings in the RTC, including its decision, are null and
void.
DISCUSSION
The court dismissed the case for the lack of allegation that would
vest jurisdiction upon the RTC.
Atty JZE’s submission: But rather than dismissing the case outright,
the court may instead order the plaintiff to simply amend his
complaint. The complaint can be amended under Rule X to show
the assessed value. This is in keeping with the liberal policy on the
interpretation of the Rules of Court.
66
ACCION INTERDICTAL
Accion interdictal, which comprises two distinct causes of action,
i.e., forcible entry (detencion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico),
must be brought in the proper MTC within 1 year from the date of
actual entry on the land or from the date of last demand to vacate,
as the case may be:
1. By a person deprived of possession of any land or building
by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or
2. By a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against
whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of the right
to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or
implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any
such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person (Section 1,
Rule 70, Rules of Court)
WHEN TO COUNT THE 1 YEAR PERIOD
The main difference between the actions lies in the time when
possession became unlawful:
1. Forcible entry - it is from the time of entry
2. Unlawful detainer – possession which at first lawful later
became illegal.
The only issue involved in Accion Interdictal is mere physical or
material possession (possession de facto) of which a person has
been deprived or against whom it has been withheld.
DE GRANO v. LACABA
G.R. No. 158877 | June 16, 2009
HELD: the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical
possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in
civil law. When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to
prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-
distinguished from possession de jure. Only prior physical
possession, not title, is the issue. Issues as to the right of
possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence
thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of
determining the issue of possession
DISCUSSION
That is why under Section 33 of BP 129, the court may make a
determination on the issue of ownership of the property but it is
only for the purpose of determining who has the better right of
possess.
There could be cases wherein the client is really the owner of the
property but you still lost the case of unlawful detainer or forcible
entry because in FE and UD, ownership does not matter. The only
question is the right to possess: either the plaintiff or defendant. If
the right to possess of the defendant Is valid, then the UD case in
improper because there is no violation.
ON STATUS OF MTC RULING ON OWNERSHIP
CABRERA v. GETARUELA, ET AL
G.R. No. 164213 | April 21, 2019
HELD: In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution
is physical or material possession of the property involved,
independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.
However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may
pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine who has
the right to possess the property.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
We stress, however, that this adjudication is only an initial
determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue
of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked
thereto. The lower court’s adjudication of ownership in the
ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or
prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to
the property. It is therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of
ownership.
DISCUSSION
The determination made by MTC is not conclusive as to the issue
of ownership. It is only for the purpose of determining who has the
right to possess the property.
JURISDICTION IF EJECTMENT SUIT IS NOT POSSIBLE
A mere ejectment suit may not be the proper remedy cognizable by
the MTCs in at least two situations:
1. The action was not brought in the proper MTC within 1
year from the date of actual entry on the land or from the
date of last demand to vacate. Take note that an action
to recover by mere accion interdictal prescribes in 1 year;
2. The assessed value of the property may not be within the
jurisdiction of the MTC and the action was not brought
within 1 year.
In both cases, jurisdiction is already lodged in the RTC. Even if the
assessed value of the property is in the millions but the proper
action is still an accion interdictal, jurisdiction is still with the MTCs.
Take note: There is no such thing as FE and UD in the RTC. Only
Accion publiciana and reivindicatoria, depending on the assessed
value.
EXAMPLE:
In 2005, JZE filed a complaint for recovery of possession before the
MTC. The assessed value of the land in that case was only about
P10,000.00. So JZE went to the OCC of the MTC to have the docket
fees computed. Weirdly, the OCC would not even accept the case.
The receiving clerk said that, because the case is not forcible entry
or unlawful detainer, JZE should have filed the case before the RTC.
Atty. JZE submits that the case is an MTC case.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Section 36. Summary procedures in special cases. – In
Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at
least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or
more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases, those involving violations of traffic
laws, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law, and such
other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme
Court may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special
rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve
an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without
regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may
provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted
in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings
shall be non-extendible.
The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules of procedure
applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical
67
rules. So what does these summary procedures mean in special
cases?
Because we actually have the revised rules of summary procedure
which is in a way something that modifies the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Court.
So within the cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court, there is that sub species there if I may call it that, that
will be covered by regular rules, meaning that they will follow the
rules of court and that there are also other rules that follow
primarily these special rules like the Revised Rules of Summary
Procedure.
So what are these cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Court that will be subject to Summary Rules.
REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Section 1. Scope. - This rule shall govern the summary
procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction:
A. Civil Cases:
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00).
xxx
• All cases of Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be recovered; and
• All other civil cases except probate proceedings where
the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed
10,000php exclusive of interests and costs.
But wait, why is the amount so small? The requirement is only
10,000php for it to be under Summary Procedure? What is the
threshold of the Jurisdiction of the MTC going to the Regional Trial
Court, isn’t it 300,000-400,000php?
Take note however that this provision has already been amended
by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC that reads as follows, and again, we must
distinguish again.
(2) All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the
total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed
100,000php or 200,000php in Metropolitan Manila,
exclusive of interests and costs.
xxx
DISCUSSION
So if the amount does not exceed 100,000 or 200,000 in Metro
Manila, that would be subject to Summary Procedure. 100,000.01,
or 200,000.01 in Metro Manila, that is already ordinary procedure.
Take further note that except for forcible entry and lawful detainer
cases which are still covered by Summary Rules, this provision is
almost irrelevant because money claims not exceeding 300,000php
or 400,000php in Metro Manila are now governed by the rule on
Small Claims cases. We will discuss that later on.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
So it is almost irrelevant because there is still a certain aspect of the
jurisdiction of the MTC that would be under Summary Procedure
and not Small Claims.
LIMITATION OF SUMMARY RULES
This rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiff’s cause of
action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of
action, subject to the ordinary procedure, so let us stay there
because we are talking about Civil Cases here.
So the plaintiff joined his 2 cause of action against the defendant.
One of them is subject to summary rules, why? Maybe because his
claim is supposed to be only 50,000php before when there were no
small claims cases, and then let’s say the other claim is 500,000php,
so where is it applicable? It will now fall under ordinary procedure.
So in that case, it is not allowed that the MTC hears the case under
summary rules because one of the claims is not covered by
summary rules.
Section 2. Determination of applicability. - Upon filing of a civil
or criminal action, the court shall issue an order declaring
whether or not the case shall be governed by this Rule. A
patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of
the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary
action.
DISCUSSION
So the prosecution is different in cases under Summary Procedure,
compared to ordinary procedure and you can imagine that there
are certain judges who would favor ordinary procedure, because
they are more accustomed to it than summary procedure. So the
Supreme Court stated that upon erroneous determination, if it is
twisted to make an erroneous determination, just to avoid the
application of the Rules on Summary Procedure, that is a ground to
disciplinary action on the part of the court.
So the requirements for pleadings under Civil Cases under
Summary Procedure are:
Section 3. Pleadings. –
A. Pleadings allowed. — The only pleadings allowed to be filed
are the complaints, compulsory counterclaims and cross-
claims' pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto.
B. Verifications. — All pleadings shall be verified.
Note: we are not talking here about Summary Procedure per se
because we are still talking about jurisdiction. So let’s just leave it
at that.
Here Section 4 is important, but it is more appropriate if we reach
Rule 15 on motions.
Section 4. Duty of the Court - After the court determines the
case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence as
may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the
grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action. If
no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue
summons which shall state that the summary procedure under
this Rule shall apply
DISCUSSION
This is so different from ordinary procedure, where these cases
under ordinary procedure would require a motion to dismiss as a
68
general rule before the court can dismiss the action. Although there
are grounds for dismissal that the court can do it motu proprio. But
here it is actually the duty of the court, it is not the option of the
court. It is the court’s duty to determine whether or not the action
is dismissible.
• If dismissible, dismiss automatically.
• If it is not dismissible, then that is the time when the court
issues summons.
MAIN FEATURE OF SUMMARY RULES
Section. 9. Submission of Affidavits and position papers. -
Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order mentioned in the
next preceding section, the parties shall submit the affidavits of
their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined
in the order, together with their position papers setting forth
the law and the facts relied upon by them.
Instead of normal presentation of evidence, meaning under
ordinary procedure before, it is the lawyer calling the witness to the
witness stand, asking questions from direct examination to cross
examination to re-direct examination to re-cross examination, the
presentation of evidence is just like that. Now it is no longer that
way. Because direct examination under the rule on judicial
affidavits would now be by the use of judicial affidavits.
But in Summary Rules, the testimony of the witnesses will be in the
form of affidavits. Such that if you were unable to execute an
affidavit and you are a witness, that affidavit has not been marked
as identified, you could not testify anymore. Either you have no
affidavit or you were not part of the list of witnesses, you cannot
testify. That is how strict the Summary Rule is.
So the direct testimony of a witness will be in the form of that
affidavit. But later on, in order to aid the court in its determination
in the issues of the case, in order to come up with the proper
judgement, the court would only require the plaintiff and
defendants submission of position papers. And based on that it is
there where the court will base their judgment. So that is the main
feature of Summary Rules whether it is a civil case or a criminal
case.
RENDITION OF JUDGMENT
Section. 10. Rendition of judgment. - Within thirty (30) days
after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the
expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall
render judgment.
However should the court find it necessary to clarify certain
material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order
specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to
submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within
ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be
rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last
clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing
the same.
The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain
time for the rendition of the judgment.
So rendering of a judgment is fast, 30 days. After receipt of the last
affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the said period
for filing the same, the court shall render judgment. Because,
supposed to be, rendering judgement should be a fast process.
Then Common provisions, whether it is summary procedure for civil
or criminal cases.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
COMMON PROVISIONS
Section. 18. Referral to Lupon. - Cases requiring referral to the
Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of P.D. No. 1508
where there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice and may be
revived only after such requirement shall have been complied
with. The provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the
accused was arrested without a warrant.
DISCUSSION
So you notice that there is referral to the Lupong Tagamayapa. So
there must be conciliation before the Lupong Tagamayapa, if there
is no compliance to that requirement, the case will be dismissed. So
you must first settle first in the Barangay.
This provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused
was arrested without a warrant, nothing much there.
Prohibited pleadings and motions, just take note, we will not yet
discuss this. And then Appeal.
Section 21. Appeal - The judgment or final order shall be
appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall
decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of B.P. blg 129.
The decision of the MTC in civil cases governed by this rule,
including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be
immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal
that may be taken therefrom.
DISCUSSION
So what is this Section 22? The mode of review of decisions of the
MTC. That is by way of ordinary appeal to the RTC.
Section 22. Applicability of the regular rules. – The regular
procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court shall apply to the
special cases herein provided for in a suppletory capacity insofar
as they are not inconsistent herewith.
DISCUSSION
Meaning we go back to “generalia specialibus non derogant” it is
the special rule that prevails over the general. So the Rules of Court
applies suppletory applicability, but mainly what is applicable is
Rules on Summary Procedure.
RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES
The Rule of Procedure on Small Claims cases which initially took
effect on March 18, 2010.
In the beginning, the law provides that this rule shall govern
procedure in actions before the MTC’s for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed 100,000php exclusive
of interests and costs. So just 100,000php.
It also provided a joinder of claims, meaning, the plaintiff, let’s put
for example, the defendant had incurred 2 debts from the plaintiff,
the 1st one was for 60,000php and the 2nd one was for 30,000php.
It is still within 100,000php right? Then, therefore, since it is still
within 100,000php, you can join those 2 debts if you are the
plaintiff, in just 1 small claims case. It is possible that you can join 2
cases, that is what we call “joinder”. But we will go to that on Rule
23 as well on joinder parties and joinder cause of action.
69
But before the concept of small claims was introduced to our court
system, the revised rule on summary procedure applied to money
claims not exceeding:
• 100,000php in first level courts outside Metro Manila;
and
• 200,000php in first level courts within Metro Manila,
otherwise known as the MeTC or Metropolitan Trial
Courts.
The revised rules on procedure for small claims cases which took
effect February 1, 2016 where the Supreme Court changed the
parameter for a small claim. Before, it was P100,000.00, regardless
if it is in Metro Manila or outside of Metro Manila. Now, it was
changed to P200,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, still not
discerning whether it's in Metro Manila or outside of Metro Manila.
So it was doubled. I would assume it's because of inflation.
AS TO JOINDER OF CLAIMS:
Section 8. Joinder of claims. - Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a
defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of
interest and costs, does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P200,000.00).
DISCUSSION
You can actually fit two (2) P100,000.00 claims in a small claim
when you join it.
OCA Circular No. 165-2018 (August 1, 2018)
Sections 2 and 8 were amended again:
Section 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
Section 8. Joinder of Claims. - Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a
defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of
interest and cost, does not exceed Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300,000.00).
DISCUSSION
This time, three (3) straight reincarnations on the Rule on Small
Claims does not distinguish between Metro Manila and outside of
Metro Manila.
Also, under Section 8, there is still a Joinder of Claims against one
defendant as long as it does not exceed P300,000.00.
That is the parameter of small claims.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 45-2019 (April 1, 2019)
Sections 2 and 8 were amended again:
• Metro Manila – does not exceed P400,000
• Outside Metro Manila – does not exceed 350,000
This time, the Supreme Court again had a distinction. In Metro
Manila, as long as it does not exceed P400,00000 (which is the
jurisdiction of the MeTC) or outside Metro Manila, as long as it does
not exceed 350,000.00, that is considered as a small claim.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Section 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed the jurisdictional
amount of these courts under Republic Act No. 7691 [Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) for the MeTCs and
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for the MTCCs,
MTCs, and MCTCs], exclusive of interest and costs.
Section 8. Joinder of Claims. - Plaintiff may in a single statement
of claim one or more separate small claims against a defendant
provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest
and costs, does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of the
concerned court under Republic Act No. 7691[Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) for the MeTCs and Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for the MTCCs, MTCs,
and MCTC].
CONCLUSION: Any money claim filed before the MTC is effectively
a small claim. Because even the distinction, P300,000.00 and
P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, was implemented and this latest
incarnation on the Rules on Small Claims.
Q: Are all the cases filed before the MTC, provided that these are
not probate proceeding or real action, is it a small claims?
A: NOT NECESSARILY.
WHAT ARE SMALL CLAIMS?
Section 5. Applicability. - The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions
which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief
prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of
criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action
in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
DISCUSSION
We're focused on a civil small claim. We're not going to talk about
civil aspect of criminal action, besides that is already
understandable. I would assume that you already know that.
These claims or demands may be - for money owed under any of
the following:
1. Contract of Lease
2. Contract of Loan
3. Contract of Services
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage
Contract of services includes contract of labor but there is no
employer-employee relationship.
These are the money owed. I cannot clearly understand contract of
loan and contract of mortgage. Why? Because when you are suing
on a contract of loan, if the contract of loan is secured by a
mortgage and then you are going to forward or put forth a purely
monetary claim then you are actually abandoning your mortgage.
So, does it mean the foreclosure of mortgage is a money claim? I
don't think so.
Foreclosure of mortgage is an action quasi-in-rem and applying the
ruling in Russell vs. Vestil, it is under the jurisdiction of the RTC,
70
since it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. I'm just
confused because it is separate from the contract of loan.
For damages arising from any of the following:
1. Fault or negligence (quasi-delict)
2. Quasi-contract or contract
3. Enforcement of a Barangay Amicable Settlement or an
Arbitration award involving a money claim covered by
this Rule pursuant to Section 417 of the Local
Government Code.
Example: You went to the Brgy. Captain but the plaintiff and
defendant already had an agreement or a Barangay Compromised
Agreement. However, the defendant did not follow such and so you
can ask for its enforcement before the MTC. That's part of the
jurisdiction of the MTC under the Local Government Code.
CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
CASE GOVERNED BY
Civil actions where the amount of the Rule on Small Claims
demand does not exceed P300,000 or
P400,000 in Metro Manila
Civil actions where the value of the Summary Rules if value
personal property does not exceed does not exceed
P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro P100,000 or P200,000.
Manila (example: Replevin) In excess, apply
Regular Rules
Cases of forcible entry/unlawful Summary Rules
detainer
Probate proceedings where the value Regular Rules or the
of the estate does not exceed Rules on Special
P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Proceedings to be
Manila specific
Real actions where assessed value Regular Rules
does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000
in Metro Manila
REMEDY IF YOU LOSE IN A SMALL CLAIM
Section. 23. Decision. - After the hearing, the court shall render
its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by
the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be
entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases
and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. The decision
shall be final and unappealable.
DISCUSSION
The remedy of appeal is not available.
Effects: Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision
under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed
and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its
execution.
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC. vs. MONDEJAR
G.R. No. 200804⏐January 22, 2014
Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases,
similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available
remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
DISCUSSION
If the law states that "final and unappealable" or “final and
executory", the remedy of appeal cannot be availed. That is already
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 71
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

automatic, as a remedial laws professor: "so it should be a petition DISCUSSION

for certiorari". As to Jurisdictional Parameter, again, with respect to Summary
Procedure, it is either one hundred thousand (100,000) or two
The funny thing was, I began discussing this and asked “What’s the hundred thousand (200,000). There is neither a law nor a rule
remedy?” My student answered “Rule 65, Sir.” saying that it has increased to three hundred thousand to four
hundred thousand. With respect to Small Claims, it is three hundred
It’s correct, Rule 65. But the question is, “Where do you file it?”. thousand or four hundred thousand.
Now the student will answer, “According to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.” That should no longer be thought of. Is there As to Appeal, under the Summary Procedure, under Section 22 of
a concurrence of jurisdiction in a small claims case? BP 129, it will be an ordinary appeal which shall be brought with the
RTC. On the other hand, under the Small Claims, it would be a
Example: When the jurisdiction of the small claims court was still certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC.
not changed (when it was still P100,000.00). Let's say, the amount
of the small claims was just 10,000 and you won. What is the As to Applicability, under the Summary Procedure, it applies to
remedy of the defendant when he cannot appeal? Rule 65. You both civil and criminal cases; whereas the Small Claims applies only
mean to say the defendant has the option to file a petition for to claims that are purely civil in nature and to the civil aspect of a
certiorari in a small claim before the Supreme Court or the Court of criminal action.
Appeals? It must be automatic before the Regional Trial Court.
Note: By the way, try to remember the case of A.L. ANG NETWORK,
INC. VS. MONDEJAR, G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014 when the
SUMMARY PROCEDURE vs. SMALL CLAIMS question is as to the remedy against a small claims judgment. This
is a doctrinal law.
SUMMARY SMALL CLAIMS
PROCEDURE A.L. ANG NETWORK v. MONDEJAR
As to The total amount The value of the G.R. No. 200804 | January 22, 2014
JURISDICTIONAL of the plaintiff’s claim does not
PARAMETER claim does not exceed P300,000 or FACTS: A.L. Ang Network filed a Complaint for sum of money
exceed P100,000 P400,000 exclusive under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases before the
or P200,000 in of interest and costs. MTCC, seeking to collect from Mondejar her unpaid water bills
Metro Manila, amounting to P23,111.00. Due to Mondejar’s failure, A.L. Ang
exclusive of Network disconnected Mondejar’s water line for not paying the
interest and cost. adjusted water charges.
As to APPEAL The decision is Because the decision
appealable to the is final and The MTCC rendered a Decision in favor of Mondejar, holding
RTC under unappealable, the that Mondejar should be considered to have fully paid.
Section 22 of BP remedy is a Rule 65 Consequently, A.L. Ang Network filed a petition for certiorari
129. petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the RTC, ascribing
before the RTC. grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC.
As to Applies to both Applies only to
APPLICABILITY civil and criminal claims that are The RTC issued a Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari,
cases. purely civil in nature finding that the said petition was only filed to circumvent the
and to the civil non-appealable nature of small claims cases as provided under
aspect of a criminal Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure on Small Claims Cases.
action. Likewise, A.L. Ang Network ‘s motion for reconsideration was
As to PARTIES A lawyer may A lawyer may not denied.
ALLOWED appear and appear unless he
represent a himself is the party ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing A.L. Ang
litigant. litigant. Network’s recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing
As to A litigant may Appearance through the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims
REPRESENTATIVE choose not to representative, who case. YES.
personally appear must not be a lawyer,
and instead be and must be related HELD: Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
represented by to or next-of-kin of states:
any other person the individual-party,
by way of a must be for a valid SEC. 23. Decision. — After the hearing, the court shall
Special Power of cause. render its decision on the same day, based on the facts
Attorney. established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The
As to MAIN The use of The use of forms as decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of
FEATURE affidavits as substitutes for Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy
substitutes for pleadings for the thereof forthwith served on the parties.
testimony and purpose of avoiding The decision shall be final and unappealable.
position papers, costs and resolving a
aimed at the small claim as Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision
speedy resolution expeditiously as under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not
of a case. possible. allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move
for its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal
is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved
party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. This general rule has been enunciated in the case
of Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, wherein it
was held that:
In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that "the
extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there
is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
In Jaca v. Davao Lumber Co., the Court ruled:
“x x x Although Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides
that the special civil action of certiorari may only be invoked
when ‘there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the course of law,’ this rule is not without exception.
The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not
constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use
of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an
adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. It
is the inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all other legal
remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ
that usually determines the propriety of certiorari.
This ruling was reiterated in Conti v. Court of Appeals: Truly, an
essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary
remedies under the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any
"plain, speedy and adequate remedy" in the ordinary course of
law, one which has been so defined as a "remedy which (would)
equally (be) beneficial, speedy and sufficient not merely a
remedy which at some time in the future will bring about a
revival of the judgment x x x complained of in the certiorari
proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the
acts of the inferior court or tribunal" concerned. x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original
action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of
judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon
A.L. Ang Network to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted
the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or
dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not
the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously,
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material
to the controversy.
In view of the foregoing, the Court thus finds that A.L. Ang
Network correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail
the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims
case, contrary to the RTC's ruling.
Likewise, the Court finds that A.L. Ang Network filed the said
petition before the proper forum (i.e., the RTC). To be sure, the
Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have
concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. Such
concurrence of jurisdiction, however, does not give a party
unbridled freedom to choose the venue of his action lest he ran
afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Instead, a becoming
regard for judicial hierarchy dictates that petitions for the
issuance of writs of certiorari against first level courts should be
filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter,
with the Court of Appeals, before resort may be had before the
Court.
72
Hence, considering that small claims cases are exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, certiorari petitions assailing its dispositions should
be filed before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts. This
A.L. Ang Network complied with when it instituted its petition
for certiorari before the RTC which, as previously mentioned,
has jurisdiction over the same.
In fine, the RTC erred in dismissing the said petition on the
ground that it was an improper remedy, and, as such, the case
must be reinstated and remanded thereto for its proper
disposition.
DISCUSSION (continued)
Now let us go back to the distinctions.
As to Parties Allowed, under the Summary Procedure, a lawyer
may appear and represent a litigant; whereas under the Small
Claims, a lawyer may not appear unless he himself is the party
litigant.
Q: Is a representative allowed under the Summary Procedure?
A: Yes, you are allowed provided there is a Special Power of
Attorney.
Under the Small Claims, appearance through a representative, who
must not be a lawyer, and must be related to or next-of-kin of the
individual-party, must be for a valid cause.
Here, representation is allowed but the general rule is that it must
be personally the party concerned. Therefore, it must be for a valid
cause which may either be sickness or because the party concerned
is working abroad. A Special Power of Attorney is still necessary
even if the representative is already a next-of-kin or related to the
individual party.
Take note that in Small Claims cases, lawyers are not allowed to
appear.
Q: When will be the only time that a lawyer is allowed to appear?
A: If the lawyer is the party—that is, the lawyer himself is the
claimant or defendant.
As to the Main Feature of the Summary Procedure is the use of
affidavits as substitutes for testimony and position papers, aimed
at the speedy resolution of a case; whereas in Small Claims, the use
of forms as substitutes for pleadings and for purposes of avoiding
costs and resolving a small claim as expeditiously as possible.
Take note that in Small Claims, for example, if you go to the
Municipal Trial Court, they will just give you a form. You will just
have to fill up that form. You will just provide the details that the
form will ask. Then you can consider it filed.
After that, you will just have to wait for the Small Claims court to
set the hearing for your claim. There will no longer be a hearing
where the parties will present their evidence. It is the court talking
to the plaintiff and the defendant at the same time and determining
if there is merit in the plaintiff’s small claim.
Q: How do they present evidence?
A: The plaintiff may just bring the contract or present the
promissory note of the defendant. And then the court will ask the
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 73
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

defendant if he has already paid the same. After that, judgment will
be rendered.

That is how fast the proceedings in Small Claims. It is a beautiful

procedural device which, again, as anything else under the
Philippine law, is not a Filipino invention. Small Claims courts have
existed for fifty (50) years, at least, in the United States.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 74
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

RULES OF COURT Supreme Court is Constitutionally mandated and is

The Rules of Court has a basis, why is it that the Supreme Court was
able to come up with the Rules of Court? It’s provided under Article
8, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS:
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts… xxx
therefore it cannot be diminished by law.
(2) It may not pass a law to increase the appellate jurisdiction
of the SC without its advice and concurrence (Art. VI. Sec.
30). We know that in the case of Morales vs Court of
Appeals, when we were talking about the ombudsman,
supposedly that section 14 has been declared as
unconstitutional but why is it now that in succeeding
cases, it seems like such unconstitutionality has no effect.
This is in relation to the ombudsman law, RA 6770 Section
14.
REPUBLIC ACT 6770
The Ombudsman Act of 1989

Let’s go to the relationship between the Congress and the Judiciary.

Both of these branches of the government are independent: Section 14. Restrictions. — No writ of injunction shall be issued
Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court makes the rules in order by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the
for the laws to be enforced. Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie
evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside
RELATIONSHIP the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
CONGRESS SUPREME COURT
Creates and defines rights by Promulgates Rules that No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against
passing substantive laws. govern the enforcement the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the
of substantive rights. Supreme Court, on pure question of law.
The Rules must not be
diminish, increase or (Supposedly unconstitutional in Morales vs CA.)
modify substantive rights
Congress shall have the power to defined by statutes Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s rule-making power…
define, prescribe, and apportion enacted by Congress [Art. It promulgated the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on April 8, 1997
the jurisdiction of the various VIII, Sec. 5(5)]. But, in all per its resolution in Bar Matter No. 803. But again, we need to
courts but: matters of procedure, the remember that the 1997 Rules has been overhauled in a way, we
Supreme Court is have the Amended Rules already. The amendments will begin on
SUPREME. Rule 6. Therefore, our discussions in the beginning, Rules 1, 2 ,3, 4,
(1) It may not deprive the SC of 5 are matters we will base on the old Rules.
its constitutional
jurisdiction (Art. VIII, Sec. The Rules were adopted to govern and regulate the following:
2). 1. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
(2) It may not pass a law to 2. Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts;
increase the appellate 3. The admission to the practice of law; - so when you become
jurisdiction of the SC lawyers, you will actually follow the Rules of Court when you
without its advice and take your oath. It is when the Supreme Court actually meets En
concurrence (Art. VI. Sec. Banc just to see you take your oath as new lawyers.
30). 4. The Integrated Bar; and
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged. – under which we have
DISCUSSION the clinical legal aid programs that are mandated by the SC but
are administered by the Legal Education Board since this is part
How do you enforce your rights violated by someone? By filing a
and parcel of the curriculum of each law school.
case before the Court.

The rules promulgated by the Supreme Court should not be one

that would interfere into the realm of Congress which is the
passage of laws and defining and creating what rights are based on
these laws. When the Supreme Court for example, exceeds its
Constitutional mandate to simply promulgate rules, it becomes
what is known as judicial activism where the Supreme Court is
creating a law – the Supreme Court goes beyond the law that is
created by Congress. However, when we talk about matters of
procedure, the Supreme Court, as the law implies is Supreme. As a
check or balance, the Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts
subject to the limitations.

(1) It may not deprive the SC of its constitutional jurisdiction

(Art. VIII, Sec. 2) – why is that? The jurisdiction of the
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
RULE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Title of the Rules. — These Rule shall be known and
cited as the Rules of Court. (1)
DISCUSSION
Technically speaking, it is wrong to say that, for example, the Rules
of Evidence, it should be cited as the Rules of Court, the same thing
with the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rules on Civil Procedure,
these are technically wrong citations – it should always be cited as
the Rules of Court. Under the Amended Rules, it is okay to cite these
rules as the “Amended Rules” since it is expressly provided there
that the amendments there would constitute the Amended Rules.
Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall apply
in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme
Court. (n)
DISCUSSION
Meaning, there is a uniform applicability of the Rules among all
courts of the Judiciary beginning from the MTC all the way to the
CA. With respect to the Court of Appeals, they have their own
internal rules of procedure, which is called RIRCA or the Revised
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, which we would not be
discussing anyway.
The general applicability of the Rules is pursuant to Article VIII, 5(5)
of the Constitution which mandates that the procedural rules to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court “shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade”.
The Rules of Court do not apply where it is “otherwise provided by
the Supreme Court.”
Examples of these are:
● The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; - we have
discussed this in passing, the ordinary rules do not apply in
these cases, the rules here were designed to be speedy and
that the main feature of the Summary Procedure is the use of
affidavits and position papers to aid the court on its resolution
of the case.
● The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases; - here the main
feature is the use of forms. There will be no hearings in these
cases, unlike with the cases falling under ordinary rules. We
know that when evidence is to be presented prior to the
amended rules, there is supposed to be a witness called upon
by the counsel, counsel would ask questions, witness would
answer, subject later on to cross examinations subject to the
1997 Rules, but when it comes to the Rules on Small Claims
Cases, this do not happen, there’s no presentation of
evidence.
● The Rule on Examination of Child Witnesses; - Rule 132 on
presentation of Evidence is also not applicable since there is a
specific set of rules and rights awarded and afforded to child
witnesses.
● The cases enumerated in Rule 1, Section 4.
75
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not
apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not
herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a)
DISCUSSION
The Rules of Court is suppletory only, it is not the main applicable
rule when it comes to the abovementioned cases.
Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special
proceedings.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the
specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n)
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes
a person for an act or omission punishable by law. (n)
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2)
DISCUSSION
We have 3 main types of actions. Civil, criminal and special. Special
proceedings differ from what we call the special civil actions. NOTE:
Memorize the meaning of a civil action (Sec. 3 (a) cited above). The
rules on special civil action are from Rules 62-71.
There is clearly, delineation between a civil action and a criminal
action. There was one bar examination which asked: Define an
action. That’s it. Would you simply answer letter a? A civil action is
one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong? Well,
that would be enough if you want to pass but if you want to top the
bar examination, you need to distinguish, or at least present the
examiner the complete picture because actions can be Civil or
Criminal according to Section 3. You give the definition of the Civil
and Criminal Action.
In a special proceeding, what do we mean by party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact? We will go to that at
the proper time.
DIVISION OF THE RULES
1. CIVIL PROCEDURE – the body of rules that sets out the rules
and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil
lawsuits, it is divided into three distinct set of provisions, to wit:
a. Rules 1-56 or CIVIL PROCEDURE PROPER; - this is
what we will discuss this semester.
b. Rules 57-61 or PROVISIONAL REMEDIES which are
writs and processes available during the pendency
of the actions to preserve and protect certain rights
and interests pending rendition, and for purposes of
the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case.
– These are those preliminary attachment,
preliminary injunction, receivership, replevin – these
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
are just some of the provisional remedies under the
Rules of Court.
c. Rules 62 to 71 or SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS which are
civil actions governed specifically by special rules
and generally by the rules for ordinary civil actions. -
Interpleader, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus,
under Rule 65, quo warranto under Rule 66,
expropriation under Rule 67 and etc.
2. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – rules governing miscellaneous
proceedings dealing on specific issues (Rules 72-109). A special
proceeding is defined as a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – rules governing a criminal action
which is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act
or omission punishable by law (Rules 110-127).
4. EVIDENCE – the means sanctioned by the Rules of ascertaining
in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
(Rules 128-133).
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES IN GENERAL
• The Rules of Court is the collective term to describe all
the rules from Rule 1 to Rule 144. Technically speaking,
Civil Procedure actually begins at Rule 2 because Rule 1
relates to General Provisions.
Discussion: That general provision is also applicable to
special civil actions, special proceedings, and criminal
procedure.
• The doctrine we follow here is generalia specialibus non
derogant or that “universal things do not detract from
specific things.” The special provision will always prevail.
Thus, Rule 110 to 127 will always govern criminal cases
and Rules 1 to 71 will always govern civil cases.
Discussion: So, that must not be intermingled. But
sometimes, the Rules of Court itself would provide for
intermingling.
• In civil procedure, there is a concept termed DEFAULT
under Rule 9 which applies when the defendant fails to
file his answer the complaint. In this case, the court may
grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff without the
defendant being able to put forward his defense.
Discussion: For example, under the amended rules, the
plaintiff files a complaint then the court issues summons
together with the copy of the complaint with a directive
on the defendant to file his answer thereto within a
period of 30 days. After 30 days, the defendant did not
file an answer. What will happen? That is the time that
the defendant can be declared in default. But take note,
in cases of default, the court may grant the relief prayed
for by the plaintiff without hearing the defense put forth
by the defendant. It is like a basketball game in the sense
that team 1 is present but team 2 is not. So, team 1 takes
victory by default. That is similar in default under Rule 9.
76
Can you apply default in criminal actions or criminal
prosecutions? Can the accused be declared in default? Of
course, not.
• You cannot apply this concept to criminal cases. The
accused cannot be defaulted. The court cannot declare
that since the accused was not able to file his counter-
affidavit, he would be automatically guilty and be
incarcerated. This cannot be done.
Discussion: You cannot use the concept of default under
civil procedure to criminal cases because that is a concept
peculiar and unique to civil procedure.
However, there are instances when the Rules allow application of
provisions from another division of the Rules. Examples are:
1. Rule 120, Section 8. Entry of judgment. After a judgment
has become final, it shall be entered in accordance with
Rule 36.
Discussion: This is a criminal procedure rule that makes
reference and allows application of a civil procedure Rule
36 which is judgments.
2. Rule 127, Section 1. Availability of provisional remedies.
The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they
are applicable, may be availed of in connection with the
civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action.
Discussion: Remember that provisional remedies are but
a continuation of civil procedure. So, we can apply the
civil procedure concepts of provisional remedies when it
comes to criminal cases.
3. Rule 72, Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions.
In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided
for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable,
applicable in special proceedings.
Discussion: An example of special proceeding is probate.
Probate is when you settle the estate of the deceased
person. If there is a will then, the will must be probated.
Supposed you lost. What will you do? What is the remedy
that you have? Does the rule in special proceedings
provide for the manner by which you can take recourse
against a judgment that aggrieves you in a special
proceeding in a probate of a will? NO. So what will you
apply? You apply the rules on appeals. You apply Rule 41
for example.
4. Rule 128, Section 2. Scope. The rules of evidence shall be
the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except
as otherwise provided by law or these rules.
Discussion: The rules on evidence are not exclusive to
civil actions. It is also not exclusive to civil actions and
criminal actions. Even in special proceedings, you apply
rules on evidence. Take note, while you do not apply
criminal procedures in civil cases, or apply criminal
procedures in special proceedings, the rules of evidence
will be the same across the board.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
ACTION
• Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by
which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong.
• It is a formal demand of one’s legal rights in a court of
justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the
law.
Discussion: It is a formal demand. Meaning the other
demands, you cannot say that it is a formal demand in the
same way that an action is a formal demand. The
difference being is when you talk about action it is a
formal demand where you file it before the proper courts
of justice.
• Similarly, a suit is defined as “the prosecution or pursuit
of some claim or demand in a court of justice or any
proceeding in a court of justice in which a plaintiff
pursues his remedy to recover a right or claim.” (1 Am.
Jur. 407)
Discussion: Why are we defining a suit we are talking
about action?
• It is settled that the terms “action” and “suit” are
synonymous. Moreover, the determinative or operative
fact which converts a claim into an “action or suit” is the
filing of the same with a “court of justice.” Filed
elsewhere, as with some other body or office not a court
of justice, the claim may not properly be categorized
under either term (Alfonso G. Lopez vs. Filipinas
Compania de Seguros, G.R. No. L-19613, April 30, 1966)
Discussion: When you say a case, an action or a suit, they
are actually the same. Moreover, it is not an action or suit
when it is not filed before the courts. Let us say you filed
an action in barangay, is that an action? Is that a suit? No.
You file a complaint in NLRC before the Labor Arbiter, can
that be considered as an action? Can that be a suit? No,
that is a labor claim, that is a labor complaint. And it hints
to you, if you do not file it before the court of justice, the
rules of court are not applicable as a general rule. Except
by suppletory character.
Supena vs. De La Rosa
A.M. RTJ-93-1031 | January 28, 1987
The determinative or operative fact which converts a claim into
an “action or suit” is the filing of the same with a “court of
justice.” Filed elsewhere, as with some other body or office not
a court of justice, the claim may not be categorized under either
term. Unlike an action, an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage is initiated by filing a petition not with any court of
justice but with the office of the sheriff of the province where
the sale is to be made.
By no stretch of imagination can the office of the sheriff come
under the category of a court of justice. And as aptly observed
by the complainant, if ever the executive judge comes into the
picture, it is only because he exercises administrative
supervision, however, does not change the fact that
extrajudicial foreclosures are not judicial proceedings, actions or
suits.
77
DISCUSSION
If there is a mortgage that secures the fulfillment of principal
obligation usually but not necessarily a loan, there is a pledge.
There are two types of foreclosure of a mortgage. Foreclosure is
when the security for payment of obligation is used to pay off the
debt in money. So, what will happen there in case of default? The
property will be foreclosed. We call that foreclosure. So that, it can
be sold at auction sale and the proceeds will be used to pay off the
debt.
Take note that can be done judicially or extra-judicially. When you
say judicial foreclosure, which is governed under Rules on special
civil actions, foreclosure of real estate mortgage. But there can be
also extrajudicial foreclosure. What would be the applicable
procedure there under the applicable law? It would be Act 3135,
which is initiated by filing of petition not with the court but the
office of the sheriff. Why is this important? It is because as
explained in the case above, wherein, by no stretch of imagination
can the office of the sheriff come under the category of a court of
justice.
Take note: When it is not considered a suit, what would be the
consequence there? It means that the rules of court would not be
applicable.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF CIVIL ACTIONS
AS TO NATURE: ORDINARY OR SPECIAL
• Rules 62-71 (Special Civil Actions)
§ Interpleader, Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies,
Review of Judgments, Final Orders or Resolutions of
Comelec and COA, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus,
Quo Warranto, Expropriation, Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgage, Partition, Forcible Entry and Unlawful
Detainer, Contempt.
• All other actions are considered ordinary.
• Both ordinary and special civil actions are governed by the
rules on ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules. In
the case of conflict between the specific rule governing a
particular type of civil action and the ordinary, the specific rule
will prevail. If the rules on specific civil actions are silent, the
rules for ordinary actions will be applied.
DISCUSSION
Specific performance, rescission, action for damages, these are all
ordinary actions. Why is it important to distinguish between
ordinary actions and special civil actions? Because special civil
actions are subject to Rule 62-71 that would be the main provisions.
Only when there is something missing about the rules in special civil
action, rules on civil procedures be applicable. And when it is
ordinary civil actions, it hints to you that the applicable rules are
Rules 1 to 56.
AS TO THE CAUSE OR FOUNDATION: REAL OR PERSONAL
For example, the jurisdiction of RTC, if it is a real action, you will
look at the assessed value of the property, 20 or 50k as the case
may be. As to personal actions, are those do not have as the subject
matter the privity of real estate. So, an action is real when it is
founded on the privity of the real estate. That means that the realty
is the subject matter of the action. Not every action however,
involving a real property is a real action because the real property
may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
• An action is REAL when it affects title to or possession of
real property, or an interest therein.
• All other actions are PERSONAL ACTIONS.
• An action is real when it is founded upon the PRIVITY OF
REAL ESTATE. That means that realty, or an interest
therein is the subject matter of the action. Not every
action however, involving a real property is a real action
because the realty may only be incidental to the subject
matter of the suit.
• To be a REAL ACTION, it is not enough that the action
must deal with real property. It is important that the
matter in litigation must also involve of any of the
following issues relating to real property:
o Title;
o Ownership;
o Possession;
o Partition;
o Foreclosure of Mortgage; or
o Any interest in real property.
DISCUSSION
It could be that the cause of action or the case you filed before the
court is an action for specific performance that would in effect
compel the seller to deliver real property to you. Is that
automatically considered real action because there is real property
involved? Not necessarily.
What is this any interest in real property? For example, usufruct, a
mortgage is an interest in a real property. These are all real actions
by definition.
DOCTRINES
§ An action for damages to be a real property, while involving
really is a personal action because although it involves real
property, it does not involve any of the issue mentioned.
DISCUSSION
For Example: You filed a case against your neighbor because your
property became worthless because he erected a pigsty in his land
or he built a boarding house. So, there are damages to real property
that occurred. If you're filing that, just because it involves land,
damages to real property, that is not a real action but rather a
personal action, because although it involves a real property, it
does not involve any of the issues mentioned.
§ An action to recover possession of real property plus damages
is a real action. The aspect of damages is merely an incidental
part of the main action.
DISCUSSION
Because what the ultimate goal of the suit is to recover possession
of real property, even if incidentally, you are asking for a
humungous amount of damages, it does not matter. The aspect of
damages is merely an incidental part of the main action, which is
for recovery of possession.
§ An action to recover a possession of a personal property is a
personal action. An action for a declaration of nullity of
marriage is also a personal action [Tamano v. Ortiz, 291 SRA
584].
DISCUSSION
78
Why is it a personal action? Is it something we learned from Persons
and Family Relations? Is it because it is a suit by one private
individual against another, meaning person vs person? NO. The only
reason why an action for declaration of nullity of marriage is a
personal action is because, it does not involve a real property. It's
not actually difficult, unless the suit is weird.
§ An action for Specific Performance is a personal action, as long
as it does not involve, a claim or recovery of possession of a
real property. Where the allegations as well as the prayer of
the complaint do not claim ownership or possession of lots,
but instead seeks for the execution of a Deed of Sale by the
defendants in favor of the plaintiff, the action is a personal
action [Adamos v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529].
DISCUSSION
Example would be, you compel the seller to deliver the subject
matter of the contract of sale, so, it's a personal action, as long as
it does not involve, a claim or recovery of possession of a real
property.
Again, there must be:
§ Title;
§ Ownership;
§ Possession;
§ Partition;
§ Foreclosure of Mortgage; or
§ Ay interest in real property
to be considered as a real action.
• However, where a complaint is denominated as one for
Specific Performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance
of a deed of dale for a parcel of land, for the plaintiff to acquire
ownership of the land, its primary objective and nature is one
to recover the parcel of land itself and thus, is deemed a real
action [Gochan v. Gochan, 372 SCRA 356]
DISCUSSION
Why is it very important to know, whether it is a real or personal
action?
If a real property is not involved, that is a personal action; If a real
property (Title, Ownership, Possession, Partition, Foreclosure of
Mortgage, or Any interest in real property) is involved, it is a real
action. We have to know how to distinguish.
Exercises:
1. The plaintiff seeks the issuance of a deed of assignment in
his favor of certain shares of stocks to regain ownership and
possession of said shares. Real or Personal?
o PERSONAL. Not founded on the privity of real estate.
2. Complaint for breach of contract so the plaintiff prays that
the contract be rescinded and that the defendant be
ordered to return possession of the land. Real or Personal?
o REAL. Founded on the privity of real estate.
Hernandez v. DBP
71 SCRA 290
Facts: Hernandez filed in the RTC against DBP and action seeking
the annulment of the cancellation of the award of a house and
lot in Quezon City in his favor. DBP had unilaterally cancelled the
award because X was a retired employee who had merely an
option to purchase said house and lot. DBP filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue,
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
contending that since the property in question is located in
Quezon City, the complaint should have been filed there.
Issue: Real or Personal Action?
Significance:
§ A real action is 'local,' i.e., its venue depends upon the
location of the property involved in the litigation. "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 (Sec. 1,
Rule 4, Rules of Court)
§ On the other hand, if it's a personal action, it means it is
'transitory', i.e., its venue depends upon the residence of the
plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A
personal action may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal defendant resides, or in the
case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found,
at the election of the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court).
Ruling: The Action is a personal action. The nature of the action
is one to compel the recognition of the validity of the award by
seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the award is null
and void. The issue does not involve a title to the property or
interest therein.
Therefore, venue was properly laid.
DISCUSSION
Let's go back a little in the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) and Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
If the nature of the action is to compel recognition of the validity
the award, what type of action is that? It is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. In actions incapable of pecuniary estimation,
will we look at the assessed value of the property? No. It is only
when it is a real action, actions involving to or possession of real
property when you refer to the assessed value.
Exercises:
1. An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage. Real or
Personal?
o REAL. It is an action founded in an interest in real
property.
2. An action to foreclosure a chattel mortgage or pledge. Real
or Personal?
o PERSONAL, the basis in an interest in personal
property.
3. An action to compel the mortgagee to accept the payment
of the mortgage debt and to release the lots mortgaged. Real
or Personal?
o PERSONAL. Plaintiff's title is not in question
(Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, 81 SCRA 75)
Test:
If the trial court cannot decide the case without ruling on title
over real property, it is a REAL ACTION. Otherwise, it is a
PERSONAL ACTION.
DISCUSSION
It's as simple as that, that is the test that is used by the courts, and
that is also the test that is recommended. Look at the main aim of
79
the action, what is the cause of action for filing? Can that cause of
action be resolved? Can the controversy in the case be resolved
without ruling on title over real property? If ruling on the title is not
needed, or possession of a real property, then it is a personal
action, but if it is needed, it is a real action.
THIRD TYPE: MIXED ACTION/CONFUSED ACTION
An action partaking of the two-fold nature of real and personal
actions, having for its object the demand and restitution of real
property and also personal damages for a wrong sustained.
Example:
AA files a case against BB for recovery of possession (real) with a
prayer for damages (personal).
Q: Where should AA file the case? Where he resides or where the
property is situated?
A: In the case of Navarro vs. Lucero:
NAVARRO vs. LUCERO
100 Phil. 146
Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed for in the
complaint, the nature of the action as real or personal is
determined by the primary object of the suit or by the nature of
the principal claim. Thus, where the purpose is to nullify the title
to real property, the venue of the action is in the province where
the property lies, notwithstanding the alternative relief sought,
recovery of damages which is predicated upon a declaration of
nullity of the title.
DISCUSSION
In a mixed action, which has a real and personal component, you
follow the MAIN or PRINCIPAL relief sought. What is that? That is
for, recovery. So, this is actually a REAL action here.
Again, we always look at the SUBJECT MATTER of the MAIN CLAIM.
If the main claim involves real property, it involves title or
possession to real property, then that is a REAL ACTION. Otherwise,
if it does not, if it is merely incidental, then it becomes a PERSONAL
ACTION.
FURTHER TEST:
If the case cannot be resolved without ruling on the title or
ownership over the property, then it is considered a REAL ACTION.
REGARDLESS, whether it is the main claim or not.
In other words, “What is the Ultimate objective?”
Now that we can distinguish whether an action is real or personal,
the next question is, why is it important to determine whether it is
real or personal?
IMPORTANCE OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ACTION AS
REAL OR PERSONAL
1.) DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION - If real, jurisdiction
depends on the assessed value. If personal, it could be
incapable of pecuniary estimation (RTC), [like annulment or to
compel the mortgagee to accept payment of the debt or it
could be incapable of pecuniary estimation] or dependent on
the amount of the demand or value of property (RTC or MTC).
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
(This is where the 300,000 or 400,000 applies, whichever as the
case may be)
2.) DETERMINATION OF THE VENUE - Questions involving the
propriety or impropriety of venue are resolved by determining
the nature of the action as either real or personal.
DISCUSSION
Again, under Rule 4, take note that the venue of the action
will depend on whether the action is REAL or PERSONAL.
If REAL, then it depends on where the property is located.
If PERSONAL, then wherever the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs reside or any of the principal defendants
reside at the option of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff can
‘legally’ forum shop. That is actually a legitimate forum
shopping, because the plaintiff can choose a forum.
3.) DETERMINATION OF THE FILING OR DOCKET FEES TO BE PAID
DISCUSSION
In fact, in determining the total amount of claim for purposes
of jurisdiction, we exclude the interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs. Remember
that when we talked about determining the jurisdiction of RTC
and MTC. But, for the purposes of computing the docket fees
to be paid, ALL CLAIMS MUST BE INCLUDED.
TAKE NOTE: If it’s REAL ACTION, it will depend on the
ASSESSED VALUE. It has fees that you should pay. If PERSONAL
ACTION, depends on how big the damages that you are
praying for.
REMEMBER: An action is considered filed ONLY upon the FULL
PAYMENT OF THE DOCKET FEES. There are different rates
applicable to real and personal actions.
Example: Let us suppose that the plaintiff filed an action for
annulment of a sale of real property. This is normally an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation and a personal action.
[Annulment or rescission are incapable of pecuniary estimation,
according to Russel v. Vestil] So the plaintiff paid the filing fee for
such type of action. However, the sale is fictitious. There was no
consideration for the transaction. Under Article 1409 of the Civil
Code, such a sale is void ab initio and produces no legal effect
whatsoever. Therefore, there is really nothing to annul and the
remedy sought and the filing fees paid were wrong.
DISCUSSION
This is a sale of property. Meaning, if you are the seller and you
already transferred the ownership or you already delivered the
property. In order for you to get back that property, you have to file
an action to rescind or annulment of sale of real property for
example. But if it void ab initio and produces no effect whatsoever,
so what is our characterization here?
It was as if there was no sale. So, what is your proper remedy?
Annulment of sale? The answer is NO! You simply pray for the
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF THE REAL PROPERTY that you
already have delivered to the buyer. So, your remedy is wrong and
the filing fees that you paid is also wrong.
EFFECT: Prescription in the meantime may set in because the court
never really acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
80
case. ALL BECAUSE you did not understand if what you should filed
is a REAL ACTION or a PERSONAL ACTION.
AS TO OBJECT OF THE ACTION
This is very technical because it could be “IN REM”, “IN PERSONAM”,
and “QUASI IN REM”.
1.) ACTION IN PERSONAM - An action in personam is directed
against specific persons on the basis of their personal liabilities and
seeks personal judgments.
DISCUSSION
In other words, it is a case filed by an individual seeking to hold the
individual himself liable. Who will pay? “The individual”. Who will
do? For example, in an action for specific performance? It should
be the individual as well.
In an action in personam, no one other than the defendant is sought
to be held liable, not the whole world. This means that only the
‘defendant’ is bound by such an action. The whole world is NOT
bound by it.
EXAMPLES OF ACTION IN PERSONAM: [Gomez vs. CA, 425 SCRA
98]
1.) An action for reconveyance;
2.) an action for a sum of money;
3.) An action for damages;
4.) An action for specific performance; and
5.) An action for rescission.
2.) ACTION IN REM - An action which is directed against the thing
or property or status of a person and seeks judgments with respect
thereto as against the whole world. An action in rem is an action
against the thing itself instead of against the person. [Land
registration proceedings is an action in rem, meaning binding
against the whole world.]
DISCUSSION
There are two ways to look at Actions in Rem:
1.) You want to hold the PROPERTY liable. You enforce your
rights AGAINST the PROPERTY. Directed against the thing
or property;
2.) As to the STATUS OF A PERSON, that is a status that is
enforceable against the whole world. One cannot say that
he/she is married in one place and also claim that he/she
is not married in another place. That is the “In Rem”
effect.
EXAMPLES OF ACTION IN REM:
1.) A cadastral proceeding is an action in rem (In Re ESTATE
OF JOHNSON, 39 Phil. 156).
2.) Land registration proceeding is an action in rem. Recall,
in the original registration of land, there is notice given to
the whole world that this land is ‘titled’ and that it has not
yet been titled before. So, if you have interest in that land,
you FILE YOUR OPPOSITION at the date fixed. What if you
did not oppose? The court will issue a GENERAL NOTICE
OF DEFAULT. All people who did not oppose are
defaulted. You can no longer forward a claim over that
land. That is an example of the In Rem Effect.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
3.) Cases involving an auction sale of land for collection of
delinquent taxes is an action in personam. Mere
publication of the notice of delinquency does not suffice.
Notice by publication although sufficient in proceedings
in rem does not satisfy the requirements of proceedings
in personam [Talusan vs. Tayag, 356 SCRA 263]
4.) The probate of a will is a proceeding in rem because the
order of probate is effective against all persons wherever
residing. [In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; see Moran,
Rules of Court, 2d Ed., Vol.1, p.9].
3.) QUASI IN REM - A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought
against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to
the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or
loan burdening the property.
DISCUSSION
It names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that
person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation.
Again, it is like ‘mixed’ or ‘confused’.
Similar in an action in personam, who do you want to be liable? It
is the individual, the defendant. How do you want to enforce his
liability? Through his PROPERTY. That’s what makes it an action
quasi in rem.
Therefore, the perfect example of an action quasi in rem would be
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE. Who is ULTIMATELY liable there?
The defendant. The person who has debt. How do you enforce the
liability of the defendant? Through his property! By foreclosing the
property that he mortgaged.
SPECIFIC DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN REAL ACTIONS AND
ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATIONS
§ The RTC exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions
where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
§ The RTC also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or
possession of, real property or any interest in it where the
assessed value of the property involved exceeds P 20,000.00.
§ If it is below P 20,000.00, it is the first level court or MTC which
has jurisdiction.
§ A real action or 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 right to have
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
same.
§ Recall as well that in RUSSELL v VESTIL, (GR. No. 119347, March
17, 1999), The Supreme Court enumerated the actions
incapable of pecuniary estimation:
1. Specific Performance. An action that at first blush seems
to be real action for forcible entry is incapable of
pecuniary estimation if it is actually one for specific
performance to compel the private respondents, as
lessors, to comply with their obligations under the lease
contract and return the possession of the leased
premises. (Amorganda v CA, G.R. No. 80040, Sept. 30,
1988).
• An action denominated as a real action but in
the end the Supreme Court ruled that it is one
81
for specific performance. Because if it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
assessed value of the property be damned. By
default, its going to be the RTC that has
jurisdiction.
2. Rescission. It is considered as a counterpart of specific
performance (Lapitan v Scandia Inc., G.R. No. L-24668,
July 31, 1968)
• Even if the contract you want rescinded has
implications in the possession of real property,
again, assessed value be damned because it is
an action incapable of pecuniary estimation,
the main purpose of the litigation will
determine which court has jurisdiction. If it is
an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, it
will fall under the RTC’s jurisdiction
3. Support
4. Foreclosure of Mortgage
5. Annulment of Judgment
6. Actions Questioning the validity of a Mortgage
(Bunayog v Tunas, G.R. No. L-12707, Dec 23, 1959)
• When you question the validity of mortgage,
the assessed value of the real property be
damned, because it is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation, it falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
7. Annulment of Deeds of Conveyance and Recovery of the
price paid
ROLDAN V SPOUSES BARRIOS
G.R. No 214803, April 23, 2018
FACTS: The Spouses Barrios obtained a loan from Alona Roldan
in the amount of P250,000.00. The loan was secured by a real
estate mortgage over a parcel of land in Aklan. Because they
failed to pay, Alona was constrained to file a complaint for
foreclosure of mortgage against the spouses Barrios before the
RTC.
The RTC dismissed the case because, based on the allegations of
the complaint, the land subject of the foreclosure only had an
assessed value of P 13,380.00 and it is thus the MTC that has
jurisdiction.
Alona filed a petition for certiorari directly before the Supreme
Court alleging grave abuse of discretion when the RTC ordered
the dismissal of the foreclosure case. She argued that, based on
Russel v Vestil, foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RTC.
ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction? MTC
HELD:
DIRECT RESORT TO SC
A strict application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is not
necessary when the cases brought before the appellate courts
do not involve factual but legal questions. Since petitioner raises
a pure question of law pertaining to the court’s jurisdiction on
complaint for judicial foreclosure of sale, we would allow
petitioner’s direct resort to us.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of
the mortgage indebtedness and, therefore, the foreclosure suit
is a real action so far as it is against property, and seeks the
judicial recognition of a property debt, and an order for the sale
of the res. As foreclosure mortgage is a real action, it is the
assessed value of the property which determine the court’s
jurisdiction. Considering that the assessed value of the
mortgage property is only P 13,380.00, the RTC correctly found
that the action falls within the jurisdiction of the first level court
(MTC).
Petitioner cites Russell v. Vestil to show that an action for
foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation and, therefore within the jurisdiction of the RTC. We
are not persuaded. In the Russell case, we held:
While actions under Sec. 33(3) of BP 129 are also incapable
of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that
they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the
assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed
P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located
elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as
the case may be, it is the RTC which have jurisdiction under
Sec. 19(2).
Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while the civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of real property, or any
interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it
is not for recovery of money, the court’s jurisdiction will be
determined by the assessed value of the property involved.
DISCUSSION
Eventually even if a case would lead to the recovery of possession
of real property for as long as the main case filed by the plaintiff is
one incapable of pecuniary estimation like specific performance or
rescission or annulment of contract, assessed value should still be
considered. (This is a weird ruling)
AS TO THE OBJECT OF THE ACTION
In Rem, In Personam and Quasi in Rem
• An action in personam is directed against specific persons on
the basis of their personal liabilities and seeks personal
judgments. In other words, it is the one who is impleaded in
that action in personam who is properly brought within the
jurisdiction of the court and given the opportunity to be heard,
the effect of the judgment of that action in personam will be
binding upon that party.
• An action in rem is directed against the thing or property or
status of a person and seeks judgments with respect thereto as
against the whole world.
Example: A case for foreclosure of mortgage. You want to
place the property of the defendant in custodia legis for
the fulfillment of the obligation through the mortgaged
property.
• An action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its
object is to subject that person’s interest in a property to a
corresponding lien or obligation.
• A perfect example of an action quasi in rem will be
a case of a foreclosure of mortgage. What are you
trying to get out from this? -You want the person as
defendant because you want to collect a sum of
82
money but also you want to place his property in
custodia legis (in the custody of the court) so that
to satisfy his debt through the mortagaged
property.
ACTION IN PERSONAM
In an action in personam, no one other than the defendant is sought
to be held liable, not the whole world.
§ EXAMPLES:
1. an action for reconveyance;
2. an action for sum of money;
3. an action for damages;
4. an action for specific performance;
5. an action for rescission (Gomez vs. Court of Appeals 425
SCRA 98)
ACTION IN REM
An action in rem is directed against the thing or property or status
of a person and seeks judgments with respect thereto against the
whole world. An action in rem is an action against the thing itself
instead of against the person.
A cadastral proceeding is an action in rem (In Re Estate of Johnson,
39 Phil 156).
A land registration proceeding is an action in rem. Hence, the failure
to give a personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land is
not jurisdictional defect. It is the publication of such notice that
brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court
with jurisdiction.
Cases involving an auction sale of land for the collection of
delinquent taxes is an action in personam. Mere publication of the
notice of delinquency does not suffice. Notice by publication
although sufficient in proceedings in rem does not satisfy the
requirements of proceedings in personam (Talusan vs. Tayag 356
SCRA 263).
The probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, because the order of
probate is effective against all persons wherever residing (In re
Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil 156).
ACTION QUASI IN REM
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking
to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the
claims assailed. In an actions quasi in rem, an individual is named
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property.
Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a
particular property but which are intended to operate on these
questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings
and not to ascertain or cut-off the rights or interests of all possible
claimants (Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA; Bar 1994).
The object of an action quasi in rem is the sale or disposition of the
property whether by attachment, foreclosure or any other form of
remedy (Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palangca, 37 Phil 921).
§ EXAMPLES:
1. Action for partition;
2. Action for accounting;
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
ü Such actions are essentially for the purpose of
affecting the defendant’s interest in the property
and not to render a judgment against him
(Valmonte v. CA, 252 SCRA 92).
3. Attachment
4. Judicial foreclosure of mortgage
SUMMARY
i. It is a special civil action under Rule 68.
ii. It is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation (Russell v. Vestil, GR 119347).
iii. It is also a real action. Thus, the determination
of jurisdiction is subject to the assessed value
of the property (Roldan v. Sps. Barrios, GR
214803).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHARACTERIZATION
• The distinction is important to determine whether or not
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required
and consequently to determine the type of summons to
be employed.
• Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary
for the court to validly try and decide a case against said
defendant where the action is one in personam but not
where the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
EJERCITO v. M.R. VARGAS CONSTRUCTION
G.R. No. 172595, April 10, 2008
§ In an action strictly in personam, personal service of summons
on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by
handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person.
Recall that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can also
be acquired by his voluntary appearance and submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
FOR ACTIONS IN PERSONAM
Against a resident defendant in an action in personam, this
jurisdiction is acquired by service in person of summons of the
defendant (Sec. 6, Rule 14, Rules of Court) or in case he cannot be
served in person within a reasonable time, by substituted service of
summons (Section 7, Rule 14, Rules of Court).
Without a valid service of summons the court cannot obtain
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant unless the defendant
voluntarily appears in the action. This voluntary appearance is
equivalent to service of summons (Section 20, Rule 14 of Rules of
Court).
SPOUSES YU v. PACLEB
GR 172172, February 24, 2009
Binding Effect of actions in personam
§ A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal
rights and obligations brought against the person and is based
on the jurisdiction of the person ALTHOUGH it may involve his
right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or
seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance
with the mandate of the court.
83
§ The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose,
through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or
liability directly upon the person of the defendant.
§ An action for specific performance is an action in personam.
An action for specific performance praying for the execution
of a deed of sale in connection with an undertaking in a
contract, such as the contract to sell is an action in personam.
§ A judgment in personam is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded therein and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard.
ASIAVEST LIMITED v. COURT OF APPEALS
GR 128803, September 25, 1998
§ If the defendant cannot be personally served with summons
within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in
accordance with Section 8 of Rule 14.
§ If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following
modes of service may be resorted to:
1. Substituted service set forth in Section 8;
2. Personal service outside the country, with leave of court;
3. Service by publication, with leave of court; or
4. Any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
§ However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a
non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court, personal service of summons within the
state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is
physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and
therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him.
The Supreme Court discusses very categorically that if you cannot
acquire jurisdiction over the person, you cannot proceed. Any
judgment rendered therefore would be null and void; no effect,
against the defendant who could not be served with summons.
BIACO VS. COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK
G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007
For actions in rem or quasi in rem, what would be the rule?
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite
to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res.
• What is the res? It could be the property in dispute, it could be
a status of a person. Alright?
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective. Ex.: Foreclosure of a Real Estate Mortgage
Would this mean that summonses are not required to be served in
actions in rem or quasi in rem? Don’t we need summons, because
it is said by the Supreme Court that, for as long as the court can
acquire jurisdiction over the res, it doesn’t matter. The case will still
proceed.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 84
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

Now according to the Supreme Court, NO! Summons must still be DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, IN REM AND
served upon the defendant, not for the purpose of vesting the court QUASI IN REM
with jurisdiction but merely to satisfy the requirements of due
process. So you still need to summon the party. If you won’t, it will IN PERSONAM IN REM QUASI IN REM
still be defective. As much as possible, one should summon the An action in An action in rem An action quasi in
defendant. personam is is directed rem is one brought
directed against against the thing against persons
ACOSTA VS. SALAZAR specific persons on or property or seeking to subject
G.R. No. 161034, June 30, 2009 the basis of their status of a the property of
personal liabilities person. such persons to
This is a case for petition for the cancellation of the entries and seeks personal the discharge of
annotated at the back of an Original Certificate of Title. judgments. the claims assailed.

On the posture that the case was a land registration proceeding, Binds only the Binds the whole Binds only the
which is a proceeding in rem, the plaintiff did not implead the heirs parties to the action world parties to the
mentioned in the annotation and summons were not served on action
them. Why? Because this is in rem. So we don’t need summons.
Right? Requires Requires Requires only
jurisdiction over the jurisdiction over jurisdiction over
On appeal, the CA even ruled that personal notice to the owners or person the res the res to bind the
claimants of the land sought to be registered is not necessary in person.
order to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res and over the
parties. So we don’t need the personal notice.
Discussion
However, the SC said that it is true that the registration of land In other words,
under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem and not in although the
personam. Such a proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible res, property may be
may be instituted and carried to judgment without personal service bound, there is still
upon the claimants within the state or notice by mail to those need for the
outside of it. Jurisdiction is acquired by virtue of the power of the summons
court over the res. eventually as
provided in Rule 57
However, the proceedings instituted by the Salazars – for the specifically under
cancellation of entries in the subject OCT and for quieting of title – the rules on
can hardly be classified as actions in rem. The petition for Provisional
cancellation of entries annotated at the back of the said OCT ought Remedies: There is
to have been directed against specific persons: namely, the heirs of still a need for a
Juan Soriano as appearing in Entry No. 20102 and, indubitably, “contemporaneous
against their successors-in-interest who have acquired different service of
portions of the property over the years because it is in the nature summons”.
of an action quasi in rem.
The order of
So what would be the effect there? If you did not give notice to the attachment for
subject heirs, all those persons who are successors of the interests example: the
of heirs, the judgment will not be binding over them. Right? So the preliminary
judgment or the order of the said court never acquired finality. So attachment may be
that’s the effect. It’s grave, right. The proceedings will be wasted issued by the court,
for the number of years it remained pending in court, then this will however, the writ
happen; the judgment will not acquire finality. of preliminary
attachment,
Accordingly, the Salazars should have impleaded as party although may be
defendants the heirs of Juan Soriano and/or Vicenta Macaraeg as issued by the court
well as those claiming ownership over the property under their as well, but if there
names because they are indispensable parties. This was not done is no summons,
in this case. Since no indispensable party was ever impleaded by prior or
the Salazars in their petition for cancellation of entry filed before contemporaneous,
Branch 63 of the RTC of Tarlac, herein petitioners are not bound by upon the
the dispositions of the said court. Consequently, the judgment or defendant, the writ
order of the said court never even acquired finality. cannot be
implemented.

Service of summons Service of summons is not required to

is jurisdictional obtain jurisdiction but merely to satisfy
the requirements of due process.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 85
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

Requires personal Jurisdiction is acquired either: SALANDANAN VS. SPOUSES MENDEZ

service of summons (1) By the seizure of the property under G.R. NO. 160280, March 13, 2009
to the defendant to legal process, whereby it is brought into When a non-party may be bound by a judgmenet in personam
acquire jurisdiction actual custody of the law; or
(2) As a result of the institution of legal Ruling: A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a
proceedings, in which the power of the property to another is in personam (but it is also a real action).
court is recognized and made effective. xxx Any judgment therein is binding inly upon the parties
properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to
A foreign judgment A foreign Same treatment as be heard. Even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an
in an action in judgment in an action in personam ejectment suit where he is any of the following:
personam is action in rem is 1. Trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently
presumptive, not deemed occupying the property to frustrate the judgment;
conclusive, of a conclusive upon 2. Guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of
right as between the title to the the defendant;
the parties and thing. 3. Transferee pendente lite;
their successors by 4. Sublessee;
a subsequent title. 5. Co-lessee;
6. Member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.

Basis: BAYOT VS. BAYOT.

It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the
foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to
properly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of
Court clearly provided that with respect to actions in personam, as
distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a
party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.
COMBINATIONS
An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a
real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or an in
rem action is a classification of actions according to the object of
the action. A personal and real action is a classification according to
foundation.
EXAMPLES:
• PERSONAL and IN PERSONAM
o Specific Performance
o Collection of Sum of Money
o Damages
• PERSONAL and IN REM
o Declaration of Nullity / Annulment of Marriage
• REAL and IN PERSONAM
o Forcible Entry
o Unlawful Detainer
o Recovery of Possession
• REAL and IN REM
o Proceedings under Land Registration Decree but not
an action for renveyance which is personal.
An action for declaration of nullity of marriage is a personal action
(Tamano v. Ortiz, 291 SCRA 584; Romualdes-Licaros v. Licaros, 401
SCRA 762) because it is not founded on real estate. It is also an in
rem action because the issue of the status of a person is one
directed against the whole world. One's status is a matter that can
be set up against anyone in the world. On the other hand, an action
for damages is both a personal action and an action in personam.
The case of Salandanan is another example of combination of
actions but also tells us of the exceptions. In an action in personam,
it is binding upon the defendant. however, there are instances
where a non-defendant is bound.
FLOYD VS. GONZALES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 169047, November 3, 2008
Ruling: An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein
judgment is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and
given an opportunity to be heard. For the exceptions, court
hearing is a must to determine the character of such possession.
If the execution court finds that they are mere successors-in-
interest, guests, or agents of the defendant, the order of
execution shall be enforced against them
As to the Place of Filing of the action
An action can be Local or Transitory:
• A local action is one which must be brought in a particular
place.
• A transitory action is an action which follows the party
wherever he may reside.
An example of a local action is a real action because it must be filed
in the court which has territorial jurisdiction if the place where the
property or a portion thereof is situated. Such as recovery of
possession of property, forcible entry or unlawful detainer, because
it must be filed in the court which has territorial jurisdiction of the
place where the property or a portion thereof is situated.
An example of a transitory action is a personal action, the case can
be filed where the plaintiff or defendant resides at the option of the
plaintiff.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RULES OF COURT:
Rule 72, Sec. 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. Rules of
special proceedings are provided for in the following cases:
a. Settlement of the estate of deceased persons;
b. Escheat;
c. Guardianship and custody of children;
d. Trustees;
e. Adoption;
f. Rescission and revocation of adoption;
g. Hospitalization of insane persons;
h. Habeas Corpus;
i. Change of name;
j. Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
k. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor
natural children;
l. Constitution of family home;
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 86
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

m. Declaration of absence and death; of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of
n. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
special proceeding which concomitantly requires the application
DISTINCTIONS: of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Clearly, matters, which involve settlement and distribution of
Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of
the enforcement or protection of a ight, or prevention or redress the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
of a wrong. Special Proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Hence, an action
is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a CHING VS. RODRIGUEZ
formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011
is but a petition or a declaration of a status, right or fact.
Facts: The complaint is one for “disinheritance, declaration of
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS nullity of agreement and waiver, affidavit of extra-judicial
An action is a formal demand A special proceeding is an settlement, deed of absolute sale, transfer certificate of title
of one's right in a court of application or proceeding to with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
justice in the manner establish the status or right of and a writ of preliminary injunction”. In the complaint,
prescribed by the court or by a party, or a particular fact. respondents alleged among others that Ramon misrepresented
the law. himself as Antonio and Lucina's son when in truth and in fact, he
Pleadings are required; No formal pleadings are was adopted, and his birth certificate was merely simulated. The
required unless the statute decedent died of a stab wound and Ramon was identified as the
expressly so provides. In prime suspect, and he now stands as the lone accused in a
special proceedings, the criminal case for murder filed against him.
remedy is granted generally
upon an application or Issue: Whether or not disinheritance can be effected? NO
motion.
Ruling:
Can be tried by Courts of can only be tried by courts of An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
general jurisdiction special or limited jurisdiction. damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement
There are two definite adverse While there is a definite party of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of
parties, the party who petitioner, there is no definite property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
demands a right called a adverse party as the special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
plaintiff and the other whom proceeding is usually application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
the right is sought called a considered to be against the A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
defendant whole world. establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished
A complaint is filed A petition is filed. from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. To initiate a special proceeding, a petition
and not a complaint should be filed.
MANALO VS. CA
G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001
Under Article 916 of the Civil Code, disinheritance can be
effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor
Facts: Manalo filed a petition for issuance of letters of
shall be specified. While the respondents in their complaint
administration, settlement and distribution of Estate. The
sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
oppositors filed a motion to dismiss for lack of compliance of a
supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was
conditional precedent on the ground that Article 222 of the Civil
ever mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's
Code was not followed.
Disinheritance, the Civil case does not partake of the nature of a
special proceeding and does not call for the probate's exercise
Article 222 - no suit shall be filed or maintained between
of its limited jurisdiction.
members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest
efforts toward a compromise have been made but that the same
have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035.
Disinheritance is a matter that deals with the settlement of an
Ruling: Article 222 is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. The estate of a deceased person that is in the nature of a special
provision is applicable only to civil actions which are essentially proceeding which requires the application of specific rules as
adversarial and involve members of the same family. The provided for in the rules of court and it should be filed before a
petition in this case is a special proceeding. court of limited jurisdiction and not the regional trial court per se
as a court of general jurisdiction.

NATCHER VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001

Ruling: An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with

damages is a civil action wher as matters relating to settlement
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
HEIRS OF YAPTINCHAY VS. DEL ROSARIO
G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999
Issue: Can a declaration of heirship be made in a civil action?
Ruling: No, the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship
in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only
be made in a special proceeding.
REPUBLIC VS. CA
G.R. No. 163604, May 6, 2005
Is an action for declaration of presumptive death an ordinary civil
action or a special proceeding?
Take note that Rule 72, Sec. 1(m) includes “declaration of
absence and death” as one of the special proceedings.
However, under Article 41 of the Family Code, for the purpose
of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding
paragraph, the spouses present must institute a summary
proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of a reappearance of the absent spouse.
Issue: The principle issue in this case is whether a petition for
declaration of the presumptive death of a person is in the nature
of a special proceeding. If it is, the period to appeal is 30 days
and the party appealing must, in addition to a notice of appeal,
file with the trial court a record on appeal to perfect appeal.
Otherwise, if the petition is an ordinary action, the period to
appeal is 15 days from notice or decision or final order appealed
from and the appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal.
(Section 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court)
If it is a petition for declaration of presumptive death for
purposes of succession, it is a special proceeding but if it is a
summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death for
purposes of remarriage, it is an ordinary civil action.
There is no doubt that the petition is a summary proceeding
under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the
Revised Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the filing of a
Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the
filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s order sufficed.
DISCUSSION
This is an action for declaration of presumptive death, an ordinary
civil action or a special proceeding. Take note that under the law,
there are two proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death.
First, under Rule 72, which includes declaration of absence and
death. This is one of the special proceedings provided therein.
However, under Art. 41(2) of the Family Code…
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under
the preceding paragraph, the spouses present must institute a
summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration
of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of a reappearance of the absent spouse.
So there are two kinds, declaration of absence and death, and Art.
41, which is presumptive death of an absent spouse. What’s the
distinction and why is it important?
87
It is because of the issue here. The principal issue is whether a
petition for declaration of presumptive death of a person is in the
nature of a special proceeding. If it is, the period to appeal is 30
days and the party appealing must, in addition to a notice of appeal
file with the trial court, a record on appeal to perfect its appeal. Just
take note of that. Otherwise, if the petition is an ordinary action,
the period to appeal is 15 days from notice or decision of final order
appealed from and the appeal is perfected by filing a notice of
appeal, no need for the record on appeal.
This record of appeal is very thick, very hard to prepare. This is why
before, the period to appeal if it is just notice to appeal, it is just 15
days. But if it is record on appeal, 30 days.
So what is that being mentioned in Rule 72 that special proceeding?
Art. 41, is again for declaration of presumptive death for purposes
of remarriage. How about in Rule 72? According to the Court, it is
for the declaration of presumptive death for purposes of succession,
it is a special proceeding and the rules on special proceedings will
apply. If it is a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive
death for remarriage, it is only an ordinary action.
PETITION FOR LIQUIDATION OF AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION
A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be
classified a special proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such
petition does not seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor
the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It does not
pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful
act or omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced
against any person. (Pacific Banking Corporation Employees’
Organization v. CA, 242, SCRA 492 (1995); Natcher v. CA, 366 SCRA
385 (2001)).
It is a special proceeding, not an ordinary action. It does not seek
the protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong
against a party.
AM No. 00-8-10-SC (September 4, 2001)
§ The cases covered by the Interim Rules for Intra-Corporate
Controversies should be considered as ordinary civil actions.
These cases either seek the recovery of damages/property or
specific performance of an act against a party for the violation
or protection of a right. xxx
§ On the other hand, a petition for rehabilitation, the procedure
for which is provided in the Interim RRules of Procedure on
Corporate Recovery, should be considered as a special
proceeding. It is one that seeks to establish the status of a
party or a particular fact.
DISCUSSION
This is the transitioning of the delegation over intra-corporate
disputes to the Regional Trial Courts for purposes of fixing the filing
fee, the docket fees. The cases covered by the interim rules of
intra-corporate controversies should be considered as ordinary
civil actions. But a petition for the rehabilitation, the procedure of
which is provided in the interim rules of procedure on corporate
recovery should be considered as a special proceeding. Take note
of the dichotomy.
ARBITRATION
Under the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution
(Special ADR Rules), all proceedings under the Special ADR Rules are
special proceedings. (Rule 1.2)
Under RA 9285, or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law (ADR
Law), proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
arbitration agreement or for vacation, setting aside, correction or
modification of an arbitral award, and any application with a court
for arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as
special proceedings.
DISCUSSION
According to the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution of the Special ADR Rules, it is special proceedings. And
it is also repeated under RA 9285 or the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Law, where all proceedings there are considered Special
Proceedings as well.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not
apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not
herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.
DISCUSSION
So when you talk about these cases, the Rules of Court is not strictly
applicable, the only time where the Rules of Court will be applicable
is when there are holes or deficiency in these rules and only when
practicable and convenient. Illustrative of this is the case of Ong
Chia v. Republic
ONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 127240 | 2000
FACTS: In this case, the Court granted the petition for
naturalization of the foreigner. On appeal, the State offered a
document for the first time. That document was not
considered during the proceedings in the lower court.
Petitioner opposed because according to the petitioner, you
cannot do that. There was already a formal offer of exhibits
and was admitted.
ISSUE: Can document presented on appeal, which was not part
of the formal offer before the lower court, be admitted? – YES.
RULING: The rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, §34)
now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to the
present case involving a petition for naturalization. The only
instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or
suppletorily in such cases is when it is "practicable and
convenient." That is not the case here, since reliance upon the
documents presented by the State for the first time on appeal,
in fact, appears to be the more practical and convenient course
of action considering that decisions in naturalization
proceedings are not covered by the rule on res judicata.
Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not preclude the
State from later on moving for a revocation of the grant of
naturalization on the basis of the same documents.
DISCUSSION
What is this formal offer which is the basis for Ong Chia’s
contention? In Rule 132, Sec. 34, we have this so called offer of
evidence, which provides that the Court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. This applies so documentary
evidence, object evidence, testimonial evidence. And you need to
remember that in this case, the Solicitor General did not participate
during the RTC proceedings, such evidence was not presented
therein. So Ong Chia is now saying that, “the evidence was not even
88
presented before the RTC, and now by the simple expedient of
attaching it to your appellant’s brief, that evidence now exists,
that’s unfair. We should strictly implement this Sec. 34.” How did
the SC rule?
The Court said, it is not applicable to the present case involving a
petition for naturalization. The only instance when the rules may
be applied by analogy or suppletorily is only when it is practicable
or convenient. That is not the case here since reliance upon the
documents presented by the State for the first time on appeal in
fact appears to be the more practical and convenient course of
action considering that decisions on naturalization proceedings are
not covered by the rule on res judicata.
Section 5. Commencement of Action. — A civil action is
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an
additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action
is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the filing of
such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
DISCUSSION
**We will not yet discuss the second sentence because there is a proper
part of civil procedure for that so you will appreciate more this second
sentence.
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
court. That’s the way that you set the judicial machinery in motion.
But there is no such thing as free beer. There is no free filing here,
unless the court allows you to litigate in forma pauperis or as an
indigent litigant that you don’t need to pay filing fee or docket fees.
When a prospective litigant wishes to invoke the judicial power to
afford him relief, he has to pay docket fees. Now what we are going
to do now is just to go over the rules in relation to the payment of
docket fees. So, before you can file, you have to pay docket fees. As
simple as that. But what would be the effect now if you did not pay,
when required and you did not pay the correct amount of docket
fees?
RECALL THE TOTALITY RULE
In determining the jurisdiction of the trial courts, the claim shall
exclude interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses and costs, so that is not included in determining
the jurisdiction. However, 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.
While the claim shall be exclusive of these interests, etc., the
determination of the docket fees to be paid shall include these
items. There is really no way around it. It is included in the
computation of the docket fees but it is not included in the
determination of jurisdiction of the courts.
Q: How important is the payment of the proper docket fees in the
prosecution of a civil case?
A: PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT! It is not simply the filing of the
complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction
over the subject matter or nature of the action. The same rule
applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the
filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Manchester Dev’t Corporation v. CA
GR No. 75919 | May 7, 1987
FACTS: Counsel for the Petitioner filed the original complaint
but omitted from the prayer any specification of the amount of
damages although the amount of over 78 million was alleged in
the body of the complaint. He was ordered to amend the
complaint which he did but specified the amount of damages in
the body of the complaint in the reduced amount of P10
million but still, no amount of damages were specified in the
prayer. As a result, Petitioner paid insufficient docket fees.
Petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until the case
was decided by the Court.
RULING: As reiterated in the Magaspi case the rule is well-
settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the
docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court. Thus,
in the present case the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the case by the payment of only P410.00 as docket fee.
Neither can the amendment of the complaint thereby vest
jurisdiction upon the Court. For an legal purposes there is no
such original complaint that was duly filed which could be
amended. Consequently, the order admitting the amended
complaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions taken by
the trial court are null and void.
The Court cannot close this case without making the observation
that it frowns at the practice of counsel who filed the original
complaint in this case of omitting any specification of the
amount of damages in the prayer although the amount of over
P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This is clearly
intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the
correct filing fees if not to mislead the docket clerk in the
assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice was
compounded when, even as this Court had taken cognizance of
the anomaly and ordered an investigation, petitioner through
another counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all
mention of the amount of damages being asked for in the body
of the complaint. It was only when in obedience to the order of
this Court of October 18, 1985, the trial court directed that the
amount of damages be specified in the amended complaint, that
petitioners' counsel wrote the damages sought in the much
reduced amount of P10,000,000.00 in the body of the complaint
but not in the prayer thereof. The design to avoid payment of
the required docket fee is obvious.
The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action upon a
repetition of this unethical practice.
To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints,
petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the
amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be
considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib
accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
record.
The Cpurt acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the
complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdcition
on the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on
the amount sought in the amended pleading.
89
DISCUSSION
Meaning, when the case was filed in the Supreme Court, he was
given an opportunity to explain as to why he only paid such docket
fee which is insufficient. If he wanted the court to entertain his case,
he should pay the proper docket fee. But why did he only paid the
proper docket fee when the court said so.
According to the Supreme Court, the docket fee should be assessed
by considering the amount of damages as alleged in the original
complaint. How much was it? Php 78 Million. It is a well-settled rule
that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee
regardless of the actual date of filing in court. The trial court here
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by the payment of
insufficient docket fee. Neither can the amended of the complaint
thereby vest jurisdiction upon the court for all legal purposes, there
is no such original complaint that was duly filed which could be
amended. Consequently, the order admitting the amended
complaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions taken by the
trial court are null and void. Why? Because the correct docket fee
was not properly paid.
Again, it is jurisdictional. The court never really acquired jurisdiction
over the case. The Supreme Court said, it cannot close this case
without making the observation that it frowns at the practice of
counsel who filed the original complaint in this case of omitting any
specification of the amount of damages in the prayer although the
amount of over Php 78 million is alleged in the body of the
complaint. Why? Because before, the practice was that the clerk of
court in assessing the docket fee, only checks what is stated in the
prayer. But later on, we will learn what will really govern, the title
of the case, the prayer in the complaint where the plaintiff
summarizes what he asks from the court against the defendant, or
the body of the complaint.
The practice before, they only check the prayer and computes the
docket fee based on the prayer. So the Supreme Court said: that is
intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the
correct filing fees if not to mislead the docket clerk in the
assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice was
compounded when, even as this court had taken cognizance of the
anomaly and ordered an investigation, petitioner through another
counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all mention of the
amount of damages being asked for in the body of the complaint.
It was only when in obedience to the order of this Court of October
18, 1985, the trial court directed that the amount of damages be
specified in the amended complaint, that petitioner’s counsel
wrote the damages sought in the much reduced amount of Php 10
million in the body of the complaint but not in the prayer thereof.
The design to avoid payment of the required docket fee is obvious.
The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action upon a
repetition of this unethical practice.
It is as if it was not filed even if it was already accepted by the court,
it was expunged, meaning it was not filed even if you have paid the
docket, but it was insufficient. The Supreme Court is very harsh in
this case.
Imagine, the entire case thrown out by the Supreme Court simply
because there is failure to pay the proper docket fee, not to
mention the fact that there was a deliberate intent to defraud the
Government of said filing or docket fees.
This case was heard by the Supreme Court after the case of
Manchester. In fact, the Supreme Court referred the Manchester
case in this Sun Insurance case. (both have the same facts)
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion
G.R No. 79937-38, Feb. 13, 1989
In the body of the original complaint, the total amount of damages
sought amounted to about Php 50 million. In the Prayer, the amount
of damages was not stated. The action was for the refund of the
premium and the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment
with damages. The amount of only Php 210.00 was paid for the
docket fee. On January 23, 1986, private respondent filed an
amended complaint where the prayer asked that he be awarded no
less than Php 10 million damages but in the body of the complaint,
the amount was approximately Php 44,601,623.70. said amended
complaint was admitted and the plaintiff was reassessed the
additional docket fee of Php 39,786.00 based on his prayer of not
less than Php 10 million in damages which he paid.
On April 24, 1986, plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint alleging
an additional claim of Php 20 million in damages so that his total
claim is approximately Php 64, 601, 620.70. On October 16, 1986,
plaintiff paid an additional docket fee of Php 80, 396.00. After the
promulgation of the decision of the respondent court on August 31,
1987 wherein plaintiff was ordered to be reassessed for additional
docket fee, and during the pendency of this petition, and after the
promulgation of Manchester, on April 28, 1988, plaintiff paid an
additional docket fee of Php 62,132.00. Although plaintiff appears to
have paid a total amount of php 182,824.00 for the docket fee
considering the total amount of his claim in the amended and
supplemental complaint amounting to about Php 64,601,620,
defendant insists that plaintiff must pay a docket fee of Php 257,810.
Ruling:
The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present
case. The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the
docket fee due it is obvious not only in the filing of the original
complaint but also in the filing of the second amended complaint.
However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional
docket fee until the case was decided by this court on May 7, 1987.
Thus, in Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the
government, this court held that the court a quo did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint could not
have been admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and
void.
In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules if called
for considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent
demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the
additional docket fees as required. The promulgation of the decision
in Manchester must have had that sobering influence on private
respondent who thus paid the additional docket fee as ordered by
the respondent court.
Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was paid
is still insufficient considering the total amount of the claim. This is a
matter which the clerk of court of the lower court and/or his duly
authorized docket clerk or clerk-in-charge should determine and,
thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must require the private
respondent to pay the same.
DISCUSSION
According to the Supreme Court in the Sun Insurance case,
Manchester could very well be applied in this case. The pattern and
intent to defraud the Government of the docket fee due to it is
obvious, not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in
the filing of the second amended complaint. If you recall the second
90
amended complaint where he added additional claim. However, in
Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until
the case was already decided by the Supreme Court. Thus, in
Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the Government, this
court held that a court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the
case and that the amended complaint could not have been
admitted in as much as the original complaint was null and void for
lack of payment of proper docket fees. In the present case, in this
case of Sun Insurance, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is
called for. Why?
Even though the facts in both cases are more or less are similar
except one thing, the plaintiff in Sun Insurance demonstrated his
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket
fess. The promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have
had that sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid
that additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court. So
here, the plaintiff was really scared, he paid properly the required
docket fee.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANCHESTER AND SUN INSURANCE
MANCHESTER SUN INSURANCE
There is no attempt to The plaintiff paid the
comply, although there was additional docket fee.
an intent to defraud. He
wanted to pay a lesser
amount of docket fee.
Take note: In Sun Insurance, the Supreme Court laid down
guidelines on what we should remember:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the
filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment
of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third
party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said
fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond
its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by
the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if
specified the same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a
lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce
said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
DISCUSSION
What does it mean? It means that the filing fee was paid when the
case was filed. The clerk of court computed the docket fee based
on the prayer but there is a prayer there which the plaintiff cannot
specify how much because one cannot anticipate how much the
court would award.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Example: Litigation expenses, would you know in advance how
much expenses in litigation you would incur? You won’t, right? So,
you will leave it to the determination by the Court at a later time
and the court will state that in its judgment. But you haven’t paid
its corresponding filing fee and docket fee, does it mean that the
court cannot award that? No. The Supreme Court said that it is
allowed. The additional filing fee will just constitute a lien on any
judgment that you will recover. If you win, it will be sourced from
that. You will not be awarded of your judgment if you will not pay
the additional filing fee.
What else is an example of that? Moral damages and exemplary
damages; although the rules now require that you should provide
at least an approximation of its value. Let’s say you provided Php
50,000 as moral damages and Php 50,000 as well for exemplary
damages. In that situation, what if the court awards more because
the court was convinced that you suffered more damages
compared to what you are asking for? The court can actually do that
in the exercise of equity; award you more than what you are asking
for. This is because what matters is what you are able to prove not
what you are able to allege originally. Does it mean that the court
cannot award such higher amount because you haven’t paid the
filing fee or the docket fee for that amount? No. It will just
constitute a lien on the judgment.
As you can see, the Sun Insurance case is not that strict anymore
compared to that in the case of Manchester. However, the rule in
Manchester that the payment of proper filing or docket fees is
jurisdictional still remains and still applicable.
Tacay, Et. al v. RTC
GR No. 88075-77, December 20, 1989
Additional rules on docket fees for real actions with prayer for
damages
a real action where you paid for the proper docket fee and then
later on the court awards damages but you haven’t paid the
docket fees for the damages, what will happen?
Where the action involves real property and a related claim for
damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of
both (a) the value of the property and (b) the total amount of
related damages sought. The court acquires jurisdiction over the
action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by
the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at
the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full
payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court
may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the
meantime.” Meaning, it is the same with the rule in Sun
Insurance.
“But where the fees prescribed for an action involving real
property have been paid, but the amounts of certain of the
related damages being demanded are unspecified, the action
may not be dismissed.” Meaning, the related damages were not
specified.
The amount to be awarded is on the court’s discretion. How
would you put it in your prayer? Such amount of damages as the
court would determine according to the merits of the case. Does
it mean that because you haven’t paid the proper amount of
docket fees of that related damages the court can dismiss the
action when in fact it already has jurisdiction of your main action
which is the real action, for example, to recover a real property?
According to the Supreme Court, the action may not be
dismissed.
91
“The Court undeniably has jurisdiction over the action involving
the real property, acquiring it upon the filing of the complaint or
similar pleading and payment of the prescribed fee. And it is not
divested of that authority by the circumstance that it may not
have acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying claims or
damages because of lack of specification thereof.” You haven’t
specified it in your prayer but for sure, you have specified in your
prayer your action over the real property. It should not be
dismissed by the court because the court already has jurisdiction
over that real action. “What should be done is simply to expunge
those claims for damages as to which no amounts are stated,
which is what the respondent Courts did, or allow, on motion, a
reasonable time for the amendment of the complaints so as to
allege the precise amount of each item of damages and accept
payment of the requisite fees therefor within the relevant
prescriptive period.”
What’s the situation again? The case involves a real property
which has a prescribed docket fee, which is frankly, cheap and is
based on the assessed value of the real property. However, you
haven’t paid for the claims of damages because you haven’t
specified the value. Should the court dismiss it? No. Why? The
court has jurisdiction already when you paid the proper docket
fee for the real action. What should the court do? It should give
you time to pay for the unspecified amount of related damages
and not to dismiss the case.
DISCUSSION
Again, the rules were somehow liberalized; from Manchester which
is very strict because there was intent to fraud and there was also
no honest-to-goodness effort to pay the proper docket fees, then it
was followed by Sun Insurance where the court liberalized and gave
a reasonable extension and time to pay the docket fees provided
that there is an honest-to-goodness intention to actually pay or
there was an attempt to pay the proper docket fees, and then later
on it was again liberalized in this case of Tacay v RTC, where again,
if real action plus damages and you only paid for the docket fees of
the real action, you will be given an extension to pay for the
damages. Again, it is liberalized.
Ayala Corp., et al. v Madayag,
GR No. 88421, January 30, 1990
“The amended and supplemental complaint in the present case,
therefore, suffers from the material defect in failing to state the
amount of exemplary damages prayed for.”
Again, exemplary damages are not awarded as a matter of right.
You have to prove that you are entitled to actual, moral,
temperate damages before you are awarded exemplary
damages. That is the rule in Torts and Damages. So, you do not
know how much the court will award, in other words, for
exemplary damages.
“As ruled in Tacay, the trial court may either order said claim to
expunged from the record as it did not acquire jurisdiction over
the same or on motion, it may allow, within a reasonable time,
the amendment of the amended and supplemental complaint
so as to state the precise amount of the exemplary damages
sought and require the payment of the requisite fees therefor
within the relevant prescriptive period.”
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
What is the effect of Ayala v. Madayag? While you do not know how
much the court will award for exemplary damages or moral
damages because again, it is not a matter of right but depends on
the discretion of the court if it will award exemplary damages, even
if you are not sure, you have to put an amount. How much, do you
think, should the exemplary damages be? You have to state, let’s
say, Php 50,000 is enough. Later on, if the court awards Php
100,000 and you only paid the docket fees for your prayer of Php
50,000, what will happen? Again, you apply the Sun Insurance
guideline that it will simply constitute a lien on the judgment on the
additional or extra damages that has been awarded to you.
These cases are interrelated although there are some modifications
in the guidelines laid down in the case of Sun Insurance.
Heirs of Hinog v Melicor,
GR No. 140954, April 12, 2005
The court held that “while the payment of the prescribed docket
fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the
time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the
case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive
or reglementary period, more so when the party involved
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing
such payment.” Here, it was clarified by the Supreme Court that
the Manchester would only apply if it was not shown that there
is willingness to pay.
“Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
government, the Manchester rule does not apply.” This is simply
a qualification on the Manchester rule. Meaning, the
Manchester rule will only apply under the peculiar
circumstances or similar circumstances as with Manchester.
In the case of Proton Pilipinas, this talked about what happens
when, for example, you demanded for payment of a debt and when
from the demand, the debt will earn legal interest or possibly, if it
is interest by the agreement of the parties, as long as you were not
paid yet, the interest will persist. And then you haven’t paid for the
interest because as of the time of filing the interest is already Php
1,550,000. The case was pending, let’s say, for four years and then
you won. In the four years you will still compute damages based on
the agreed interest rate of the parties, right? What will happen to
the docket fees there?
Proton Pilipinas Corp., et al. v Banque Nationale de Paris
GR No. 151242, June 15, 2005
“With respect to the interest accruing after the filing of the
complaint, the same can only be determined after a final
judgment has been handed down. Respondent cannot thus be
made to pay the corresponding docket fee therefore. Pursuant,
however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as amended by Administrative
Circular No. 11-94, respondent should be made to pay additional
fees which shall constitute a lien in the event the trial court
adjudges that it is entitled to interest accruing after the filing of
the complaint. Thus:
Sec. 2. Fees as lien – Where the court in its final
judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief
different or more than that claimed in the pleading,
the party concerned shall pay the additional fees
which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in
satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall assess
and collect the corresponding fees.”
92
Section 2 of Rule 141 as amended by Administrative Circular No.
11-94 is a product of Manchester, Sun Insurance, Tacay, and
even Ayala v Madayag. Very clearly, it has become a proper rule.
It is already there that it shall constitute a lien on the judgment
in satisfaction of said lien.
“In Ayala Corporation v Madayag, in interpreting the third rule
laid down in Sun Insurance regarding awards of claims not
specified in the pleading, this Court held that the same refers
only to damages arising after the filing of the complaint or
similar pleading as to which the additional filing fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the judgment. The amount of any claim
for damages, therefor, arising on or before filing of the
complaint or any pleading should be specified. While it is true
that the determination of certain damages as exemplary or
corrective damages is left to the sound discretion of the court,
it is the duty of the parties claiming such damages to specify the
amount sought on the basis of which the court may make a
proper determination, and for the proper assessment of the
appropriate docket fees. The exception contemplated as to
claims not specified or to claims although specified are left for
determination of the court is limited only to any damages that
may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for
then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify not
speculate as to the amount thereof.”
DISCUSSION
Again, just specify and it is upon the court already if it will award
you that amount or even higher. *rich source of bar exam questions.
What do we need to do here?
In Manchester, there was a deliberate intent to defraud the
government and there was no attempt to pay the correct docket
fees. What’s the effect there? The court a quo never really acquired
jurisdiction and the judgment is null and void.
Next, the Sun Insurance. What happened there? There was an
attempt to pay the correct amount of docket fees. In that situation,
you will be given an extension. You have to remember all of these
cases so that we’ll know what is applicable.
Just remember these two cases because the rest of the cases simply
talked about the rules that qualified the Sun Insurance guidelines.
A little bit of qualification, in Tacay, the proper docket fees for the
real action were paid but not for the related damages because it
was not specified; the court should not dismiss the case because it
had jurisdiction over the real action because of the payment of the
proper docket fee. However, the damages will still be paid, if you
win, lien on the judgment.
TAKE NOTE: the filing of docket fees is essential.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 93
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES the rules would have denied it, but only when to do so would
Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally serve the demands of substantial justice, and in the exercise of
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (2a) EXAMPLE
You filed your Answer on the 31st day since the amendment to the
ANSON TRADE CENTER, INC. v. PACIFIC BANKING Rules gives a period of 30 days within which to file an Answer. Then,
CORPORATION your opponent immediately filed a motion to declare in default
G.R. No. 179999 | March 17, 2009 since you went beyond the 30-day period.

Litigation is not a game of technicality, in which one more deeply
schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position
entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which
each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the
facts in issue and thenm brushing aside as wholly trivial and
indecisive all imperfection of forms and technicalities of
procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits,
unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust. Technicality,
when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes
its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant
consideration from courts.
REDENA v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 146611 | February 6, 2007
It is equally settled, however, that this Court’s power to liberally
construe and even to suspend the rules, presupposes the
existence of substantial rights in favor of which, the strict
application of technical rules must concede.
What’s the difference of one day in the interest of substantive
justice?
That is a situation where it is more important that the court
received the Answer rather than having the case dismissed because
of one day filing beyond the reglementary period.
How about right to appeal? The right to appeal is not guaranteed
to you. You should follow strict procedural requirements. That’s
why when you file an appeal before the Court of Appeals, it is very
strict. They will dismiss your petition if, for example, you did not
place your address or your Roll Number. The rules on appeal are
very strict. They are something that you cannot take lightly.
---END OF PART 1 OF THE 1ST EXAM COVERAGE---

Your substantive rights will always prevail. No matter the

procedure, no matter the technicality, if you have a right to stand
on, that right will always prevail. And the court should be vigilant to
also ensure that substantial justice will prevail over technicalities.

Tagabi vs Tanque is the reverse of Redena vs Court of Appeals.

While majority of the cases will tell you that procedure is not a
game of technicalities, but…

TAGABI v. TANQUE
G.R. No. 144024 | July 27, 2006

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply

because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to
a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be
followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when
they may be relaxed to relieve a litigation of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complaining with the procedure prescribed.

JOSE v. COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 128646, March 14, 2003

Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat,

substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in
a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that, while the
Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the
rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are
strictly applied. As an exception to the exception, these rules
have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also,
in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an
appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
RULE 2
CAUSE OF ACTION
SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. – Every ordinary civil
action must be based on a cause of action.
SECTION 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
A cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates
the right of another. It is the delict or the wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary right of the
plaintiff.
CAUSE OF ACTION ELEMENTS
The Supreme Court stated that there are three:
1. A RIGHT in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
under whatever law it arises or is created;
2. An OBLIGATION on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; and
3. An ACT OR OMISSION on the part of such defendant in
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a
breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery
of damages or other appropriate relief. [VIOLATION]
(Spouses Fernandez vs SMART Communications, Inc., G.R.
No. 212885, July 17, 2019)
It is only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of
action arises, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in
court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
(Universal Aquarius, Inc., et al. vs Q.C. Human Resources
Management, G.R. No. 155990, September 12, 2007)
DISCUSSION
1. A RIGHT in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created;
It is a right. It is one which is regulated, created and defined by
substantive law. To determine whether or not one has a right over
something, we have to consult substantive law. It could be the law
on obligations and contracts, law on persons and family relations,
it could be any law which provides civil rights. We are not talking
here about criminal actions, we are talking here about civil actions.
2. An OBLIGATION on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; and
When we talk about obligation, it is a technical term. It is defined
under Article 1156 of the Civil Code to be a juridical necessity to
give, to do or not to do. It’s the same thing, more or less when we
talk about obligation by way of the elements of a cause of action,
we are still talking about obligations that are defined in Civil Law.
3. An ACT OR OMISSION on the part of such defendant in
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of
the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the
latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief. [VIOLATION]
In other words, the PLAINTIFF has the right, the DEFENDANT has
the obligation to respect that right and yet the DEFENDANT violated
the right of the plaintiff.
94
When all these elements coincide, you can now say that plaintiff
has a cause of action.
INFORMAL 4TH ELEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION
4. DAMAGE
According to Dean Inigo, it is DAMAGE. According to Dean Espejo,
“if there is no damage sustained, no suit can be maintained.” Why?
Because of damnum absque injuria.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
It means a loss or damage for which there is no legal remedy. In
other words, even if there is violation of a right but the law does
not consider it as an actionable injury, the plaintiff cannot file a
claim
Let us suppose that A has that right, B has the obligation to respect
or comply with that right. Yet B violated, B had breached this duty
of this obligation to comply with A’s right. The problem is, when B
violated A’s right, A never really suffered any injury.
Q: Can A maintain an action in court? Can you sue on this?
A: NO. What the law looks at as injury would be actual injury. It is
not just some hypothetical injury. There has to be some damage.
WHY NOT ACTIONABLE? (damnum absque injuria)
Because there is deemed to be no breach of a legal duty.
Examples: These may be violations of a right, but the law deems it
as not actionable.
1. Breach of promise to marry per se. It is not actionable
although the feelings of the jilted lover may have been
wounded.
In Persons and Family Relations, it is not considered as
actionable. Even if you feel that your right as a lover is
violated, breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong.
2. Gambling debts. They are not actionable at law. In these
cases, the parties are deemed to be in pari delicto so the
courts will leave them as they are. A person who seeks to
enforce a gambling debt does not come to court with
clean hands.
Gambling for the most part is illegal, i.e. tong its, mahjong.
Can a defeated mahjong player come to court to enforce
an obligation based on gambling? NO. This is the Clean
Hands Doctrine. Even if you feel that your right is violated
by the defendant’s actions, you did not come to the court
with clean hands. And so the court will not provide you
with a remedy and will just leave you as you are.
3. De minimis non curat lex. The law does not deal with
trifles.
Collection case of debt of Php 20. Even if there is nominal
injury on the part of the plaintiff caused by the breach of
duty of the defendant, the law will not come to your aid.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
BPI EXPRESS CARD v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 120639 | September 25, 1998
FACTS: Atty T. has a BPI credit card but he failed to pay his bill.
He was asked to issue a check for 15,000, otherwise his credit
will be cut off. Atty. T issued a postdated check. BPI sent him a
letter to inform him that his credit card was temporarily
suspended and asked him to refrain using the credit card. Atty.
T used the credit card which was not honored by Café Malate
where he was treating his friends. Atty. T said that he was
humiliated by the incident and so filed an action for damages
against BPI Express Credit Card.
HELD: In other words, in order that the plaintiff may maintain an
action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish
that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the
defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the
plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. Thus,
there can be damage without injury in those instances in which
the loss or harm was not the results of a violation of a legal duty.
In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured
person alone, the law affords no remedy for damages resulting
from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.
These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.
DISCUSSION
We know that a check will only produce the effect of payment only
if it is encashed.
In this case, the Attorney treated his friends, but his credit card was
not honored, so he said that he was so ashamed and he was furious
then and there at Café Malate and he was humiliated by the
incident, so he filed an action for damages against BPI because of
that humiliation. He was asking for moral damages.
The question now is, was it proper of the lawyer to seek damages
against BPI Express Credit Card? According to the Supreme Court,
in order for the plaintiff to maintain an action for the injuries which
he complains of, he must first establish that such injuries resulted
from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. A
concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the
person causing it.
Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in
which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal
duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the person
injured alone and the law affords no remedy for damages resulting
from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These
situations are often called DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.
To illustrate, the lawyers feelings here were clearly hurt. He was
humiliated according to him and he feels that his right was violated.
But because he did not heed the warning of BPI, to refrain from
using his card, whatever damage he may have suffered is in the
nature of Damnum Absque Injuria.
It is not accurate to simply limit the elements of the cause of action
to RIGHT, OBLIGATION, VIOLATION, because it is deemed written
into the law that there should be damage; An actionable damage
or injury on the part of the plaintiff.
Take note that Damnum Absque Injuria is related to the Latin
Maxim Damnum Sine Injuria Esse Potest. Which translates to
“There may be damage or loss inflicted without any act being done
95
which the law deems an injury. So, there is damage, there is injury,
however it is not considered by law as an actionable legal injury.
What would be the test to determine sufficiency of cause of action?
When can you say have a sufficient cause of action, that your
complaint is sufficient in form and in substance, that the court will
consider it?
SPOUSES CHU v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T CORP
G.R. No. 142313 | March 1, 2001
The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the
facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the
same accordance with the prayer thereof.
Meaning, without looking into what the defendant is going to
say, without looking into the merits of the defenses of the
defendant, if we believe all the things stated by the plaintiff, will
that be sufficient to render judgment? Will all those elements of
the cause of action as they are stated in the complaint, be
sufficient to render judgement? If we will only accept the
plaintiff.
In Asia Brewery v. Equitable PCI Bank, the Supreme Court restated
it as follows:
Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank
G.R. No. 190432 | April 25, 2017
The test to determine whether a complaint states a cause of action
against the defendant is this:
Admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegation of fact made in
the complaint, may a judge validly grant the relief demanded in the
complaint?
Can we grant it based on the complaint? If it is, then you have
sufficiently stated a cause of action. Meaning that, there is that
RIGHT, there is that OBLIGATION, and there is that VIOLATION, and
in other cases, DAMAGE is also present that is required by law.
**in the complaint- admitting hypothetically the truth of the
allegations, is the judge now permitted to grant the relief
demanded in the complaint?
In this case of Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation, which
tells you in effect that you only look at the complaint. You are not
supposed to look at anything else. The material allegations in the
complaint, extraneous facts and circumstances or other matter
aliunde are not considered. Meaning that those that go beyond the
four corners of the complaint should not be considered. The court
may consider however, in addition to the complaint the appended
annexes or documents, those documentary evidence that he
attaches, other pleadings of the plaintiff or if there are already
admissions in the records of the case.
What we are only supposed to look at are, the allegations in the
complaint.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation
G.R. No. 172175 | October 09, 2006
To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the
complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters
aliunde are not considered. The court may consider in addition to
the complaint the appended annexes or documents, other
pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.
And again, in Asia Brewery Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank, In
determining whether the elements of a cause of action are present
or whether they have been sufficiently alleged, the inquiry is
therefore confined to the four corners of the complaint.
Here, we just focus on the complaint.
The Rule:
Only the allegations of the complaint are considered in order to
determine:
First: Second:
Whether all the elements of a Whether the court has
cause of action are present. jurisdiction over the subject
matter
Discussion:
Only the allegations of the complaint are considered in order to
determine whether all the elements of a cause of action are present,
so just focus on the four corners of the complaint. If it alleges the
elements of a cause of action, it is not dismissible or subject to
question on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.
What is the second exception to this rule?
When we were talking about jurisdiction. The different elements of
jurisdiction. So the second instance there is whether the court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Here in whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter,
we look at only the complaint, it is not affected by the theories or
defenses set up by the defendant in his answer or his motion to
dismiss.
It is, if there are allegations that it is an agrarian dispute. In that
situation, the court will differ to act and then transmit the same to
the department of agrarian reform, who will then determine
whether or not it is an agrarian dispute or not. If it is an agrarian
dispute, the court has no choice but to dismiss the case.
DISTINCTIONS:
CAUSE OF ACTION SUBJECT MATTER
A cause of action is the act or The subject matter is the item
omission by which a party with respect to which the
violates a right of another. It is
controversy has arisen, or
the delict or the wrongful act concerning which the wrong
or omission committed by the has been done, and it is
defendant in violation of the ordinarily the right, the thing,
primary right of the plaintiff. or the contract under dispute
(Bachrach Corp v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 128349,
September 25, 1998)
For example, in a breach of contract, the contract violated is the
subject matter while the breach thereof by the obligor is the
cause of action.
96
DISCUSSION
On one hand, there are elements of a cause of action and then on
the other hand, subject matter. So how do we distinguish between
cause of action and subject matter, or are they the same?
Cause of Action is the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another. But when you talk about Subject Matter, it is the
item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or
concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the
right, the thing, or the contract under dispute.
For example, in a breach of contract, the contract violated is the
subject matter. Suppose, there are monetary elements in a
contract, then jurisdiction over the subject matter will be
determined by the jurisdictional amounts. For example, it is below
P300,000, outside of Metro Manila, it will be the MTC that has
jurisdiction, because that is the subject matter.
While the breach thereof by the obligor is the cause of action.
Because the cause of action, again, that is the act or omission,
whereby a party violates the right of the plaintiff.
INIEGO v. PURGANAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 166876 | March 24, 2006
FACTS: According to respondent Judge, what her referred to in
his assailed order as not capable of pecuniary estimation is the
cause of action, which is a quasi-delict, and not the amount of
damage prayed for. From this, respondent Judge concluded that
since fault or negligence in quasi-delicts cannot be the subject
of pecuniary estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the respondent Judge in this respect.
ISSUE: Is the fault or negligence, the subject matter or the cause
of action?
HELD: Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous. What must
be determined to be capable or incapable if pecuniary
estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of
the action.
A cause of action is “the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of
the plaintiff.” On the other hand, the “subject matter of the
action is the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the
money, the lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which the
suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed by the
defendant.”
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and
effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the
damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious
acts. The damages claimed in such actions represent the
monetary equivalent of the injury cased to the plaintiff by the
defendant, which are thus sough to be recovered by the
plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief sought and is not
merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It bears to
point out that the complaint filed by the private respondent
before the RTC actually bears the caption “for DAMAGES”
For fault or negligence, which the CA claims is not capable of
pecuniary estimation is not actionable by itself, for such fault or
negligence, to be actionable, there must be a resulting damage
to a third person, the relief available to the offended party in
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 97
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

such cases is the reparation, restitution or payment of such A cause of action need only Every action or proceeding has
damage, without which any alleged offended party has no cause exist in a civil action. (Rombe a subject matter.
of action or relief, the fault or negligence of the defendant vs. Asiatrust, G.R. No. 164479,
therefor is intertwined with the claim for damages and there can February 13, 2008)
be no action based on quasi-delict without a claim for damages. It is the “why” of an action. It is the “what” of an action or
(Arba vs. Nicolas, G.R. No. proceeding.
Discussion: 168394, October 6, 2008)
In this case of Iniego v. Purganan, the judge got confused between Whether one has a cause of To determine subject matter,
subject matter and cause of action, because according to him, when action depends on law, reference is made to law.
he ordered the dismissal of the case on the ground that it is one contract and other sources of
that is incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore should be obligations. Is it a subject matter that the
filed with the RTC and not the MTC, the one that is incapable of law for example vests
pecuniary estimation in this accident case, a quasi-delict, is the fault It is here where you can exclusively within the
or negligence. determine what is your right; jurisdiction of the RTC or the
what is the obligation of the MTC? Only the law will tell you
defendant; if the defendant that.
According to him that is the subject matter of an action for quasi-
violated such.
delict. And because fault or negligence cannot be the subject of
When the court takes When a court takes
pecuniary estimation, the RTC instead has jurisdiction. And
cognizance of a cause of action cognizance of a subject matter
according to the Court of Appeals, the Judge was correct, it was
when none actually exists, it not conferred upon it by law,
incapable of pecuniary estimation because, fault or negligence
commits an error of judgment. it commits an error of
cannot be quantified in terms of money.
jurisdiction.
Where a cause of action does Where jurisdiction over the
In Iniego v. Purganan, the subject matter of the action is the relief not exist, a complaint was subject matter does not exist,
sought. That is asking for the recovery of damages. Relating that to vulnerable to dismissal on the a complaint is vulnerable to
the jurisdiction over the subject matter, it will now depends on how ground of lack of or failure to dismissal on the ground that
much is the claim. 300,000, 400,000, or below these amounts? state a cause of action under the court has no jurisdiction
the old incarnation of the over the subject matter of the
The cause of action, which is the act or omission by which the rules. At present, lack of or claim under both the old and
defendant violated the right of the plaintiff, was his fault or failure to state a cause of current incarnation of the
negligence. The judge therefore confused subject matter for cause action are considered Rules.
of action. affirmative defenses only.
This ground - lack of
When you talk about Breach of Contract: jurisdiction over the subject
Cause of action: Breach itself or the violation committed by the matter - can still be the subject
defendant. of a motion to dismiss which
Subject matter: It is your claim. What's your claim? Is it for can be filed at any time, even
rescission, specific performance, damages? for the first time on appeal.
Whether you're talking about
In a case of Quasi-delict: the old rules or the amended
Cause of action: Negligence on the part of the defendant rules. However, this lack of
Subject matter: What are you asking from the court? Are you cause of action, back then, it is
asking the court for damages? Is it reparation? Determine how allowed under Rule 16 Motion
much, will also be to determine the jurisdiction of the court over to Dismiss but we need to
the subject matter of the complaint. know for now that there is no
longer a Rule 16 Motion to
Dismiss under the amended
DISTINCTIONS OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND SUBJECT MATTER rules.
CAUSE OF ACTION SUBJECT MATTER Under the unamended Rules, A dismissal on the ground that
It is the basis of a civil action. It is the basis of jurisdiction. a dismissal on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction
(Rule 2, Section 1) the complaint fails to state a over the subject matter bars
It does not matter if the cause If the subject matter is cause of action is without the refiling of the complaint in
of action is capable of incapable of pecuniary prejudice to refiling. the same court.
pecuniary estimation. estimation, jurisdiction is
lodged with the RTC. If it was dismissed by the RTC
because it is the MTC that has
Except in foreclosure of real jurisdiction, then you cannot
estate mortgage. The SC said refile it with the RTC. You can
that even though it is file it instead with the MTC. It
incapable of pecuniary is because dismissals such as
estimation, B.P. 129 should this would be without
still be followed, and prejudice as well.
therefore the assessed value
of the real estate subject of
foreclosure will matter.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
COMMONALITIES OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND SUBJECT MATTER
CAUSE OF ACTION SUBJECT MATTER
Only the allegations of the complaint will be examined in
determining whether there is a cause of action and whether the
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Both are used in determining whether or not res judicata exists
(i.e., identity of causes of action and identity of subject matter).
REVIEW
THE RULE:
Only the allegations of the complaint are considered in order to
determine:
First: Second:
Whether all the elements of a Whether the court has
cause of action are present jurisdiction over the
subject matter
There is an exception to this
one.
GR: Determine whether the elements of a cause of action are
complete in the complaint by looking only at the complaint.
How do you file for example a labor case? Do you make a labor
complaint and then file before the Labor Arbiter? No.
XPN:
TEGIMIENTA CHEMICAL PHILS. v. BUENSALIDA
G.R. No. 176466 | June 17, 2008
The CA correctly relied not only on the face of the complaints,
but also on the position papers submitted by respondent in
determining the causes of action raised in the two cases. (A)
complaint in a case filed before the NLRC consists only of a blank
form which provides the checklist of possible causes of action
that the employee may have against the employer. The checklist
was designed to facilitate the filing of the complaints by
employees and laborers even without the intervention of
counsel. It allows the complainant to expediently set forth his
grievance in a general manner, but is not solely determinative of
the ultimate cause of action that he may have against the
employer.
Thus, the complaint is not the only document from which the
complainant's cause of action is determined in a labor case. Any
cause of action that may not have been included in the
complaint or position paper, can no longer be alleged after the
position paper is submitted by the parties. In other words, the
filing of the position paper is the operative act which forecloses
the raising of other matters constitutive of the cause of action.
This necessarily implies that the cause of action is finally
ascertained only after both the complaint and position paper are
properly evaluated.
A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary right of
the plaintiff. A complaint before the NLRC does not contain
specific allegations of these wrongful acts or omissions which
constitute the cause of action. All that it contains is the term by
which such acts or omissions complained of are generally
known. It cannot therefore be considered as the final
determinant of the cause of action.
98
DISCUSSION
What can we say about this case of Tegimienta?
1. It is an exception to the rule that the elements of a cause of action
or what the cause of action actually is, can only be determined by
looking in the complaint. But, in labor cases, the complaint is not
the same. You simply check "Is this for illegal dismissal?" If yes, "Is
it actual or constructive?". "Are you asking for money claims?" If
yes, you also check the specific money claims that you want like
"Are you asking for separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement.", "Are
you asking for reinstatement?", "Are you asking for backwages?",
"Are you asking for damages?". You just have to check that before
the Labor Arbiter.
2. The term cause of action is actually applied based on
jurisprudence to labor cases which are technically speaking, not
civil actions. Although, prior to the Labor Code, it is a civil action.
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
**ordinary civil action- it is because it is not applicable special civil
actions.
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
The requirement that a suit must be grounded on a cause of action
applies only to ordinary civil actions and not to special civil actions.
The requirement of a cause of action finds no application to certain
special civil actions where the violation of the plaintiff's rights is not
a prerequisite for the commencement of such actions.
DISCUSSION
In certain special civil actions, the violation of the plaintiff's rights is
not a prerequisite for the commencement of a special civil action.
Distinguish between an ordinary civil action and a special civil
action. When discussing these distinctions, also note that a cause
of action is not a requirement in special civil actions.
Q: What special civil actions are not grounded on a cause of action?
1. In a special civil action for interpleader (Rule 62), the
plaintiff may file a complaint even though there is no
transgression of his rights as he is, more often than not,
not interested in the subject matter of the action.
DISCUSSION
First, we have interpleader. For example, you are the depositary.
You do not know who among two conflicting claimants you should
deliver the money to. Is there a violation of your right there? Or you
simply do not know to whom should you pay it? So, if you do not
know to whom you should pay, does it mean that there is a
violation on your rights? This is an example where there is no need
for a cause of action when filing a special civil action for
interpleader.
2. The special civil action for declaratory relief (Rule 63) is
brought before there is any breach or violation of a
statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any
other governmental regulation.
DISCUSSION
What is a special civil action for declaratory relief? You know you
have a contract. A has a contract with B, and then A does not know
how to comply with that contract. What he can do to avoid breaking
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
the contract will be to ask the court for an authoritative statement
as to the rights of the parties under that contract. That is what you
call a declaratory relief. Besides, when you file an action for
declaratory relief, you should file it before there is any breach or
violation of the contract for example.
Again, remember that violation or breach is actually an element of
a cause of action. And therefore, a special civil action for
declaratory relief does not require a cause of action. But there is a
subject matter.
Q: What is the subject matter for declaratory relief?
A: The contract that you want the court to interpret.
3. In a special civil action for partition (Rule 69), the plaintiff
has the right to compel partition but the defendants are
joined in the suit not because they violated the rights of
the plaintiff but because the defendants are also
interested in the property.
DISCUSSION
Partition under Rule 69
The plaintiff in an action for partition has the right to compel
partition. But the defendants are joined in the suit not because they
violated the rights of the plaintiff but because the defendants are
also interested in the property.
When does partition happen? What are the instances when a
partition is proper? When there is co-ownership. Every co-owner
has the right to compel partition. The law actually does not favor
co-ownership. That is the reason why the law has provisions on
partition. If A wants the property that he co-owns, with his brothers
and sisters, to be partitioned already, to be delineated into specific
metes and bounds.
Does that mean that there is a violation on his right? No. There is
no violation of a right when you talk about partition.
Again, the requirement that a suit should be based on a cause of
action is applicable only to an ordinary civil action and not a special
civil action.
The term "cause of action" applies only to civil actions.
Strictly speaking, it is only in civil actions that one speaks of a cause
of action. The term does not apply to special proceedings which
seek to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.
Rehabilitation proceedings seeks to establish the inability of the
corporate debtor to pay its debts when they fall due so that a
rehabilitation plan is necessary. It does not seek a relief from an
injury caused by another party. Thus, a petition for rehabilitation
need not state a cause of action (ROMBE vs. ASIATRUST
REVELOPMENT BANK, G.R. No. 163379, February 13, 2008).
DISCUSSION
In ROMBE, this is a petition for corporate rehabilitation. According
to the Supreme Court, a rehabilitation proceeding is actually a
special proceeding seeking to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact.
What is being sought to be established here? The corporate debtor
has inability to pay his debts when they fell due and therefore a
rehabilitation plan was necessary to help the corporation to pay its
financial problems. So, it does not seek a relief from an injury
99
caused by another party. A petition for rehabilitation need not state
a cause of action.
Another example would be settlement of estate of a deceased
person.
MONTAÑER vs. SHARI'A DISTRUCT COURT
G.R. No. 174975, January 20, 2009
Unlike a civil action which has definite parties, a special
proceeding has no definite adverse party. A special proceeding
has one definite party who petitions or applies for a declaration
of a status, a right, or a particular fact, but no definite adverse
party. In a case for settlement of estate, the estate of the
decedent is not being sued for any cause of action. As a special
proceeding, the purpose of the settlement of the estate of the
decedent is to determine all the assets of the estate, pay its
liabilities, and to distribute the residual to those entitled to the
same.
Why do you file a case for settlement of estate? Because there is a
deceased person who can no longer administer his property or take
advantage of his property. And under the laws on Succession, the
moment that person dies, the right to inherit is already vested upon
his heirs. It is his heirs now which have rights over the property.
When you settle an estate, what is it that you actually want to
establish? A status, a fact, a particular right also. You want to
establish what is the estate of the deceased person and you want
to establish as well who has the right to inherit the estate of the
deceased person.
So in this situation, is there a cause of action when you settle an
estate of a deceased person? No.
Is there a right which was violated? None. In fact, there is no
definite defendant here. There may be oppositors but there is no
definite defendant.
A cause of action must exist at the time of filing of a complaint.
Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the
time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or
remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action us
pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting
up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible (SURIGAO
MINE EXPLORATION CO., INC. vs. C. HARRIS, ET AL., G.R. No. L-
45543, May 17, 1939).
DISCUSSION
Take note that a cause of action must exist at the time of the filing
of a complaint. When you file your complaint and the elements of
a cause of action has not yet accrued or ripened, then what will
happen? Your complaint is actually premature. You should not file
it yet.
If we have a cause of action, we also have a right of action.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 100
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

RIGHT OF ACTION How do we formally distinguish between a cause of action and a

right of action?
RIGHT OF ACTION
The term right of action is the right to commence and maintain an RIGHT OF ACTION CAUSE OF ACTION
action. The right of action springs from the cause of action, but does The right to presently enforce The act or omission by which a
not accrue until all the facts which constitute the cause of action a cause of action. party violates a right of
have occurred (SPOUSES BORBE, ET AL. vs. CALALO, G.R. No. another.
152572, October 5, 2007). A remedial right belonging to A formal statement of the
some person. operative facts that give rise
CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RIGHT OF ACTION to such remedial right.
A right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause of action, A matter of right and depends A matter of statement and is
while a cause of action consists of the operative facts which give on the substantive law. governed by the law of
rise to such right of action. The right of action does not arise until procedure (i.e., whether or
the performance of all conditions precedent to the action and may not a cause of action exists is
be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, through determined by examining the
estoppel, or by other circumstances which do not affect the cause allegations in the complaint).
of action. Performance or fulfilment of all conditions precedent There is a right of action if the There is a cause of action if the
upon which a right of action depends must be sufficiently alleged, same is allowed by remedial same arises from substantive
considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a right law. If there is no remedy law.
of action is upon the person initiating the suit (PHILAMGEN vs. provided, there can be no
SWEET LINES, G.R. No. 87434, August 5, 1992). redress.
Arises after the performance Arises the moment a right is
DISCUSSION or fulfillment of all conditions violated.
For example, A breached his contract against B. Now you need to precedent.
remember that under the Civil Code, there are different periods of Affected by the statute of Not affected by the statute of
prescription. Say for example, you want to enforce a right under a limitations. limitations. For as long as a
contract, it would depend on whether the contract is written or right is violated, a cause of
unwritten. We recall that when a contract is written, the action exists.
prescriptive period is longer.
DISCUSSION
What if when you filed your case for breach of contract by B 1. A right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause
against A, when A filed his case, it was already beyond the period of action. While a cause of action, from Section 2, which
of prescription, what happens to his right of action? His right of is an act or omission by which a party violates the right of
action has already been taken away by the running of the statute another.
of limitations. It has already prescribed. And so, he can no longer
file his action. 2. A right of action is actually a remedial right. It is
procedural because it is governed by the law on
But does it change the fact that there was a cause of action in the procedure. You have to follow the Rules of Court when
first place because B breached his contract against A? No. It does you enforce your right of action. Whereas, a cause of
not change that or erase the fact that there is a violation. It is only action is a formal statement of the operative facts that
your right to sue on the violation that is affected. That is what a give rise to such remedial right. What is the basis of your
right of action is. case? That is your cause of action, and it is a formal
statement of the said facts.
A right of action is affected by a lot of things. Estoppel can be one
that affects it. Running of the statute of limitations can affect. Non- 3. Take note that a right of action is a matter of right and
compliance with the conditions precedent can affect it. depends on substantive law. It is because it is substantive
law which takes away your right. For example:
If a case can be brought before the barangay, for example, and Prescription which states that your right has already
you did not go through barangay conciliation, can you file a case prescribed. What determines that? It is determined by
in court? Do you have a right of action to file your case in the provisions of the law on Prescription. Whereas a
court? The answer is no for failure to comply with the condition cause of action is a matter of statement, meaning it is
precedent which is barangay conciliation. formal in nature and it is governed by the law on
procedure. Whether or not a cause of action exists is
A cause of action will not change. For as long as there is a violation determined by examining the allegations in the complaint.
of your right by the defendant who had the obligation to respect
that right, then you have a cause of action. But your right of action 4. There is a right of action if the same is allowed by
will depend on other factors such as prescription, estoppel, and Remedial Law. If there is no remedy provided, then there
non-compliance with conditions precedent. can be no redress. But when you talk about a cause of
action, there is a cause of action if the same arises from
substantive law. It is because it is with substantive law
where we will know if you have a right. What about
contracts? What law governs contracts? Substantive law
still.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
5. Right of action arises after the performance or fulfilment
of all conditions precedent. Cause of action, on the other
hand, arises the moment a right is violated.
6. Right of action is affected by the statute of limitations,
while a cause of action is not affected by the statute of
limitations. It is because for as long as a right is violated,
a cause of action exists.
RULE AGAINST SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
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.
DISCUSSION
Assuming that you understand what a cause of action is already,
because I have distinguished cause of action from subject matter as
well as with right of action. I want you to remember as well the
elements of the cause of action, because your knowledge of that
would come in handy for our discussion.
ILLUSTRATION 1
In an action based on a quasi-delict, the act or omission is the
failure of the defendant to exercise due diligence required by the
circumstances. For example, a careless person is driving and he
collided with another vehicle. Of course, it would lead to bodily
injury on the part of the plaintiff or victim. And that would require
hospitalization expenses, professional fee of the doctor, and to a
claim for other damages, like moral damages because there is
understandable physical suffering on the part of the plaintiff or
victim. These claims cannot be prosecuted individually. Rather,
because there is only one delict (the negligence of the defendant),
there is only one cause of action.
If the plaintiff files separate cases to prosecute his several claims
individually, he violates the rule against splitting a cause of action.
We will learn later on what is the consequence if you split your
cause of action
ILLUSTRATION 2
On January 14, 2020 AAA, the debtor, obtained a loan from the
creditor, BBB, in the amount of P280,000.00. Because BBB doubted
AAA’s credit, the former required the latter to give collateral for the
loan. AAA thus put up her house as security for the debt. The parties
promptly executed a contract of loan with real estate mortgage
over BBB’s property. (NOTE: The contract of loan or the mutuum is
the principal contract, while the real estate mortgage is the
accessory contract)
If AAA defaults, take note that BBB, as a secured creditor has two
(2) remedies:
1. BBB can file an action for collection which is a personal
action; or
2. She can file a real action for foreclosure of the mortgage
– We’ve discussed this. We presented the full picture as
to what an action for foreclosure of mortgage is. We
recall that it is a special civil action. Not to mention that
it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation plus it is
a real action. And therefore based on the case that we
have discussed, even if such action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the jurisdiction of the courts will
depend on the amount of the assessed value of the
property. And lastly, it is an action quasi in rem.
101
Q: In this situation, can BBB sue for both collection and
foreclosure?
A: No.
MARILAG v. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 201892 | July 22, 2015
HELD: In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the
rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action
against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through
the filing of a personal action for collection of sum of money or
the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage
security.
She can only choose one, because there is only a single cause of
action. It would be different if there were several causes of action
or several violations of the right of the plaintiff because every cause
of action would give rise to a corresponding remedy in court. But
here, there are two remedies for one delict, one cause of action,
one violation of the right of the creditor-mortgagee and that is to
be paid.
Note: Do not confuse the remedies provided by the law with the
cause of action.
Thus:
• There is only one cause of action because there is only
one violation of BBB’s right (the right to be paid).
• The personal action for collection of sum of money and
the real action to foreclose on the mortgage security are
the remedies by which BBB can seek redress for AAA’s
violation of her right.
• Stated otherwise, the non-payment of the debt is the
cause of action while collection or foreclosure are the
possible subject matters of BBB’s suit.
When BBB eventually files a case against AAA, she has to choose
between collection and foreclosure. There’s only one cause of
action, one violation, but it leads to a couple of remedies. If she
chooses collection, the case will be denominated as collection of
sum of money. If she chooses foreclosure then the case will be
denominated as foreclosure because collection and foreclosure are
subject matters as well.
REMEMBER
What is the cause of action? The violation. If there is only one
violation or delict, then there is only one cause of action.
QUADRA v. CA
G.R. No. 147593 | July 31, 2006
HELD: Splitting a cause of action is the act of dividing a single
cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and
bringing suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the
rest for another separate action. The purpose of the rule is to
avoid harassment and vexation to the defendant and avoid
multiplicity of suits.
Q: Assume BBB filed an action for collection and the total amount
of debt is P280,000.00. What if she sued for P140,000.00 before
the MTC. And then later on, she also sued for the remaining
P140,000.00. Is that allowed?
A: No, because of the rule against splitting a cause of action. Again,
there is only one debt that was not paid. Why would you split such
debt?
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
PRIVATE v. MAGADA
G.R. No. 149489 | June 30, 2006
HELD: For a single cause of action or violation of a right, the
plaintiff may be entitled to several reliefs. It is the filing of the
separate complaints for these several reliefs that constitutes
splitting of the cause of action. This is what is prohibited by the
rule. When there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single
cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated
belonging to one person. All such rights should be alleged in a
single complaint, otherwise they are barred forever.
DISCUSSION
If your cause of action is complete, why would you split it? What
would be the effect if you reserve a certain portion of your cause of
action? According to Private v. Magada, that would be already part
(of the cause of action). You cannot file on that anymore.
Q: If BBB fails in her case to foreclose, can she then sue for
collection?
A: No.
MARILAG v. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 201892 | July 22, 2015
HELD: The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or
successive, and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the
creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage,
he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid debt,
except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain
in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor after
deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the
mortgaged properties.
EFFECT OF SPLITTING
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two
or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any
one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a)
There are 2 possible effects:
1. The filing of one will dismiss the other; and
2. Judgment upon the merits is also a ground for dismissal
of the other cause of action so split – that split from a
single cause of action.
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION AMOUNTS TO:
1. LITIS PENDENTIA
Litis pendentia literally translates to pending litigation.
Litis pendentia is a ground for the dismissal of a civil action. It refers
to that situation wherein another action is pending between the
same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second
action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
Q: Why is it unnecessary and vexatious?
A: You are given the right, by law, to sue the defendant only once
because you have a single cause of action. But you filed twice. Isn’t
it a fact that the defendant will be vexed twice? He will be disturbed
or annoyed twice. That would be the effect if there is litis
pendentia.
Going back to example of AAA and BBB, it was split. There is already
a pending litigation, one for foreclosure and the other for
102
collection. The pendency of one is a ground for the dismissal of the
other action – that is stated in the provision: “the filing of one XXX
is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.”
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF LITIS PENDENTIA
The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party
is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same
subject matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is
founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should
not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order
that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of
the stability of the rights and status of persons, and also to avoid
the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits.
The effect of splitting in the example that I gave – let’s say that BBB
filed for collection and she also filed for foreclosure. What is BBB
actually hoping there? She’s hoping that at least, in one, she will
win.
Q: What happens if she wins in foreclosure, but she loses in the
collection suit?
A: That would be vexatious on the part of the defendant. There is a
possible conflicting judgment, which is repugnant to the stability of
rights and status of persons.
Consequently, a party will not be permitted to split up a single
cause of action and make it a basis for several suits as the whole
cause must be determined in one action.
2. RES JUDICATA
Res judicata literally means a thing that is settled already. It is also
a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, together with litis
pendentia.
Res judicata, which is another ground for the dismissal of a civil
action. It holds that a final judgment on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties in all
later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. It
rests on the principle that parties should not be permitted to
litigate the same issue more than once.
EXAMPLE: BBB filed for foreclosure and lost in that foreclosure suit.
BBB then filed for collection. Because there is only one cause of
action, the judgment in the foreclosure, which she lost, is actually
res judicata already to the filing of a collection suit.
Through the foreclosure suit, the rights of the parties are already
settled. The court has already ruled on the matter.
That is: “xxx a judgement upon the merits in any one is available as
a ground for the dismissal of the others.”
So, those are the TWO CODAL EFFECTS of a splitting of a cause of
action – it can be dismissed either on the ground of:
1. Litis pendentia; or
2. Res judicata.
I want you to remember these terms because we will be going back
to these terms in Rule 9 and Rule 15.
3. FORUM SHOPPING
Take note that splitting a cause of action also amounts to a mode
of forum shopping.
A mode of forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action, but with different prayers. Forum shopping is
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would
make a favorable disposition (YAP v. CHUA, G.R. No. 186730, June
13, 2012).
So, you filed a case and then you filed another. You are waiting
which court will render a favorable decision or where you will win
and that is not allowed.
COLLANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 169604 | March 4, 2007
HELD: Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and
with the same prayer, the previous case not having been
resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia);
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and
the same prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata);
and
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but
with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where
the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res
judicata).
DISCUSSION
In Collantes v. CA, the Supreme Court said that forum shopping can
be committed in 3 ways.
As to the 1st way: There is an interrelation because when litis
pendentia exists, forum shopping exists.
As to the 2nd way: Again, when you file cases when there is already
res judicata, that can also lead to forum shopping.
As to the 3rd way: Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action but with different prayers, like collection, for one, and the
other is foreclosure, that would amount to splitting causes of action
where the ground of dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res
judicata.
Take note: litis pendentia, res judicata, forum shopping – they are
all interrelated concepts.
If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the
subsequent cases shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of
the two grounds mentioned above (meaning, litis pendentia and
res judicata).
WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING
However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or
all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with
prejudice.
Take note of the great effect of forum shopping that can be
occasioned by splitting a cause of action. Because splitting a cause
of action amounts to forum shopping, if it is deliberate, then both
actions may be dismissed with prejudice to refiling. Meaning, you
cannot re-file anymore.
103
FORUM SHOPPING WHICH IS NOT DELIBERATE
If the forum shopping is not deliberate, meaning that it was
accidental and that you were not aware that you are actually
practicing forum shopping, then it will be a dismissal without
prejudice to refiling on the proper context already.
RULE ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION
The rule is different when there are actually several causes of
action.
For my students in Torts, who are also in enrolled in my Civil
Procedure, you know this case:
EXAMPLE: A passenger of an airline was bumped off of his first-
class reservation in favor of a Caucasian passenger. Thus, he did not
reach his destination as contracted and was called a Filipino moron
during the bumping off. (Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-21438,
September 28, 1966)
In AIR FRANCE v. CARRASCOSO, a Filipino passenger was bumped
off his first-class reservation on the ground that there is a Caucasian
passenger with a better right to the seat. That is racism.
ANALYSIS: Here, there are three causes of action that arose from
one incident because there were three violations committed:
1. There was a breach of contract of carriage.
Was his first-class accommodation respected throughout the
trip? He contracted for a first-class accommodation, but he
was transferred to, let’s say, economy class. That would be a
breach of contract of carriage (culpa contractual). That is a
cause of action in itself.
Q: What is the basis of your cause of action?
A: Violation of your rights under the contract.
2. There was a violation of Article 19, in relation to Article 21,
of the law on human relations.
Q: What is Article 19?
A: The principle of abuse of rights – “Every person must, in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.”
This is in relation to Article 21, which provides, in substance,
that any person who willfully causes loss to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy, you are actually liable for damages.
3. There is a violation of the law on defamation.
This is defamation under the Revised Penal Code, which
can also give rise to an independent civil action. It can also
be a violation of Article 26, when you intentionally inflict
emotional distress because you called somebody a
moron.
Q: What is the effect if you have three causes of action? Will the
rule on splitting apply when you prosecute these causes of action
independently?
A: NO. Although the acts complained of arose during the same
period of time, it does not mean that you are absolutely required
to lump them into one cause of action.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
If he wants to file one action for breach of contract of carriage, that
is not a problem. If he wants to file an action for tort under Article
19, in relation to Article 21, that can also be one case. And law on
defamation under Article 26 or under the RPC, damages, that can
also be one – because these are different causes of action. You are
not obliged to file one complaint.
In this case, you can apply the rule on joinder of causes of action.
“You can” - that is the option of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can unite
his causes of action and we will go to that when we go to Rule 31
on consolidation, but he cannot split his causes of action. You
cannot split but you can unite.
PRINCPLE TO REMEMBER
The question of whether a cause of action is single and entire or
separate is not always easy to determine and the same must often
be resolved, not by the general rules, but by reference to the facts
and circumstances of the particular case.
There is no hard and fast rule to determine whether or not there is
a single cause of action.
The rule, therefore, is whether the entire amount arises from one
and the same act or contract which must, thus, be sued for in one
action, or the several parts arise from distinct and different acts or
contracts, for which a party may maintain separate suits.
In a way, when you talk about the question of whether a cause of
action is single or several, that is both a question of fact and a
question of law. You have to look at the facts of the case.
But the law also says here that if there is one contract or only one
amount that you need to sue, that is only one cause of action. How
do we make sense of it? When can a party maintain separate suits?
RULES TO DETERMINE SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
1. RULE NO. 1: A contract embraces only one cause of action
because it may be violated only once, even if it contains
several stipulations (ONE CONTRACT-ONE CAUSE).
For lack of a better term, we call this the ONE CONTRACT-ONE
CAUSE rule. This is a term I only made.
a contract may be violated only once. We are talking about
simple contracts.
2. RULE NO. 2: A contract which provides for several stipulations
to be performed at different times gives rise to as many causes
of action as there are violations (ONE VIOLATION-ONE
CAUSE).
as many violations there are of several clauses in a
contract, that is also one cause of action. So, one
violation, one cause of action.
3. RULE NO. 3: Do not apply RULE NO. 2, if there is STIPULATION
or REPUDIATION.
It’s more of an exception to Rule No. 2. Do not apply RULE
2 if there is stipulation or repudiation.
4. RULE NO. 4: All obligations which have matured at the time of
the suit must be integrated as one cause of action in one
complaint. Those not so included would be barred.
104
RULE 4 would be the barring effect – if you do not include
all obligations that have matured at the time of the filing
of the complaint.
RULE NO. 1
One Contract, One Cause
EXAMPLE: First stipulation: Maja borrowed money from Pia I the
amount of P100,000; Second stipulation: Interest at 10%. Maja did
not pay.
DISCUSSION
Pia cannot sue on the P100,000 as principal and sue separately on
the amount of P10,000 as interest. This is splitting a cause of action.
This is because these actions are related being based on the same
failure to pay one (1) principal obligation.
Atty. JZE: Why would a party want to split actions? What are the
practical considerations? Let’s say the plaintiff is living in Davao City.
Defendant owes him P500,000. If he’s going to sue the defendant
for the entire amount of P500,000, the court that has jurisdiction
would be RTC Davao, not to mention the fact that it will subject to
ordinary rules of litigation. But let’s say, he splits it: An action for
the collection of P300,000, the court that has jurisdiction now
would be MTC, not to mention the fact that it can be subjected to
Rules on Small Claims. Recovery for the said amount would be
easier. However, the latter manner cannot be done as this would
be tantamount to splitting of actions. There is only one contract,
i.e., one debt, and therefore, there is only one case that he can
file.
QUIOQUE v. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. L-13159 | February 28, 1962
HELD: Nonpayment of a loan secured by mortgage constitutes a
single cause of action. The creditor cannot split up this single
cause of action into two separate complaints, one for payment
of the debt and another for the foreclosure of the mortgage. If
he does so, the filing of the first complaint will bar the second
complaint.
RULE NO. 2
One Violation, One Cause
Where a contract is to be performed periodically, as by installments,
each failure to pay an installment constitutes a cause of action and
can be subject of a separate suit as the installment falls due or can
be included in the pending or supplemental pleading.
EXAMPLE
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount of P750,000. The
amount as per contract, is payable in three equal annual
installments or P250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. Maja did not pay
in 2019. Sarah can sue Maja for such breach. Subsequently, in 2020,
Maja also did not pay so Sarah can again sue Maja in 2020.
DISCUSSION
How many violations were committed by Maja? Two, in 2019 and
2020. For each violation, Sarah can file a case against Maja, one for
2019 and another for 2020.
Q: Can Sarah sue Maja for the whole amount in 2019?
A: No. Sarah cannot, in 2019, sue for an anticipated default in 2020
or 2021. The action will be dismissed on the ground of prematurity
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
inasmuch as the obligations to pay in 2020 and 2021 are still not
due and demandable.
RULE NO. 3
Exception to Rule No. 2
Do not apply the one violation, one cause of action rule (Rule 2) if
there is stipulation or repudiation.
First exception (Acceleration clause)
EXAMPLE
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount of P750,000. The
amount as per contract, is payable in three equal annual
installments or P250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. The contract also
contained a stipulation that, in the event that Maja should fail to
pay one installment, the whole debt will be demandable at once.
(The latter stipulation is called as an acceleration clause.)
LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CONQUILLA
G.R. No. 163338 | September 21, 2005
HELD: This is known as an “acceleration clause.” An acceleration
clause is a stipulation stating that, on the occasion of the
debtor’s default, the whole sum remaining unpaid automatically
becomes due and payable.
Second exception (Repudiation)
BLOSSOM AND COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA GAS CORP.
G.R. No. L-32985 | November 8, 1930
HELD: An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract,
though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the
renunciation goes to the whole contract, be treated as a
complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring his
action at once.
EXAMPLE
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount of P750,000. The
amount as per contract, is payable in three equal annual
installments or P250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, Sarah
demanded payment. Maja refused to pay and told Sarah that “I will
not pay you ever. Shet! Never! I never ever made an utang with you.
Kiver! Everrrrr!!!”
DISCUSSION
Effect of repudiation: By denying the existence of the debt, Maja is
repudiating the existence of the debt. Sarah should not wait
anymore for 2020 or 2021 to sue on these installments. She has the
right to expect that Maja will raise the same defense in 2020 or
2021.
RULE NO. 4
Barring Effect
EXAMPLE
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount of P750,000. The
amount, as per contract, is payable in three equal annual
instalments or P250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. Maja did not pay
in 2019. Sarah did not sue then. Maja also did not pay in 2020. So
Sarah can sue Maja in 2020 for the failure to pay in two years
because it is already two violations that existed at that time that
she wanted to sue. But if Sarah sues only for the second instalment
in 2020, the claim in 2019 is already barred.
105
In Evidence – there is a presumption that when the creditor
received payment for a later installment knowing that there is a
previous installment that remains unpaid, the presumption that
arises is that all previous installments have already been paid.
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes
of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to
the following conditions:
a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules;
c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder
may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of
the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court
and the venue lies therein; and
d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be
the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
PLEASE MEMORIZE PER SIR’S INSTRUCTIONS!
DISCUSSION
• You can’t split but you can join.
• Is letter (d) as above-mentioned familiar to you? This is already
discussed in relation to the totality rule. So this is just a
restatement of the totality rule.
JOINDER OF ACTIONS, DEFINED
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of
action, is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of
action in one action; the statement of more than one cause of
action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of
action, each of which could be made the basis of a separate suit, in
the same complaint, declaration or petition.
NATURE OF JOINDER
A party is generally not required to join in one suit several distinct
causes of action. As I said to you earlier, it depends on the plaintiff
where he or she is comfortable in instituting a joinder in his/her
causes of action or a separate suit. The joinder of separate causes
of action, where allowable, is permissive and not mandatory in the
absence of a contrary statutory provision, even though the causes
of action arose from the same factual setting and might under
applicable joinder rules be joined.
So, all causes of action arise on the same set of facts. Otherwise
stated, one incident only that gave rise to many separate causes of
action.
REQUISITES FOR JOINDER
While joinder of causes of action is largely left to the option of a
party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of our present Rules allows causes
of action to be joined in one complaint conditioned upon the
following requisites:
a) it will not violate the rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder
of parties; and
b) the causes of action arise out of the same contract, transaction
or relation between the parties, or are for demands for money
or are of the same nature and character.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
So, same nature or if not the same, it arose of the same transaction,
event or incident.
EXAMPLE
Maja obtained several loans from Sarah, namely:
• On January 1, 2019, P500,000 due on December 31, 2021;
• On January 1, 2020, P500,000 due also on December 31,
2021; and,
• On January 1, 2021, P500,000 due also on December 31,
2021.
Maja did not pay any of these loans.
Q: How many causes of action?
A: There are three (3) separate causes of action so Sarah may file
three separate cases for the debts that were unpaid last 2019,
2020, and 2021.
This is an example of Rule No. 2. A contract which provides for
several stipulations to be performed at different times gives rise to
as many causes of action as there are violations (ONE VIOLATION-
ONE CAUSE).
Q: Assuming that the debts arose from one contract of loan. Can
Sarah file just one case?
A: YES. Sarah is allowed to do so under the rule on joinder of causes
of action.
Q: Is Sarah required to file just one case?
A: NO. The rule on joinder of causes of action is permissive and
not mandatory. The plaintiff has the option to apply the rule or
not.
If you ask me, I will file only one case. Why would I file separate
case? It’s better to combine it in one case to save costs for the
client. If it is possible, I will consolidate it to save the time incurred
for the more cases.
UNLIMITED JOINDER IS NOT ALLOWED
While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as many separate claims as
he may have, there should nevertheless be some unity in the
problem presented and a common question of law and fact
involved, subject always to the restriction thereon regarding
jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. Unlimited joinder is not
authorized.
Our rule on permissive joinder of causes of action, with the proviso
subjecting it to the correlative rules on jurisdiction, venue and
joinder of parties and requiring a conceptual unity in the problems
presented, effectively disallows unlimited joinder.
Joinder is entirely the discretion of the plaintiff. But when he
decides to avail on the rule on joinder, he must comply with
requirements to the jurisdiction or venue and it has a common
question of law and fact.
TYPES OF JOINDER
The Law says a party may, “in the alternative or otherwise”, join as
many causes of actions as he may have against the defendant.
There can therefore be:
1. Alternative Joinder; or
2. Cumulative Joinder
106
ALTERNATIVE JOINDER
I’ll explain this by way of example.
EXAMPLE
Maja rode on the bus operated by Sarah. The bus collided with the
jeepney operated by Pia. Maja sustained minor injuries. So if you
look at the situation here, she sustained injuries.
In this case, Maja has two possible causes of action: one for culpa
contractual (breach of contract of carriage) against Sarah, the bus
operator, and one for culpa aquilina (quasi-delict against Pia, the
jeepney operator, under Article 2176 in relation to 2180 of the Civil
Code). However, Maja is not certain who among the drivers or
operators were actually negligent. That’s why her cause of action
can be against Sarah or against Pia. These are different causes of
actions. This is alternative joinder.
In this example, Maja may, in one complaint, sue both Sarah and
Pia and recover damages from either Sarah or Pia or both. Take
note that the plaintiff is seeking relief from whoever was negligent.
If the court finds that it is Sarah or the bus company that is
negligent, then the damages will be paid by the bus company. But
if the court finds that it is Pia, the jeepney driver then it will be Pia
who will pay the damages. So it is permissible for it to be “or” or
both. If the court finds that both Sarah and Pia are negligent, they
will be both liable for damages. This may be related to Rule 3,
Section 13, which states that:
Rule 3, Section 13. Alternative defendants. — Where the
plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is
entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as
defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief
against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against
the other. (13a)
CUMULATIVE JOINDER
When is there cumulative joinder? Meaning you will add. Rather
than “or”, it will be “and”.
Maja’s son sues Atty. Espejo for compulsory recognition as
illegitimate child and support. There are two causes of action: one
for recognition AND one for support. Why “and”? Isn’t it that when
the illegitimate child will not be recognized, such child cannot get
support.
Note that these causes of action are pursued cumulatively. It can
even be said that the pronouncement in the action for recognition
is a condition precedent to the grant of relief in the action for
support.
Sec. 5 (A) The party joining the cause of action shall comply with
the rules on joinder or parties.
Rule 3, Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All
persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or
in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in
one complaint, where any question of law or fact common
to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in
the action; but the court may make such orders as may be
just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6n)
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DISCUSSION
The phrase I want you to remember: “where any question of law
or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may
arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be
just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed
or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he
may have no interest”
So can you join parties? You can join parties. What’s the things you
have to remember:
1. It has to arise, the cause of action, from the same
transaction or series of transactions.
2. There must be a common question of fact or law common
to all such joined parties – whether they be defendant or
plaintiffs. (Remember this)
SAME EXAMPLE AS ALTERNATIVE JOINDER
Maja rode on the bus operated by Sarah. The bus collided with the
jeepney operated by Pia. Maja sustained minor injuries. So if you
look at the situation here, she sustained injuries. Here, the two
defendants are joined in one complaint. The jeepney and bus
operator.
Q: does the cause of action against the both of them arise from
the same transaction or series of transactions?
A: YES! There was only one accident, it is not alleged that there are
two.
In this case, Maja has two possible causes of action: one for culpa
contractual (breach of contract of carriage) against Sarah, the bus
operator, and one for culpa aquilina (quasi-delict against Pia, the
jeepney operator, under Article 2176 in relation to 2180 of the Civil
Code). But you need to remember, Maja is not certain who among
the drivers or operators were actually negligent.
In this example, Maja may, in one complaint, sue both Sarah and
Pia and recover damages from either Sarah or Pia or both. Take
note that the joinder of Sarah and Pia in one complaint is allowed
because there is a question of law or fact common to both such
defendants (i.e., who is negligent?).
SPS. PEREZ v HERMANO
G.R. No. 1247417, July 8, 2005
HELD: It is well to remember that the joinder of causes of action
may involve the same parties or different parties. If the joinder
involves different parties, as in this case, there must be a
question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising
out of the same transaction or series of transaction.
DISCUSSION
So what was that thing again that I want you to remember?
Common question of fact and law arising from the same transaction
or series of transactions - or you can say, the same incident or the
same event that gave rise to the cause of action of the plaintiff.
Sec. 5 (B) the joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules.
The reasons, according to the Supreme Court, for this prohibition
against joining the ordinary civil action with the special civil action
or actions governed by special rules such as special proceedings,
may be summed up as follows:
107
• TO AVOID CONFUSION. Rules of procedure for special
civil actions and actions governed by special rules are
peculiar to the latter. The same cannot be applied to an
ordinary civil action.
• TO AVOID JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. Actions governed by
special rules are, more often than not, cognizable by
quasi-judicial tribunals, or maybe, courts of special
jurisdiction. There can be no joinder where one of the
issues to be tried pertain to a tribunal of special
jurisdiction.
TERAÑA v. DE SAGUB
G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009
In forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage
that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the leased
property. The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue
raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence,
the damages which could be recovered are those which the
plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those
caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property,
and not the damages which he may have suffered but which
have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.
An action for reimbursement or for recovery of damages may
not be properly joined with the action for ejectment. The former
is an ordinary civil action requiring a full-blown trial, while an
action for unlawful detainer is a special civil action which
requires a summary procedure. The joinder of the two actions is
specifically enjoined by Section 5 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
DISCUSSION
So if it is something totally alien to his loss of material possession,
he cannot sue for damages that are unrelated to this forcible entry
or unlawful detainer cases.
Why was this the case again? Since you cannot join an ordinary civil
action with special civil actions or actions governed by special rules.
CABALLES v COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be joined with the
special civil action for certiorari because the two remedies are
governed by a different set of rules. Rule 2, Section 5(b) of the
Rules of Court mandates that the joinder of causes of action
shall not include special actions or actions governed by special
rules, thus proscribing the joinder of a special proceeding with a
special civil action.
DISCUSSION
Another case of improper joinder. So does it mean you cannot file
anymore? What is a similar situation to this case, why would you
file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus? So you will
be released from confinement.
For example, you committed a light penalty and the penalty is only
for 3 months of imprisonment and the court sentenced you with 6
years of imprisonment. So you begin serving your sentence. Then
after 3 months of being a detention prisoner, you filed a special civil
action for Certiorari on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction
to imprison you for 6 years because it is only light felony. It is
beyond the jurisdiction of the court to give you of more than 6
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
years. So what do you do? You can also ask the court to release you
on habeas corpus because you already observed the maximum 3
months sentence imposed by law. You cannot join that. Does it
mean that you cannot anymore file habeas corpus if you are not
allowed to join it with your special civil action for certiorari? It does
not mean you cannot file. You can still file but you file it separately.
Only the joinder is not allowed.
Read these cases as well:
Peyer vs. Martinez, Et Al.
GR No. L-3500, January 12, 1951
• Application to pronounce husband as an absentee
with action to transfer the management of conjugal
assets to the wife.
Briz vs, Briz, Et. Al.
GR No. 18413, September 20, 1922
• Can you join an action for declaration of heirship with
an action to recover the land subject of partition and
distribution proceeding among co- heirs?
• An action for declaration of heirship with an action to
recover the land subject of partition and distribution
proceeding
Central Bank Board of Liquidators vs. Banco Filipino
GR No. 173399, February 21, 2017
• Joinder that does not comply with the requisites.
• This is a liquidation proceeding
Editor’s Note: Relevant rulings for the above-cited cases are
provided below. You can check the FT of the cases for the facts.
PEYER v. MARTINEZ
GR No. L-3500 | January 12, 1951
HELD: Article 1441 of the Civil Code, cited and relied upon by the
petitioner, tends to uphold rather than detract from the validity
of the challenged judgment. The article says:
"Art. 1441. The management of the property belonging to the
marriage shall transferred to the wife:
1. Whenever she may be the guardian of her husband in
accordance with article 220;
2. When she institutes proceedings to have her husband
adjudged an absentee, in accordance with articles 183
and 185;
3. In the case provided for by the first paragraph of
article 1436.
The courts shall also confer the management upon the wife,
with such limitation as they may deem advisable, if the husband
should be a fugitive from justice or should have been adjudged
in default in a criminal case, or, if, being absolutely disqualified
for the administration, he should have taken no steps with
respect thereto.
These provisions refer to permanent transfer of management of
the community property, and it is doubtful if they contemplate
temporary administration such as that granted the wife by the
respondent Judge. Supposing however that they are, by analogy,
applicable, then the wife's cause is rendered the stronger by
reason thereof; for the article permits the wife to assume the
management, with the authority of a court of competent
jurisdiction, when the husband is absent or otherwise unfit to
discharge his duties as administrator. The plaintiff and the court
below did just that.
108
Counsel are probably right in contending that under the article
in question, declaration of the husband's absence must precede
the transfer of the management; i.e., it must be sought in a
separate action in which the absent husband or his
representative was given an opportunity to be heard. But if this
be so, the requirement, eminently remedial or procedural in
character, must be deemed superseded by the new Rules of
Court. By section 4 of Rule 3, supra, applications to pronounce
the husband an absentee and to place the management of the
conjugal assets in the hands of the wife may, in our opinion, be
combined and adjudicated in one and the same proceeding.
We therefore concluded that Robert C. Peyer was not an
indispensable or necessary party and that the court below
properly proceeded in trying and deciding the case without him
being joined.
BRIZ v. BRIZ
G.R. No. 18413 | September 20, 1922
HELD: The question whether a person in the position of the
present plaintiff can in any event maintain a complex action to
compel recognition as a natural child and at the same time to
obtain ulterior relief in the character of heir, is one which in the
opinion of this court must be answered in the affirmative,
provided always that the conditions justifying the joinder of the
two distinct causes of action are present in the particular case.
In other words, there is no absolute necessity requiring that the
action to compel acknowledgment should have been instituted
and prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the action in
which that same plaintiff seeks additional relief in the character
of heir. Certainly, there is nothing so peculiar to the action to
compel acknowledgment as to require that a rule should be here
applied different from that generally applicable in other cases.
For instance, if the plaintiff had in this action impleaded all of
the persons who would be necessary parties defendant to an
action to compel acknowledgment, and had asked for relief of
that character, if would have been permissible for the court to
make the judicial pronouncement declaring that the plaintiff is
entitled to be recognized as the natural child of Maximo Briz,
and at the same time to grant the additional relief sought in this
case against the present defendants; that is, a decree compelling
them to surrender to the plaintiff the parcel of land sued for and
to pay her the damages awarded in the appealed decision.
The conclusion above stated, though not heretofore explicity
formulated by this court, is undoubtedly to some extent
supported by our prior decisions. Thus, we have held in
numerious cases, and the doctrine must be considered well
settled, that a natural child having a right to compel
acknowledgment, but who has not been in fact legally
acknowledged, may maintain partition proceedings for the
division of the inheritance against his coheirs (Siguiong vs.
Siguiong, 8 Phil., 5; Tiamson vs. Tiamson, 32 Phil., 62); and the
same person may intervene in proceedings for the distribution
of the estate of his deceased natural father, or mother
(Capistrano vs. Fabella, 8 Phil., 135; Conde vs. Abaya, 13 Phil.,
249; Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855). In neither of these
situations had it been thought necessary for the plaintiff to show
a prior decree compelling acknowledgment. The obvious reason
is that in partition suits and distribution proceedings the other
persons who might take by inheritance are before the court; and
the declaring of Heirship is appropriate to such proceedings.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. BANCO FILIPINO
GR No. 173399 | February 21, 2017
HELD: Moreover, the admission of the Second
Amended/Supplemental Complaint is inappropriate because it
violates the rule on joinder of parties and causes of action. If its
admission is upheld, the causes of action set forth therein would
be joined with those in the original Complaint. The joinder of
causes of action is indeed allowed under Section 5, Rule 2 of the
1997 Rules of Court; but if there are multiple parties, the joinder
is made subject to the rules on joinder of parties under Section
6, Rule 3. Specifically, before causes of action and parties can be
joined in a complaint involving multiple parties, (1) the right to
relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions and (2) there must be a question of law or fact
common to all the parties.
In the instant case, Banco Filipino is seeking to join the BSP and
its MB as parties to the complaint. However, they have different
legal personalities from those of the defunct CB and its MB:
firstly, because the CB was abolished by R.A. 7653, and the BSP
created in its stead; and secondly, because the members of each
MB are natural persons. These factors make the BSP and its MB
different from the CB and its MB. Since there are multiple parties
involved, the two requirements mentioned in the previous
paragraph must be present before the causes of action and
parties can be joined. Neither of the two requirements for the
joinder of causes of action and parties was met.
First, the reliefs for damages prayed for by respondent did not
arise from the same transaction or series of transactions. While
the damages prayed for in the first Amended/Supplemental
Complaint arose from the closure of Banco Filipino by the
defunct CB and its MB, the damages prayed for in the Second
Amended/Supplemental Complaint arose from the alleged acts
of oppression committed by the BSP and its MB against
respondent.
Second, there is no common question of fact or law between the
parties involved. The acts attributed by Banco Filipino to the BSP
and its MB pertain to events that transpired after this Court
ordered the respondent bank's reopening in 1994. These acts
bear no relation to those alleged in the original Complaint, which
related to the propriety of the closure and liquidation of
respondent as a banking institution way back in 1985.
The only common factor in all these allegations is respondent
bank itself as the alleged aggrieved party. Since the BSP and its
MB cannot be joined as parties, then neither can the causes of
action against them be joined.
SALVADOR v. PATRICIA INC.
GR No. 195834 | November 9, 2016
HELD: The joinder of the action for injunction and the action to
quiet title is disallowed by the Rules of Court, the first being an
ordinary suit and the latter a special civil action under Rule 63.
Under Section 5(b), Rule 2, “the joinder shall not include special
civil action or actions governed by special rules.”
Consequently, the RTC should have severed the causes of action,
either upon motion or motu proprio, and tried them separately,
assuming it had jurisdiction over both. Such severance is
pursuant to Section 6, Rule 2 of the rules of Court.
109
DISCUSSION
The joinder of the action for injunction and the action to quiet title
is not allowed. Why? Because when you talk about action for
injunction we are not talking about the provisional remedy of
injunction but the main action for injunction that is an ordinary
action whereas an action to quiet title under Rule 63 is actually a
special civil action because that is an action that can be filed under
the provisions of the law under declaratory relief.
Q: So if you are the court and you took cognizance of an action to
quiet title with an action for injunction. What should you do?
A: You must sever the causes of action upon motion or motu
proprio or at the courts own initiative and try them separately.
Assuming that it has jurisdiction over both of the cases and such
severance is pursuant of Section 6, Rule 2 of rules of court. If the
causes of action are misjoined you have to sever them. And for that
we go again to Rule 31.
Take note: You cannot join an action for injunction. I’m talking
about the main action for injunction and action to quiet title. What
you can do however is to file an action to quiet title and ask for the
provisional remedy of preliminary injunction. That is allowed. What
is not allowed is the main action of injunction with action to quiet
title or other any special civil action but you can file an action to
quiet title and ask for preliminary injunction under Rule 58.
BELO MEDICAL GROUP, INC. v. SANTOS AND BELO
GR No. 185194, August 30, 2017
HELD: Interpleader cannot be joined with declaratory relief.
They are both special civil actions.
Discussion:
Take note that both of them are special civil actions. You cannot
join two special civil actions. One special civil action is not allowed.
How much more if there is two special civil actions?
Sec. 5 (C) JOINDER IN THE RTC
• (c) Where the causes of the action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the
causes of the action falls within the jurisdiction of said
court and the venue lies therein.
EXAMPLE NO. 1
Maja is a squatter on two lots owned by Bangs. Bangs therefore has
two causes of action against Maja, one for each lot. The assessed
value of Lot A is P15,000 while that of Lot B is P100,000. Assume
that more than one year had already elapsed since Maja entered
the property of Bangs.
For both lots, Bangs cannot file an action for forcible entry
anymore. For Lot A, Bangs must file an action for recovery of
possession against Maja before the MTC but, for Lot B she should
file it before the RTC.
DISCUSSION
Why did I add the statement “one year had already
elapsed since Maja entered the property of Bangs”? So
that we will not think about forcible entry. Right? It has
already exceeded one year. What she can only file now is
an action for recovery of possession. But take note of the
assessed value of the lots. For Lot A Bangs must file an
action for recovery of possession against Maja where?
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
MTC. For Lot B she should file it before the RTC because
of the assessed value 100k.
NOTE:
• Under Rule 2, Section 5(c), the causes of action between
the same parties but pertaining to different jurisdictions
can be joined in the RTC because one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of the same.
• Thus, Bangs may join the two cases in the RTC. Because
anyway they are both for recovery of possession. That
will simplify litigation.
EXAMPLE NO. 2
Maja is a squatter on two lots owned by Bangs. Bangs therefore has
two causes of action against Maja, one of each lot. The assessed
value of Lot A is P15, 000 while that of Lot B is P100,000. Assume
that less than one year has elapsed since Maja entered the Lot A
but more than year since she entered Lot B.
Thus, for Lot A, Bangs must file an action for forcible entry against
Maja before the MTC and, for Lot B, she should file an action for
recovery of possession before RTC.
DISCUSSION
Q: The question now is can it be joined? Can joinder be
allowed here in the RTC?
Note:
• Under Rule 2, Section 5(c), the causes of action between
the same parties but pertaining to different jurisdictions
can be joined in the RTC because one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of the same.
• Thus, Bangs may join the two cases in the RTC.
A: WRONG! You need to remember:
• (B) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules.
o Take note that forcible entry is a special civil
action under Rule 71.
DICUSSION
Forcible entry is a special civil action, right? So, it is not
allowed. Regardless of those facts, the fact that forcible entry
is a special civil action, you cannot join it even if it is before the
RTC.
EXAMPLE NO. 3
Maja has two causes of action against Bangs. The first one is for
moral damages in the amount of P50,000 for violation of her right
to privacy. The other one is an injunction under Art. 26 of the Civil
Code based on the same invasion of privacy.
DISCUSSION
Because in Art. 26 every person must respect the dignity,
personality of his neighbors. So if you violate your right to
privacy you actually violate Art. 36. And the violation of Art. 36
would give rise to an action for damages, prevention or any
other relief. Prevention or injunction is included. You can stop
your neighbors from doing acts which invade your privacy.
• Note that an action for damages is cognizable by the MTC
because of the amount – here it is Php 50,000. Note also
that the action for main action for injunction is cognizable
110
by the RTC, being an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
DISCUSSION
As we have already discussed, main action for injunction is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. So ang isa RTC, ang action
for damages kay MTC.
• Under these facts, the causes of action between the same
parties but pertaining to different jurisdictions can be
joined in the RTC because one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of the same. Maja can therefore
join the two cases before the RTC.
DISCUSSION
In fact it would be simpler. Because when you file an action for
damages in MTC, can you also file for an action for main
injunction? No. But you can file action for damages with the
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction which
is not a main action. But if you file it before the RTC with
injunction as your main action you can ask for damages even
if the amount damages is under the jurisdiction of MTC.
Because even if the RTC has no jurisdiction ordinarily, if your
action is mainly for damages in the amount of P50,000, it can
award damages below P300,000.
For example, you file in the RTC a case for damages against you
neighbour and you prayed for the reward of P500,000 but
what you have only proven in the court is only P250,000. Do
you mean to say that the RTC will not award P250,000? Of
couse not, the RTC will award P250,000 even if it below
P300,000.
EXAMPLE NO. 4
Maja is a squatter on two lots owned by Bangs- one in Davao and
the other in Digos. Bangs therefore has two causes of action against
Maja, one for each lot. The assessed value for both lots is the same-
P200,000.00 each. Assume that more than one year had already
elapsed since Maja entered the property.
For Lot A , Bangs must file an accion publicana in Davao (RTC) and
for Lot B, it is also an accion publicana in Digos (RTC).
DISCUSSION
Under Section 5(c), Rule 2, the causes of action between the same
parties but pertaining to different venues can be joined in the RTC
of either venues.
Bangs, can join the two action either in either the RTC of Davao or
the RTC of Digos.
Note: There must be at least one cause of action the jurisdiction of
which falls within the RTC. If both cases are within the jurisdiction
of the MTCs, the can be no joinder. (THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
JOINDER IN THE MTC!)
In the latter case, two separate action must be filed. Take not also
that the causes of action of the same plaintiff must be against the
same defendant.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
RESTATEMENT OF THE TOTALITY RULE
Sec. 5, (D) Where the claims in all the causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed
shall be the test of jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Again, that is Totality Rule. It's quite possible that you are suing on
the different debts, but in small amounts, you want to join it under
one complaint, so you should file a joinder of causes of action, since
there are many debts. One, is Php 100,000.00, Two, is Php
200,000.00, Three, is Php 50,000.00, Four, is Php 10,000.00, which
is Php 360,000.00 in total.
Q: What would be the test for jurisdiction?
A: The entire Php 360,000.00, because it is primarily for collection
of sum of Money. That's the totality rule.
PANTRANCO v. STANDARD
March 16, 2005 | G.R. No. 140746
FACTS: In 1984, Gicale was driving his jeepney when he was
bumped by a bus owned by Pantranco. The bus sped away.
Gicale reported the incident to the police and also to the insurer
of the jeepney, Standard Insurance.
The total cost of the repair was Php 21,415.00, but respondent
standard paid only Php 8,000.00. Gicale shouldered the balance
of Php13,415.00.
Thereafter, Standard and Gicale demanded reimbursement
from Pantranco and its driver, but they refused. This prompted
respondents to file with the Regional Tial Court (RTC), Branch 94,
Manila, a complaint for sum of money.
In their answer, Pantranco and its driver specifically denied the
allegations in the complaint averred that it is the Metropolitan
Trial Court, not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over the case
due to the amounts claimed by each plaintiff (Gicale for Php
13,415 and Standard for Php 8,000.00). They also insist that the
RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the cause of action of
each respondent did not arise from the same transaction and
that there are no common questions of law and fact common to
both parties.
Note: In 1984, the RTC still had jurisdiction over claims not exceeding Php
20,000.00. This case happened before RA 7691 which amended BP 129
and expanded the jurisdiction of the several courts.
Ruling: In this case, there is a single transaction common to all,
that is Pantranco's bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There
is also a common question of facts, that is whether petitioners
are negligent. There being a single transaction common to both
respondents, consequently, they have same cause of action
against petitioners.
DISCUSSION
The total is Php 21,415.00 but you need to remember that an
insurance company has a subragatory right, when he pays the
insurance proceeds in cases of damage to property, he will be
subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff. So, with respect to the
amount he paid, which is Php 8,000.00, he is the plaintiff, but the
remainder that Gicale shouldered he is the plaintiff, so there are
now two (2) plaintiffs. That's what you need to remember.
111
Corollary, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides that
where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery
of money the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction.
This paragraph embodies the TOTALITY RULE as exemplified by
Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 which states, among others, that
"where there are several claims of 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 arose out of the same or
different transactions.
DISCUSSION
Which is more important?
Common question of fact, because if you look at it, they have
different causes of action, one party for damages because of the
bumping, the other for reimbursement - subrogatory right of the
insurer, but there is a common question of fact and law which
makes joinder totally proper and the total amount is the test of
jurisdiction.
Respondent Standard's claim is Php 8,000.00, while that of
respondent Gicale is Php 13,415.00, or a total of Php 21,415.00.
Section 19 of BP 129, provides that the RTC has "exclusive original
jurisdiction over all other cases, in which the demand, exclusive of
interest and cost or the value of the property in controversy,
amounts to more than twenty thousand pesos (Php 20,000.00)."
Clearly, it is t he RTC that has the jurisdiction over the instant case.
It bears emphasis that when the complaint was filed, RA 7691
expanding the jurisdiction of the MTCs had not yet taken effect. It
became effective on April 15,1994.
MISJOINDER
SECTION 6. Misjoinder of causes of action.- Misjoinder of
causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A
misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the
intiative of the court, be severed and proceed separately.
DISCUSSION
If it has jurisdiction over, both severed action, the court will
continue to decide, but it shall not be joined in one case. You can
sever, but they will proceed now independently of one another.
REPUBLIC v. HERBIETO
G.R. No. 156117 | May 26, 200
HELD: Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve
a question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with
the case. They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal
thereof. Instead, under the Rules of Court, the misjoinder of
causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of the
court's jurisdiction. It acknowledges the power of the court,
acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its own
initiative, to order the severance of the misjoined cause of
action, to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of
causes of action); and/or the dropping of a party and the
severance of any claim against said misjoined party, also to be
proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of parties).
DISCUSSION
EXAMPLE
A is a very litigious person, he filed a case against B and C in a
joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action. A, filed a case
against B for damages, in the amount of Php 500,00.00, because
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
according to A, B defamed his character, while A filed a case against
C for collection of a loan with interest, also in the amount of Php
500,00.00.
Q: There is only one (1) plaintiff, but there are two (2) defendants,
is the joinder correct? Are there a same transaction or series of
transactions?
A: No.
Q: Are there common questions of fact or law between the two (2)
defendants?
A: No. The case against B and C have different sources of
obligation.
Q: What should the court do?
A: The court should, sever the causes of action.
Take note, in both cases, Php 500,000.00 is the claim, they are both
under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
Q: What should the court do?
A: The court should proceed, but it should try the different cases,
independently of one another.
That is how we should look, if there is a misjoinder of causes of
action, or misjoinder of parties.
ADA v. BAYLON
G.R. No. 182435 | August 13, 2012
Here, there was a misjoinder of causes of action. The action for
partition filed by the petitioners could not be joined with the
action for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in favor
of Florante. Lest it be overlooked, an action for partition is a
special civil action governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court
while an action for rescission is an ordinary civil action governed
by the ordinary rules of civil procedure. The variance in the
procedure in the special civil action of partition and in the
ordinary civil action of rescission precludes their joinder in one
complaint or their being tried in a single proceeding to avoid
confusion in determining what rules shall govern the conduct of
the proceedings as well as in the determination of the presence
of requisite elements of each particular cause of action.
The Court cited Republic v. Herbieto in this case.
DISCUSSION
Q: What type of action is a Rescission?
A: That is an ordinary civil action. Rescission, specific performance,
damages. Those are ordinary civil actions.
Q: What about an action for partition?
A: That is a special civil action. The variance in the procedure in the
special civil action of partition and in the ordinary civil action of
rescission precludes there joinder in one complaint or they being
tried in a single proceeding to avoid confusion in determining what
rule shall govern, the conduct of the proceedings, as well as in the
determination of the requisite elements of each particular cause of
action.
Nevertheless, misjoinder of cause of action is NOT a ground for
dismissal. What’s left to be done is only to SEVER. The court can still
adjudicate, provided the court has jurisdiction.
So the rule is, it should NOT be dismissed. It should only be
severed. Only severance of action.
112
The rule however, applies only if the court trying the case has
jurisdiction over all the causes of action therein, notwithstanding
the misjoinder of the same.
EXAMPLE
An action is joined within the jurisdiction of the RTC, while the
other one was misjoined and that it falls under the jurisdiction of
the MTC.
Q: What must be done?
A: The misjoined cause of action should be DISMISSED because it
DOES NOT fall within its (RTC’s) jurisdiction. AND, it must be
dismissed WITHOUT prejudice to the refiling of the same so that it
can be filed properly with the MTC.
Related Rule: (Rule 3, Section 11)
RULE 3, SECTION 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.-
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order
of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against
a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with
separately.
DISCUSSION
It has the same effect when you talk about misjoinder of causes of
actions.
So, there must be a separate trial to be done. So always remember
“Severance”. The cause of action will be “Severed”. That is if you
separate misjoined causes of action. Severance. But if you “Join”,
you call that “Consolidation”.
RULE 31
CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
CONSOLIDATION
Section 1. Consolidation. - When actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may
order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in
the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated, and it may
make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend
to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
DISCUSSION
Example
Against the same defendant, Client AAA (plaintiff) filed two
actions for damages. I know that I can join the causes of action
because it is PERMISSIVE, considering that there is THE SAME
PARTY. Same plaintiff. Same defendant. However, there are
certain facts in one case that would NOT be present in the other
case.
First Case: AAA has an employee. What the employee did is that,
instead of selling the products of her employer, he sold his own
competing product. Just imagine. He has his own business, yet
he is under the employ of AAA. So now, what he was selling was
his OWN product and not the product of AAA. That would be a
good cause of action for damages.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 113
From the Discussions of Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

Second Case: The second case on the other hand started with or
based on the same facts. However, there was a further claim.
Why? Because AAA caught his employee selling products not of
the employer-AAA. Because of that, they are no longer in good
terms, leading the defendant to say something which defamed
the character of my client. So, that’s another case for damages.
Different causes of action.
Q: But, can you contend that it arose out of the same transaction
or series of transactions? Can you contend that there is a common
question of fact and law in both cases filed?
A: So, EEE filed a motion for consolidation of the two cases
contending that the parties are the same, the factual backdrop of
the case are the same, common question of fact, despite the fact
that there are facts in the other case which are not present or
relevant in the first case. So, EEE filed for a motion for consolidation
and the court granted the motion.
Q: So, how many claims are now existing in our hypothetical case?
A: Total of 6 claims:
1. Main claim by the plaintiff,
2. Five counterclaims by the defendants.
Now, we also have what we call “Crossclaim”. What is that? A claim
which a fellow defending party may have against his fellow
defendant, in relation to the subject matter of the MAIN CLAIM. So,
one defendant may file a case against his fellow defendant and say
“Actually, i’m not the one who is at fault here, it’s defendant B who
is at fault. Me (A) is not liable. It is defendant B.” So, A filed against
B a Crossclaim.
Q: So, how many claims are now existing in our hypothetical case?
A: Total of 7 claims:
1. Main claim by the plaintiff,
2. Five counterclaims by the defendants,
3. A Crossclaim by one defendant against the other

SEPARATE TRIALS OR SEVERANCE So, Imagine how confusing this will be now. How many people will
be presenting evidence in Chief to prove their perspective claims?
SO MANY!
SECTION 2. Separate Trials. - The court, in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of
Q: So, what can the court do?
any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint,
A: So, the Court can order SEPARATION OF TRIAL so as to avoid
or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims,
confusion.
counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues.
That will take care of section 2. Separate Trials or Severance of
DISCUSSION cases.
Now this rule is for those which are “Severed” or separated. So,
this is the severance portion. ALWAYS REMEMBER: “COMMON QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT”.
That is very very important for you to remember.
Q: So, what does it mean?
A: If a case becomes very convoluted already, it becomes very
difficult to try together because there are lots of parties and claims ---End of 1st Exam Coverage---
and counter-claims between the parties. Let us suppose, there are
those also who intervened in the case. A third party complaint
against another person, for example. So, it becomes too
complicated. Now, the court can order that to be separated or
severed so that an issue can be given a proper emphasis.

EXAMPLE
Suppose the plaintiff filed a case against 5 defendants. That can be
done. There can be many plaintiffs. There can also be many
defendants. So, the plaintiff files a complaint.

Q: Can the defendant countersue?

A: Yes. That is allowed. That is called a “Counterclaim” under rule
7. So, the defendant can file a counterclaim.

However, let us suppose that the defendants individually filed a

counterclaim against the plaintiff. So, there are 5 counterclaims in
the same case. Now, we will learn later on that there are two types
of counterclaim:
1. Permissive Counterclaim and
2. Compulsory Counterclaim

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
It must be RELATED to the original complaint of the plaintiff.

PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM
It MAY be NOT RELATED to the original complaint of the plaintiff.

It’s like “Alright, since you filed, I’ll also file against you”. There are
instances that is allowed.