JURISDICTION CASES subject matter.
Any decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the
CASE NO.1 – CITY OF LAPU- LAPU
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
- the PEZA filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional
Trial Court (“RTC”), Pasay City, praying that the trial court
declare it exempt from the payment of real property tax.
-
WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT
- Regional Trial Court (“RTC”), Pasay City
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT
INVOLVED DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- the City argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the
PEZA’s petition for declaratory relief.
- NATURE OF COMPLAINT
RULING ON WHETHER TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION
– WHY OR WHY NOT
No, the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred
by law, which may either be the Constitution or a statute. Jurisdiction over the
subject matter means the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought.
Thus, the cause of action and character of the relief sought as alleged in the
complaint are examined to determine whether a court had jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action is void.
In the present case, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action for declaratory
relief.
An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual
breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. It may be
entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract
to which it refers.
In the instant case, the City had already issued demand letters and real property
tax assessment against the PEZA. The Special Economic Zone Act of 1995, the
subject matter of PEZA’s petition for declaratory relief, had already been
breached.
Hence, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory relief.
CASE NO.2 BERNABE – NAVIDA
- a number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas state
courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries, including the
Philippines. The thousands of plaintiffs sought damages for injuries
they allegedly sustained from their exposure to
dibromochloropropane (“DBCP”),
- a total of 336 plaintiffs (“Navida et. al.”) from General Santos City
filed a Joint Complaint against defendant corporations in the
Regional Trial Court (“RTC”), General Santos City. In the
complaint, Navida et. al. prayed for the payment of damages for the
illnesses and injuries to the reproductive systems which they
allegedly suffered because of their exposure to DBCP.

WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT
- RTC, General Santos, Davao City
- The cases were eventually transferred to, and consolidated in, the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division. The defendant corporations in the consolidated cases
prayed for the dismissal of all the actions under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens. –( DISCRETIONARY POWER THAT
ALLOWS COURTS TO DISMISS A CASE WHERE
ANOTHER COURT IS MUCH BETTER SUITED TO HEAR
THE CASE )
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT INVOLVED
DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- NO JURIS”: The RTC, General Santos City also declared that the
product liability tort alleged by Navida et. al. in their complaint is a
tort category that is not recognized in Philippine laws.
- Further, the RTC, General Santos City ruled that the act of Navida
et. al. of filing the case in the Philippine courts violated the rules on
forum shopping and litis pendencia.
- .”) from Davao City. The RTC, Davao City likewise junked the
complaint stating that the Philippines is an inconvenient forum.
WITH JURISDICTION:
- Yes, the RTC, General Santos City and RTC, Davao City have
jurisdiction over the respective cases.
- Here the claim for damages is the main cause of action and that the
total amount sought in the complaints is approximately ₱2.7 million
for each of the plaintiff claimants. The amount is properly within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
- Further, the allegations in the complaints constitute the cause of
action of plaintiff claimants – a quasi-delict under the Civil Code.
RULING ON WHETHER TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION –
WHY OR WHY NOT
In personal civil actions, such as claims for payment of damages, the Rules of
Court allow the action to be commenced and tried in the appropriate court,
where any of the plaintiffs or defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
First, plaintiff claimants are all residents of the Philippines, either in General
Santos City or in Davao City. Second, the specific areas where they were
allegedly exposed to the chemical DBCP are within the territorial jurisdiction
of the courts a quo. Third, the testimonial and documentary evidence from
important witnesses, such as doctors, co-workers, family members and other
members of the community, would be easier to gather in the Philippines.
Considering these factors, the RTC, General Santos City and the RTC, Davao
City are the convenient fora for trying these cases.
The orders of RTC, General Santos City and RTC, Davao City are reversed
and set aside. The cases are remanded to the respective RTCs of origin for
further proceedings.

CASE NO. 3 – DARMA – MASLAG
NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
- Darmag Maslag filed an action for nullity of OCT against Elizabeth
Monzon in the MTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. To which the court
found Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT.
WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT
- MTC – RTC - CA
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT
INVOLVED DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- Monzon appealed to the RTC and upon going to the record, the court
decided that the MTC has no jurisdiction, it held further that it will
take cognizance to the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the
Rules of Court, and asked both parties to submit additional evidence
to be tried therein. Both parties, however, did not submit additional
evidence.
-
- The CA dismissed Maslag's appeal as it found that the proper
remedy is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, and not a ordinary
appeal. Maslag filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
subsequently denied.
Yes. There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on
issues of the fact of law. The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in
cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. The second mode is a
petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its
appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions.
As discussed above, the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case; hence, there is no other way the RTC could have
taken cognizance of the case and review the court a quo's Judgment except in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Only statutes can confer jurisdiction.
Court issuances cannot seize or appropriate jurisdiction.
. Since BP 129 already apportioned the jurisdiction of the MTC and the RTC in
cases involving title to property, neither the courts nor the petitioner could alter
or disregard the same. Besides, in determining the proper mode of appeal from
an RTC Decision or Resolution, the determinative factor is the type of
jurisdiction actually exercised by the RTC in rendering its Decision or
Resolution.
CASE NO. 4 BPI – EDUARDO
NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
- ”) filed a petition for suspension of payments and rehabilitation
before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT
- filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela City, a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of real
properties mortgaged.
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT
INVOLVED DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- City, Branch 60 (trial court) to enforce the Agreement
- As a rule, actions for injunction and damages lie within the
jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the “Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980,”
- -
- R.A. No. 8799, which took effect on August 8, 2000, transferred to
the appropriate regional trial courts the SEC’s jurisdiction over those
cases enumerated in Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A. Section 5.2 of R.A.
No. 8799 provides:
-
- SEC. 5.2 The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated
under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby
transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the
exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court
branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving
intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should
be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally
disposed. (Emphasis supplied.)
CASE NO. 5 HERALD
NATURE OF COMPLAINT/ WHERE
- petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court of Makati
-
- Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint for, among others,
lack of jurisdiction because of the Illinois court’s retention of
jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree.
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT
INVOLVED DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time petitioner
filed his suit in the trial court,
statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. An
action for specific performance, such as petitioner’s suit to enforce
the Agreement on joint child custody, belongs to this species of
actions
RULING ON WHETHER TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION
– WHY OR WHY NOT
 - The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s suit but not to
enforce the Agreement which is void. However, factual and equity
considerations militate against the dismissal of petitioner’s suit and
call for the remand of the case to settle the question of Stephanie’s
custody.
Regional Trial Courts Vested With Jurisdiction to Enforce Contracts
- Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time petitioner
filed his suit in the trial court, statutory law vests on Regional Trial
Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of
pecuniary estimation. An action for specific performance, such as
petitioner’s suit to enforce the Agreement on joint child custody,
belongs to this species of actions. Thus, jurisdiction-wise, petitioner
went to the right court.
- Indeed, the trial court’s refusal to entertain petitioner’s suit was
grounded not on its lack of power to do so but on its thinking that the
Illinois court’s divorce decree stripped it of jurisdiction. This
conclusion is unfounded. What the Illinois court retained was
"jurisdiction x x x for the purpose of enforcing all and sundry the
various provisions of [its] Judgment for Dissolution."11 Petitioner’s
suit seeks the enforcement not of the "various provisions" of the
divorce decree but of the post-divorce Agreement on joint child
custody. Thus, the action lies beyond the zone of the Illinois court’s
so-called "retained jurisdiction."
CASE NO. 6 Far East Bank v. Shemberg
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
- Shemberg filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunction,
Damages, Annulment of Promissory Notes, Documents, and
Contracts against Far East Bank.
- The complaint alleges that prior to 1998, Shemberg (respondents)
obtained credit accommodations from Far East Bank (petitioner.)
- Shemberg filed with the RTC a petition for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TRO)- granted
- Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
67270, contending that the trial court acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
following: (1) Order dated March 9, 2001 granting respondents’
prayer for a TRO; (2) Order dated March 27, 2001 ordering the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; (3) Order also dated
March 27, 2001 denying its motion to dismiss; and (4) Order dated
August 16, 2001 denying its motion for reconsideration of the Order
denying its motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of the
Order granting respondents’ application for a preliminary
injunction.- Dismissed
WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT
- filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Mandaue City
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT
INVOLVED DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- Far East Bank (petitioner) contends that in real actions, the assessed
value of the property or if there is none, the estimated value thereof,
 must be alleged in the complaint, and shall serve as the basis for
computing the fees. Nowhere in the complaint in Civil Case No.
MAN-4045 did respondents allege the assessed values of their
realties. Hence, there is no adequate basis for computing the proper
filing fees. It necessarily follows that the fees paid are deficient. The
trial court, therefore, did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
RULING ON WHETHER TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION
– WHY OR WHY NOT
- The appellate court held that as the trial court has jurisdiction over
the case, its orders or decisions upon all questions therein, cannot be
corrected by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
- A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of
the prescribed fees. The importance of filing fees cannot be gainsaid
for these are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling
of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and
fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours
used in the handling of each case. Hence, the non-payment or
insufficient payment of docket fees can entail tremendous losses to
the government in general and to the judiciary in particular.
NOTE:
Is an action for cancellation of mortgage incapable of pecuniary
estimation? Under Section 19 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 180, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691, Regional Trial Courts have
sole, exclusive, and original jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide "all
civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation."
CASE NO. 7 Air Transportation Office v. Court of Appeal
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
- the ATO filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Miaque
- Miaque questioned the RTC Decision in the Court of Appeals by
filing a petition for review, The RTC, in its Decision6 dated June 7,
2003, affirmed the MTCC Decision in its entirety.
WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT
- in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City, Branch
3
- The MTCC subsequently rendered a Decision finding [Miaque] to be
unlawfully detaining the following premises and orders [him], his
men and privies to:
a. vacate the 800[-]square meter Refreshment Parlor fronting the
New Terminal Building-Iloilo Airport. [Miaque] is further ordered to
pay [the ATO] the rental and concessionaire privilege fee[s]
accruing from November 1986 to October 2000, totaling
₱460,060.70, plus differential billings from January 1990 to July
1993 for ₱4,652.60 and interest charges from January 2000 to
October 2000 for ₱2,678.38 or a total amount of ₱467,397.68 as of
October 2000, less the payments made by [Miaque] under Official
Receipt No. 4317842 dated December 1998, and the monthly current
lease/concession privilege fee from November 2000 until [Miaque]
shall have vacated the premises;
 (b) vacate the 310[-]square meter Restaurant/Gift Shop inside the
Iloilo Terminal Building which was reduced to a total of 183 square
meters in 1998 (51.56 square meters inside the pre-departure area
and 126.72 square meters outside the pre-departure area). [Miaque]
is also ordered to pay [the ATO] rentals/concessionaire’s privilege
fee[s] from January 16, 1992 to October 15, 2000 in the total amount
of ₱719,708.43 and from October 16, 2000, to pay the current
monthly lease/concessionaire privilege fees until [Miaque] shall
have vacated the premises; and
(c) vacate the area occupied or used by [Miaque] incident to his
operation of the Porterage Service within the Iloilo Airport.
[Miaque] is further ordered to pay Tender Offer Fee due from March
1992 to October 2000 in the total amount of ₱108,997.07. [Miaque]
is further ordered to pay the current monthly concession privilege fee
from October 2000 until such time that [Miaque] shall have vacated
the premises.
- Resolution dated May 30, 2006 issuing a writ of preliminary
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT INVOLVED
DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- The ATO claims that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
TRO and the subsequent writ of preliminary injunction.
- According to the ATO, the Court of Appeals ignored the
government’s right under the law, Rules of Court, jurisprudence
and equity to the possession as well as to the payment of rental
and concession privilege fees which, at the time of the filing of
this petition, already amounted to ₱2 Million. Such right had
already been decided with finality by this Court, which affirmed the
Decision dated April 29, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 79439, but the Court of Appeals has repeatedly thwarted it.
The RTC acted properly and pursuant to Section 21, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court when it issued the writs of execution. Moreover, the
ATO asserts that a TRO cannot restrain an accomplished fact, as the
RTC’s writ of execution dated June 1, 2005 had already been
partially implemented.
- Miaque argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss a
petition still pending with the Court of Appeals. According to
Miaque, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited only to the
determination of whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely
abused its discretion in issuing a TRO and, subsequently, a
preliminary injunction. In this connection, Miaque insists that the
Court of Appeals acted well within its jurisdiction in the issuance of
both the Order dated March 29, 2006 granting a TRO and the
injunction
RULING ON WHETHER TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION –
WHY OR WHY NOT
- The RTC was validly exercising its jurisdiction pursuant to Section
21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court when it issued the writs of
execution dated August 16, 2004 and June 2, 2005. While the Court
of Appeals enjoined the execution of the RTC’s judgment during the
pendency of the case, the RTC revived the writs of execution dated
August 16, 2004 and June 1, 2005 in its Order dated March 20,
2006, after the Court of Appeals denied Miaque’s motion for
 reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition. Indeed, the said writs ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT INVOLVED
of execution need not even be revived because they continue in DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced
- Spouses Manzo (respondents) filed a petition for annulment of the
by motion,that is within five years from entry of judgment, pursuant
RTC decision in the CA.
to Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 6
- Respondents assailed the RTC for ordering them to sell their
of the same Rule.
property to petitioners arguing that said court’s appellate
- There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary to
jurisdiction in ejectment cases is limited to the determination of
the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, or (2) executed
who is entitled to the physical possession of real property and the
whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or
only judgment it can render in favor of the defendant is to
personal bias. In this case, the Court of Appeals issued the
recover his costs, which judgment is conclusive only on the issue
Resolution dated May 30, 2006 granting Miaque’s prayer for a writ
of possession and does not affect the ownership of the land. They
of preliminary injunction contrary to Section 21, Rule 70 and other
contended that the sale of real property by one party to another may
relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as well as this Court’s
be ordered by the RTC only in a case for specific performance
pronouncements in Teresa T. Gonzales La’O & Co., Inc. and Nisce.
falling under its original exclusive jurisdiction, not in the exercise of
Thus, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion
its appellate jurisdiction in an ejectment case. Respondents also
when it issued the Resolution dated May 30, 2006
alleged that the petition for annulment is the only remedy available
to them because the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
CASE NO. 8 Spouses Manila v. Spouses Manzo
through no fault on their part.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
RULING ON WHETHER TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION –
- an action for ejectment  filed by the respondents, spouses Ederlinda
3
WHY OR WHY NOT
Gallardo-Manzo and Daniel Manzo, against the petitioners, spouses
- In this case, the RTC acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding
Ramon and Eulogia Manila
the appeal of respondents when, instead of simply dismissing the
WHERE COMPLAINT WAS FILED/ WHICH COURT complaint and awarding any counterclaim for costs due to the
defendants (petitioners), it ordered the respondents-lessors to execute
- the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 79,
a deed of absolute sale in favor of the petitioners-lessees, on the
the MeTC rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiffs
basis of its own interpretation of the Contract of Lease which
granted petitioners the option to buy the leased premises within a
certain period (two years from date of execution) and for a fixed
price (₱150,000.00).23 This cannot be done in an ejectment case
where the only issue for resolution is who between the parties is
entitled to the physical possession of the property.
CASE NO. 9 LHUILLER V BRITISH AIRWAYS
NATURE OF COMPLAINT/WHERE
- Plaintiff ay bring action for damages (Jurisdiction over subject matter
governed by WARSAW DOCTRINE)
- Allegations of tortious conduct committed against an airline passenger during
the course of the international carriage do not bring the case outside the ambit
of the Warsaw Convention.
- RTC of Makati has no jurisdiction

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTY ON WHY THE COURT INVOLVED DID

NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
- RTC of Makati correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case
filed by the petitioner.
- respondent is a British corporation domiciled in London, United Kingdom with
London as its principal place of business
- Hence, under the first and second jurisdictional rules, the petitioner may bring
her case before the courts of London in the United Kingdom. In the passenger
ticket and baggage check presented by both the petitioner and respondent, it
appears that the ticket was issued in Rome, Italy.
- Allegations of tortious conduct committed against an airline passenger during
the course of the international carriage do not bring the case outside the ambit
of the Warsaw Convention.