33:49 - 1:07:36
TIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY
G.R. No. L-21450 | April 15, 1968
(To be followed; not yet available in the class digest drive)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Discussion: It is very clear in this case that there was
laches. Dugay kayo nakamatikod ang isa ka party as to the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, which is now the
RTC.
Just like that, in the bar examination, the answer will be that
as to Jurisdiction over the subject matter, it can be raised
anytime. But for you to become topnotcher in the exam,
you can say that there is an exception, which is the case of
Tijam vs. SIbonghanoy wherein the claim may be barred by
laches if in raising the issue of jurisdiction. The party was
not able to raise an objection in the period required.
General Rule: Issue of jurisdiction over a subject matter
can be raised anytime even on appeal.
Exception: Refer to the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
It is acquired or conferred by the law. You based it on the
law.
There was a law at that time that if your claim is less than 2
thousand pesos, it will be under the jurisdiction of the MTC.
If your claim is more than 2 thousand pesos, it will be under
the jurisdiction of the RTC. So, it is the law that confers
jurisdiction.
Added notes from the previous SR-TSN: This is the
jurisdiction or the power of the court to hear and
determine cases of the general cause to which the
proceedings in question to the law.
In criminal procedure, it depends upon the subject
matter – the crimes, the penalty we are going to
determine.
We go to the nature of the case here. Here in jurisdiction
over the subject matter, it's conferred by law.
What is the nature of the case?
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction is with
the municipal trial court. Annulment of marriage, family
court, but when there’s no family court established in the
place it shall be with the Regional Trial Court designated
as a family court. It’s the law that says that it should be in
the RTC designated as the family court.
But, when there was still no family court yet, it is in the
RTC. And what is the basis, why is it in the RTC?
Annulment of marriage or declaration of nullity of
marriage is because it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
When can one raise a question of error?
It can be done anytime. But, if you want to be a topnotcher
during the bar exam, put an exception and that is the case
of Tijamvs. Sibonghanoy.
NOTE: Jurisdiction cannot be acquired by agreement of the
parties because it is conferred by law. It cannot be done
through a waiver. So that is the jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
How do you determine jurisdiction over the subject
matter?
You look at the allegations.
ATTY. CUDIAMAT, ET AL. V. BATANGAS SAVINGS
(To be followed; not yet available in the class digest drive)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Discussion: This talks about estoppel. As what was
mentioned, if it had no jurisdiction and then, the case was
hear and tried from the theory that it had jurisdiction the
parties are not barred because the case must be dismissed
in the first place since it has no jurisdiction
BUT, if the lower court had jurisdiction and the case was
heard and tried as if it had no jurisdiction, the person who
induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted on
appeal to assume two inconsistent positions. That is the
issue that is related to jurisdiction in Cudiamat vs. Batangas
Savings.
HEIRS OF SPOUSES RAMIRO AND LLAMADA VS.
SPOUSES BACARON
(To be followed; not yet available in the class digest drive)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Discussion: The title of the case was specific performance
for the issuance of the deed of sale. So, if it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, it is in the RTC. But, if it is a recovery
of possession, it depends on the assessed value of the
property.
That time it was 20,000 pesos and it was in Lupon, which is
outside Metro Manila. In this case, it was less than 20,000.
Meaning, it is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
How about the title? Specific performance, which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. In this case, which
should prevail: the title or the body?
It is the body. If you would really look at the body of the
complaint, it was all about recovery of the property. It talks
about the title and possession of the property then; you get
the assessed value. Since the assessed value is less than
20,000 so, it is within the jurisdiction of the MTC and not
with the RTC of Lupon.
BERBANO VS. HEIRS OF TAPULAO
(To be followed; not yet available in the class digest drive)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
The plaintiff is saying that the assessed value is more than
20,000 and it should be in the RTC. But the defendant is
saying we are only occupying a certain portion, so it is less
than 20,000. Then, the SC ruled that it should be in the
RTC. It is more than 20,000. So, why did the SC rule that
way?
Here, the SC ruled this way because it was clearly alleged in
the complaint that the assessed value of the property is
22,070 pesos.
Even if the defendant said that it was just a portion, what
will prevail in determining the jurisdiction? Is it the
allegations in the complaint or the allegations in the
answer?
It is the allegation in the complaint.
Discussion: So, that is the issue. It was answered by the SC.
Ganyan talaga kasi if portion-portion pa kailangan pa siya
ipa prove later on. But, the SC said you look at the body of
the complaint and later na yong sa defendant. If it says that
the assessed value is more than 20,000, then it is with the
RTC.
MONTERO VS. MONTERO
G.R. No. 217755 | September 18, 2019
FACTS: Dominga Taeza is the owner of a parcel of land in
Pilar, Abra. Upon her death, her actual, exclusive, open,
continuous, and notorious possession of the land was
transferred to her successors-in-interest by operation of
law.
When petitioner Elmer Montero, grandson of Dominga,
was about to pay the real estate tax on the property, he
was informed that the same was already transferred in
the name of Santiago Montero Jr., by virtue of an Affidavit
of Adjudication. Santiago however, was not related by
blood to Dominga, but was the son of Jose Montero
(Dominga's husband) by his first marriage.
Elmer Montero filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Affidavit of Adjudication, Cancellation of Tax
Declaration and OCT, Reconveyance and Damages before
the RTC of Bangued, Branch 2 against respondents
Santiago Montero, Jr. and Charlie Montero.
Subsequently, Santiago and Charlie filed a motion to
dismiss alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the complaint. As alleged in the
complaint, the assessed value of the property is
P3,010.00, an amount not exceeding P20,000.00. Thus,
exclusive original jurisdiction over the case is vested with
the Municipal Trial Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction to hear
the case.
RULING: No, the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear the
case.
Jurisprudence has held that 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. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter vs. Jurisdiction
Over the Parties
It is a hornbook doctrine that a court's jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a particular action is determined by Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction Over the
the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint and the Subject Matter Parties
principal relief he seeks.
Conferred by law (cannot Acquired by certain acts
More than asking for the nullification of documents, it is be agreed upon by the
clear that Elmer asserts his alleged right of possession parties)
over the subject property by seeking the reconveyance of
the subject property. (from Santiago and Charlie) Cannot be cured by failure May be cured by waiver,
to object or by silence, consent, silence or failure
According to jurisprudence, "in a number of cases, the waiver or consent to object
Court has held that actions for reconveyance of /or/ for
cancellation of title to /or/ to quiet title over real property
are actions that fall under the classification of cases that
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any How does a court jurisdiction over the plaintiff?
interest therein." It is upon the filing of the complaint.

Therefore, as the subject matter of Elmer's Complaint Discussion: If you are going to file a complaint, the moment
you file before the court. Then, the court has acquired
involves title to, possession of, and interest in real
jurisdiction over you.
property which has an assessed value of below
P20,000.00, the CA was correct in finding that the RTC
had no jurisdiction to hear, try and decide the case. How does a court jurisdiction over the defendant?
Jurisdiction can be acquired through:
1) Proper service of summons (coercive process);
Discussion: Same with the case of Berbano wherein you
2) By voluntary submission
look at the allegations in the complaint. Even if the nature
a. Voluntary or Special Appearance in Court
of the case is annulment of a deed, if you look into what
b. Filing of an Answer
was being prayed for in the complaint which is still about
the right of ownership and possession. And when it talks
Summon
about ownership, possession, and title of the land, the basis
It is served on the defendant directing him to answer for a
of the jurisdiction will be assessed value.
certain number of cases. When we go to Rule 14, we will
How much is the assessed value in this case?
know how a summons is served by the court.
It was only 3,010 pesos.

By the moment that summon is served to you, the court has

Which has jurisdiction over lands with an assessed value of
acquired jurisdiction over you as the defendant.
3,000 pesos?
It was Court held that it was the MTC, which has jurisdiction
It can also be that the jurisdiction over the defendant
over the subject matter.
Stephen is acquired by voluntary submission of Stephen to
the jurisdiction of the court.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES

So, it can also be that Stephen was not properly served by

If you remember under your Criminal Procedure,
summons. He was not the one who received it but the child
jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired
in their home. It should be the child, who should receive it.
by arrest. When a person is arrested then, the Court
That is improper service of summon BUT then Stephen files
acquired jurisdiction over his person.
an answer. So, by filing an answer of Stephen that is already
a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
It can also be acquired by service of warrant of arrest or
by voluntary surrender. He goes to court because he was
not yet arrested and then, there is still a provision as to the MEATPACKING VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
bail bond. If he bailed and was not arrested, that can be
considered as voluntary surrender. That is how jurisdiction
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (To be followed; not yet available in the class digest drive)

How does a court acquire jurisdiction over the parties?

It depends if it is the plaintiff or the defendant.
FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: