2023 Question and Answers in Civil Procedure

2023 Question and Answers in Remedial Law
I. General Principles
A. Substantive Law vs. Remedial Law
1. What is the concept of Remedial Law?
- The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core of procedural due process,
which means a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry
and renders judgment only after trial, and contemplates an opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered. Remedial Law is that branch of law which creates,
defines or regulates rights concerning life, liberty or property or the powers of
agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs.
2. Distinguish substantive law and Remedial law.
- Substantive law is the part of the law which creates, defines or regulates rights
concerning life, liberty or property or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities
for the administration of public affairs while Remedial Law prescribes the
methods of enforcing those rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.
- As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are
crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from
remedial law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a
crime is to be punished.
- Substantive law creates vested rights while procedural law does not create vested
rights.
- Substantive law is prospective in application while procedural law is retroactive in
application.
- Substantive law cannot be enacted by the Supreme Court while in relation to
Remedial Law, the Supreme Court is expressly empowered to promulgate
procedural rules.
3. In an adoption case, the wife alone filed the petition without joining the husband. It
was granted, but that was under the Child and Youth Welfare Code. When the Family
Code took effect, they went to Court seeking for an annulment of the decree of
adoption on the ground that under Article 185 of the Code, the husband and wife must
jointly adopt. They contended that the law is remedial statute and must be retroactive.
Decide.
- When the wife filed her petition, the trial court acquired jurisdiction thereover
in accordance with the governing law. Jurisdiction being a matter of
substantive law, the established rule is that the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the
action.
- Indeed, Article 185 of the Family Code is remedial in nature and procedural
statutes are ordinarily accorded a retrospective construction in the sense that
they may be applied to pending actions and proceedings, as well as to future
actions. However, they will not be so applied as to defeat procedural steps
completed before their enactment.
- Procedural matters are governed by the law in force when they arise, and
procedural statutes are generally retroactive in that they apply to pending
proceedings and are not confined to those begun after their enactment
although, with respect to such pending proceedings, they affect only
procedural steps taken after their enactment.
- The rule that a statutory change in matters of procedure will affect pending
actions and proceedings, unless the language of the act excludes them from its
operation, is not so extensive that it may be used to validate or invalidate
[1]
proceedings taken before it goes into effect, since procedure must be governed
by the law regulating it at the time the question of procedure arises.
- The jurisdictional, as distinguished from the purely procedural, aspect of a
case is substantive in nature and is subject to a more stringent rule. A petition
cannot be dismissed by reason of failure to comply with a law which was not
yet in force and effect at the time. As long as the petition for adoption was
sufficient in form and substance in accordance with the law in governance at
the time it was filed, the court acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully
disposes of the case. Such jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil
cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events,
although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance.
4. How shall the Rules of Court be construed?
- The Rules of Court should be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 1).
Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court
5. State the Power of the Supreme Court.
- SECTION 5 (Article VIII). 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.
6. What are the limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court?
[2]
- 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. The power to admit attorneys
to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of
the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is the duty of the
court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion.
Principle of Judicial Hierarchy / Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
7. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy / Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and
must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform assigned to it.
This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction,
beginning from the lowest, on to the next higher, and ultimately to the highest. This
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of
the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy
necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are
better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the
further clogging of the Court’s docket.
8. Exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this Court may
be allowed when any of the following grounds are present:
(a)when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed
immediately;
(b) when the case involves transcendental importance;
(c) when the case is novel;
(d) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;
(e) when time is of the essence;
(f) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
(g) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law;
(h) when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy,
or demanded by the broader interest of justice;
(i) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and
(j) when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy
(k) when pure questions of law are raised
Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability

9. Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability
 Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s
orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ
of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from
reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has
no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.
 No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another
court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare
as unjust a judgment of another court.
[3]
 This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law
provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or
CA, it means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature,
and logically beyond the control of the latter (Phil.Spinster Corp. vs. Cagayan
Electric Power).
 Under the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
judgments of a co-equal court, the various trial courts of a province or city, having
the same equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere
with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments.
10. Can the RTC modify the final and executory judgment of the Energy Regulatory
Board?
No. The law creating the ERB provides that a review of its decisions or orders is
lodged in the Supreme Court. Settled is the rule that the Doctrine of Non-Interference
or Doctrine of Judicial Stability applies with equal force to administrative bodies.
Where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to
the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal
with the Regional Trial Courts in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the
control of the latter. Hence, the trial court, being co-equal with the ERB, cannot
interfere with the decision of the latter.
11. Exception to Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability
The Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability applies only when no third-
party claimant is involved. For example, when a third-party, or a stranger to the
action, asserts a claim over a property levied upon, the claimant may vindicate his
claim by an independent action in the proper civil court which may stop the execution
of the judgment on property not belonging to the judgment debtor.
12. The decision of NLRC enforcing a writ of execution against the properties of Ching in
favor of Pambuan had become final and executory. Priscilla filed a third party claim
alleging that Ching had sold the subject properties to her. Nevertheless, the public
auction sale proceeded. Priscilla filed in the RTC Manila her claim to the levied
properties and obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining the issuance of a
certificate of sale over the levied properties. Pambuan filed a motion to dismiss the
civil case on the ground that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the labor case, for
exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the NLRC (Art. 255, Labor Code) and no injunction
or restraining order may be issued by any court or entity in a labor dispute. Decide.
- The motion to dismiss must be denied. The power of the NLRC to execute its
judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment
debtor (Special Servicing Corp. vs. Centro La Paz, 121 SCRA 748). The Doctrine
of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability applies only when no third-party claimant
is involved (Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA
142). When a third-party, or a stranger to the action, asserts a claim over the
property levied upon, the claimant may vindicate his claim by an independent
action in the proper civil court which may stop the execution of the judgment on
property not belonging to the judgment debtor.
II. Jurisdiction
13. Jurisdiction, def.
[4]
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, as
well as to execute the judgment in such case.
14. Is the statement that “Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law” accurate?
No, because only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law.
Jurisdiction over the parties, issues and res is governed by procedural laws.
15. What should the court do if the complaint on its face does not confer jurisdiction upon
the court?
It should dismiss it, because its only jurisdiction is to dismiss it. The court cannot
defer any action.
16. Suppose on the face of the complaint, the court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, and later on, it is proven that the court has no jurisdiction, what should the
court do?
The court should try and decide the case and in so doing, if the evidence shows lack
of jurisdiction, it should dismiss it.
A. Classification of Jurisdiction
17. Original Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction
As to nature, original jurisdiction is the power of the court to take judicial cognizance
of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by
law while appellate jurisdiction is the authority of the court higher in rank to re-
examine the final order, judgment or a lower court which tried the case now elevated
for judicial review. As to courts which have such jurisdiction, a court is one with
original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are originally filed with it while a
court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of review over the
decisions or orders of lower courts.
18. Exclusive Jurisdiction vs. Concurrent Jurisdiction
Exclusive Jurisdiction is the power of the court to adjudicate a case or proceeding to
the exclusion of other courts at that stage. Concurrent Jurisdiction, sometimes
referred to as the coordinate jurisdiction, is the power conferred upon different courts
whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the state of the same case
in the same or different judicial territories.
19. General Jurisdiction vs. Special Jurisdiction
As to nature, General Jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate all controversies, except
those expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the court. It extends to all
controversies which may be brought before a court within the legal bounds of rights
and remedies while Special Jurisdiction is that which restricts the court’s jurisdiction
only to particular cases and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the
governing law. As to courts which have such jurisdiction, courts of general
jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and take
cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature, while courts of
special or limited jurisdiction are those which have jurisdiction only for a particular
purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties
beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
20. Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction / Continuity of Jurisdiction
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. This principle also means
that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or
events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
[5]
attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains
that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over
the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment.
Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and
execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96), except in the case of
the existence of a law that divests the court of jurisdiction.
GR: Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events
although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
XPNs:
- 1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of
jurisdiction;
- 2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a
subsequent law;
- 3. When 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;
- 4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is
intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment;
- 5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated,
abandoned or declared void;
- 6. Once appeal has been perfected;
- 7. Curative statutes (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 106, 2007 ed.).
As a consequence, jurisdiction is not affected by a new law placing a proceeding
under the jurisdiction of another tribunal, except:
i. Where there is an express provision in the statute
ii. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its
enactment. [People v. Cawaling (1998)]
21. Case example of exception to Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction / Continuity of

Jurisdiction, When the change in jurisdiction is curative in character:
Petitioners filed on August 18, 1978 against respondent Philippine American General
Insurance Company, Inc. (PHILAMGEN, for brevity) for the enforcement of contract
and recovery of loss of money basically praying for, among other things, payment of
the money value of the respective accumulated sick leave with pay of the separated
employees of respondent company either thru retirement, retrenchment or resignation.
Instead of filing an answer thereto, PHILAMGEN moved to dismiss the complaint,
which the trial court granted. After a denial of their motion to reconsider the
aforesaid order by the trial court on May 2, 1979, petitioners filed before the SC a
petition for Certiorari. A decision was rendered by the Court promulgated on October
30, 1981 reinstating the dismissed complaint. On January, 1983, judicial
reorganization took place by the passage of Executive Order No. 864 and the case at
bar was re-raffled to respondent Regional Trial Court of Manila. Respondent court
motu proprio, dismissed the complaint, declaring that it lacked jurisdiction over the
subject made being money claims arising from employer-employee relations. Is the
Respondent Court correct in dismissing the case?
- Yes. The postulate that once jurisdiction is acquired by a court, the same lasts
until the termination of the case, notwithstanding changes in the law on
[6]
jurisdiction, does not apply to this case because it was the court itself which
acquired initial jurisdiction that was abolished so that there is no more court to
continue exercising such initially acquired jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of this
Court (the reorganized Regional Trial Court) must be tested by the laws in
force at the time the reorganization took place, and when this case was re-
raffled not at the time of the commencement of the action because the courts
then existing were all abolished upon the reorganization. When it comes to
labor-related actions, however, such as the one at bar, initial jurisdiction is
vested on "administrative machineries" provided "for the expeditious
settlement of labor or industrial disputes." (See Art. 211, P.D. 442), which are
the National Labor Relations Commissions and the Labor Arbiters.
- Whereas before jurisdiction over money claims of laborers and employees
appertained to Courts of First Instance, the same are now to be taken
cognizance of by proper entities in the Department of Labor and Employment.
- The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is finally resolved or
adjudicated does not apply when the change in jurisdiction is curative in
character. Thus in the instant case, there is nothing wrong in holding that
Courts of First Instance /Regional Trial Courts no longer have jurisdiction
over aforesaid monetary claims of labor.
22. A final judgment was rendered by the RTC at a time that it still had jurisdiction.
Thereafter, on March 11, 1973, P.D. No. 902-A took effect, transferring the
jurisdiction of corporate controversies to the SEC. Can the judgment be still
executed? Why?
Yes, because once jurisdiction is acquired or attached to a court over a case, it
continues until the end of the case. However, under the circumstances, the execution
of the RTC judgment should now be placed under the supervision and control of the
SEC, even if the RTC judgment is already final and can no longer be modified or
altered (Aranas vs. CA, GR No. 95607, July 23, 1992).
23. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against Court of Appeals,
Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, Sandiganbayan and Court of
Tax Appeals
- Disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar and Court Personnel
24. Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- With Regional Trial Court
o Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
- With Court of Appeals
o Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against RTC, Civil
Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National
Labor Relations Commission and Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies
o Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan
- With Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
o Petitions for Habeas Corpus
o Petitions for Quo Warranto
o Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus against inferior courts
and other bodies
o Petitions for Continuing Mandamus under Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases
- With Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan
[7]
o Petitions for Writ of Amparo

o Petitions for Writ of Habeas Data
25. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- By way of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 against the Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan, RTC (on pure questions of law and Court of Tax Appeals En
Banc
- The SC has jurisdiction to 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. (Section
5(2), Article VIII, Constitution).
26. Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court:
- (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures;
- (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
- (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
- (d) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
- (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
- (f) 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;
- (g) When the findings are contrary to the trial court;
- (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;
- (i) 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;
- (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
- (k) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a
different conclusion.
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
27. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
- Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of
Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner (Sec. 1, Rule 47).
28. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
[8]
(a) With Supreme Court to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the Regional Trial Court, Civil Service Commission, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, and Other Quasi-
Judicial Agencies mentioned in Rule 43, and to issue writ of kalikasan.
- (b) With the SC, Sandiganbayan, RTC, and Shari-ah to issue writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and
writs of quo warranto, habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases.
- (c) With the SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and
habeas data
29. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
- (a) by way of ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial Court and the Family
Courts, and over decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction
- (b) by way of petition for review under Rule 42 from the RTC rendered in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
- (c) by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of the Civil Service Commission, Central Board and Assessment
Appeals and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43, and of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
30. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the decisions in criminal and
administrative cases of the Ombudsman?
The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the
Ombudsman in criminal cases (Sec. 14, RA 6770). In administrative and disciplinary
cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must be taken to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43 (Lanting vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 141426, 05/06/2005; Fabian vs. Desierto,
GR No. 129742, 0916/1998; Sec. 14, RA 6770).
31. Instances where the Court of Appeals may act as a trial court.
The Court of Appeals may act as a trial court in the following instances:
- (a) In annulment of judgments under Rule 47;
- (b) When a motion for new trial is granted by the Court of Appeals under Rule
53;
- (c) When a petition for habeas corpus shall be set for hearing under Rule 102;
- (d) To resolve factual issues in cases within its original and appellate
jurisdiction (Sec. 12, Rule 124);
- (e) In cases of new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Sec. 14, Rule
124);
- (f) In cases involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies;
- (g) In writ of amparo proceedings (AM No. 07-9-12-SC);
- (h) In writ of kalikasan proceedings (Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC);
- (i) In writ of habeas data proceedings (AM No. 08-1-16-SC).
32. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal:
"1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
[9]
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
"2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National
Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction
shall be deemed a denial;
"3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
"4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs
duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected,
fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under
the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
"5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real
property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
"6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are
adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
"7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural
product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of
agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing
duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the
decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
33. Criminal Offenses over which the Court of Tax Appeals has Jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of
the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided,
however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal
amount o taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be
tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any
provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal
action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes
and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being
deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to
reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be
recognized.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts
in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally
[10]
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.
c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection
cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the
proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts
in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases
originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction."
34. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are
officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1)Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758)
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this
section in relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
35. Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
With the Supreme Court:
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction
- Petitions for habeas corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising in cases falling under E.O.
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
With the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court:
[11]
-Petitions for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of
their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction where the information:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
36. Officials of the executive branch over whom the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction:
Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads:
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors
in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
37. 2001 Bar: Governor Padro Mario of Tarlac was charged with indirect bribery before
the Sandiganbayan for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a series of
contracts for medical supplies. The Sandiganbayan, after going over the information,
found the same to be valid and ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter contested
the suspension claiming that under the law (Sec. 13, RA 3019), his suspension is not
automatic upon the filing of the information and his suspension under Sec. 13, RA
3019 is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185). The
Sandiganbayan overruled Mario’s contention stating that Mario’s suspension under
the circumstances is mandatory. Is the court’s ruling correct? Why? (5%)
Yes, Mario’s suspension is mandatory. The firmly entrenched doctrine is that under
Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, the suspension of a public
officer is mandatory after a determination has been made of the validity of the
information in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose.
48. When is an offense considered as having been committed in relation to an office?
An offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is
“intimately connected” with the office of the offender and perpetrated while hew as in
the performance of his official functions.
38. State the fundamental requirement or allegation in the information in order that an
offense committed by a public officer may fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
[12]
There must be an allegation of the intimate relationship or connection between the

offense charged and the discharge of official functions. Otherwise, the SB has no
jurisdiction.
39. Since members of the Constitutional Commissions can be removed only by
impeachment, how can the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the Chairmen and
their members?
After their conviction in an impeachment proceeding, they can be criminally charged
and the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offenses committed by them. They
must be first convicted in an impeachment proceeding. The same is true with
Members of the Supreme Court as well as the President, Vice-President and the
Ombudsman since they can only be removed by impeachment.
40. Q, Y, Z are public officers who committed an offense in relation to their duties and
functions. They are occupying positions below Grade 27. In what courts should their
cases be filed?
They should be charged before the RTC or the MTC as the case may be. Republic
Act No. 10660 provides that, "In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the
case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended.
41. If a case of a public officer is tried by a MeTC or RTC, to what court is it appealable?
It is appealable to the Sandiganbayan. RA No. 10660 provides that the
Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction where the information: (a) does
not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the
government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in
an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
42. What happens if private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories with public officers, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations?
They shall be tried jointly in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them. RA No. 10660 provides that in case private individuals are
charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
43. May the Sandiganbayan exercise the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto and other ancillary processes?
Yes, but only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over petitions arising out of or that
may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986, provided
that jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court. This is pursuant to RA No.
10660.
44. What happens to a civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense charged if a criminal is filed before the Sandiganbayan?
RA 10660 provides that any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary
notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the
[13]
recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and
jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate
courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the
filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That
where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has
not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan
or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or
the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination
with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed
abandoned.
45. Suppose the civil action was filed ahead of the criminal action before the
Sandiganbayan, what will happen to the civil action?
It shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the proper court provided that no
judgment has been rendered in the meantime so that the same shall be consolidated
and jointly determined with the criminal action. Otherwise, the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned.
46. Within what period shall a motion for reconsideration be filed from a decision of the
SB or a proper court?
A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within 15
days from promulgation or notice of the final order or judgment which shall be
decided within 30 days from submission.
47. How are decision of the Sandiganbayan reviewed?
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme
Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance
with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
If the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher, the decision shall be appealable
to the Supreme Court in the manner prescribed by law or the Rules of Court.
48. What happened to cases pending before the Sandiganbayan which fell within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts upon effectivity of R.A. No. 7975 (An Act to
Strengthen the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan,
Amending for that Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended)?
They were transferred to the regular courts provided that the trials have not yet begun
before the Sandiganbayan.
49. Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a regional director/manager or
government-owned or controlled corporations organized and incorporated under the
Corporation Code for purposes of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act?
Yes. The position of manager in a government-owned and controlled corporation, as
in the case of PhilHealth, is within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. It is the
position that the respondent holds, not his salary grade, that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
50. Requisites that must concur in order that an offense may fall within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan:
The offense committed is a violation of
- (a)R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
- (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth)
- (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code (the law on
bribery)
[14]
- (d)Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (sequestration cases) or

- (e) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
The offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official
or employee holding any of the positions enumerated under Section 4 of R.A. 8249,
and
The offense committed is in relation to the office.
51. When is an offense considered to be committed in relation to the office? Is the rule
absolute?
For an offense to be committed in relation to the office, the relation between the crime
and the office must be direct and not accidental, such that the offense cannot exist
without the office (Montilla vs. Hilario, 90 Phil. 49 (1951))
By way of exception, as long as the offense charged in the information is intimately
connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the
performance, though improper or irregular, of his official functions, the accused
should be indicted for an offense committed in relation to his office (People vs.
Montejo, 108 Phil. 613, Adaza vs. SB, et al., G.R. No. 152886, July 28, 2005)
52. Is it sufficient that the information alleges that the offense was committed in relation
to his office? Explain.
No. It does not suffice to merely allege in the information that the crime charges was
committed by the offender in relation to his office or that he took advantage of his
position as these are conclusions of law. The specific factual allegations in the
information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the
offender’s official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to
qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office, are
controlling.
53. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to take cognizance of cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is for the conduct of
preliminary investigation in criminal cases.
54. Does the Court of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the
Ombudsman?
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot,
therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman
in criminal or non-administrative cases. Jurisprudence dictates that all appeals from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should
be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. If the
Ombudsman's decision on the administrative aspect of the case is already final, it is
no longer within the scope of the power of review of any court in the absence of
grounds for review affecting jurisdiction. By law, decisions of the Ombudsman in
criminal cases are unappealable. However, where the findings of the Ombudsman on
the existence of probable cause (in criminal cases) are tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the remedy is a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 filed, not with the CA, but before the Honorable Supreme
Court.
55. 2005 Bar: Regional Director AG of the Department of Public Works and Highways
was charged with violation of Setion 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the Office of
the Ombudsman. An administrative charge for gross misconduct arising from the
transaction subject matter of said criminal case was filed against him in the same
[15]
office. The Ombudsman assigned a team composed of investigators from the Office
of the Special Prosecutor and from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
military to conduct a joint investigation of the criminal case and the administrative
case. The team of investigators recommended to the Ombudsman that AG be
preventively suspended for a period not exceeding six (6) months on its finding that
the evidence of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman issued the said order as
recommended by the investigators.
AG moved to reconsider the order on the following grounds:
a. The Office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation of the criminal case;
b. The order for his preventive suspension was premature because he had yet to file
his answer to the administrative complaint and submit countervailing evidence; and
c. He was a career executive service officer and under Presidential Decree No. 807
(Civil Service Law), his preventive suspension shall be for a maximum period of three
months.
Resolve with reasons the motion of respondent AG. (5%)
Answer: The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied for the following reasons:
- a. AG’s contention that the Office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive
authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the criminal case should be
rejected considering that the investigatory powers of the Office of Special
Prosecutor is under the supervision of the Office of Ombudsman, which
exercises the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution
(Office of the Ombudsman vs. Enoc, 374 SCRA 691 [2002]).
This is but in accordance with Section 31 of RA 6770 which provides that
the Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate or
deputize any fiscal state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to
act as special investigator or prosecutors to assist in the investigation and
prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him
herein provided shall be under his supervision and control.
- b. The order of preventive suspension need not wait for the answer to the
administrative complaint and the submission of coun terveiling evidence
(Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207; Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 243 SCRA 497
[1997]).
- c. His preventive suspension as a career executive officer under the Civil
Service Law may only be for a maximum period of three months (Sec. 42, PD
807). The period of suspension under the Anti-Graft Law is the same pursuant
to the equal protection clause. However, under Section 24 of the Ombudsman
Act, the Ombudsman is expressly authorized to issue an order of preventive
suspension of not more than six (6) months without pay (Garcia vs. Mojica,
314 SCRA 207; Layno vs. Sandiganbayan, 136 Scra 536 [1985]).
56. Exclusive Original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
- If the gross value, claim or demand exceeds P300,000.00 outside of Metro
Manila or exceddes P400,000.00 within Metro Manila;
- Actions the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
- Civil actions in which involve title to, possession of, or interest in, real
property where the assessed value exceeds P20,000 or, for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds P50,000 except actions for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings;
[16]
- Probate proceedings where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000
outside Metro Manila or exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila;
- Admiralty or maritime cases where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000
outside Metro Manila or exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila;
- All actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
- All cases not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
- All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;
- 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
P400,000 (Metro Manila);
- Original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate
controversies as provided under Sec. 5.2 of the Securities and Regulations
Code.
- Criminal cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body
(Sec. 20, BP 129).
i. a. Includes criminal cases where the penalty provided by law exceeds 6
years imprisonment irrespective of the fine (R.A. 7691).
ii. b. Includes criminal cases not falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where the imposable penalty is
imprisonment more than 6 years and none of the accused is occupying
positions classified as “Grade 27” and higher (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606 as
amended by R.A. 8249).
- 3. Other laws which specifically lodge jurisdiction in the RTC: a. Law on
written defamation or libel; b. Decree on Intellectual Property; c. Violations of
Dangerous Drugs Act regardless of the imposable penalty except when the
offender is under 16 and there are Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in
the province.
- 4. Cases falling under the Family Courts in areas where there are no Family
Courts (Sec.24, B.P. 129).
- 5. Election offenses (Omnibus election code) even if committed by an official
with salary grade of 27 or higher
57. Intra-Corporate Controversies over which the Regional Trial Court has Exclusive
Original Jurisdiction
(a) Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of
directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the
stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the
SEC
(b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and
among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the
corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or
associates, respectively; and between such corporation , partnership or association and
the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
[17]
(c) Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or

managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations
(d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of
suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership of association
possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of
meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation,
partnership of association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under
the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.
58. Concurrent/Coordinate/Confluent Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
- with the Supreme Court in actions affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls
- with the SC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies, and in petitions for quo warranto, habeas
corpus, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases
- with the SC, CA and Sandigabayan in petitions for writs of habeas data and
amparo
- with the Insurance Commissioner on single claims not exceeding
P5,000,000.00
59. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
All cases decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their respective territorial
jurisdiction except in decisions of lower courts in the exercise of their delegated
jurisdiction.
60. Special Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Court to
handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian
cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of any quasi-
judicial bodies and agencies, and other special cases as the Supreme Court may
determine in the interest of speedy and efficient administration of justice.
61. Ancillary Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
Supreme Court Circular 39-97, dated June 19, 1997, limits the authority to issue hold
departure orders to the Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases within their exclusive
jurisdiction as well as those pending determination by government prosecution
offices.
(Dee vs. Harvest All Investment Limited, GR No. 224834 and 224871, 03/15/2017)
62. Which court has jurisdiction over an action to revive judgment?
As an action to revive judgment raises issues of whether the petitioner has a right to
have the final and executory judgment revived and to have that judgment enforced
and does not involve recovery of a sum of money, we rule that jurisdiction over a
petition to revive judgment is properly with the RTCs. Thus, the CA is correct in
holding that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide Anama's action for revival
of judgment (Anama vs. Citibank, GR No.192048, 12/13/2017).
63. Which court has jurisdiction over libel cases?
The RTC has jurisdiction over libel case because Article 360 of the RPC provides that
the criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamation shall be filed
in the RTC. While libel is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and
maximum period or fine, the penalty does not determine the jurisdiction of the court.
Rather, it is the nature of the offense that determines the jurisdiction of the court.
64. What courts have jurisdiction over dangerous drugs cases?
[18]
Dangerous drugs cases fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the
penalty. The nature of the case is an important element in determining which court
has jurisdiction over drug cases.
65. What court has jurisdiction over election offenses?
The Regional Trial Court shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and
decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation of the Omnibus Election
Code, except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote which
shall be under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts.
66. 2008 Bar: Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. Upon filing of the
information, the RTC judge issued the warrants for their arrest. Learning of the
issuance of the warrants, the three accused jointly filed a motion for reinvestigation
and for the recall of the warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion,
none of the accused showed up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge
denied their motion because the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of
the movants. Did the RTC rule correctly? (4%)
The RTC was not entirely correct in stating that it had no jurisdiction over the persons
of the accused. By filing motions and seeking affirmative reliefs from the court, the
accused voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. However,
the RTC correctly denied the motion for reinvestigation. Before an accused can move
for reinvestigation and the recall of his warrant of arrest, he must first surrender his
person to the court (Miranda vs. Tuliao, GR No. 158763, 03/31/2006).
67. Jurisdiction of Family Courts
Under RA 8369, Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the
following cases, whether civil or criminal:
- Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus involving
children
- Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof
- Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and
those relating to status and property relations of husband and wife or those
living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for
dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains
- Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
- Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of EO 209
(Family Code)
- 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 PD 603, EO 56 (series of 1986) and other related
laws
68. Does the Family Court still have jurisdiction over petitions for constitution of the
family home?
No more. Under the Family Code, the family home is deemed constituted; hence,
there is no need for a petition for its constitution.
69. Do the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to issue writs of
habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in light of the provision in RA
8369 giving family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over such petitions?
The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of
minors. Section 20 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
[19]
Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, effective May 15, 2003) has
rendered the issue moot. Section 20 of the rule provides that a petition for habeas
corpus may be filed in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its
members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
70. 2001 Bar: How should the records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or
Regional Trial Court designated by the Supreme Court to handle Family Court cases
be treated and dealt with? (3%) Under what conditions the identity of the parties in
child and family cases may be divulged? (2%)
The records of the child and family cases in the Family Courts or Regional Trial
Court designated by the Supreme Court cases shall be dealt with utmost
confidentiality (Sec. 12, Family Courts Act of 1997). The identity of the parties in
child and family cases shall not be divulged unless necessary and with authority of the
judge.
71. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts
(1) Criminal cases
i. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from
such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of the kind, nature,
value or amount thereof; provided however, that in offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof (Sec. 2, RA 7691).
ii. Where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not exceeding P4,000
(Admin. Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994);
iii. Those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, i.e.
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
2. Violations of the rental law;
3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
4. Violations of BP 22 (A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC);
5. All other criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months and/or a fine of P 1,000 irrespective of
other penalties or civil liabilities arising therefrom.
(2) Civil actions
iv. Civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including
the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the gross
value of the personal property, estate, or amount the demand does not
exceed P300,000 outside Metro Manila or does not exceed P400,000 in
Metro Manila, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
v. Summary procedure of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, violation
of rental law
vi. Action involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does
not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila or does not exceed P50,000
in Metro Manila.
vii. Admiralty or maritime cases where the demand or claim is below
P300,000 outside Metro Manila or below P400,000 in Metro Manila
viii. Inclusion or exclusion of voters
ix. Those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure
[20]
x. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

xi. Other civil cases except probate where the total amount of the
plaintiff’s claims does not exceed P100,000 or, in Metro Manila
P200,000 exclusive interest and costs (as amended by A.M. No. 02-11-
09-SC).
xii. Those covered by the Rules on Small Claims, i.e. actions for payment
of money where the claim does not exceed P100,000 exclusive of
interest and costs.
72. Special Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts
Civil Cases: Petition for writ of habeas corpus in the absence of all Regional Trial
Court judges in the province or city;
Criminal Case: Application for bail in the absence of Regional Trial Court Judges in
the area is the province of city.
73. Delegated Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts
Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots 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.
74. Concurrent Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts
Cases involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws,
rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
75. How are decisions of the Municipal Trial Courts in the exercise of their delegated
jurisdiction appealable?
Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of
the Regional Trial Courts.
76. Which court has jurisdiction over accion publiciana cases?
The Municipal Trial Courts of the Regional Trial Courts, as the case may be. The
Municipal Trial Courts can now assume jurisdiction over accion publiciana cases.
Under BP 129, the plenary action of accion publiciana must be brought before the
regional trial courts (Bernardo vs. Heirs of Villegas, GR No. 183357, 03/15/2010).
However, with the modifications introduced by RA 7691, the jurisdiction of the RTC
has been limited to real actions where the assessed value exceeds P20,000 or P50,000
if the action is filed in Metro Manila. If the assessed value is below the said amounts,
the action must be brought before the first level courts (BF Citiland Corp. vs. Otake,
GR No. 173351, 07/29/2010).
77. 2004 Bar: Plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of money against defendant with the
MeTC-Makati, the total amount of the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost, being P1,000,000. In due
time, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the MeTC’s
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. After due hearing, the MeTC (1) ruled that
the court indeed lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; (2)
ordered that the case therefore should be forwarded to the proper RTC immediately.
Was the court’s ruling concerning jurisdiction correct? Was the court’s order to
forward the case proper? Explain briefly. (5%)
Yes. The MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case because the total amount of
the demand exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and cost was P1M. its jurisdictional amount at this time should not exceed
P400,000 (Sec. 33, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691).
[21]
The court’s order to forward the case to the RTC is not proper. It should merely
dismiss the complaint. Under Sec. 3 of Rule 16, the court may dismiss the action or
claim, deny the motion or order the amendment of the pleading but not to forward the
case to another court.
78. What is the extent of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court over
decisions of the COMELEC?
In election cases, the SC can review order or decisions of the COMELEC only in
cases of grave abuse of discretion committed in the discharge of its duties exercising
quasi-judicial powers and not those arising from the exercise of administrative powers
or functions (Chaves vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315, 1992).
79. Can the COMELEC issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus?
No. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative because of the absence of any specific
conferment upon the COMELEC, either by the Constitution or by any legislative fiat,
of jurisdiction to such extraordinary writ. It is never derived by implication.
80. Does a trial court possess jurisdiction to dissolve a writ of preliminary injunction
which is pending review on certiorari in the Court of Appeals?
No. After the question on whether the writ of preliminary injunction should be
annulled or continued had been elevated to the CA for determination, the trial court
lost jurisdiction or authority to act on the same matter. By seeking from the trial court
an order lifting the writ of preliminary injunction, the parties sought to divest the CA
of its jurisdiction to review the writ.
81. What determines the proper court which has jurisdiction in a consignation case?
Explain.
The amount to be deposited determines the court where the petition for consignation
shall be files. (Ascue vs. CA, May 31, 1990)
82. Suppose a defendant in a municipal trial court in an ejectment suit interposes the
defense of ownership, will the MTC still have jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Yes. The mere fact that the defendant in an ejectment suit interposes the right of
preemption or ownership does not deprive the MTC of its exclusive jurisdiction.
Municipal courts may not be divested of jurisdiction over ejectment cases simply
because the action cannot be dependent on the defense of the defendant. The only
issue in forcible entry and detainer case is possession de fact. If there is a defense of
ownership, the court can make findings or decide on the issue of ownership only to
determine the degree of possession. It is not res judicata with respect to the issue of
ownership in another tribunal as it is only provisional.
83. In an ejectment suit, may the court award damages for unpaid water or electric bills?
No. The power of the court to award damages in ejectment cases does not extend the
award of unpaid electric and water bills as the plaintiff cannot recover damages not
related to possession.
84. In an ejectment suit, it was manifested that there is a case for quieting of title. Will
this bar the ejectment case? Why?
No. An action for forcible entry and detainer may proceed independently of the
action for reconveyance. In the same manner, an action for quieting of title to
property is not a bar to the ejectment suit involving the same property. The reason is
that the issue in ejectment cases is merely possession which can be decided
independently of the issue of ownership.
85. A defense of rescission of the contract was interposed in a collection suit before the
MTC. Will this divest the court of its jurisdiction?
[22]
No. In a collection suit file with the MTC, the said court can pass upon the defense of
rescission of contract. Such defense does not divest the court of its jurisdiction. It
can receive evidence thereon. Jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend
upon the defenses of the defendant.
86. May the MTC trying an ejectment suit be restrained by the RTC trying the case just
because of the pendency of an annulment case? Why?
In recent decisions of the Supreme Court, it has repeatedly held that the filing of an
action for reconveyance of title over the same property or for the annulment of the
deed of sale over the land does not divest the Municipal Trial Court of its jurisdiction
to try the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case before it. This is so because, while
there may be identity of parties and subject matter in the forcible entry case and the
suit for annulment of title and/or reconveyance, the rights asserted and the relief
prayed for are not the same. The respondents in ejectment proceedings cannot defeat
the summary nature of the action against them by simply filing an action questioning
the ownership of the person who is trying to eject them from the premises. (Palomar
vs. Sison, G.R. No. 82761, June 29, 1989)
An unlawful detainer action has an entirely different subject from that of an action for
reconveyance of title. What is involved in unlawful detainer case is merely the issue
of material possession or possession de facto; whereas in an action for reconveyance,
ownership is the issue. So much so that the pendency of an action for reconveyance of
title over the same property does not divest the city or municipal court of its
jurisdiction to try the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case, nor will it preclude or
bar execution of judgment in the ejectment case where the only issue involved is
material possession or possession de facto.
This is so because: The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer
shall be effective with respect to the possession only and in no case bind the title or
affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action
between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be held
conclusive of the facts therein found in case between the same parties upon a different
cause of action not involving possession. (Section 7, Rule 70, Rules of Court).
87. A filed a complaint for the recovery of a leased land as well as the building
constructed thereon from B as stipulated in the contract. It was filed with the MTC. It
was contended that the RTC has jurisdiction, not the MTC. Decide.
The RTC has jurisdiction. In a similar case, the SC held that where the issues raised
before the inferior court do not only involve possession of the lot but also the rights of
the parties to the building constructed thereon, the RTC and not the municipal court
has jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, the action was for specific performance of
the stipulations of the contract of lease. It was not capable of pecuniary estimation.
88. X filed a petition for consignation with the RTC against Y. In his answer, Y
interposed a counterclaim for ejectment against X. (a) If you were the judge, on what
ground would you dismiss the counterclaim? (b) Suppose the consignation case was
filed with MTC, Manila, would you dismiss the counterclaim for ejectment on
jurisdictional ground?
(a) I would dismiss it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the RTC does not
have jurisdiction over an ejectment or unlawful detainer suit. (b) No, because the
ejectment utilized as a counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
89. May the courts interfere with purely political questions?
No, as a general rule, because of the principle of separation of powers. Political
questions are those questions which under the constitution are to be decided by the
[23]
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority

has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
90. What cadastral and land registration cases may be assigned by the Supreme Court to
MeTC, MTC and MCTC?
They may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral and land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots where there value of which does not exceed P100,000,00, such value to
be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the parties 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 RTC.
91. There was an action for the recovery of possession and ownership of a real property
located in Ilocos Norte. The assessed value was P2,910.00. It was filed with the RTC,
hence, a motion to dismiss was filed but it was denied. Is the denial proper?
No, because the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The MTC has
jurisdiction since the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00. Under the law
expanding the jurisdiction of the MTC, if the assessed value of the property located
outside Metro Manila does not exceed P20,000.00, a complaint for reconveyance is
within the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is elementary that the tax declaration indicating
the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been
issued by the proper government agency.
92. A complaint for reconveyance with damages was filed. It was alleged that petitioners
and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property covered by
a title for more than 30 years. They alleged that he market value of the property is
P15,000.00. The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC has
no jurisdiction since the assessed value of the property is only P6,030.00. It was
opposed alleging that the assessed value is P40,890.00. The motion was granted, but
on appeal, it was contended that the RTC has jurisdiction because it is a case beyond
pecuniary estimation. Is the contention correct?
No. The contention is bereft of merit. The nature of an action is not determined by
what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegation of the complaint
and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain
title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the
assessed value of the property thereof.
93. The complaint involves title to, or possession, of real property. However, they failed
to allege there in the assessed value of the subject property. Instead, what they stated
was the market value of the land at P15,000.00. Does the court have jurisdiction over
the subject matter?
No. The Rule requires that “the assessed value of the property or if there is none, the
estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant.” What determines
jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. The
complaint is for reconveyance of a parcel of land. Considering that their action
involves the title or interest in real property, they should have alleged therein its
assessed value, otherwise, the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
94. May MTC in an ejectment case cancel a title?
No. Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that when the defendant raises
the defense 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. Well-settled is the rule that in an
[24]
ejectment suit, the only issue is possession de facto or physical or material possession
and not possession de jure.
95. A, a resident of Manila, filed a suit for sum of money against B for P350,000.00
before the RTC. He also prayed for P200,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages. Rule on the action.
The action should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The totality rule
does not apply as it applies only to pure money claims. The claim for moral and
exemplary damages does not partake on the nature of a claim for sum of money. It is
only consequential to the main action. The law expressly says that if the amount of
the money claim does not exceed P400,00.00, exclusive of damages, interest,
attorney’s fees, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
96. A complaint was filed to nullify an agreement to pay interest with prayer to nullify the
check. What is the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction?
The Supreme Court in a long line of cases has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for
the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the regional trial
courts would depend on the amount involved. However, where the basic issue is
something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the Supreme
Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not
be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable by the regional trial courts. Based
on the foregoing criterion, the subject of the action before the trial court was indeed
incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court. (De Galicia vs. Mercado, GR No. 146744, March 6, 2006)
97. What court has jurisdiction over a reversion case?
The RTC or the MTC has jurisdiction depending on the assessed value of the
property. Actions for cancellation of tile and reversion belong to the class of cases
that “involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein.”
98. What court has jurisdiction over a partition case where the assessed value of the
property is P8,000.00?
The MTC has jurisdiction. An action for partition is a real action involving title to or
possession of a property, hence, the assessed value determines the court that has
jurisdiction. The Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside
Metro Manila or does not exceed P50,000 in Metro Manila.
99. Is an action to enforce one’s right to repurchase the lots he formerly owned pursuant
to the right of a free-patent holder one involving title to or possession of real
property or any interest therein, or one incapable of pecuniary estimation?
The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, held that in determining whether an action
is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court
has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or
remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim. But
where the basic issue is something other than the 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 actions as cases where the subject of
[25]
the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and, hence, are incapable of
pecuniary estimation. These cases are cognizable exclusively by RTCs. Therefore,
an action to enforce right to repurchase the lot of a party formerly owned by a party
is one beyond pecuniary estimation and is cognizable by the RTC. It is not one
involving title to or possession of real property or interest therein.
100. Civil actions which are incapable of pecuniary estimation
Settled jurisprudence considers some civil actions as incapable of pecuniary
estimation, viz:
 Actions for specific performance;
 Actions for support which will require the determination of the civil status;
 The right to support of the plaintiff;
 Those for the annulment of decisions of lower courts;
 Those for the rescission or reformation of contracts;
 Interpretation of a contractual stipulation.
101. Boston Equity Resources, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals and Lolita G. Toledo, G.R. No.
173946, 19 June 2013. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for having been
filed out of time. Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals alleging that the trial court seriously erred and gravely abused its
discretion in denying her motion to dismiss. Is the CA correct?
The Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of certiorari in favor of respondent.
Well settled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari is not the proper
remedy to assail the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss. The order of the
trial court denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory, as it neither
terminates nor finally disposes of a case and still leaves something to be done by the
court before a case is finally decided on the merits. Therefore, the proper remedy in
such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. As the Supreme Court
held that a writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial
interlocutory ruling; it is resorted only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a
whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function is
limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve persons
from arbitrary acts – acts which courts or judges have no power or authority in law
to perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions made by
the courts.
102. Totality Rule
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 (Sec. 5, Rule 2, Rules
on Civil Procedure). Where there are several claims or causes of actions between
the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the claims of action, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions (Sec.
33[1], BP 129). This applies only in cases involving sum of money. (Relate with
the provisions of RA 7691).
103. “Damages of whatever kind” under jurisdiction of the RTC, explained.
B.P 129, as amended, states that the RTC has jurisdiction in all other cases in which
the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00).
[26]
The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the

jurisdictional amount, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to
or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for
damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
104. State the rule if there are damages awarded in the judgment but which were not
specified in the pleadings.
Damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar pleadings as to which
the additional filing fee should be paid shall constitute a lien on the judgment. (Sun
Insurance, Ltd., vs. Asuncion)
105. Bar Exam Question: Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a
promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered
by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a
real estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his
payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan,
Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against B orrower
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00.
(A) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of
action? (2%) At the trial, Brrower’s laywer, while cross-examining Lender,
successfully elicited an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have
been paid. Thereafter, Borrower’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the
ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amout due to Lender and which
claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at
any stage of the proceedings. (B) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)
(A) Yes. Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes
of action because where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount of the claim shall be the test of
jurisdiction (Section 5 [d], Rule 2). Here, the total amount of the claim is
P500,000.00. Hence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila has jurisdiction over
the suit. At any rate, it is immaterial that one of the loans is secured by a real estate
mortgage because the Lender opted to file a collection of sum of money instead of
foreclosure of the said mortgage. (B) No. The court should not dismiss the case.
What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as
appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted (Navida vs. Judge Dizon,
Jr., GR No. 125078, 03/30/2011). Accordingly, even if the defendant is able to
prove in the course of the trial that a lesser amount is due, the court does not lose
jurisdiction and a dismissal of the case is not in order (Paadlan vs. Dinglasan, GR
No. 180321, 03/20/2013).
106. An action for specific performance with damages was filed before the RTC of
Bacolod City. The defendants allegedly reneged on their contract to sell to them a
parcel of land located in Bago City, a piece of property which the latter sold to
petitioner while the case was pending before the said RTC. Was the venue properly
laid in Bacolod City? Why?
Yes, venue had properly been laid in the RTC of Bacolod, even if the property was
situated in Bago. The complaint is one for "specific performance with damages."
Complainants do not claim ownership of the lot but in fact recognized title of
defendants by annotating a notice of lis pendens. Complaint for "specific
[27]
performance with damages" involving real property, was held by the Supreme Court
to be a personal action, which may be filed in the proper court where the party
resides. Not being an action involving title to or ownership of real property, venue,
in this case, was not improperly laid before the RTC of Bacolod City.
107. X filed a case for specific performance with damages before the RTC of Quezon
City. It was alleged that after it accepted the offer of petitioners, they sold to a third
person several parcels of land located in Montalban, Rizal. It was contended that the
RTC of Quezon City had no jurisdiction over the case, as the subject lots were
located in Montalban, Rizal. Is the contention correct? Why?
No. The RTC of Quezon City had jurisdiction over the complaint. The rule is that, a
case for specific performance with damages is a personal action which may be filed
in a court where any of the parties reside. (Siasoco vs. CA, 303 SCRA 186).
108. What is the nature of an action for specific performance to execute a deed of
assignment of shares of stocks? Explain.
An action for specific performance to execute a deed of assignment transferring
stock certificates is in the nature of an action to recover property. Consequently, the
subject is capable of pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction is determined by the
assessed value of the property. This is the Ultimate Objective Test. (National Steel
Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 125215, February 2, 1999). The action in this case is for the
recovery of personal property rather than for a specific performance. The primary
objective is to regain ownership and possession of the stocks which is a personal
property.
109. State the nature of an action for declaration of nullity of partition.
An action for declaration of the nullity of partition is an action whose subject is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, jurisdiction is with the RTC. (Russel vs.
Vestil, 394 SCRA 738, G.R. No. 119347, March 17, 1999).
110. Give examples of actions beyond pecuniary estimation.
Examples of actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation: 1.
Amorganda vs. CA, 166 SCRA 203 and De Jesus vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 554 (a.
Specific performance; b. Support; c. Foreclosure of mortgage; and d. Annulment of
judgment); 2. Bunayog vs. Tunos, 106 Phil. 715 (action questioning the validity of
the mortgage); 3. Phil. Farming Corp. vs. Llamas, 14 SCRA 949 and Arroz Alojaba,
19 SCRA 711 (Annulment of deed of sale and recovery of the price paid); and 4.
Lapitan vs. Scandia, 24 SCRA 479, Action on for rescission while is a counterpart
of specific performance. (Russell et, al. v. CA, et al, G.R. No. 119347, March 27,
1999)
111. A complaint for injunction was filed seeking to permanently enjoin the defendants
from preventing the survey of a parcel of land. It was filed with the RTC, but the
defendants contended that it was one for the recovery of possession of the property
hence, it is within pecuniary estimation. Is the contention correct? Why?
No. The complaint has not sought to recover the possession or ownership of the
subject land. Rather, it is principally an action to enjoin defendants from committing
acts that would tend to prevent the survey of the subject land. It cannot be said that
it is one of a possessory action. The plaintiff, to be entitled to the injunctive relief
sought, need to establish the following requirements: (1) the existence of a right to
be protected; and (2) that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are
violative of the said right. As such, the subject matter of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by the Regional Trial
[28]
Court under Section 19 (1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA 7691. (Bokingo vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 161739, May 4, 2006).
112. In actions in rem and quasi-in rem, what kind of jurisdiction is required?
In actions in rem and quasi-in rem, jurisdiction over the res is required.
113. X borrowed money from PNB secured by a real estate mortgage in the amount of
P1M. He failed to pay. Can there be foreclosure considering that X is in the USA?
Why?
Yes, because it is sufficient that the court has jurisdiction over the res (or the
mortgaged property). Jurisdiction over the person is not necessary.
114. X filed a complaint for sum of money against Y. Can Y be summoned by
publication considering that he is not in the Philippines?
No, as a general rule. But if he has properties, there can be attachment of the same
which would convert the action originally in personam to one quasi-in-rem by
means of the attachment. Once the property is levied upon, the court may try the
case despite the fact that summons has not been served. The reason is that there is
jurisdiction over the res. The judgment however is confined to the property
attached, except if he voluntarily appears.
115. What court has jurisdiction over an expropriation proceeding? Why?
An expropriation proceeding is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It does not involve the recovery of
a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by of the government of its
authority and right to take property for public use, hence, incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
116. Why is an expropriation proceeding incapable of pecuniary estimation? Explain.
It is because the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the
government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the
taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the
government entity, the necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due
process. In the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government’s
exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
117. Aspects of Jurisdiction

- Jurisdiction over the parties
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Jurisdiction over the issues
- Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation
- Jurisdiction over the remedies
118. Jurisdiction over the parties, def.
Jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the courts to make decisions that are
binding on them.
119. How Jurisdiction over Plaintiff is Acquired
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired when the action is commenced by the
filing of the complaint, and the payment of the correct docket fees. By doing so, he
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court [Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v
CA] Exception: Non-payment of docket fee does not automatically cause the
dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction 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 by the rules prescribing such
payment.
[29]
120. PR sued the LSC before the RTC paying thereto the corresponding docket fee
of P1,252.00. PR later sought the amendment of its complaint but the increased
docket fee was not paid. LSC contented that the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case by paying only P1,252.00 as docket fee. Is the contention
correct?
No. Failure to pay the docket fee corresponding to the increased claim for damages
under the amended complaint should not be considered as having curtailed the lower
court's jurisdiction. Pursuant to the ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v.
Asuncion, 55 the unpaid docket fee should be considered as a lien on the judgment.
(PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. vs. CA, 358 Phil. 38, 62 [1998])
121. The corresponding docket fees for plaintiff’s supplemental complaint was not
filed. The supplemental complaint specified from the beginning the actual damages
that the plaintiffs sought against the Bank. Still plaintiffs paid no filing fees on the
same. And, while petitioners claim that they were willing to pay the additional fees,
they gave no reason for their omission nor offered to pay the same. They merely said
that they did not yet pay the fees because the RTC had not assessed them for it. As to
the damages that plaintiffs claim under their supplemental complaint, their stand is
that the RTC committed no error in admitting the complaint even if they had not paid
the filing fees due on it since such fees constituted a lien anyway on the judgment
award. Is the contention correct?
No. The after-judgment lien, which implies that payment depends on a successful
execution of the judgment, applies to cases where the filing fees were incorrectly
assessed or paid or where the court has discretion to fix the amount of the award.
None of these circumstances obtain in this case. A supplemental complaint is like any
complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon
its filing. The rules do not require the court to make special assessments in cases of
supplemental complaints. Clearly, plaintiffs have no excuse for their continuous
failure to pay the fees they owed the court. Consequently, the trial court should have
treated their Supplemental Complaint as not filed.
122. Monsanto vs. Lim and De Guzman, GR No. 178911, 09/17/2014
In a letter, the Regional Director of Pag-IBIG requested the intervention of RTC
Judge on the alleged anomalous auction sale conducted by Sherriff De Guzman. In an
Order captioned "In the Matter of the Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage Filed by
the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund)," RTC Judge declared that on
even date, RTC conducted a hearing; that Atty. Lee argued on behalf of Pag-IBIG;
and that Pascual appeared on behalf of Sherriff. Both parties actively participated in
the case before the RTC. Did the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case?
No. Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed
docket fees vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. In this case,
records show that no formal complaint or petition was filed in court. The case was
supposedly "commenced" through a letter of Pag-IBIG asking the intervention of
RTC Judge on the alleged anomalous foreclosure sale conducted by De Guzman.
However, said letter could not in any way be considered as a pleading. Section 1, Rule
6 of the Rules of Court defines pleadings as "written statements of the respective
claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment."
To stress, Pag-IBIG’s letter could not be considered as a formal complaint or petition.
First, the parties to the case were not identified pursuant to Section 1, Rule 3 and
Section 1,31 Rule 7. Second, the so-called claim or cause of action was not properly
mentioned or specified. Third, the letter miserably failed to comply with the
[30]
requirements of Rule 7, Rules of Court. The letter bore no caption; it was not even
assigned a docket number; the parties were not properly identified; the allegations
were not properly set forth; no particular relief is sought; in fact, only the intervention
of RTC Judge is requested; it was not signed by a counsel; and most of all, there is no
verification or certification against forum-shopping. Also, no docket fees were paid
before the trial court. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court mandates that “upon the filing of
the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding, the fees
prescribed shall be paid in full.
123. If a case was filed and the complaint was amended without the proper docket
fees having been paid, do you think the court acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter? Why?
Yes, especially so that the Manchester Dev. Corp. vs. CA, et al., 149 SCRA 562, rule
has been relaxed. The court may now allow the payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.
124. How is jurisdiction over the defendant acquired?
It is acquired either:
- a. By his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority
- b. By service of summons
- c. Other coercive process upon him
125. Is jurisdiction over the defendant required in action in rem and quasi in rem?
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in
personam; it is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem. In an action in
personam, jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case, while 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 the latter has jurisdiction over the res.
126. Instances when the appearance of the defendant is not tantamount to voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court:
(a) when defendant files the necessary pleading;
(b) when defendant files motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default;
(c) when defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default;
(d) when the parties jointly submit a compromise agreement for approval of the court;
(e) when defendant files an answer to the contempt charge;
(f) when defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the court’s
jurisdiction over his person.
127. In what instances will the filling of a pleading seeking affirmative relief NOT
constitute a submission of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court?
In the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction
of the court, which only leads to special appearance. These pleadings are:
- In civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are
included;
- In criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
- Motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a
consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process forcing the
[31]
submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a
warrant of arrest (Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. NO. 158763, March 31, 2006)
128. Is the filing of a motion to dismiss assailing the jurisdiction of the court over
one’s person deemed a voluntary appearance in court?
No. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have
appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance means is
that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in
which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his
person due to improper service of summons.
129. Respondent, making a special appearance through counsel, moved to dismiss
the complaint and to quash the writ of attachment and garnishment on the ground that
the trial court had no jurisdiction over his person. Was there a voluntary appearance?
A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said
court based on the ground, e. g., invalidity of the service of summons, cannot be
considered to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme
Court ruled that even the assertion of affirmative defenses aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant cannot be considered a waiver of the
defense of lack of jurisdiction over such person. In the present case, although
respondent had indeed filed numerous pleadings, these pleadings were precisely for
the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the person of respondent on
the ground that there was no valid service of summons on him. It would be absurd to
hold that respondent, by making such appearance, thereby submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. UCPB vs. Ongpin, GR No. 146593, 10/26/2001
130. Robinson filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of "personal jurisdiction," and
had earlier filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading even
beyond the time provided in the summons by publication. Was there a voluntary
appearance?
Yes. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint,
while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the
service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. A party who
makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on
the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, however, although the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Robinson specifically stated as one (1) of the grounds the lack of "personal
jurisdiction," it must be noted that he had earlier filed a Motion for Time to file an
appropriate responsive pleading even beyond the time provided in the summons by
publication. Such motion did not state that it was a conditional appearance entered to
question the regularity of the service of summons, but an appearance submitting to the
jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the summons by publication issued by the
court and praying for additional time to file a responsive pleading. Consequently,
Robinson having acknowledged the summons by publication and also having invoked
the jurisdiction of the trial court to secure affirmative relief in his motion for
additional time, he effectively submitted voluntarily to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
He is now estopped from asserting otherwise, even before this Court. Go vs. Cordero,
GR No. 164703, 05/04/2010
131. After the decision of Judge Peralta of RTC, Branch 20 became final and
executory, Morales moved a writ of execution against Kukan, Inc. The dispositive
[32]
portion of Judge Peralta’s decision orders Kukan, Inc. to pay Morales. Morales then
sought the inhibition of the presiding judge Peralta, who eventually granted the
motion. The case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 21, presided by Judge Reyes who
modified the first decision and declared that defendant Kukan, Inc. and newly created
Kukan International Corp. (KIC) as one and the same corporation. Can the trial court,
after the judgment against Kukan, Inc. has attained finality, execute it against the
property of KIC?
No. The Supreme Court, in a similar case, held that a case in which an execution has
been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are
proceedings in the suit. There is no question that the court which rendered the
judgment has a general supervisory control over its process of execution, and this
power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may
be involved in the execution. The court’s supervisory control does not, however,
extend as to authorize the alteration or amendment of a final and executory decision,
save for certain recognized exceptions, among which is the correction of clerical
errors. Else, the court violates the principle of finality of judgment and its
immutability.
It is an elementary principle of procedure that the resolution of the court in a given
issue as embodied in the dispositive part of a decision or order is the controlling factor
as to settlement of rights of the parties. Once a decision or order becomes final and
executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it
to further alter or amend it. It thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any
amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is
null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that
purpose. An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the
terms thereof is a nullity. Deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence is the principle that
a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it
may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
132. Exceptions to the principle of finality of judgment and its immutability
The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments,
and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render
its execution unjust and inequitable.
133. After the decision of Judge Peralta of RTC, Branch 20 became final and
executory, Morales moved a writ of execution against Kukan, Inc. The dispositive
portion of Judge Peralta’s decision orders Kukan, Inc. to pay Morales. The case was
re-raffled to RTC Branch 21, presided by Judge Reyes who modified the first decision
and declared that defendant Kukan, Inc. and newly created Kukan International Corp.
(KIC) as one and the same corporation. The CA deemed KIC to have voluntarily
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court owing to its filing of four (4)
pleadings adverted to earlier, namely: (a) the Affidavit of Third-Party Claim; (b) the
Comment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion;(c) the Motion for
Reconsideration of the RTC Order and (d) the Motion for Leave to Admit Reply. The
CA, citing Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, stated that "the procedural rule
on service of summons can be waived by voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction through any form of appearance by the party or its counsel."
[33]
The court’s jurisdiction over a party-defendant resulting from his voluntary

submission to its authority is provided under Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the Rules, which
states: Section 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in
the actions shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to
dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. A special appearance before
the court––challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss
even if the movant invokes other grounds––is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver
by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not
constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
134. What is the effect of the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court?
The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. It is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in
whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person. Examples are:
By filling an answer; or By filling a motion to dismiss, except when the defendant
also raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person.
135. Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money against the spouses Manuel and
Lolita Toledo. Respondent filed an Answer and then later on filed a Motion for Leave
to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and
co-defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. Respondent filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint, citing among others that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel. Petitioner calls attention to the fact that
respondent’s motion to dismiss questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction was filed
more than six years after her amended answer was filed. According to petitioner,
respondent had several opportunities, at various stages of the proceedings, to assail
the trial court’s jurisdiction but never did so for six straight years. Citing the doctrine
laid down in the case of Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, et al., petitioner claimed that
respondent’s failure to raise the question of jurisdiction at an earlier stage bars her
from later questioning it, especially since she actively participated in the proceedings
conducted by the trial court. The Court of Appeals ruled against the contention of
Petitioner, stating that "issue on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceeding, even for the first time on appeal" and that, therefore, respondent timely
raised the issue in her motion to dismiss and is, consequently, not estopped from
raising the question of jurisdiction. Is the CA correct?
No. Petitioner’s argument is misplaced, in that, it failed to consider that the concept
of jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and (4) in
cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing which is the subject of
the litigation. The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a
result of estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter. Here, what
respondent was questioning in her motion to dismiss before the trial court was that
court’s jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel. Thus, the principle of
estoppel by laches finds no application in this case. Instead, the principles relating to
jurisdiction over the person of the parties are pertinent herein. Section 1, Rule 9
provides that: “Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in
the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there
is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
[34]
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss
the claim.” In relation thereto, Section 8, Rule 15 provides that” “Sec. 8. Omnibus
motion. – Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a
pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available,
and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.” Based on the foregoing
provisions, the "objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not waived even if not
alleged in a motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. x x x Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be raised
anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived
x x x subject, however, to the principle of estoppel by laches."
Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one
of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such
defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to
prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the
plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the
above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals,
therefore, erred in its ruling. As the question of jurisdiction involved here is that over
the person of the defendant Manuel, the same is deemed waived if not raised in the
answer or a motion to dismiss. In any case, respondent cannot claim the defense since
"lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to waiver, is a personal defense
which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence."
136. Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money against the spouses Manuel and
Lolita Toledo. Respondent filed an Answer and then later on filed a Motion for Leave
to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and
co-defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead. Respondent filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint, citing among others that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel. Rule on the motion to dismiss.
The motion must be granted only with respect to Manuel considering that the trial
court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Manuel. Jurisdiction over the
person of a defendant is acquired through a valid service of summons; trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel Toledo. Jurisdiction over the
person of Manuel was never acquired by the trial court. A defendant is informed of a
case against him when he receives summons. "Summons is a writ by which the
defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the
means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person." In the case at bar,
the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel since there was
no valid service of summons upon him, precisely because he was already dead even
before the complaint against him and his wife was filed in the trial court.
137. When may an objection to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be
raised?
An objection to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be raised as a
ground in a Motion to Dismiss [Rule .16.1(a)] or as an affirmative defense in an
Answer [Rule 16.6]. However, if not raised in such Motion or Answer, it is deemed
waived. It is not one of those defenses not deemed waived under Section 1, Rule 9.
[Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. CA (2013)]
138. When a party files a Motion to Dismiss but he includes grounds other thank
lack of jurisdiction over the person, is this considered a voluntary appearance?
[35]
No. Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, provides: “Section 20. Voluntary
appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent
to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside
from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a
voluntary appearance.”
139. What is jurisdiction over the subject matter?
It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not
simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but
jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs. It is the power
or authority to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding in question belongs.
140. Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide cases. On the other hand, exercise of
jurisdiction is any act of the court pursuant to such authority, which includes making
decisions. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court to hear and decide cases,
and to execute judgments. The exercise of this power or authority is the exercise of
jurisdiction. When there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the
decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.
Considering that jurisdiction over the subject matter determines the power of a court
or tribunal to hear and determine a particular case, its existence does not depend upon
the regularity of its exercise by the court or tribunal. The test of jurisdiction is whether
or not the court or tribunal had the power to enter on the inquiry, not whether or not
its conclusions in the course thereof were correct, for the power to decide necessarily
carries with it the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly. In a manner of
speaking, the lack of the power to act at all results in a judgment that is void; while
the lack of the power to render an erroneous decision results in a judgment that is
valid until set aside. That the decision is erroneous does not divest the court or
tribunal that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case. Hence, if
the court or tribunal has jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error may be
attributed to it is simply one of judgment, not of jurisdiction; appeal, not certiorari,
lies to correct the error.
141. How Jurisdiction is Conferred
It is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. Nothing can change the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. That power is a matter of legislative
enactment which none but the legislature may change 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. 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. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law
while jurisdiction over the person is acquired by his voluntary submission to the
authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction
over the res is obtained by actual constructive seizure placing the property under the
orders of the court.
142. Instances by which jurisdiction it cannot be conferred
It is not conferred by:
- Court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction
- Contract
- Compromise
[36]
- Agreement of the Parties

- Erroneous belief of the court that it exists
- Acquiescence of the court
- Silence, waiver, or failure to object, or any other act or omission of the parties
143. What determines jurisdiction over the subject matter:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiff's cause of action and the character of the relief
sought. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction
over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of
the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined based on the law in effect as
of the filing of the complaint. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint,
jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
144. Jurisdiction is NOT determined by:
- The defenses or pleas in the answer or motion to dismiss.
Exception: If, after hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss the
case for lack of jurisdiction since the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate
agrarian disputes pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 (Velasquez v. Spouses Cruz,
G.R. No. 191479, September 21, 2015).
- The amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court;
- By the evidence in the trial;
- Consent or agreement of the parties; or
- By estoppel (Tolentino v. CA, G.R. No. 123445, October 6, 1997).
145. Petitioner claims that private respondent supposedly "admitted" the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the present case in their "Amended
Answer" filed before said court. The fact that private respondents conceded the
Regional Trial Court's jurisdiction, however, is immaterial and did not operate to
confer jurisdiction upon the same. Is Petitioner correct?
No. Jurisdiction is determined by law and not by the consent or agreement of the
parties, or by estoppel.
146. Can jurisdiction over the subject matter be ousted by subsequent statute?
Once attached to a court, it cannot be ousted by subsequent statute.
Exception: The statute itself conferring new jurisdiction expressly provides for
retroactive effect.
147. Does the MTC lose jurisdiction over ejectment cases by an allegation of a
tenancy relationship?
The MTC does not lost jurisdiction over ejectment cases by mere allegation of a
tenancy relationship. However, if after hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to be
the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs. Doctrine of Primary Administrative

Jurisdiction
[37]
148. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs. Doctrine of Primary

Administrative Jurisdiction
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Doctrine of Primary Administrative
Remedies Jurisdiction
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of Meanwhile, under the doctrine of primary
administrative remedies, a party must administrative jurisdiction, if an
first avail of all administrative processes administrative tribunal has jurisdiction
available before seeking the courts' over a controversy, courts should not
intervention. The administrative officer resolve the issue even if it may be within
concerned must be given every its proper jurisdiction. This is especially
opportunity to decide on the matter true when the question involves its sound
within his or her jurisdiction. discretion requiring special knowledge,
experience, and services to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact.
Failing to exhaust administrative The doctrine of primary administrative
remedies affects the party's cause of jurisdiction refers to the competence of a
action as these remedies refer to a court to take cognizance of a case at first
precedent condition which must be instance. Unlike the doctrine of
complied with prior to filing a case in exhaustion of administrative remedies, it
court. However, failure to observe the cannot be waived.
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative However, for reasons of equity, in cases
remedies does not affect the court's where jurisdiction is lacking, this Court
jurisdiction. Thus, the doctrine may be has ruled that failure to raise the issue of
waived. The only effect of non non-compliance with the doctrine of
compliance with this rule is that it will primary administrative jurisdiction at an
deprive the complainant of a cause of opportune time may bar a subsequent
action, which is a ground for a motion to filing of a motion to dismiss based on that
dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, ground by way of laches.
this ground is deemed waived and the
court can then take cognizance of the case
and try it.
149. Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the

doctrine of primary jurisdiction The Court enumerated the numerous exceptions to
these rules, namely: (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 so
small 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; (f)
where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may
cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due
process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k)
where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
150. Will the failure to exhaust administrative remedies affect the jurisdiction of
the court?
No. It is not jurisdictional but the case will be dismissed on the ground of lack of
cause of action. It only renders the action premature, i.e., the claimed cause of action
[38]
is not ripe for judicial determination and for that reason a party has no cause of action
to ventilate in court.
Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
151. May the court, motu proprio, dismiss the case if it finds that it has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Yes. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides that when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
152. When may a party raise the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter?
A party may object to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter as an
affirmative defense as stated under Section 5(b), Rule 6 of the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It may be raised at any time
during the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issued
cannot be waived.
153. When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject
matter, can the court remand the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction?
No. Settled jurisprudence states that when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action. Hence, when the court
dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, it is submitted that
the court should not remand the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction. Its
only has authority to dismiss and not to make any other order.
154. Exceptions to the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal:
Estoppel by laches. SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only
after an adverse decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue
of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and after
participating in all stages of the proceedings(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-
21450, Apr. 15, 1968).
Public policy. One cannot question the jurisdiction which he invoked, not because the
decision is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but because it cannot be tolerated
by reason of public policy (Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L-
44888, Feb. 7, 1992).
A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponents cannot repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain such relief
(Tajonera v. Lamaroza, G.R. No. L-48907, 49035, Jan. 19, 1982).
155. Omnibus Motion Rule in relation to Object to Jurisdiction, explained.
Under the Omnibus Motion Rule as stated under Section 9, Rule 15 of the 2019
Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion attacking a
pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. The defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is, however, a defense not barred by the
failure to invoke the same in the motion already filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was
filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party may, when he files an
answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is
not barred under the omnibus motion rule.
[39]
Effect of Estoppel on Objection to Jurisdiction

156. Kinds of Estoppel:
Estoppels in pais (The principle of estoppel in pais applies wherein one, by his acts,
representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out,
intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts
to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be
prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.
Estoppel by deed or by record, and
Estoppel by laches.
157. Laches, def.
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned
it or declined to assert it.
158. What is the effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdictions?
While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings since it is conferred by law, it is nevertheless settled that a
party may be barred from raising it on the ground of estoppel. After voluntarily
submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is improper
and too late for the losing party to question the jurisdiction of the court. A party who
has invoked the jurisdiction of a court over a particular matter to secure affirmative
relief cannot be permitted to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape liability.
Thus petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the courts below. The
active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that court’s
jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the court’s jurisdiction. This only
applies to exceptional circumstances (Concepcion v. Regalado, G.R. No. 167988,
February 6, 2007)
159. What is the Doctrine of Estoppel by Laches?
This doctrine is an exception to the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings since it is conferred by law whereby a party
participated and sought affirmative relief, cannot thereafter repudiate that jurisdiction
after an adverse judgment has been rendered. The doctrine, as declared by the
Supreme Court, is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question
of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
160. Is the Doctrine of Estoppel by Laches the general rule?
No. The general rule should be, as it has always been, that the issue of jurisdiction
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by
waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches, to a bar a litigant from asserting the court’s
absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional circumstances similar
to the factual milieu of the Tijam v. Sibonghanoy case with G.R. No. L-21450 where
the Supreme Court barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after
almost 15 years and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and actively
participated in all stages of the proceedings.
161. A petition for probate of two (2) wills was filed on November 18, 1995. It
was filed with the RTC. The petition, however, did not allege the gross value of the
estate. The RTC’s decision allowing the will was upheld by the CA but both never
looked into the jurisdictional issue. (a) Did the lower court have jurisdiction over the
subject matter? Explain. (b) The aforecited case has been pending for 18 years. Is not
[40]
the principle of estoppel to question jurisdiction applicable considering that the parties
participated in all the proceedings?
(a) No. The RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because there was no
statement of the gross value of the estate, thus, from a reading of the original petition
filed, it cannot be determined which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the proceedings. Settled is the doctrine that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised by
any of the parties or may be reckoned by the court, at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. The petition should have
alleged the gross value that if it does not exceed P400,000.00 and it is in Metro
Manila, the MTC has jurisdiction. It the gross value does not exceed P300,000.00
outside of Metro Manila, the MTC has jurisdiction. If in both, the gross value of the
estate exceeds P400,000.00 or P300,000.00, the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
(b) No. As a general rule, principle of estoppel by laches cannot lie against the
government. No injustice to the parties or to any third person will be brought by the
ruling that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instituted probate proceeding.
Here, the trial court’s assumption of unauthorized jurisdiction over the probate
proceedings has been discovered by the Court during the appeal stage of the main
case, not during the execution stage of a final and executory decision as in the case of
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450.
162. State the effect if parties to a case instituted a counterclaim against the other
party and prayed not only for the dismissal of the case but likewise asked for the
payment of damages based on the latter’s purported bad faith. Explain.
By filing the counterclaim, they recognized and expressly invoked the jurisdiction of
the court or administrative tribunal. The doctrine of estoppel by laches, as an
exception to the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings since it is conferred by law, states that a party participated
and sought affirmative relief, cannot thereafter repudiate that jurisdiction after an
adverse judgment has been rendered. By virtue of such doctrine, the parties cannot
now insist want of jurisdiction only after an unfavorable decision was issued against
them. It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked jurisdiction of a court
in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief by advancing a counterclaim, to
afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty. The party is barred from
such conduct not because the judgment of the court is valid but because such a
practice cannot be tolerated for reasons of public policy.
163. May a case already file with the RTC be transferred to the MTC?
Yes. Cases filed before the RTC which not fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC by
virtue of R.A. No. 7691 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of MTCs) may be
transferred to the MTC, but this applies only to civil cases, not to criminal cases, for
as long as they have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. Otherwise, jurisdiction would
remain with the RTC.
164. Three (3) actions for recovery of possession were separately instituted. The
same did not specify the amounts of damages, hence, motion to dismiss were filed.
Judge Matas denied the motions to expunge the allegations of the complainant
regarding moral and nominal damages. Rule on the action of the court.
The ruling is not correct. It is true that the complaints do not state the amounts being
claimed as actual, moral and nominal damages. It is also true, however, that the
actions are not basically for the recovery of sums of money. They are principally for
recovery of possession of real property, in the nature of accion publiciana.
[41]
Jurisprudence dictates that determinative of the court’s jurisdiction in this type of

action is the nature thereof, not the amount of damages allegedly arising from or
connected with the value of the property. Quite obviously, an action for recovery of
possession of real property such as an accion plenaria de possession or the title
thereof, or for partition or condemnation of, of the foreclosure of a mortgage on said
real property – in other words, real action – may be commenced and prosecuted
without an accompanying claim for actual, moral, nominal or exemplary damages
(Tacay vs. RTC of Tagum, G.R. Nos. 88075-77, December 20, 1989).
Jurisdiction over the Issues

165. Jurisdiction over the Issues, def.
It is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the pleadings of the
parties.
166. Issue, def.
An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed
down their several allegations and u mpon which they are desirous of obtaining a
decision.
167. How is jurisdiction over the issues conferred and determined?
Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined:
(1) by the pleadings of the parties, which present the issues to be tried and
determine whether or not the issues are of fact or law [Rule eyes v. Diaz];
(2) by stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into
stipulations of facts or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of the case
as stated under Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court;
(3) When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties, in which case they shall be treated in all
respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, as stated under Section 5,
Rule 10 of the amended Rules of Court.
168. Is it possible that the jurisdiction over the issues be conferred by law?
Yes, like in probate proceedings. As the law in our jurisdiction on the probate of wills
now stands, the Supreme Court has the view, namely, that the law itself fixes or
determines the issue and that said issue may not be varied by the pleadings. Under
Rule 76 of the Rules of Court on Allowance of Disallowance of Will, before the
probate court can allow the will it must be satisfied upon proof taken and filed that the
will was duly executed, and that the testator at the time of its execution was of sound
and disposing mind and not acting under duress, menace, and undue influence, or
fraud.
Jurisdiction over the Res or Property in Litigation
169. Jurisdiction over the Res, def.
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property
which is the subject of the action.
170. How is jurisdiction over the res acquired?
It is acquired either by:
- 1. The seizure of the property under legal process.
[42]
- 2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the

court is recognized and made effective. (Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca,
37 Phil. 291).
- 3. The court by placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia legis).
Example: attachment of property.
- 4. The court through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal
with the property or thing within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Example:
suits involving the status of the parties or suits involving the property in the
Philippines of non-resident defendants.
This is called potential jurisdiction over the res and results from
institution of a legal proceedings under such statute by which the
power of the court is recognized and made effective.
171. Illustration of jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure of property
An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment
proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or some
subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide the final event of the litigation.
172. Grounds upon which attachment may issue
Section 1, Rule 57 (Preliminary Attachment) as one of Provisional Remedies:
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the commencement of
the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may
have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any
judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other
than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-
contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the
Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or
converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an
attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by
any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken,
detained or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed,
removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an
authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt
or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance
thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is
about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines,
or on whom summons may be served by publication.
173. Illustration of potential jurisdiction over the res
An illustration of potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to
register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court,
without taking actual physical control over the property assumes, at the instance of
some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property
and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world.
174. Plaintiff filed an action to recover P735.18, an amount said to have been paid
by the plaintiff to the defendant for two parcels of land whose sale was afterward
[43]
annulled. The defendant is said to be residing in Los Angeles, California, U. S. A. He

has no property in the Philippine except an alleged debt owing him by a resident of
the municipality of Occidental Misamis. This debt, upon petition of the plaintiff, after
the filing of the complaint and before the suit was dismissed, was attached to the
extent of plaintiff's claim for the payment of which the action was brought. The trial
court dismissed the case and ruled that it has no authority nor jurisdiction to render
judgment against the defendant for being a non-resident. Is the dismissal proper?
No. Section 2, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court provides that if any of the defendants
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action effects the personal
status of the plaintiff, or any property of the defendant located in the Philippines, the
action may be commenced and tried in the province where the plaintiff resides or the
property, or any portion thereof, is situated or found. By virtue of such provision and
as a general rule, when the defendant is not residing and is not found in the
Philippines, the Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the
impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person, unless he voluntarily appears
in court. But, when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff residing in the
Philippines, or is intended to seize or dispose of any property, real or personal, of the
defendant, located in the Philippines, it may be validly tried by the Philippine courts,
for then, they have jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the personal status of the plaintiff or
the property of the defendant, and their jurisdiction over the person of the non-
resident defendant is not essential. Moreover, settled in our jurisprudence is the
principle that jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of litigation may
result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought
into the actual custody of the law. Considering all of the foregoing, the trial court has
acquired jurisdiction of the case at bar by virtue of the attachment of the defendant's
credit. Though no jurisdiction is obtained over the debtor's person, the case may
proceed to judgment if there is property in the custody of the court that can be applied
to its satisfaction.
175. Can jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant not found in the
Philippines in an action for compulsory recognition of a child be acquired?
Jurisdiction cannot be acquired over the person of a non-resident defendant who is not
found in the Philippines in an action for compulsory acknowledgment of his natural
child. Jurisdiction, however, may be acquired over the res (status) with leave of court,
by effecting service of summons out of the Philippines by personal service of
summons, or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and
for such terms as the court may order, in which case, a copy of the summons and
order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last unknown address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. (Sec. 14, Rule 14;
Perkins vs. Dizon, 69 Phil. 86).
Jurisdiction over the Remedies
176. Jurisdiction over the Remedies, def.
The courts' authority to "settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights
that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of
wrongs for violations of such rights".
Distinguish Error of Jurisdiction from Error of Judgment.
177. Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment.
[44]
Error of Jurisdiction Error of Judgment

One where the court, officer or quasi- One that the court may commit in the
judicial body acts without or in excess of exercise of jurisdiction; it includes errors
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of of procedure or mistakes in the court’s
discretion findings
Renders a judgment void or at least Does not make the court’s decision void
voidable
Correctible by certiorari Correctible by appeal
There is an exercise of jurisdiction in the The court acted with jurisdiction but
absence of jurisdiction committed procedural errors in the
appreciation of the facts or the law (1989
Bar Question)
Distinguish Jurisdiction and Venue

178. Jurisdiction vs. Venue
Venue Jurisdiction
As to Nature
Procedural Substantive
As to Definition
Venue is the place where the cause of Jurisdiction is the power of the court to
action is instituted, heard or tried. hear and decide a case.
As to whether it may be a ground for Motu Proprio Dismissal
It is not a ground for motu proprio It may be a ground for motu proprio
dismissal, except in summary procedure dismissal
As to whether it may be stipulated
Venue may be changed by the written Jurisdiction cannot be the subject of the
agreement of the parties agreement of the parties
As to whether it may be waived
It may be waived It is conferred by law and cannot be
waived.
Jurisdiction over Small Claims

179. Courts which has jurisdiction over Small Claims Cases:
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)
Scope and Applicability of the Rules on Small Claims
180. Scope of the Rules on Small Claims
MTCs, MeTCs and MCTCs shall have jurisdiction over actions for payment of
money where the value of the claim does not exceed P300,000 (outside Metro
Manila) or P400,000 (within Metro Manila) exclusive of interest and costs
(Sec. 2, AM 08-8-7-SC, Oct. 27, 2009, as amended beginning April 1, 2019).
181. Applicability of the Rules on Small Claims
- The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all
[45]
actions that are purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by
the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money. The
claim or demand may be: (a) 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; (b) For liquidated damages arising from
contracts; (c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to
Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government
Code of 1991.
- Actions covered 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 actions, either filed before the institution of
the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court,
pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 4, AM 08-8-7-SC).
182. Commencement of Small Claims Action
A small claims action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and
verified Statement of Claim in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification Against
Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and Multiplicity of Suits, and
two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable document/s subject of the claim,
as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. No
evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted
together with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission of
additional evidence. The plaintiff must state in the Statement of Claim if he/she/it is
engaged in the business of lending, banking and similar activities, and the number of
small claims cases filed within the calendar year regardless of judicial station. No
formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim/s described in this Rule, is
necessary to initiate a small claims action.
183. Shall evidence be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or
submitted together with the Statement of Claim?
No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or
submitted together with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is shown for the
admission of additional evidence.
184. Is formal pleading necessary to initiate a small claims action?
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim/s described in this Rule, is
necessary to initiate a small claims action.
185. Venue of small claims action
The regular rules on venue shall apply. However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the
business of lending, banking and similar activities, and has a branch within the
municipality or city where the defendant resides, the Statement of Claim/s shall be
filed where that branch is located.
186. Joinder of Claims a Small Claims Action
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 the jurisdictional amount of the concerned court under R.A.
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).
187. Response under the Rule on Small Claims
SEC. 13. Response.– The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff
a duly accomplished and verified Response within a non-extendible period of ten (10)
[46]
days from receipt of summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified

photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in
support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to or submitted together with the Response, unless good cause is shown for
the admission of additional evidence.
188. Effect of Failure to File Response under the Rules on Small Claims
Should the defendant fail to file his/her/its Response within the required period, and
likewise fail to appear on the date set for hearing, the court shall render judgment on
the same day, as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim/s.
Should the defendant fail to file his/her/its Response within the required period but
appears on the date set for hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he/she/it has
to offer which shall constitute his/ her/its Response, and proceed to hear or adjudicate
the case on the same day as if a Response has been filed.
189. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of Rules on Small Claims
If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the
plaintiff that (a) is within the coverage of this Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b)
arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s
claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is
not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in
the Response; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from suing on the
counterclaim.
The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not
arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and nature
thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal
fees are paid.
190. Appearance under the Rules on Small Claims
The parties shall personally appear on the designated date of hearing.
Appearance through a representative must be for a valid cause. The representative of
an individual-party must not be a lawyer, and must be related to or next-of-kin of the
individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be represented by a lawyer in any
capacity.
The representative must be authorized under a Special Power of Attorney to enter into
an amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documentary exhibits.
No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If the court determines that a party cannot
properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its
discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the
latter’s consent.
Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the Statement of
Claim/s without prejudice. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff
shall be entitled to judgment on a permissive counterclaim. Failure of the defendant to
appear shall have the same effect as failure to file a Response under Section 14 of this
Rule.
This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued under a
common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice of both the
Statement of Claim/s and the counterclaim.
[47]
191. If the case does not fall under this Rule on Small Claims, but falls under summary
or regular procedure, shall the case be dismissed?
No. If the case does not fall under this Rule, but falls under summary or regular
procedure, the case shall not be dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed
under the appropriate procedure, and returned to the court where it was assigned,
subject to payment of any deficiency in the applicable regular rate of filing fees. If a
case is filed under the regular or summary procedure, but actually falls under this
Rule, the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for appropriate assignment.
192. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions in Small Claims Cases:
The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases
covered by this Rule: (a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s; (b) Motion for a
bill of particulars; (c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or
for reopening of trial; (d) Petition for relief from judgment; (e) Motion for extension
of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper; (f) Memoranda; (g) Petition
for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court; (h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; (i) Dilatory motions for
postponement; (j) Reply and rejoinder; (k) Third-party complaints; and (l)
Interventions.
193. Is an attorney allowed to appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing of
small claims cases?
No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If the court determines that a party cannot
properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its
discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the
latter’s consent.
194. Duty of the Court under the Rules on Small Claims
At the beginning of the court session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement
explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of small claims cases.
195. Hearing under the Rules on Small Claims
At the hearing, the judge shall first exert efforts to bring the parties to an amicable
settlement of their dispute. If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall immediately
proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and be terminated within the same
day. Any settlement or resolution of the dispute shall be reduced into writing, signed
by the parties and submitted to the court for approval.
196. Finality of Judgment (Decision) under the Rules on Small Claims
After the hearing, the court shall render its decision based on the facts established by
the evidence, within twenty-four (24) hours from termination of the hearing. 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, executory and unappealable.
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
197. Courts which has jurisdiction over cases governed by Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure:
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts cases falling within their jurisdiction.
198. Cases governed by Revised Rules on Summary Procedure:
Civil Cases:
[48]
- (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).
- (2) All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the
plaintiff's claim does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or
two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive
of interest and costs.
Criminal Cases:
- (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
- (2) Violations of the rental law;
- (3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
- (4) Violations of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
- (4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not
exceeding (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom
- (5) Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where
the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
199. Non-Applicability of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
The 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;
nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily related to another
criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.
200. Effect of failure to answer under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided,
the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for
therein: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion reduce the amount of
damages and attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable.
This is without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court, if there are two or more defendants.
201. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties under the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure
Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference
shall be held. The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the
preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be a cause for
the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with Section
6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment. This
Rule shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common
cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary
conference.
202. Prohibited pleadings and motions under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
The following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases
covered by this Rule:
[49]
- Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information

except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure
to comply with the preceding section;
- Motion for a bill of particulars;
- Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of
trial;
- Petition for relief from judgment;
- Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
- Memoranda;
- Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory
order issued by the court;
- Motion to declare the defendant in default;
- Dilatory motions for postponement;
- Reply;
- Third party complaints;
- Interventions.
203. Appeal under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
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 Batas Pambansa Blg.
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.
The decision of the regional trial court 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. Section 10 of Rule 70*
shall be deemed repealed.
*Section 10. 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.
Barangay Conciliation
204. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement under KPL; Exception Thereto. - The lupon
of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing
in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
[50]
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding
Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or
municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate
lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
Justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon
under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial motu propio refer the case to
the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
(h) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities. The
reason is that only individuals shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or respondents
(i) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically:
- (a) A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention
- (b) A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of
his liberty or one acting in his behalf
- (c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, replevin and support pendente lite
- (d) Where the action may be barred by statute of limitation
(j) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relationship
(k) Where the dispute arises from the CARL
(l) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can be directly filed in court.
205. Where Parties May Go Directly to Court under KPL
The parties may go directly to court in the following instances:
- A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention
- A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his
liberty or one acting in his behalf
- Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, replevin and support pendente lite
- Where the action may be barred by statute of limitation
206. Rule on Venue under KPL
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought
for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.
(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or
municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the
respondents actually resides, at the election of the complaint.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the
barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated.
[51]
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at
the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the
barangay where such workplace or institution is located.
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the
punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal
question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to
venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his
duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding.
207. Crimes Covered Under Katarungang Pambarangay
- Unlawful Use Of Means of - Grave Coercion (Art. 286);
Publication and Unlawful Utterances - Light Coercion (Art. 287);
(Art. 154); - Other Similar Coercions (Compulsory
- Alarms And Scandals (Art. 155); Purchase Of Merchandise And
- Using False Certificates (Art. 175); Payment Of Wages By Means Of
- Using Fictitious Names And Tokens). (Art. 288);
Concealing True Names (Art. 178); - Formation, Maintenance And
- Illegal Use Of Uniforms And Prohibition Of Combination Of
Insignias (Art. 179); Capital Or Labor Through Violence
- Physical Injuries Inflicted In A Or Threats (Art. 289);
Tumultuous Affray(Art. 252); - Discovering Secrets Through Seizure
- Giving Assistance To Consummated And Correspondence (Art. 290);
Suicide (Art. 253); - Revealing Secrets With Abuse Of
- Responsibility Of Participants In A Authority (Art. 291);
Duel If Only Physical Injuries Are - Theft (If The Value Of The Property
Inflicted Or No Physical Injuries Have Stolen Does Not Exceed P50.00).
Been Inflicted (Art. 260); (Art. 309);
- Less Serious Physical Injuries (Art. - Qualified Theft (If The Amount Does
265); Not Exceed P500). (Art. 310);
- Slight Physical Injuries And - Occupation Of Real Property Or
Maltreatment (Art. 266); Usurpation Of Real Rights In Property
- Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269); (Art 312);
- Inducing A Minor To Abandon - Altering Boundaries Or Landmarks
His/Her Home (Art. 271); (Art. 313);
- Abandonment Of A Person In Danger - Swindling Or Estafa (If The Amount
And Abandonment Of One’s Own Does Not Exceed P200.00). (Art.
Victim (Art. 275); 315);
- Abandoning A Minor (A Child Under - Other Forms Of Swindling (Art. 316);
Seven [7] Years Old) (Art. 276); - Swindling A Minor (Art. 317);
- Abandonment Of A Minor By Perons - Other Deceits (Art. 318);
Entrusted With His/Her Custody; - Removal, Sale Or Pledge Of
- Indifference Of Parents (Art. 277); Mortgaged Property (Art. 319);
- Qualified Tresspass To Dwelling - Special Cases Of Malicious Mischief
(Without The Use Of Violence And (If The Value Of The Damaged
Intimidation). (Art. 280); Property Does Not Exceed P1,000.00)
- Other Forms Of Tresspass (Art. 281); (Art 328);
- Light Threats (Art. 283); - Other Mischiefs (If The Value Of The
- Other Light Threats (Art. 285); Damaged Property Does Not Exceed
P1,000.00). (Art. 329);
[52]
- Simple Seduction (Art. 338); - Incriminating Innocent Persons (Art.

- Acts Of Lasciviousness With The 363);
Consent Of The Offended Party (Art - Intriguing Against Honor (Art. 364);
339); - Issuing Checks Without Sufficient
- Threatening To Publish And Offer To Funds (Bp 22);
Prevent Such Publication For - Fencing Of Stolen Properties If The
Compensation (Art. 356); Property nvolved Is Not More Than
- Prohibiting Publication Of Acts P50.00 (Pd 1612).
Referred To In The Course Of
Official Proceedings (Art. 357);
208. Appearance of Parties in Person under KPL
In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and
incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
209. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award under KPL
The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a
final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof,
unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award
has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the
last paragraph of Section 408* of this Code, in which case the compromise or the
pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the
force and effect of a judgment of said court.
*The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial motu propio refer the
case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
210. Execution under KPL
The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the
lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such
time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal
court.
211. Repudiation under KPL
Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement,
repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn
to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such
repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a
complaint as hereinabove provided.
212. 1999 Bar: What is the difference, if any, between the conciliation proceeding under
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law and the negotiations for an amicable settlement
during the pre-trial conference under the Rules of Court? (2%)
The difference between the conciliation proceeding under the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law and the negotiations for an amicable settlement during the pre-trial
conference under the Rules of Court is that in the former, lawyers are prohibited from
appearing for the parties. Parties must appear in person only except minors or
incompetent persons who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers
(now Sec. 415, RA 7160). No such prohibition exists in the pre-trial negotiations
under the Rules of Court.
213. May a corporation be impleaded as a party to a barangay conciliation proceeding?
[53]
No, a corporation cannot be impleaded as a party to a barangay conciliation

proceeding. Section 1, Rule VI of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules
implementing the Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides that “Only individuals
shall be parties to these proceedings as either as complainants or respondents. No
complaints by or against corporations , partnerships or other judicial entities shall be
files, received or acted upon.”
214. Boleyley files a complaint for unlawful detainer against Sacla before the MTC,
Baguio City, without referring it first to the barangay lupon for conciliation. A
motion to dismiss was filed on the ground of failure to comply with the requirement
of conciliation alleging that both parties are residents of Baguio City, although the
complaint stated that the defendant has a postal office address in Baguio City. The
MTC dismissed the case on the ground of prematurity for failure to comply with the
conciliation requirement. An opposition was filed contending that the aforesaid
requirement cannot be invoked as the defendant-respondent was not a resident of
Baguio City. It was denied, hence, a petition for certiorari was filed with the SC. If
you were the ponente, how would you decide?
I would decide in favor of the petitioner. There is no need to comply with the
conciliation requirement under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law in the absence of
a showing in the complaint that the parties reside in the same city or municipality .
Plaintiff’s complaint should have alleged defendant’s place of actual residence, not
his postal address. The allegation of defendant’s actual residence would have been
ideal to determine the venue. In procedural law specifically for the purposes of
venue, the residence of a person is his personal, actual, physical habitation or his
actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence
or domicile. The complaint clearly implies that the parties do not reside in the same
city or municipality because the postal office address is not included in the term
“residence”. (Boleyley vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734, September 14, 1999)
215. Dante Pascual executed a SPA in favor of Reymel Segario to recover a property
from his sister. The agent, a resident of Roxas, Isabela filed a complaint against
Marilou Pascual, a resident of Roxa, Isabela but without undergoing barangay
conciliation. The defendant moved to dismiss on the ground of failure to comply
with a condition precedent. It was dismissed by the RTC, hence, a Petition for
Review on Certiorari was filed with the SC were it was contended that since Dante
Pascual was a permanent resident of the USA, then there is no need for barangay
conciliation even if the agent is a resident of Roxa, Isablea, especially so that he is
not the real party-in-interest. On the other hand, it was contended that all disputes
involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay
where the real property is located. The word “shall” is mandatory. Whose
contention is correct?
The contention of Dante Pascual is correct. There is no need for barangay
conciliation. To construe the express statutory requirement of actual residency as
applicable to the attorney-in-fact of the party-plaintiff would abrogate the meaning of
a “real party-in-interest” which means the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
216. Where should objections be raised under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law?
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong
barangay. Otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived.
217. Suppose there are questions that confront the punong barangay on objections to
venue, what will he do?
[54]
Any legal question which may confront the punong barangay on objections venue
may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice or his duly designated representatives
whose ruling thereon shall be binding.
218. What is the nature of the non-referral of a case to the barangay when the law
requires it?
The non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so required under the Law,
is not jurisdictional in nature, and may therefore be deemed waived. This is a mere
condition precedent which if not invoked in a motion to dismiss is deemed waived.
219. What is the effect of the pendency of a case before the lupon on the prescriptive
period of actions?
While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive
periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon
filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall
resume upon receipt by the complainant of the certificate of repudiation or of the
certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided,
however, That such interruption shall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the
complaint with the punong barangay.
220. A is the owner of an apartment in Manila leased to B who was staying there five (5)
days a week. A sued B for ejectment before the MTC, Manila without having
recourse at the barangay. The MTC rendered a judgment for A, but the RTC
dismissed the action for failure to comply with the conciliation requirement. The
CA affirmed the ruling. If you were the ponente on appeal to the SC, how would
you decide?
I would affirm the dismissal of the action for prematurity. In procedural law
specifically for the purposes of venue, the residence of a person is his personal, actual,
physical habitation or his actual residence or place of abode, which may not
necessarily be his legal residence or domicile. Staying five days a week is sufficient
to constitute “actual” residence. The KPL does not require legal residence or
domicile.
221. X filed a complaint for ejectment with the MeTC, Manila without any certification
by the barangay having been issued despite the prior filing of a case in said
barangay office. A few days later, he filed a manifestation in court attaching thereto
a certification subsequently issued by a proper barangay office. What is the effect
of the subsequent issuance of the certification?
The issuance of the certification to file action subsequently made is a substantial
compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Code.
222. What is the effect if the defendant does not invoke the lack of prior conciliation
before the barangay?
It is an implied waiver of the condition imposed by the Local Government Code.
Such waiver also takes place where a motion to dismiss is filed after an answer has
been filed within the period to plead and before an answer is filed. Furthermore, the
Rules of Court provide that defenses and objections not raised in a motion to dismiss
or in the answer are deemed waived.
223. X filed a complaint for grave oral defamation against Y without prior recourse to
barangay conciliation. If you were the judge, would you dismiss the action on
motion of the accused invoking the aforementioned requirement?
No, because a case for Grave Oral Defamation (Punishable under Article 358 of the
RPC with arresto mayor, maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period – four (4) months, one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months) may be
[55]
filed directly in court without necessity of a certification to file action under the Local
Government Code as this offense is beyond the coverage of the KPL.
224. In a complaint for Annulment of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate, two
parties are residents of the same municipality, but the others are residents of
different municipalities. Is there a need for prior barangay conciliation?
No. The KPL provides that the lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring
together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable
settlement of all disputes except disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate lupon. Hence, petitioners can file the case directly in
court without resorting to barangay conciliation.
225. X files a complaint for recovery of possession of property with damages against Y
before the RTC. No compliance with the requirements of conciliation before the
barangay was made. They went to trial until a judgment was rendered for the
petitioners. On appeal, the defendants contended that the lower court should have
dismissed the action for failure to comply with the aforementioned requirement. Is
the contention correct?
No. Defendants effectively waived their right to invoke the defense of failure to
resort to barangay conciliation when they took part in the trial, argued their case and
adduced their evidence, all of which amounted to waiver of the defense.
226. In a petition for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership filed by X against Y, Y
filed a motion to dims the petition on the ground that the case should have been first
filed in the Lupon under the Local Government Code. The judge required defendant
to submit accounting of his salaries, allowances, etc. Motion for reconsideration was
denied, hence, petition for certiorari was filed. Y invoked the grounds that the judge
exceeded his jurisdiction over the case by failing to submit to the Lupon for
conciliation, by declaring the issues of support pendent lite and by delivery of
personal property belonging to the conjugal partnership involved in the petition.
Decide.
The petition should be dismissed. Under the Local Government Code, actions
coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support pendent lite may be filed directly in court
without prior recourse to barangay conciliation. In the instant case, although the
petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership and partition of the conjugal
partnership properties does not strictly allege that it is coupled with provisional
remedies of support pendent lite and delivery of personal property, the resolution and
decision would consequently include these remedies.
227. X filed a complaint for recovery of real property against Y. The property is located
in Laguna. X is a resident of Laguna. Y is a resident of Rizal. Is there a need for
prior recourse to barangay conciliation?
No. Where a real property is the subject of the dispute and it is located in the same
barangay of the same town but the parties are residents of different municipalities in
barangays that are not adjacent to each other, prior recourse to barangay conciliation
is not necessary.
228. If a person files a suit respecting his civil status, is there a need for prior barangay
conciliation?
Yes. In Maglalang vs. CA, 175 SCRA 808, while a case involving the civil status of a
person i.e., the acknowledgment of a natural child is not among the cases where prior
[56]
resort to barangay arbitration is not necessary, the possibility of settlement at this

level is encouraged even in such cases before the issue is brought to the courts. More
so when there is cogent basis for the civil status being sought to be established. If the
requirement of prior resort to barangay arbitration was not satisfied, the dismissal of
the case for lack of cause of action is called for.
229. An action for damages found on Article 26 and 33 of the Civil Code was filed by A
against B. B filed a motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the KPL. To
prevent the dismissal, A applied for writ of attachment, hence, A’s contention was
that the case fell under exception, thus, there is no need of prior conciliation. Rule
on the contention.
The contention is not correct. The Motion to Dismiss should be granted. A should
not be allowed to circumvent the laudable objective of the law by the ill-disguised
device of utilizing an exception provided by law.
230. If the parties belong to the cultural minorities, what rules shall the pangkat/lupon
under the KPL apply?
The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in
settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.
231. X filed a complaint against Y. Before the Lupon, they settled the dispute. Y,
however, later on filed an action to annul the compromise agreement contending
among others that his consent was obtained by mistake or fraud. X filed a Motion
to Dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as Y did not repudiate the
compromise agreement within 10 days pursuant to law. Rule on the motion.
The motion to dismiss should be granted. The parties are bound by the compromise
agreement since the same was not repudiated by either one of them within 10 days
from the date of the signing. Resort to court is possible only after the party has first
repudiated the compromise agreement which is a prerequisite to judicial action.
Under the Local Government Code, the remedy of repudiation supplants the remedy
of court annulment.
232. A compromise agreement between A and B was entered into in the municipal court
in an ejectment suit. An action to annul the judgment was filed in the RTC which
action was being sought to be dismissed for the failure of the plaintiff to resort to
barangay conciliation. Should the action be dismissed?
No. It cannot be dismissed on the ground of prematurity or failure to resort to
barangay conciliation because a compromise executed before a court is immediately
executory and beyond the authority of the barangay. An administrative body like the
lupon cannot overturn the judgment of a court.
233. What is the remedy from the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of non-
compliance with the KPL?
The remedy in case of denial of a motion to dismiss for non-compliance with KPL is
appeal from the decision not certiorari. The reason for the rule is that, since the
dismissal is a final order, it is appealable. Certiorari is not the proper remedy because
it is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
234. What is the remedy if the settlement is not so enforced by the Lupon after the lapse
of six months?
It may be enforced only by an action in the proper city or municipal court as provided
for in Section 417 of the LGC which states that the amicable settlement or arbitration
award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date
of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by
action in the appropriate city or municipal court. Therefore, an action for the
[57]
enforcement of the settlement should be instituted in the proper municipal or city

court regardless of the nature of the complaint before the Lupon, and the relief prayed
for therein. The venue for such actions is governed by Rule 4, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court. An action for the enforcement of a settlement is not one of those covered by
the Rules on Summary Procedure in civil cases, hence, the rules on regular procedure
shall apply, as provided for in Section 1, Rule 5 of the ROC.
RULE 1 (General Provisions)
235. In what courts are the Rules of Court applicable?
Section 2, Rule1
The Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme
Court.
236. Cases governed by ROC
The Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and
special proceedings.
237. Ordinary Civil Action, def.
An action by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong. 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.
238. Kinds of Ordinary Civil Actions
(1) As to place
- (a) Transitory – action founded on privity of contract between parties; brought
in the place where the party resides
- (b) Local - action founded on privity of estate only and there is no privity of
contract; brought in a particular place
(2) As to object
- (a) Action in rem
- (b) Action quasi in rem
- (c) Action in personam
(3) As to foundation
- (a) Real
- (b) Personal
239. Special Civil Action, def.
It refers to action which, while governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, are
subject to specific rules prescribed under Rules 62 to 71 of the ROC.
240. List of Special Civil Actions:
Interpleader
Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Commission on
Elections and the Commission on Audit
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Quo Warranto
Expropriation
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Partition
Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Contempt
241. Criminal Action, def.
[58]
A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law. (n)
242. Special Proceeding, def.
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right,
or a particular fact.
243. Civil Action vs. Special Proceeding
Civil Action Special Proceeding
As to Nature
Generally adversarial in nature. There Generally, there is no definitive adverse
are definite parties – plaintiff vs. party because it is directed against the
defendant whole world. Special proceedings are
either in rem or quasi in rem.
As to Purpose
For the enforcement or protection of a To establish a status, a right or a
right, or the prevention or redress of a particular fact
wrong
As to Governing Rules
It is governed by the Rules for Ordinary It is governed by special Rules
Civil Actions supplemented by Rules for ordinary civil
actions.
As to Court with Jurisdiction
It is heard by courts of general It is heard by courts of limited
jurisdiction jurisdiction
As to How Initiated
Initiated by a pleading and parties Initiated by means of a petition and
respond through an answer after being parties respond by means of an
served with summons opposition after notice and publication
are made.
As to Applicability of Rules on Pleadings
Parties are generally allowed to file Rules on pleadings are generally not
answer, counterclaim, cross-claim, and applicable.
third-party complaint.
As to Appeal
The period to appeal is only 15 days and The period to appeal is 30 days and aside
notice of appeal suffices from a notice of appeal, a record on
appeal is required.
As to the Cause of Action
It is based on a cause of action It is not based on a cause of action
except habeas corpus.
244. In what case is the ROC not applicable?

The 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.
245. 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 date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether
the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
246. What are the rules on docket fees vis-à-vis its commencement?
[59]
Specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading
but also in the prayer. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall
not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.” If 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.
247. In an action for replevin, the plaintiff failed to pay the correct docket fee. Can
it recover damages? Explain.
Yes. The trial court had jurisdiction over the claim despite the insufficiency of the
docket fees paid. The instant case is for replevin and for purposes of determining the
jurisdiction for the court, the value of the personal property involved is controlling.
The damages and the attorney’s fees are merely incidental.
248. When is an action deemed commenced?
On the date of the filing of the original complaint. Exception: when an additional
defendant is impleaded, the action is commenced as to him on the date of the filing of
the amended pleading. BUT, with regard to the other parties, the action is commenced
still on the date of filing of the original complaint.
249. How is jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in a special civil action for
mandamus acquired?
Jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the plaintiff in a special civil action for
mandamus by the commencement of the filing of the action and the payment of the
prescribed docket fees.
250. Construction of the ROC
The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
251. Real Action vs. Personal Action
Personal Action Real Action
Scope
When it affects title to or possession of a In personal action, the plaintiff seeks the
real property, or an interest therein (Sec. recovery of personal property, the
1, rule 4) enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages for breach of such
contract.
Basis
When it is founded upon the privity of a Founded on privity of contract such as
real estate. That means that realty or damages, claims of money, etc.
interest therein is the subject matter of
the action.
It is important that the matter in
litigation must also involve any of the
following issue:
Title to, Ownership, Possession,
Partition, Foreclosure of mortgage or
Any interest in real property.
Venue
Venue of action shall be commenced and Venue of action is the place where the
tried in the proper court which has plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
jurisdiction over the area wherein the resides or any of the defendants resides,
real property involved, or a portion at the election of the plaintiff; hence, it
thereof is situated; hence, it is generally is a transitory action(Rule 2 sec 2)
[60]
a local action (Rule 4, sec 1)

Example
An action to recover possession of real Action for a sum of money
property plus damages
Note: An action to annul or rescind a
sale of real property has as its
fundamental and prime objective the
recovery of real property (Emergency
Loan Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Court of
appeals, 353 SCRA 89; Riano, p. 122,
2009 ed.)
252. 2006 Bar: What do you mean by a) real action; and b) personal action? (2%)
Answer: Real actions are actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an
interest therein. All other actions are personal actions which include those arising
from privity of contract.
253. Is an action to annul or rescind a sale of real property a real action or personal
action?
An action to annul or rescind a sale of real property has as its fundamental and
prime objective the recovery of real property (Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. vs.
Court of appeals, 353 SCRA 89; Riano, p. 122, 2009 ed.)
254. Are all actions involving real property real actions?
Not every action involving real property is a real action because the realty may only
be incidental to the subject matter of the suit. Example is an action for damages to real
property, while involving realty is a personal action because although it involves real
property, it does not involve any of the issues mentioned.
255. What is the test in determining whether an action is a real action or a personal
action?
A real action is one in which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as
indicated in what is now Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an
action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property. Where the action
does not involve recovery of real property, the action is a personal one.
256. Local Action vs. Transitory Action
Local Action Transitory Action
One that could be instituted in one One that could be prosecuted in any one
specific place of several places
Venue depends upon the location of the Its venue depends upon the residence of
property involved in the litigation the plaintiff or the defendant at the
(Riano) option of the plaintiff (Riano)
Must be brought in a particular place Dependent on the place where the party
where the subject property is located, resides regardless of where the cause of
unless there is an agreement to the action arose. Subject to Sec. 4, Rule 4
contrary.
No privity of contract and the action is Founded on privity of contract between
founded on privity of estate only the parties whether debt or covenant
(Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines v. Samson, G.R. No. L-
30175, Nov. 28, 1975).
E.g. Action to recover real property E.g. Action to recover sum of money
[61]
257. Action in Rem vs. In Personam vs. Quasi In Rem

Action in Rem Action in Personam Action Quasi in
As to Whom Directed
Directed against the thing Directed against particular Directed against particular
itself persons persons
Effect of Judgment
Judgment is binding upon Judgment is binding only Judgment will be binding
the whole world. upon parties impleaded or only upon the litigants,
their successors-in-interest privies, successor in
interest but the judgment
shall be executed against a
particular property. The
RES involve will answer
the judgment.
Required Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is person of the defendant is person of the defendant is
not required. required not required as long as
Jusrisdiction over the RES jurisdiction over the res is
is required through acquired
publication in a
newspaper of general
circulation.
Purpose of the Action
A proceeding to An action to impose a Deals with the stauts,
determine the state or responsibility or liability ownership or liability of a
condition of a thing upon a person directly 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 vs. Jensen, 448
SCRA 663)
Example
1. Probate proceeding 1. Action for specific 1. Action for partition
2. Cadastral proceeding performance 2. Action to foreclose real
3. Land registration 2. Action for breach of estate mortgage
proceeding contract attachment
3. Action for ejectment
4. Action for a sum of
money; for damages
(Riano, Civil Procedure:
A Restatement for the
Bar,p.130, 2009 ed.)
4. An action for injunction
is in personam since it can
be enforced only against
[62]
the defendant therein
258. Is an action for the declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real
property, or reconveyance, action in rem or action in personam?
An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose
property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another’s name.
Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review,
the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for
reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not
with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as long as the
property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. A notice of lis pendens
may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of
the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third
person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.
The rule is that: (1) a judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as a
judgment in a land registration case or probate of a will; and (2) a judgment in
personam is binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon
strangers. A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another
is in personam; it is binding only against the parties and their successors-in-interest by
title subsequent to the commencement of the action. An action for declaration of
nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a real
action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although
it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon
the parties properly impleaded.
259. Is an action in personam necessarily a personal action?

No. 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 foundation. For instance, an action to recover title to or
possession of real property is a real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought
against the whole world but against the person upon whom the claim is made.
260. Can an action in personam be converted into an action in rem or quasi in rem?
Under the old rule, an action in personam may be converted in an action in rem or
quasi in rem through preliminary attachment by attaching the property of the
defendant. However, under the new rule, it is not necessary for an action in personam
to be converted to an action in rem or quasi in rem, via a writ of preliminary
attachment, in order to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Petitioner may now serve summons through publication where the defendant is
designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by defendant, regardless of the nature of the
action.
261. Can there be an action in rem which is a personal action?
Yes. The probate of a will wherein the estate consists only of personal properties is
an action in rem which is at the same time a personal action. The probate of the will
is a proceeding in rem. It is also a personal action because it does not involve title to
or possession of real property.
262. Can there be an action in personam which is a real action?
[63]
Yes. An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real
property, or reconveyance, is a real action but is an action in personam, for it binds a
particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible property. Any
judgment therein is binding only upon parties properly impleaded.
263. What is the nature of an action based on a breach of contract?
Breach of contract gives rise to a cause of action for specific performance or for
rescission. A suit for such breach is not capable of pecuniary estimation, hence, the
assessed value of the real property subject of the said action, should not be considered
in computing the filing fees. The action is in personam and not in rem. (Cabutihan vs.
Landcenter Construction and Development Corp., GR No. 146594, June 10, 2002.)
264. There was an agreement where one party engaged the services of another in
recovering, arranging and financing the transfer of a property to a person. State the
venue and nature of the action.
The action is personal action, the venue of which is the place of residence of the
parties. Since the action was in personam, the proper venue is the place of residence
of the plaintiff or defendant, at the option of the plaintiff. The fact that there was a
prayer for reconveyance of real property not located in the territorial jurisdiction of
the court was a merely anticipated consequence.
265. Petitioner spouses obtained a loan secured by a mortgage over their land and ice
plant in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Because they failed to pay the loan, the mortgage was
foreclosed and the ice plant auctioned. Before the RTC of Manila, they sued the
bank for damages and for the fixing of the redemption period. What is the nature of
the action?
It is a real action. Since the spouses ultimately sought redemption of the mortgaged
property, the action affected the mortgage debtor’s title to the foreclosed property,
hence, it is a real action. Where the action affects title to the property, it should be
instituted in the trial court where the property is situated.
266. What is the nature of an action which seeks the execution of a deed of sale of a
parcel of land?
An action which seeks the execution of a deed of sale of a parcel of land in favor of a
person has been held to be for the recovery of the real property and not for specific
performance since his primary objective is to regain the ownership and possession of
the parcel of land (National Steel Corp., vs. CA, 302 SCRA 522)
267. State the nature of an action for reconveyance.

An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose
property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another’s name.
Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review,
the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action
for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and not
with the land registration court. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the
certificate of title immediately upon the instution of the action in action. The notice
of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve
the claim of the real owner. (Munoz vs. Atty. Yabut, et al., GR No. 142676)
Rule 2 (Cause of Action)
268. Basis of Ordinary Civil Actions
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
269. Cause of action, defined
[64]
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
270. Elements of a Cause of Action:
(a) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created;
(b) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such
right; and
(c) 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.
271. Is there a cause of action in special proceedings?
There is no cause of action in special proceedings. Every ordinary civil action is based
on a cause of action.
272. Cause of Action vs. Right of Action
*The rule is “There is no right of action where there is no cause of action”.
Cause of Action Right of Action
Definition
It is the act or omission by which a party Remedial right or right to relief granted
violates the rights of another ( Sec. 2, by law to a party to institute an action
Rule 2) against a person who has committed a
delict or wrong against him
Requisites
1. The existence of a legal right of the 1. There must be a good cause (existence
plaintiff of a cause of action)
2. A correlative duty of the defendant to 2. A compliance with all the conditions
respect one’s right precedent to the bringing of the action
3. An act or omission of the defendant in 3. The action must be instituted by the
violation of the plaintiff’s right. proper party.
Nature
It is actually predicated on substantive It is procedural in character is the
law or on quasi delicts under NCC. consequence of the violation of the right
of the plaintiff (Riano, Civil Procedure:
A Restatement for the Bar , p. 4, 2009
ed.)
Basis
Based on the allegations of the plaintiff Basis is the plaintiff’s cause of action
in the complaint
Effect of Affirmative Defense
Not affected by affirmative defenses Affected by affirmative defenses
(fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)
273. Elements of Right of Action:

Existence of a cause of action
Performance of all conditions precedent to the bringing of the action
Right to bring and maintain the action must be in the person instituting it
274. 1999 Bar: Distinguish action from cause of action. (2%)
An action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement of protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Sec. 3[a], Rule 1). A cause of action is
the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another (Sec. 2, Rule 2). An
action must be based on a cause of action (Sec. 1, Rule 2).
[65]
275. Failure to state cause of action vs. Absence or Lack of cause of action
Failure To State Cause Of Action Absence Or Lack Of Cause Of Action
Definition
Insufficiency in the allegations of the Failure to prove or establish by evidence
complaint one’s stated cause of action
As Ground for Dismissal
Raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule Raised in a demurrer to evidence under
16 before a responsive pleading is filed Rule 33 after the plaintiff has rested his
case
Determination
Determined only from the allegations of Resolved only on the basis of the
the pleading and not from evidentiary evidence he has presented in support of
matters his claim
As to Whether Evidentiary Matters are Evaluated or Not
It does not concern itself with the truth It arises precisely because the judge has
and falsity of the allegations in the determined the truth and falsity of the
pleading allegations and has found the evidence
wanting.
276. Failure to State a Cause of Action, explained.

The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to prosper.
Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the
complaint may be dismissed if the complaint or the pleading asserting the claim
“states no cause of action”.
This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated or alleged in the
complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by substantive law
must clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint. To avoid an early
dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: “If you have a cause
of action, then by all means, state it.”
Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a
complaint may be dismissed not because of an absence or a lack of cause of action but
because the complaint states no cause of action. The dismissal will therefore, be
anchored on a “failure to state a cause of action”.
It doesn’t mean that the plaintiff has no cause of action. It only means that the
plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient for the court to know that the rights of the
plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus, even if indeed the plaintiff suffered
injury, if the same is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will state no cause of
action even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
277. Effect if the defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action
A defendant who moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground of failure to state a
cause of action hypothetically admits all the averments thereof. The hypothetical
admission extends to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and
the inferences fairly deducible therefrom.
278. Does the dismissal based on a failure to state a cause of action bar the subsequent
re-filing of the complaint?
No. Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action is one without
prejudice. It does not bar the subsequent refiling of the complaint.
[66]
279. Test of the Sufficiency of a Cause of Action

The test is whether, assuming the facts alleged to be true, the court could render a
valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. However, the Court has
considered other matters aside from the facts alleged in the complaint, such as:
documents attached to the complaint appended annexes, other pleadings, and
admissions on record. The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged the court
can render a valid judgement upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof.
The hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in
the complaint and inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in
the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the
same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the
defendants.
280. Plaintiff Ceroferr filed with the RTC a complaint against defendant Santiago
for damages and injunction, with preliminary injunction. In the complaint, Ceroferr
prayed that Santiago and his agents be enjoined from claiming possession and
ownership over Lot No. 68 and from making use of the vacant lot as a jeepney
terminal. In his answer, defendant Santiago alleged that the complaint did not state a
cause of action. Is the defendant correct?
No. A defendant who moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause
of action, as in this case, hypothetically admits all the averments thereof. The test of
sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as constituting a cause of action is
whether or not admitting the facts alleged the court can render a valid judgement upon
the same in accordance with the prayer thereof. The hypothetical admission extends to
the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly
deducible therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis
by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed
regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the defendants. In this case,
petitioner Ceroferrs cause of action has been sufficiently averred in the complaint. If it
were admitted that the right of ownership of petitioner Ceroferr to the peaceful use
and possession of Lot 68 was violated by respondent Santiagos act of encroachment
and fencing of the same, then petitioner Ceroferr would be entitled to damages.
281. Original defendants defaulted in the payment loan obligations. Hence, the
Plaintiff filed a complaint for sum of money, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment before the RTC. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
impleading Additional defendants and praying that they be declared as mere alter
egos, conduits, dummies, or nominees of Original defendants. Additional defendants
moved to dismiss the complaints alleging that the complaints stated no cause of action
against them. Plaintiff moved for a judgment on the pleadings. RTC dismissed the
amended complaints for failure to state a cause of action against the additional
defendants while the CA dismissed the same for lack of cause of action. Whose
ruling is correct?
The RTC is correct. It is a hornbook law that failure to state a cause of action and
lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a particular action. The former
refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the latter to the
insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure to state a cause
of action may be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through a motion to
dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack of cause of
action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the
[67]
basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. It must be

stressed that the case was submitted for judgment on the pleadings, on Plaintiff’s
motion. Hence, no full-blown trial was conducted on the case. Considering that, in
this case, no stipulations, admissions, or evidence have yet been presented, it is
perceptibly impossible to assess the insufficiency of the factual basis on which the
plaintiff asserts his cause of action. Hence, the ground of lack of cause of action could
not have been the basis for the dismissal of this action.
282. Original defendants defaulted in the payment loan obligations. Hence, the
Plaintiff filed a complaint for sum of money before the RTC. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint impleading Additional defendants alleging that they are mere
alter egos, conduits, dummies, or nominees of Original defendants. Additional
defendants moved to dismiss the complaints alleging that the complaints stated no
cause of action against them. Rule on the motion.
The motion should be granted. Jurisprudence dictates that while the facts alleged in
the complaint are hypothetically admitted by the defendant, who moves to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, it must, nevertheless, be
remembered that the hypothetical admission extends only to the relevant and material
facts well pleaded in the complaint, as well as inferences fairly deductible therefrom."
Verily, the filing of the motion to dismiss assailing the sufficiency of the complaint
"does not admit the truth of mere epithets of fraud; nor allegations of legal
conclusions; nor an erroneous statement of law; nor mere inferences or conclusions
from facts not stated; nor mere conclusions of law; nor allegations of fact the falsity
of which is subject to judicial notice; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage and
irrelevant matter; nor scandalous matter inserted merely to insult the opposing party;
nor to legally impossible facts; nor to facts which appear unfounded by a record
incorporated in the pleading, or by a document referred to; nor to general averments
contradicted by more specific averments. In the case at bar, the Amended Complaint
readily shows its failure to sufficiently state a cause of action as the allegations therein
do not proffer ultimate facts which would warrant an action against the additional
defendants for the collection of the amount. The aforecited allegations partake of the
nature of mere conclusions of law, unsupported by a particular averment of
circumstances that will show why or how such inferences or conclusions were arrived
at as to bring the controversy within the trial court's jurisdiction. There is no
explanation or narration of facts that would disclose why the additional defendants are
mere alter egos, conduits, dummies or nominees of the original defendants to defraud
creditors, contrary to the requirement of Section 5, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court that
the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity, thus, rendering
the allegation of fraud simply an unfounded conclusion of law. It must be pointed out
that, in the absence of specific averments, the complaint presents no basis upon which
the court should act, or for the defendant to meet it with an intelligent answer and
must, perforce, be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
283. May a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured
by the accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the case? (Test of
Sufficiency of a Cause of Action in Relation to Amendment to Conform to or
Authorize Presentation of Evidence) According to the trial court, and sustained by the
Court of Appeals, this Section allows a complaint that does not state a cause of action
to be cured by evidence presented without objection during the trial. Thus, it ruled
that even if the private respondent had no cause of action when he filed the complaint
for a sum of money and damages because none of the three promissory notes was due
[68]
yet, he could nevertheless recover on the first two promissory notes dated 7 August
1996 and 14 March 1997, which became due during the pendency of the case in view
of the introduction of evidence of their maturity during the trial.
No. Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads: Section 5.
Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties,
they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such
amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the
evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time,
even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these
issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and
shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of
substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to
enable the amendment to be made. The curing effect under Section 5 is applicable
only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the
complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts. For example, if a
complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon which the
cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been
fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during the trial, and the
complaint may accordingly be amended thereafter. Thus, in a similar case, the
Supreme Court upheld the trial court in taking cognizance of an otherwise defective
complaint which was later cured by the testimony of the plaintiff during the trial
which proved that there was in fact a cause of action and the only problem was the
insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.
It thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be
cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or
accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely
brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court
upon proper motion seasonably filed by the defendant. It is a rule of law to which
there is, no exception, either at law or in equity, that there must be a cause of action at
the commencement of the suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that 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 is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment
setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible.
284. Blossom entered into a contract with Manila Gas for the sale and delivery of
water gas and coal gas tar at stipulated prices for a period of four years. On the second
year of the contract, Manila Gas willfully and deliberately refused to deliver any coal
and water gas tar to Blossom and Company, Inc. because it was asking for a higher
price than what had been previously stipulated by them. Does Blossom have an
existing cause of action if it were to commence an action of breach of contract now
even if the obligation of Manila Gas for the next third and fourth year is not yet due
and demandable?
Yes. Under the Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach, if the contract is divisible in its
performance and the future periodic deliveries are not yet due, and if the obligor has
already manifested his refusal to comply with his future periodic obligations, ‘the
contract is entire and the breach total’, hence, there can be a cause of action for
damages. The doctrine of anticipatory breach refers to an unqualified and positive
[69]
refusal to perform a contract, though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if
the renunciation goes into the whole contract, be treated as a complete breach which
will entitle the injured party to bring his action at once.
285. Is non-joinder of indispensable parties constitutive of failure to state a cause of
action?
No. Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that 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.
286. The CA ruled that the complaint states no cause of action because all the heirs
of the deceased are indispensable parties; hence, they should have been impleaded in
the complaint. The CA ruled that without the presence of all the heirs, the trial court
could not validly render judgment and grant relief to petitioners and that the absence
of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
Hence, the court a quo correctly ordered for the dismissal of the action for failure to
state a cause of action on the ground that the complaint failed to name or implead all
the heirs of the deceased. Is the CA correct?
No. Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading. A
complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential
elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) The legal right of the plaintiff; (b) The
correlative obligation of the defendant; and (c) The act or omission of the defendant in
violation of said right. By a simple reading of the elements of a failure to state a
cause of action, it can be readily seen that the inclusion of the co-heirs does not fall
under any of the above elements. The infirmity is, in fact, not a failure to state a cause
of action but a non-joinder of an indispensable party.
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be
added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the
plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that
court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Thus, the
dismissal of the case for failure to state a cause of action is improper.
287. Section 3 (One suit for a single cause of action), Rule 2 (Cause of Action)
A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
288. Section 4 (Effect of Splitting a single cause of action), Rule 2 (Cause of Action)
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.
289. 1999 Bar: What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect on the
respective rights of the parties for failure to comply with the same? (2%)
The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect is that if two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on
the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others (Sec. 4,
Rule 2). The rule against splitting a single cause of action applies not only to
complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims. (Mariscal vs. Court of
Appeals, 311 SCRA 51).
[70]
290. 2005 Bar: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X

Corporation and Y Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein
that the three corporations claimed title and right of possession over the goods
deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain which of them was entitled to
the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court declaring that
X Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and executory.
Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00 for
storage charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged that
Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for
storage fees and advances and that for his failure he was barred from interposing his
claim. Raphael replied that he could not have claimed storage fees and other
advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who
was liable therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should have incorporated in his
complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances. They are part of
Raphael’s cause of action which he may not split. The filing of the interpleader is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the second case (Sec. 4, Rule 2: 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.). It is akin to a
compulsory counterclaim which, if not set up, is barred (Sec. 2, Rule 9: Section 2.
Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. — A compulsory
counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.). The law also abhors the
multiplicity of suits; hence, the claim for storage fees should have been made part of
his cause of action in the interest of complete adjudication of the controversy and its
incidents.
291. Test as to whether the case involves the same cause of action:
Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. If two or more
suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment on the merits in any one is ground for the dismissal of the others. Several
tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action,
such as: (a) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and
second causes of action (also known as the "same evidence" test),
(b) whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the
other.
(c) whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of
the first complaint.
292. Litis Pendentia as a ground for dismissal of a civil case
As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a situation
where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action,
so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Litis pendentia exists when
the following requisites are present: identity of the parties in the two actions;
substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the parties; and
the identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment that may be
rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other.
293. Examples of splitting a cause of action
Jurisprudence dictates the following:
[71]
Two cases which are based on (a) failure to pay license fees and (b) damages due to
unearned profits, respectively, SPLIT a cause of action because they are “ultimately
anchored” on the breach of one agreement.
A petitioner instituted an action for JUDICIAL foreclosure and later on filed a
personal action for collection of the debt. This was considered as SPLITTING a
CAUSE OF ACTION. But note that this does not preclude a filing for motion for the
deficiency judgment after the foreclosure sale.
When there are several installment payments due, each payment due constitutes one
cause of action. However, ALL due as of the time of filing must be brought in the
same action.
294. In one case, a lessee who violated the terms of its lease was subjected to an
unlawful detainer case. (Case 1) While Case 1 was pending appeal, the lease
agreement expired and the lessor filed another unlawful detainer case (Case 2). Is this
considered as “splitting a cause of action”?
No. In a similar case, the Supreme Court ruled that the violations of the terms of the
lease and the eventual expiration of the lease constitute separate causes of action, and
they do not constitute a “SPLITTING”. The facts clearly show that the filing of the
first ejectment case was grounded on the violation of stipulations in the lease contract,
while the filing of the second case was based on the expiration of the lease contract
which happened after the filing of the first ejectment case. Among the tests to
determine whether the case involves the same cause of action is whether the cause of
action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. It was
only at the expiration of the lease contract that the cause of action in the second
ejectment complaint accrued and made available to the respondent as a ground for
ejecting the petitioner. Thus, the cause of action in the second case was not yet in
existence at the time of filing of the first ejectment case.
295. State the rule in the filing of a complaint if there is only one delict or wrong.
Give examples.
Settled jurisprudence dictates that if there is only one delict or wrong, there is only
one cause of action even if there are several rights violated but belonging to only one
person. All such rights should be alleged in a single complaint, otherwise, they are
barred forever. No man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause.
Examples:
a) Recovery of damages for injury to person and property should be in only one suit
b) Only one suit should be filed for recovery of real property and damages.
c) Recovery of taxes and surcharges must be in one suit.
d) Partition of property and improvements and damages should be in only one suit.
e) In ejectment cases, only rentals can be recovered as damages. Other damages like
electric and water bills are to be recovered in separate suit.
296. In a single cause of action, how many suits may a person file?
He can file only one suit in a single cause of action. Sec. 3, Rule 2 states that A party
may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
297. State the test in determining whether or not a cause of action is single.
If there is only one delict or wrong, there is a single cause of action, even if there are
several rights violated and all of those rights violated must be prayed for in one
complaint but the single delict or wrong must be violative of one contract or
transaction, for if there are separate and distinct contracts or transactions between the
parties, violation of each contract or transaction would constitute a separate cause of
action. (Landahl, Inc. vs. Monroy, L-6991, November 29, 1957).
[72]
298. How to determine the identity of cause of action.

To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same
evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. Had respondents filed separate suits
against petitioners, the same evidence would have been presented to sustain the same
cause of action.
299. There was foreclosure of a mortgage due to the debtor's failure to pay an
obligation. The debtor filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the foreclosure
proceeding. Then, there was a complaint for damages arising out of the foreclosure
proceedings. It was contended that there was splitting of causes of action resulting in
forum shopping. Is the contention correct? Why?
Yes, because of the filing of multiple cases based on the same cause of action
although with different prayers. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
proscribe the splitting of a single cause of action as they provide that a party may not
institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. 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.
Even if the two cases contain two separate remedies that are both available to
petitioners, these two remedies that arose from one wrongful act cannot be pursued in
two different cases. The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to prevent
repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to the same subject of
controversy, to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation; and to avoid the
costs and expenses incident to numerous suits. It comes from the old maxim nemo
debet bis vexari, pro una et eadem causa (no man shall be twice vexed for one and the
same cause).
300. Is the rule against splitting of causes of actions absolute? Why?
No, because if by their nature, the reliefs sought for are cognizable by different
tribunals, then there would be no splitting of causes of actions if they are filed in
different courts. A perfect example is the case of Shoemart, Inc. vs. CA, where it was
said that the unpaid telephone, electric and water bills cannot be recovered in an
ejectment suit but in another ordinary action.
301. Is it possible for a case of recognition and a claim for inheritance to be filed in
one proceeding? Explain.
Yes. In fact, in Tayag vs. CA, et al., 209 SCRA 665, 1992, it was said that an action
to compel recognition and a claim for inheritance may be joined in a single complaint.
The Supreme Court held: “The question whether a person in the position of the
present plaintiff can 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.”
302. Rule on Joinder of Causes of Action
Section 5, Rule 2 (Causes of Action):
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;
[73]
(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.
303. The petitioners and the respondents executed a Memorandum of Agreement in
which the former sold property to the latter and the vendees forthwith took possession
of the property located at Parañaque City. Later on, the petitioners, then residents of
Malolos, Bulacan, filed a Complaint against the respondents with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, for the annulment of the sale/MOA, recovery of
possession and damages due to respondents’ refusal to pay. Respondents averred that
the principal action of the petitioners for the rescission of the MOA, and the recovery
of the possession of the property is a real action and not a personal one; hence, it
should have been brought in the RTC of Parañaque City, where the property subject
matter of the action was located, and not in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, where the
petitioners resided. The respondents posited that the said court had no jurisdiction
over the property subject matter of the action because it was located in Parañaque
City. In opposition, the petitioners insisted that their action for damages and
attorney’s fees is a personal action and not a real action; hence, it may be filed in the
RTC of Bulacan where they reside. They averred that while their second cause of
action for the recovery of the possession of the property is a real action, the same
may, nevertheless, be joined with the rest of their causes of action for damages,
conformably with Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. By way of reply, the
respondents averred that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court applies only when
one or more of multiple causes of action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
first level courts, and the other or others are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC, and the venue lies therein. (a) Is Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court invoked
by the petitioners applicable in this case? (b) Where should the action be filed?
(a) Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court does not apply. A cause of action may
be single although the plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies. The mere fact that the
plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate that he has stated more than
one cause of action. The prayer may be an aid in interpreting the petition and in
determining whether or not more than one cause of action is pleaded. If the
allegations of the complaint show one primary right and one wrong, only one
cause of action is alleged even though other matters are incidentally involved, and
although different acts, methods, elements of injury, items of claims or theories of
recovery are set forth. Where two or more primary rights and wrongs appear, there
is a joinder of causes of action. The petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court a quo, had
only one cause of action against the respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA
upon the latter’s refusal to pay and turn over to the petitioners the possession of
the real property occupied by the respondents. The claim for damages for
reasonable compensation for the respondents’ use and occupation of the property,
in the interim, as well as moral and exemplary damages suffered by the petitioners
on account of the aforestated breach of contract of the respondents are merely
incidental to the main cause of action, and are not independent or separate causes
of action.
[74]
(b) The action of the petitioners for the rescission of the MOA on account of the
respondents’ breach thereof and the latter’s failure to return the premises subject
of the complaint to the petitioners, and the respondents’ eviction therefrom is a
real action. As such, the action should have been filed in the proper court where
the property is located, namely, in Parañaque City, conformably with Section 1,
Rule 4 of the Rules of Court which reads: SECTION 1. Venue of real actions. —
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall
be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Since the
petitioners, who were residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the
said RTC, venue was improperly laid.
304. Does a party still have a single cause of action if he seeks for a variety of
remedies? Explain.
Yes. A cause of action may be single although the plaintiff seeks a variety of
remedies. The mere fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate
that he has stated more than one cause of action. The prayer may be an aid in
interpreting the petition and in determining whether or nor not more than one cause of
action is pleaded. If the allegations of the complaint show one primary right and one
wrong, only one cause of action is alleged even though other matters are incidentally
involved, and although different acts, methods, elements of injury, items of claims or
theories of recovery are set forth. Where two or more primary rights and wrongs
appear, there is a joinder of causes of action. (Sps. Decena vs. Sps. Piquero, G.R. No.
155736, March 31, 2006).
305. May a plaintiff file a suit against a defendant and join in one suit several
causes of action? What will be the jurisdictional test?
Yes. The jurisdictional test is determined by the total demand of all the causes of
action irrespective of whether or not the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions. Hence, if the total demand is within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court, file it there; if it is within the MTC, then file it there.
306. Under what circumstances is the totality rule applicable if two or more
plaintiffs sue one defendant in a single complaint or one plaintiff sues several
defendants in a single complaint based on several causes of action?
The totality rule applies to cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes
of action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as well as to cases where a
plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more defendants joined in a
single complaint, provided that they arose out of the same transaction or series of
transactions and there should be common questions of law or fact.
307. What is a joinder of causes of action?
It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party may have against another in one
pleading alone (Sec. 5, 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…)
308. Tests involved in a joinder of causes of action:
In declaring whether more than once cause of action is alleged, the main thrust is
whether more than one primary right or subject of controversy is present. Others tests
are:
- Whether recovery on one ground would bar on the other;
- Whether more than one distinct primary right or subject of controversy is
alleged for enforcement or adjudication;
[75]
- Whether the same evidence would support the other different counts; or
- Whether separate actions could be maintained for separate relief.
309. The civil action to recover the penalty under Section 6(a) of the Truth in
Lending Act had been jointly instituted with (1) the action to declare the interests in
the promissory notes void, and (2) the action to declare the foreclosure void before the
RTC. It was opposed with the contention that it is the Metropolitan Trial Court which
has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act,
considering that the present action allegedly involved a single credit transaction as
there was only one Promissory Note Line. Can the foregoing actions be jointly
instituted before the RTC?
Yes. The joinder is allowed under Subsection (c) of Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of
Court on Joinder of Causes of Action which provides: (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.
310. Where all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, what is the test
of jurisdiction?
The aggregate amount claimed. Section 5(d) Rule 2 of the Rules of Court states that
“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.” This 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 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."
311. 1999 Bar: A secured two loans from B, one for P500,000.00 and the other for
P1,000,000.00, payable on different dates. Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to file
only one complaint against A for the recovery of both loans? Explain. (2%)
No. Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court states that 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 set forth therein. Hence,
the joinder is only permissive since the loans are separate loans which may be
governed by the different terms and conditions. The two loans give rise to two
separate causes of action and may be the basis of two separate complaints.
312. 2005 Bar: Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin are residents of
Batangas City. They are the co-owners of a parcel of residential land located in
Pasay City with an assessed value of P100,000.00. Perry borrowed P100,000.00
from Ricky which he promised to pay on or before December 1, 2004. However,
Perry failed to pay his loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin’s proposal to
partition the property. Ricky filed a complaint against Perry and Marvin in the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for the partition of the property. He also
incorporated in his complaint his action against Perry for the collection of the
latter’s P100,000.00 loan, plus interests and attorney’s fees. State with reasons
whether it was proper for Ricky to join his causes of action in his complaint for
partition against Perry and Marvin in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. (5%)
It was not proper for Ricky to join his causes of action against Perry in his complaint
for partition against Perry and Marvin. The causes of action may be between the same
parties, Ricky and Perry, with respect to the loan but not with respect to the partition
which includes Marvin. The joinder is between a partition and a sum of money, but
[76]
the partition is a special civil action under Rule 69, which cannot be joined. Also, the
causes of action pertains to different venues and jurisdictions. The case for a sum of
money pertains to the municipal court and cannot be filed in Pasay City because the
plaintiff is from Manila while Ricky and Marvin are from Batangas City (Sec.5, Rule
2).
313. 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 initiative of the court, be severed
and proceeded with separately.
314. Misjoinder of causes of action NOT a ground for dismissal
Misjoinder of the action for quieting of tile which is a special civil action under Rule
63 and an action for declaration of nullity in one suit is not a ground for the dismissal
of the case (Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando v. Soriano, GR Nos.
153829 and 160909, August 17, 2011)
315. What is the effect of a misjoinder of causes of action and parties?
The Court can order:
- 1.The severance of the misjoined cause of action, to be proceeded with
separately (in case of misjoinder of causes of action); and/or
- 2.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). (Republic v. Herbieto)
316. Is misjoinder of causes of action a ground for dismissal?
No. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on initiative of the
court, be severed and proceeded with separately (Sec. 6 Rule 2).
317. The complaint filed before the RTC states two causes of actions, one for rescission
of contract and other for the recovery of 100, 000.00 both of which arose out of the
same transaction. Is the joinder of the two causes of action proper?
Yes. Both are ordinary civil actions and thus, neither requires special rules. Since the
action for rescission falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC, the joinder may be made
in said court provided the venue lies therein (Sec. 5, Rule 2; 1996 Bar Question;
Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p.120, 2009 ed.)
318. Can there be a valid judgment in case of misjoined causes of action?
Yes. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts
have the power to order the severance of the misjoined cause of action to be
proceeded with separately. However, if there is no objection to the improper joinder
or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there exists no bar in the
simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes of action [Ada v.
Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, August 13, 2012]. The foregoing rules only applies if the
court has jurisdiction over all of the causes of action therein notwithstanding the
misjoinder of the same. If the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over a
misjoined cause of action, then such misjoined cause of action has to be severed from
the other causes of action, and if not so severed, any adjudication rendered by the
court with respect to the same would be anullity.
Rule 3 (Parties to Civil Actions)
319. Rule 3 Provisions
RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
[77]
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. – Only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term
“plaintiff” may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross claimant, or
the third (fourth, etc.)[-]party plaintiff. The term “defendant” may refer to the original
defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross defendant, or the third
(fourth, etc.)[-]party defendant.
Section 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted
or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Section 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in
interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own
name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining
the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
Section 4. Spouses as parties. – Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as
provided by law.
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. – A minor or a person alleged to be
incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if
he has none, a guardian ad litem.
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.
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. – Parties in interest without
whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs
or defendants.
Section 8. Necessary party. – A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who
ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. – Whenever in any pleading in
which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the
action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such
necessary party.
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. – If the consent of any party who should be joined as
plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
be stated in the complaint.
[78]
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 ofany party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and
on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately.
Section 12. Class suit. – When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or
general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and
representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his
individual interest.
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.
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. – Whenever the identity or name of
a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such
other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered,
the pleading must be amended accordingly.
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. – When two or more
persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they
may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said
entity must all be revealed.
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. – Whenever a party to a pending action dies,
and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name
and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply
with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without
requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and
be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so
named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing
party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator
for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. – When a public
officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies,
resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained
by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or
such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any
party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the
successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless
[79]
expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor
and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. – If a party becomes incompetent or
incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued
by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or
guardian ad litem.
Section 19. Transfer of interest. – In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be
continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with
the original party.
Section 20. Action on contractual money claims. – When the action is for recovery of
money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it
shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person.
Section 21. Indigent party. – A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or
defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees,
and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him.
The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from
paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent,
unless the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is
rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing that the party
declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper
docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If
payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the
payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. – In any action involving the validity of any
treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the
court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be
heard in person or through a representative duly designated by him.
320. Who may be parties
1. Natural persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
2. Juridical persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
a. The State and its political subdivisions
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or public
purpose, created by law, and
c. Corporations, partnerships, and associations for private interest or purpose to
which the law grants a judicial personality, separate and distinct from that of
each shareholder, partner, or member
d. [Art. 44, Civil Code]
Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
[80]
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or

purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been
constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or
purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct
from that of each shareholder, partner or member.
3. Entities authorized by law [Sec. 1, Rule3]
a. Section 20. Corporation by Estoppel. - All persons who assume to act as a
corporation knowing it to be without the authority to do so shall be liable as general
partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof:
Provided, however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any
transaction entered by its as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it
shall not be allowed to use on any its lack of corporate personality as a defense.
Anyone who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such cannot resist
performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation.
b. A partnership with capital of at least P3,000 which fails to comply with the
registration requirements is liable as a partnership to third persons [Arts. 1768, 1772,
Civil Code]
Art. 1768. The partnership has a judicial personality separate and distinct from
that of each of the partners, even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of
Article 1772, first paragraph.
Art. 1772. Every contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand
pesos or more, in money or property, shall appear in a public instrument, which must
be recorded in the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph shall not
affect the liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons.
c. The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality of
its own [Nazareno v. C.A., G.R. No. 138842 (2000), citing Limjoco v. Intestate Estate
of Fragrante, G.R. No. L-770 (1948)]
d. A legitimate labor union may sue and be sued in its registered name [Art.
251(e), Labor Code]
e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party; as to its properties, the
Archbishop of diocese to which they belong may be a party [Barlin v. Ramirez, G.R.
No. 2832 (1906); Versoza v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 32276 (1930)]
f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it
provided that the suits (i) occur within three (3) years after its dissolution, and (ii) the
suits are in connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs [Sec. 139, Revised
Corporation Code]
4. [Sec. 15, Rule 3] Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. – When
two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly
known.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said
entity must all be revealed.
321. Nature of Interest required in Real Party in Interest

The interest must be real, which is a present and substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest. [Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142 (2007)] It should be
[81]
material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest [Mayo Rhustom
Dagadag v. Tongnawa, G.R. No. 161166-67 (2005)]
322. Contracts containing stipulations pour atrui in relation to Real Party in Interest
Contracts containing stipulations pour atrui or stipulations expressly conferring
benefits to a non-party may sue under the contract provided such benefits have been
accepted by the beneficiary prior to its revocation by the contracting parties (Art.
1311, Civil Code). Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their
assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the
contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of
law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the
decedent.
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may

demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor
before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not
sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a
favor upon a third person.
323. Contracts entered into in fraud of creditors in relation to real party in interest.
Those who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in the contract, in which
they had no intervention, may show their detriment that could result from it. For
instance, Art. 1313, NCC, provides that “Creditors are protected in cases of
contracts intended to defraud them.” Further, Art. 1381, NCC, provides that
contracts entered into in fraud of creditors may be rescinded when the creditors
cannot in any manner collect the claims due them. Thus, a creditor who is not a
party to a contract can sue to rescind the contract to redress the fraud committed
upon him.
324. Why necessary to determine the real party in interest
General rule: Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest. Exception: Unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules. [Sec. 2,
Rule 3] If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party-in-interest,
the defendant must set out in his answer as an Affirmative Defense the ground that
the complaint “states no cause of action.” [Sec 12, Rule 8]
325. Remedy of the Plaintiff if the Real Party in Interest is not included
1. Amendment of pleadings. Jurisprudence dictates that when the error is purely
technical and such an amendment does not constitute, really a change in the identity
of the parties, amendment of the pleadings to change the name of real party in
interest is allowed.
326. When real party-in-interest bound despite not being formally impleaded
This Court has declared in Albert v. University Publishing Co., Inc., 14 SCRA 285
that "since the purpose of formally impleading a Party is to assure him a day in court,
once the protective mantle of due Process of law has in fact been accorded a litigant,
whatever the imperfection in form, the real litigant may be held liable as a party."
327. Indispensable Party
It is a real party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action (Sec. 7, Rule 3). An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject
matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other
parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
[Benedicto-Munoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121 (2015)] A party is not
indispensable if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and
[82]
divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced
by a judgment which does not complete justice to the parties in court.
328. Effect of absence of Indispensable Party
Without the presence of his party the judgment of a court cannot attain real finality
(De Castro vs. CA, 384 SCRA 607). The presence of indispensable parties is a
condition for the exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party is not
before the court, the action should be dismissed. The absence of indispensable party
renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act,
not only to the absent parties but even as to those present.
329. Effect of Failure to implead an indispensable party

Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal of an action,
as the remedy in such a case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable,
considering that the parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the
party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action. [Galido v. Magrare, G.R.
No. 206584 (2016)]
It is when the order of the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded
that the case may be dismissed. The court has authority to dismiss a complaint due
to the fault of the plaintiff when he does not comply with any order of the court
[Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519 (2009)]
330. Indispensable party vs. Necessary Party
Indispensable Party Necessary Party
Must be joined under any and all May be joined whenever possible
conditions
Presence is mandatory, he must be Presence is not mandatory because his
joined because the court cannot proceed interest is separable from that of the
without him indispensable party.
No final determination can be had of a Final decree can be had in a case even
case without his presence. without a necessary party.
331. Does Misjoinder of causes of action and parties involve a question of jurisdiction of
the court?
No. Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a question of
jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with the case.26 They are not even
accepted grounds for dismissal thereof.27 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).
332. Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to
dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly
annonated in the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant. (A) Should the complaint
be dismissed? (B) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded
as a party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his interest?
[83]
(A) The complaint should not be dismissed because the mere non-joinder of an
indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of the action (Section 11, Rule
3; Republic vs. Hon. Mangotara, GR No. 170375, 07/07/2010).
(B) If the case should proceed to trial without Greg being impleaded as a party, he
may intervene in the action (Section 1, Rule 19) of he had such knowledge of the
case during its proceeding. He may also file a petition for annulment of judgment
(Rule 47) if a judgment has been rendered therein.
Section 1. (Rule 19) Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with
leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider
whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be
fully protected in a separate proceeding.
RULE 47
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
Section 1. Coverage. – This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of
Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional
Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner. (n)
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.
In a suit to nullify an existing Torrens Certificate of Title (TCT) in which a real

estate mortgage is annotated, the mortgagee is an indispensable party. In such suit, a
decision cancelling the TCT and the mortgage annotation is subject to petition for
annulment of judgment, because the non-joinder of the mortgagee deprived the
court of jurisdiction to pass upon the controversy (Metrobank vs. Hon. Flora Alejo,
GR No. 141970, 09/10/2001). The absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actuations of the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not
only as to the absent parties but even as to those present."
333. If the case has been proceeded to trial without impleading an indispensable party, is
Petition for Relief from Judgment an available remedy?
No. Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, states: "Petition for relief from
judgment, order, or other proceedings.-When a judgment or final order is entered, or
any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and
in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside."
It must be emphasized that the indispensable party was never made a party to the
case. In a long line of cases, the Court repeatedly held that -- relative to a motion for
relief on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence -- Rule 38
of the Rules of Court "only applies when the one deprived of his right is a party to
the case." Since the indispensable party was never impleaded as party to the case or
[84]
even summoned to appear therein, then the remedy of relief from judgment under
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court was not proper.
334. Objections to defects in parties
Objections should be made at the earliest opportunity. Thus, objections to
misjoinder cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [Lapanday Agricultural &
Development Corporation v. Estita, G.R. No. 162109 (2005)]
335. Hearing in resolving the issue of Indigency
Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 21. Indigent party. – A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or
defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is
satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available
for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful
fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent
was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case
favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides. Any adverse party
may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by
the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as
an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper docket
and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If
payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the
payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
SEC. 18. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees.– Indigent litigants
(a) whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an amount
double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and (b) who do not own real
property with A FAIR MARKET VALUE AS STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX
DECLARATION of more than THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (₱300,000.00)
PESOS shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent litigant unless the court otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant shall execute an
affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income
abovementioned, and they do not own any real property with the fair value
aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the
truth of the litigant’s affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall be attached
to the litigant’s affidavit.
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient
cause to dismiss the complaint or action or to strike out the pleading of that party,
without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been incurred.
The two rules cited above can stand together and are compatible with each other, to
wit:
In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the two (2) rules can stand
together and are compatible with each other. When an application to litigate as an
indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits and supporting
documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant complies with
the income and property standards prescribed in the present Section 18 of Rule 141
[85]
—that is, the applicant’s gross income and that of the applicant’s immediate family
do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
the applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php400,000.00) within Metro Manila or Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) outside Metro Manila. If the trial court finds that
the applicant meets the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate
as indigent litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a matter of right.
However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met,
then it would set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has "no
money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
himself and his family." In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce
countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after
which the trial court will rule on the application depending on the evidence
adduced. In addition, Section 21 of Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may
later still contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered
by the trial court, possibly based on newly discovered evidence not obtained at the
time the application was heard. If the court determines after hearing, that the party
declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of
court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall
issue or the payment of prescribed fees shall be made, without prejudice to such
other sanctions as the court may impose.
336. 2002 Bar: P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC-Manila, the cause of action
against A being on an overdue promissory note for P300,000.00 and that against B
on an alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the purchase price of goods sold on credit.
Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? Explain. (3%)
Answer: No, the RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. A and B could not
be joined as defendants in one complaint because the right to relief against both
defendants do not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and
there is no common question of law or fact common to both (Sec. 6, Rule 3). Hence,
separate complaints will have to be filed and they would fall under the jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (Flores vs. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA 377
[1988]).
337. In 1984, Pantranco bus hit a jeepney resulting in damage to it amounting to P21,
415.00. When it was repaired, the owner paid the cost of repair and the insurance
company paid the amount of P8, 000.00. Then, they filed a complaint for sum of
money with the RTC Manila but the defendant filed an answer denying the
allegations in the complaint and contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction since
each cause of action of the plaintiffs did not arise out of the same transaction and
that there are no common questions of fact and law to both parties. Is the contention
correct? Why?
No, because there is a single transaction common to all, that is Pantranco bus hitting
the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether Pantranco and
its employee are negligent. There being a single transaction common to both,
consequently, they have the same cause of action against Pantranco and its
driver/employee. (Pantranco North Express, Inc., et al. vs. Standard Insurance Co.,
Inc., et al., G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005}
338. Is an Attorney-in-Fact of a Petitioner in a case a real party in interest in relation to
Section 2 and 3, Rule 3?
[86]
No. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court reads: Sec. 2. Parties in interest. – A
real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise
authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party in interest. Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that an
Attorney-in-Fact is not a real party in interest as he does not stand to be benefited or
injured by any judgment therein. He was merely appointed by the petitioners as an
attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of filing and prosecuting the complaint
against the respondents. Such appointment, however, does not mean that he is
subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought to be considered as a real party in
interest.
Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an
interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. A real party in
interest is the party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced.
Being merely a representative of the petitioners, an Attorney-in-Fact in his personal
capacity does not have the right to file the complaint below against the respondents.
He may only do so, as what he did, in behalf of the petitioners – the real parties in
interest. To stress, the right sought to be enforced in the case below belongs to the
petitioners and not to an Attorney-in-Fact. Clearly, an attorney-in-fact is not a real
party in interest.
Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that: Sec. 3. Representatives as

parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in
interest. A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor
or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to
the principal. Nowhere in the rule cited above is it stated or, at the very least
implied, that the representative is likewise deemed as the real party in interest. The
said rule simply states that, in actions which are allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative, the beneficiary shall be deemed the real party in
interest and, hence, should be included in the title of the case.
339. Requisites of Class Suit
An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the
pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class quit depends upon the attending facts,
and the complaint, or other pleading initiating the class action should allege the
existence of the necessary facts, to wit:
a. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons;
b. The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties;
c. The court finds a number of them sufficiently numerous and representative of the
class as to fully protect the interests of all concerned; and
d. The representative sues or defends for the benefit of all. [Sec. 12, Rule 3]
340. That the subject-matter of the controversy be of common or general interest to
numerous persons, explained
[87]
By the phrase "subject matter of the action" is meant "the physical facts, the things
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." It relates to
a common and general interest in single specific things and not to distinct ones.
Separate wrongs to separate persons, although committed by similar means and
even pursuant to a single plan, do not alone create a 'common' or 'general' interest in
those who are wronged so as to entitle them to maintain a representative action.
341. The complaint in the instant case explicitly declared that the plaintiffs- appellants
instituted the "present class suit under Section 12, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court in
behalf of CMI subscribing stockholders". Can this be considered as a class suit in
relation to the second element of the latter?
No. The complaint did not state the number of said CMI subscribing stockholders
so that the court might be enabled to determine whether the members of the class
are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, to
contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to
determine whether claimants on record adequately represent the class and the
subject matter of general or common interest.
342. Instances where class suit does not apply:
 A class suit did not lie in an action for recovery of real property where separate
portions of the same parcel were occupied and claimed individually by different
parties to the exclusion of each other, such that the different parties had determinable,
though undivided interests, in the property in question.
 A class suit would not lie against 319 defendants individually occupying different
portions of a big parcel of land, where each defendant had an interest only in the
particular portion he was occupying, which portion was completely different from the
other portions individually occupied by other defendants,
 In an action for the recovery of amounts that represented surcharges allegedly
collected by the city from some 30,000 customers of four movie houses, it was held
that a class suit did not lie, as no one plaintiff had any right to, or any share in the
amounts individually claimed by the others, as each of them was entitled, if at all,
only to the return of what he had personally paid.
 There is no class suit in an action filed by associations of sugar planters to recover
damages on behalf of individual planters for an allegedly libelous article in an
international magazine. There is no common or general interest in the reputation of a
specific individual. Each of the sugar planters has a separate and distinct reputation in
the community not shared by the others [Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 63559 (1986)]
 There is no class suit in an action for damages filed by the relatives of the fatalities in
a plane crash. There is no common or general interest in the injuries or death of all
passengers in the plane. Each has a distinct and separate interest which must be
proven individually.
343. Distinguish derivative suit from a class suit.
A derivative suit is a suit in equity that is filed by a minority shareholder in behalf
of a corporation to redress wrongs committed against it, for which the directors
refuse to sue, the real party in interest being the corporation itself (Lim vs. Lim-Yu,
352 SCRA 216 [2001]). A class suit is filed in behalf of several persons so
numerous that it is impracticable to join all parties.
344. Derivative suit, explained
[88]
A derivative suit is an action brought by a stockholder on behalf of the corporation

to enforce corporate rights against the corporation’s directors, officers or other
insiders. Under the Revised Corporation Code, the directors or officers, as provided
under the by-laws, have the right to decide whether or not a corporation should sue.
Since these directors or officers will never be willing to sue themselves, or impugn
their wrongful or fraudulent decisions, stockholders are permitted by law to bring an
action in the name of the corporation to hold these directors and officers
accountable. In derivative suits, the real party in interest is the corporation, while
the stockholder is a mere nominal party [Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 201675 (2013)]
345. Effect of death of party litigant

The death of the client extinguishes the attorney-client relationship and divests a
counsel of his authority to represent the client. Accordingly, a dead client has no
personality and cannot be represented by an attorney (Laviña vs. CA, 171 SCRA
691). Neither does he become the counsel of the heirs of the deceased unless his
services are engaged by said heirs (Lawas vs. CA, 146 SCRA 173).
346. Action of court upon notice of death
Upon receipt of notice, the court shall determine if the claim is extinguished by such
death.
a. Claim does not survive: substitution would not be ordered
b. Claim survives: the court shall order the legal representative of the deceased to
appear and be substituted for him within 30 days [Sec. 16, Rule 3]
347. Survival of Action
Survival depends on the nature of the action and the damage sought.
Actions that survive Actions that do not survive
The wrong complained of affects The injury complained of is personal to
primarily and principally property and the person
property rights
Injuries to the person are merely Property and property rights affected are
incidental [Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. incidental [Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No.
173292 (2010)] 173292 (2010)]
E.g. Actions to recover real and personal E.g. Action for support, annulment of
property from the estate; actions to marriage, legal separation
enforce a lien thereon; and actions to [1 Riano 291, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
recover damages for an injury to person
or property [Sec. 1, Rule 88; Aguas v.
Llemos, G.R
348. Alcantara initiated a civil case for Reformation of Instrument and Specific
Performance against spouses Maximo and Simplicia Aguilar (Spouses Aguilar),
their daughter, Melba A. Clavo de Comer and her husband, Dan Clavo de Comer
(Spouses de Comer). After Alcantara passed away, she was substituted by her heir,
Cardenas, who filed an Amended Complaint. Before the filing of the Amended
Complaint, the counsel for the Spouses Aguilar also manifested that Maximo V.
Aguilar likewise passed away by filing a Notice of Death with the trial court and
serving a copy thereof on the opposing party. It was stated in the said notice that
Maximo V. Aguilar is survived by his spouse, Simplicia P. Aguilar and his
daughter, Melba A. Clavo de Comer and that both were already impleaded as
[89]
original defendants in the complaint. No notice of death was filed after the demise
of Simplicia P. Aguilar. The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiff.
Defendants filed a Motion for Execution of the RTC Decision which was
surprisingly opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the original defendants (the
Spouses Aguilar were already dead and no proper substitution of the parties was
effected by the counsel as mandated by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure. Decide on the Motion.
The Motion should be granted. The purpose behind the rule on substitution is the
protection of the right of every party to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased
party would continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly
appointed legal representative of his estate. Non-compliance with the rule on
substitution would render the proceedings and the judgment of the trial court infirm
because the court acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal
representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial and the judgment would be binding.
In the case at bar, no right to procedural due process was violated when the counsel
for the respondents failed to notify the court of the fact of death of Simplicia P.
Aguilar and even if no formal substitution of parties was effected after the such
death. As can be gleaned above, the rationale behind the rule on substitution is to
apprise the heir or the substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of the
court in lieu of the deceased party by operation of law. The said purpose was not
defeated even if no proper substitution of party was made because Melba A. Clavo
de Comer, the heir of the deceased Simplicia P. Aguilar, was already impleaded by
petitioner as a party-defendant to the case when the latter filed his Amended
Complaint. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that ruled that a formal
substitution of the heirs in place of the deceased is no longer necessary if the heirs
continued to appear and participated in the proceedings of the case.
349. 1999 Bar: What is the effect of the death of a party upon a pending action? (2%)
When the claim in a pending action is purely personal, the death of either of the
parties extinguishes the claims and the action is dismissed. When the claim is not
purely personal and is not thereby extinguished, the party should be substituted by
his heirs or his executor or administrator (Sec. 16, Rule 3). If the action is for
recovery of money arising from contract express or implied, and the defendant dies
before entry of judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of
such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be
enforced in the manner provided in the rules of prosecuting claims against the estate
of a deceased person (Sec. 20, Rule 3).
350. 2000 Bar: PJ engaged the services of Atty. ST to represent him in a civil case filed
by OP against him which was docketed as Civil Case No. 123. A retainership
agreement was executed between PJ and Atty. ST whereby PJ promised to pay Atty.
ST a retainer sum of P24,000.00 a year and to transfer ownership of a parcel of land
to Atty. ST after presentation of PJ’s evidence. PJ did not comply with his
undertaking. Atty. ST filed a case against PJ which was docketed as Civil Case No.
456. During the trial of Civil Case No. 456, PJ died. Is the death of PJ a valid
ground to dismiss the money claim of Atty. ST in Civil Case No. 456? Explain.
(2%)
351. No. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3, when an action is for the recovery of money arising
from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment in the court in which the action is pending at the time of such death, it
[90]
shall not be dismissed but it shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of the
final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in
the manner specifically provided in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the
estate of deceased person.
Rule 4 (Venue)
352. Provisions under Rule 4
RULE 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
Section 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or
interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over
the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Forcible entry
and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the
municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. – All other actions may be commenced and tried where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. – If any of the defendants does not reside
and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff,
or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced
and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any
portion thereof is situated or found.
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. – This Rule shall not apply- (a) In those cases where a
specific rule or law provides otherwise; or (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
353. Venue, def.
Venue is the place or the geographical area where an action is to be filed and tried.
In civil cases, it relates only to the place of the suit and not to the jurisdiction of the
court (Manila Railroad Company vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523). In civil cases,
it is a procedural matter and not jurisdictional, as compared to criminal cases, where
the venue is jurisdictional.
354. On dismissal based on improper venue
Improper venue is no longer one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the
Amended Rules. However, the ground of the venue being improperly laid is one of
those that may be set as an Affirmative Defense in the answer. The failure to raise
the affirmative defense in the answer will constitute a waiver of such. [Sec 12, Rule
8]
However, the court may make a motu proprio dismissal for improper venue, inter
alia, in actions covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure [Sec. 4], Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims cases [Sec. 11], and in ejectment cases. [Sec. 5, Rule
70]
Section 12. Affirmative defenses. – (a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative
defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under
Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:
[91]
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid; 3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall
constitute a waiver thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty
(30) calendar days from the filing of the answer.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of Section 5(b),
Rule 6, the court may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days
from the filing of the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the
court within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing.
(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits.
Section 5 (Rule 6). Defenses. – Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in
the pleading of the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while
hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant,
would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses
include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds,
estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint,
specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by a prior judgment.
Sec. 4 (Rules on Summary Procedure). Duty of court. — After the court

determines that 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.
Section 11. Dismissal of the Claim. - After the court determines that the case falls
under these Rules, it may, from an examination of the allegations of the Statement
of Claim/s and such evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on
any of the grounds for the dismissal of the case. The order of dismissal shall state if
it is with or without prejudice.
If, during the hearing, the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for
dismissal of the Statement of Claim/s, the court may, by itself, dismiss the case even
if such ground is not pleaded in the defendant's Response. Xxx
Section 5 (Rule 70). Action on complaint. – The court may, from an examination of
the allegations in the complaint and such evidence as may be attached thereto,
dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action
[92]
which are apparent therein. If no ground for dismissal is found, it shall forthwith
issue summons.
355. Petitioners, who were then residing in Los Angeles, California, United States of
America (USA), executed their respective Special Powers of Attorney in favor of
Atty. Aceron, who resides in Quezon City, for the purpose of filing an action in
court against the respondents who were then residing in Bacolod City. Atty. Aceron,
in behalf of the petitioners, filed a Complaint for collection of sum of money with
the RTC of Quezon City against the respondents. Was the venue of the action
properly laid?
The petitioners’ complaint should have been filed in the RTC of Bacolod City, the
court of the place where the respondents reside, and not in RTC of Quezon City.
The petitioners’ complaint for collection of sum of money against the respondents is
a personal action as it primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give
the plaintiff the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the
place (1) where he himself or any of them resides, or (2) where the defendant or any
of the defendants resides or may be found. The plaintiff or the defendant must be
residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the action is
commenced. However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the
complaint in such case may only be filed in the court of the place where the
defendant resides. In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that there
can be no election as to the venue of the filing of a complaint when the plaintiff has
no residence in the Philippines. In such case, the complaint may only be filed in the
court of the place where the defendant resides. It is a well-entrenched doctrine that
to construe the express requirement of residence under the rules on venue as
applicable to the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff would abrogate the meaning of a
"real party in interest", as defined in Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court
vis-à-vis Section 3 of the same Rule.
356. Real Action vs. Personal Action, explained.
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff
seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real
action is an action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession,
or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property.
(Paderanga vs. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475, September 28, 1993)
An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate, which means that
the realty or an interest therein is the subject matter of the action. The issues
involved in real actions are title to, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of
mortgage or condemnation of real property.
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 any of the following issues: title to, ownership,
possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or condemnation of real property.
357. Examples of Personal Actions:
Action for collection for sum of money
Action to recover possession of a personal property
Action for a declaration of the nullity of marriage
Action for annulment of marriage
Action for damages
[93]
An action for specific performance is a personal action as long as it does not involve
a claim of or recovery of ownership of real property. Where the allegations as well
as the prayer of the complaint do not claim ownership of the lots in question or ask
for possession of the same 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. However,
where a complaint is denominated as one for specific performance but nonetheless
prays for the issuance of a deed of sale 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.
Where an award of a house and lot to the plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled, an
action that seeks to annul the cancellation of the award over the said house and lot is
a personal action. The action does not involve title to, ownership or possession of
real property. The nature of the action is one to compel the recognition of the
validity of the previous award by seeking a declaration that the cancellation is null
and void.
Action to compel the mortgagee to accept payment of the mortgage debt and to
release the mortgage is a personal action. (Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of Lucena,
G.R. No. L-29791 January 10, 1978)
Action to annul a contract of loan with an action to annul a real estate mortgage
(Chua vs. TOPROS, G.R. No. 152808, September 30, 2005)
Action to annul a foreclosure sale whether judicial or extrajudicial
358. Examples of Real Actions:
Ejectment
Accion publiciana
Accion reinvindicatoria
Where the action to annul or rescind a sale of real property has as its fundamental
and prime objective the recovery of real property, the action is real.
Action to foreclose a real estate mortgage is a real action
Action for the recovery of possession of the leased premises and for the payment of
accrued rentals is a real action
Action for partition
Action for condemnation of real property
Action for Reconveyance of parcels of land
Action for nullification of the mortgage documents and foreclosure of the
mortgaged property
An action for Annulment of Sale and Titles resulting from the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgaged real properties, is classified as a real action.
An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an
action to annul a private sale of real property, hence a real action.
The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of
real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and
nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action.
359. Definition of residence in relation to Venue of Civil Actions
The term “resides” as employed in the rule means the place of abode, whether
permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or defendant, as distinguished from
“domicile” which denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one
has the intention of returning. [Dangwa Transportation Company v. Sarmiento, G.R.
No. L-22795 (1977)]
[94]
The residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual
residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or
domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency [Boleyley v.
Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734 (1999)]
360. Venue where a party is a corporation
A corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in a place other than its
principal place of business unless such place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or
defendant. [Davao Light v. CA, G.R. No. 111685 (2001)]
361. Venue of Actions Against Non- Residents
Non-resident found in the Philippines
a. Personal action: where the nonresident defendant may be found, as authorized by
Sec. 2, Rule 4, but with an additional alternative venue, i.e., the residence of any of
the principal plaintiffs, pursuant to Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 4. [1 Regalado 121, 2010Ed.]
b. Real action: 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]
Non-resident not found in the Philippines, and the action affects:
a. Personal status of plaintiff – where plaintiff resides, or
b. Property of defendant in the Philippines – where the property, or any portion
thereof, is situated or found [Sec. 3, Rule 4]
362. When the Rules on Venue Do Not Apply
a. Cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; examples:
1. Quo warranto proceeding commenced by the Solicitor General, [Sec. 7,
Rule 66] The action may be brought in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila.
2. Petition for a continuing writ of mandamus, and [Sec. 2, Rule 8, Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases] 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.
3. Civil and criminal action for damages in written defamation. [Art. 360,
RPC] first published or where any of the offended parties reside. In case that the
offended party is a public officer, the proper venuewould be either where he holds
office at the time of the commission of the crime, or the place where the libelous
article is first published [Art. 360, RPC]
b. Parties have validly agreed in writing beforethe filing of an action on the
exclusive venue thereof. [Sec. 4, Rule 4]
363. Stipulations on Venue
The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is (a) in writing, (b)
made before the filing of the action, and (3) exclusive as to the venue (Sec. 4[b],
Rule 4).
Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rules on
venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the action,
have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere stipulation on the
venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case
in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive.
In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed
as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the
specified place.
[95]
The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is that while they are considered
valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede
the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words.
They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but rather permissive.
If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying
language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions
between them be litigated only at the place named by them.
364. Interpreting stipulations on venue
In interpreting stipulations as to venue, there is a need to inquire as to whether the
agreement is restrictive or not. If the stipulation is restrictive, the suit may be filed
only in the place agreed upon by the parties. It must be reiterated and made clear
that under Rule 4, the general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the
parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive
venue. The mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to
preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to
show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive
words (e.g. “only/solely/exclusively in such court”), the stipulation should be
deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the
specified place (Spouses Lantin vs. Lantin, GR 160053, 08/28/2006). This
exclusivity must be couched in words of exclusivity (Schonfield doctrine).
365. Venue Stipulation in an Assailed Contract
In cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not
its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be binding on the parties, and thus, the
complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue. Conversely, therefore, a complaint
directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue
stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue.
Rule 6 (Kinds of Pleadings)

366. Provisions under Rule 6
RULE 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Section 1. Pleadings defined. – Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims
and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (1)
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. – The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint,
counterclaim, crossclaim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him
or her. An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party attaches an
actionable document to the answer.
Section 3. Complaint. – The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming
party’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
must be stated in the complaint.
Section 4. Answer. – An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her
defenses.
Section 5. Defenses. – Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent
or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations,
[96]
release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in

bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically,
that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
Section 6. Counterclaim. – A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party.
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. – A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction
or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not
require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the
amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional Trial
Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A
compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by
these Rules.
Section 8. Cross-claim. – A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising
out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of
a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim. Section
9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. – A counterclaim may be asserted against
an original counter-claimant. A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-
claimant.
Section 10. Reply. – All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the
plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims
shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a
reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer. A
reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or
avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document. In the event of
an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is
based solely on an actionable document. (10a)
Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. – A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a
claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the
action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation
or any other relief, in respect of his or her opponent’s claim. The third (fourth, etc.)-party
complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the defendant to institute a
separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be
located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous
to the issue in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and
separate controversy into the action.
Section 12. Bringing new parties. – When the presence of parties other than those to the
original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
jurisdiction over them can be obtained.
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. – A third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant may allege in his or her answer his or her defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims,
including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff may have against the
original plaintiff’s claim. In proper cases, he [or she] may also assert a counterclaim against
the original plaintiff in respect of the latter’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.
367. Pleadings vs. Motion

As to Pleadings Motions
Purpose Purpose is to submit a claim or Application for relief other
[97]
defense for appropriate than by a pleading [Sec. 1,

judgment [Sec. 1, Rule 6] Rule 15]
Relief Sought Judgment, which by its Other reliefs that are not
character finally disposes included in a judgment
of the case
368. Negative Pregnant, def.

A denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the
averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of
negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of
some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission
of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with
qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or
modified are literally denied, has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone
are denied while the fact itself is admitted.
369. Additional Affirmative Defenses under Amended Rules on Civil Procedure,
explained
- Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint,
specifically:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the samencause
(lis pendens), or
3. That the action is barred by a prior judgment. [Sec. 5 (b), Rule 6]
Note: The foregoing three (3) grounds need not be included in the answer due to the
use of the word “may”. Also note that these grounds for dismissal (in addition to
statute of limitations) may still be raised at any time since they are not waivable.
[Sec. 1, Rule 9 in relation to Sec. 12 (a), Rule 15]
Section 1 (Rule 9 - Effect of Failure to Plead). Defenses and objections not pleaded.
– Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence
on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall
dismiss the claim.
Section 12 (Rule 15 – Motions). Prohibited motions. – The following motions shall
not be allowed:
(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:
1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
370. Counterclaim, explained
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing
party (Sec. 6, Rule 6). It is in itself a claim or cause of action interposed in an
answer. It is either compulsory or permissive.
371. 1999 Bar: Distinguish a counterclaim from a cross-claim. (2%)
[98]
Answer: A counterclaim is distinguished from a cross-claim in that a cross-clam is

any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein. A counterclaim is against a co-party (Sec. 6, Rule 6).
372. g
373. g
374. g
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
General Matters
375. Elements of criminal jurisdiction

376. territorial jurisdiction,
377. jurisdiction over the subject matter, and
378. jurisdiction over the person of the accused
379. How is jurisdiction in criminal cases determined?
380. It is determined
by the allegations of the complaint or information in accordance with the law in force
at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of its commission, taking
into consideration the geographical area over which a court presides, and the fact that
[99]
the crime was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place with the said
area. It is also determined by the penalty provided by law for the offense.
381. How is jurisdiction over the accused acquired?
382. It is acquired by
the voluntary appearance or surrender of the accused or by his arrest. (Choc vs. Vera,
64 Phil. 1066)
383.
Prosecution of Civil Action
When civil action may proceed independently
384. Independent Civil Action, def.
385. An independent civil action may be brought in the cases provided by:
- (1) Article 32 of the Civil Code (Violation of Constitutional rights by a public
officer or employee, or a private individual)
- (2) Article 33 (defamation, fraud, or physical injuries)
- (3) Article 34 (refusal or failure to render aid or protection by a member of the
police force); and
- (4) Article 2176 (quasi-delict)
386. G
387. G
388. G
389. G
390. G
391. G
392. G
393. Non-payment of docket fee for permissive counterclaims
394. 2008 Bar: Fe filed a suit for collection of P387,000 against Ramon in the RTC
of Davao City. Aside from alleging payment as a defense, Ramon in his answer set up
counterclaims for P100,000 as damages and P30,000 as attorney’s fees as a result of
the baseless filing of the complaint, as well as for P250,000 as the balance of the
purchase price of the 30 units of air conditioners he sold to Fe.
Does the RTC have jurisdiction over Ramon’s counterclaims, and if so, does he have
to pay docket fees therefor? (3%)
Yes, applying the totality rule which sums up the total amount of claims of the parties,
the RTC has jurisdiction over the counter-claims. Unlike in the case of compulsory
counterclaims, a defendant who raises a permissive counterclaim must first pay
docket fees before the court can validly acquire jurisdiction. One compelling test of
compulsoriness is the logical relation between the claim alleged in the complaint and
that in the counterclaim. Ramon does not have to pay docket fees for his compulsory
counterclaims. Ramon is liable for docket fees only on his permissive counterclaim
for the balance of the purchase price of 30 units of air conditioners in the sum of
P250,000, as neither arises out of nor is it connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting Fe’s claim (Sec. 19[8] and 33[1], BP 129; AO 04-94
implementing RA 7691, 03/25/1994; Alday vs. FGU Insurance Corp., GR No.
138822, 01/23/2001; Bayer Phil., Inc. vs. CA, GR No. 109269, 09/15/2000).
395.
[100]

2023 Question and Answers in Civil Procedure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Question and Answers in Civil Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Question and Answers in Remedial Law

Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability

21. Case example of exception to Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction / Continuity of

o Petitions for Writ of Amparo

34. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

-Petitions for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data

There must be an allegation of the intimate relationship or connection between the

- (d)Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (sequestration cases) or

(c) Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or

x. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority

The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the

117. Aspects of Jurisdiction

The court’s jurisdiction over a party-defendant resulting from his voluntary

- Agreement of the Parties

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs. Doctrine of Primary Administrative

148. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies vs. Doctrine of Primary

149. Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the

Effect of Estoppel on Objection to Jurisdiction

Jurisprudence dictates that determinative of the court’s jurisdiction in this type of

Jurisdiction over the Issues

- 2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the

annulled. The defendant is said to be residing in Los Angeles, California, U. S. A. He

Error of Jurisdiction Error of Judgment

Distinguish Jurisdiction and Venue

Jurisdiction over Small Claims

days from receipt of summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified

- Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information

- Simple Seduction (Art. 338); - Incriminating Innocent Persons (Art.

No, a corporation cannot be impleaded as a party to a barangay conciliation

resort to barangay arbitration is not necessary, the possibility of settlement at this

enforcement of the settlement should be instituted in the proper municipal or city

244. In what case is the ROC not applicable?

a local action (Rule 4, sec 1)

257. Action in Rem vs. In Personam vs. Quasi In Rem

the defendant therein

259. Is an action in personam necessarily a personal action?

267. State the nature of an action for reconveyance.

273. Elements of Right of Action:

276. Failure to State a Cause of Action, explained.

279. Test of the Sufficiency of a Cause of Action

basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. It must be

290. 2005 Bar: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X

298. How to determine the identity of cause of action.

(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or

321. Nature of Interest required in Real Party in Interest

If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may

329. Effect of Failure to implead an indispensable party

In a suit to nullify an existing Torrens Certificate of Title (TCT) in which a real

Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that: Sec. 3. Representatives as

A derivative suit is an action brought by a stockholder on behalf of the corporation

345. Effect of death of party litigant

Section 5 (Rule 6). Defenses. – Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

Sec. 4 (Rules on Summary Procedure). Duty of court. — After the court

Rule 6 (Kinds of Pleadings)

release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in

367. Pleadings vs. Motion

defense for appropriate than by a pleading [Sec. 1,

368. Negative Pregnant, def.

Answer: A counterclaim is distinguished from a cross-claim in that a cross-clam is

375. Elements of criminal jurisdiction

You might also like