1
RULES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
JURISDICTION
( 2024 EDITION )
the power to hear and decide cases. In order for court to have authority to
dispose of a case, it must have acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties
EQUITY OF JURISDICTION:
Situation where the court is called upon to decide a particular situation and
release the parties from their correlative obligations but if it would result in
adverse consequences to the parties and the public, then court would go beyond
its powers to avoid negative consequences in the release of the parties.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a
controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an
administrative body of special competence. (See also Sta. Ana v. Carpo, GR
No. 164340, 2008)
Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact. (Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783,
2005)
The practice is to refer specialized disputes to administrative agencies of
specialized competence
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
General Rule: If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to
decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should
be exhausted first before resort to the courts.
Exception: when the proceeding before the administrative agency is merely
investigative, as opposed to adjudicative. (Republic v. Transunion Corp, G.R.
No. 191590, 2014)
Effect of Failure to Observe Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does
not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a
long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it
will deprive the complainant of a cause of action (i.e., failure to comply with a
condition precedent), which is an affirmative defense.
If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court
can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 112708-09, 1996)
The law‘s intendment was to grant jurisdiction over the enforcement of
settlement/arbitration awards to the city or municipal courts the regardless of
the amount. (Sebastian v. Lagmay, G.R. No. 164594, 2015)
JURISDICTION VS VENUE
Venue:
The place where the case is to be heard or tried (e.g., Regional Trial Court of
Makati City or Quezon City)
A matter of procedural law
Establishes a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
respondent
May be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties
The venue, being improperly laid, is not a ground for a motion to dismiss, but
can be raised as an affirmative defense. (Sec. 12, Rule 8).
May be waived only in civil cases. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.
Jurisdiction
The authority to hear and determine a case
A matter of substantive law
Establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter
Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is both a ground for a motion to
dismiss and an affirmative defense. (Sec. 5 (b), Rule 6; Sec. 12, Rule 15)
Cannot be waived.
Q: What do you understand about the ―precautionary principle‖ under the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases? but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or
diminish that threat. In its essence, the precautionary principle calls for the exercise of
caution in the face of risk and uncertainty. (Sec. 4[f], Rule 1, Part 1, and Rule 20,
A.M. NO. 09-6-8-SC)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Q: Distinguish the following: Writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus
(2019 Bar)
A: A Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people‘s organization, non-governmental organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces. Whereas, in Continuing Mandamus, when any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust,
station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule
or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of such right and there Is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting
evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rile or
regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do
an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of
the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain a
sworn a certification of non-forum shopping. (Sec. 1, Part III, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-
8-SC)
Q: The officers of ―Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc.‖ engaged your services to file
an action against ABC Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining operations in
Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC‘s
toxic mine tailings were accidentellay released from its storage dams and were
discharged into the rivers of said town. The mine tailings found their way to Calancan
Bay allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the crops
and loss of earnings were estimated at P1 Billion. Damage to the environment is
estimated at P1 Billion. As a lawyer for the organization, you are requested to explain
the advantages derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan before the the Supreme
Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC of Marinduque or vice versa.
What action will you recommend? Explain. (2016, 2018 Bar)
A: As a lawyer for the organization, I would recommend the filing of a petition for
issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan. The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a
natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people‘sorganization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered
with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhanbitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Sec. 1, Rule 7,
A.M. No. 09-6-8- SC) Further, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is more
advantageous compared to a complaint for damages before the RTC because it may be
filed directly with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of
Appeals. Unlike a complaint for damages before the RTC which only be filed by a
real partyin-interest as defined in Rule 3(2) of the Ruels of Court, the rule on locus
standi is relaxed in peitions for Writ of Kalikasan which allows the petition to be filed
by parties as citizen suit. Besides, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is exempted from
the payment of docket fees. From the foregoing, it is clear that filing a petition for
Writ of Kalikasan would be the best remedy to address all the environmental
problems caused by the release of the toxic waste to the waters of Romblon and
Quezon without the burden of paying docket fees. After all, the filing of a petition for
the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil,
criminal, or administrative actions; thus, the organization can later file a complaint for
damages with the Regional Trial Court, should they desire to do so.
uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. In its essence, the
precautionary principle calls for the exercise of caution in the face of risk and
uncertainty. (Sec. 4[f], Rule 1, Part 1, and Rule 20, A.M. NO. 09-6-8-SC)
(b) What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2016 Bar)
A: A writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued when any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law, rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching
thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental
law, rule or regulation and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to
pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of malicious neglect to perform the
duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also
contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. (Sec. 1, Part III, Rule 8, A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC)

1.JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which
the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the
contract under dispute. (Spouses Ley v. Union Bank of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 167961, Apr. 3, 2007).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution
or the law. It cannot be contingent upon the action or inaction of the court.
(Republic v. Bantigue, G.R. No. 162322, 2012)
4BLUE95.Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law, and not by a
procedural law
CONSEQUENCES OF JURISDICTION BEING CONFERRED BY LAW
Since jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law:
1. It does not depend on the regularity of its exercise by a court or tribunal.
(Salvador v. Patricia, Inc. G.R. No. 195834, Nov. 9, 2016);
2. It cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or
omission of the parties. (Department of Agrarian Reform v. Republic, G.R.
No. 160560, Jul. 29, 2005);
3. It cannot be conferred by acquiescence of the courts. (Knights of Rizal v.
DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, Apr. 25, 2017);
4. It cannot be conferred by administrative policy of the court. (Cudia v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110315, Jan. 16, 1998)
5. It cannot be presumed or implied, but it must appear clearly from the law
or it will not be held to exist, but it may be conferred on a court or tribunal
by necessary implication as well as by express terms. (Salvador v. Patricia,
Inc. G.R. No. 195834, Nov. 9, 2016);
Exceptions:
1. Estoppel by laches (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 1968);
2. Estoppel by deed or estoppel in pais (Soliven v. Fastforms, G.R. No. 139031,
2004)
Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter of the Action
Any judgment, order or resolution issued without jurisdiction is void and
cannot be given any effect. This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction
was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment. (Magno v.
People, G.R. No. 171542, 2011)
4BLUE95.parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of
the parties or by estoppels
How Jurisdiction is Determined
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint and the character of the relief sought. (Heirs of Alfredo Bautista v.
Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, 2014)
DETERMINING JURISDICTION FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE COMPLAINT
It is not the title of the pleading but its allegations that must control.
The defenses in the answer are deemed irrelevant and immaterial in its
determination
it does not lose that jurisdiction just because the defendant makes a contrary
allegation in his motion or answer or because the court believes that the
plaintiff‘s claims are ridiculous and therefore, untrue.
Exception: In an ejectment case filed with the MTC, where it has been
determined that tenancy is the real issue
DETERMINING JURISDICTION FROM THE PRIMARY RELIEF OR
ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPLAINT
1. A complaint was filed for reconveyance of real property with
declaration of nullity of original certificate of title, alleging that the title
had been obtained by fraud. In determining jurisdiction, the Court found
that the primary relief was to recover real property. The case did not
involve a subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Maslag v.
Monzon, G.R. No. 174908, Jun. 17, 2013);
2. A complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction of the court is determined
by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.
His cause of action being one for specific performance, it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and cognizable by the RTC. (Heirs of Bautista v.
Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, 2014).
Note: If the objective of the action to recover property, title or interest therein –
the action is based on the assessed value of the property
2
DETERMINING JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS FOR PERSONAL
ACTIONS
In personal actions, the jurisdictional amount refers to the value of the personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand involved in the civil action or
proceedings. (Cabrera v. Francisco, G.R. No. 172293)
The jurisdictional amount does not include:
1. Interest;
2. Damages of whatever kind;
3. Attorney‘s fees;
4. Litigation expenses; and
5. Costs.
Nevertheless, the above items are included in determining filing fees. (Sec.
33(1), B.P. 129, as amended by RA No, 7691)
The exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind in determining the
jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129,
as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely
incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases
where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of
action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court. (Sante v. Claravall, G.R. No. 173915, 2010).
TOTALITY RULE
Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the jurisdictional amount of
the demands 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. (B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 33[1]; Pantranco North Express v. Standard
Insurance, G.R. No. 140746, 2005).
The totality rule presupposes that the various claims of the same or different
parties are allowed to be embodied in the same complaint or that the different
causes of action which are joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiffs or
against the same defendants and that no misjoinder of the parties are involved.
Determining Jurisdictional Amounts for Real Actions
The basis for jurisdiction in real actions is the assessed value of the real
property involved as alleged in the complaint. (Salvador v. Patricia, Inc. G.R.
No. 195834, Nov. 9, 2016)
General Rule: If the assessed value is not alleged in the complaint, the
action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Exception: The non-inclusion of the assessed value is not fatal if attached to the
complaint is a tax declaration showing the assessed value of the property.
Annexes to the complaint have been held to be part of, and should be
considered together with the complaint in determining the jurisdiction of the
court
OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a
motion to dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer. Failure to raise
such objection shall NOT to be deemed as a waiver. (Sec. 1, Rule 9) Similarly,
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may also be raised as an affirmative
defense. (Sec. 5, Rule 6)
Thus, the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at ANY stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
When the court dismisses the complaint based on such ground, it cannot refer
or forward the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction. This is
because jurisdiction over the subject is a ―matter of law‖ and ―may not be
conferred by consent or agreement of the parties.‖
EFFECTS OF ESTOPPEL ON OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
While jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, a party may still be barred from raising it on the ground of
estoppel or laches
Thus, where the respondent did not vigorously question the jurisdiction of the
court and instead actively participated for ten years, a motion to dismiss based
on lack of jurisdiction would render the effort, time and expenses of the parties
for naught

2.JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
An ISSUE is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action
have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are
desirous of obtaining a decision.
General Rule: It is conferred and determined by the pleadings of the
parties that present the issues to be tried and determined whether or not
the issues are of fact or of law. (Id.)
Exceptions:
It may be conferred:
1. By stipulation of the parties, as when in the pretrial, the parties enter
into stipulations of facts and documents or enter into an agreement
simplifying the issues of the case. (Sec. 2 (b), Rule 18);
2. By express or implied consent of the parties, when issues not raised by
the pleadings are tried, such issues shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings. (Sec. 5, Rule 10)
Effect of No Issue in a Case
It is proper for the court to render judgment on the pleadings if the answer fails
to tender an issue, except in actions for declaration of nullity of annulment of
marriage or legal separation
3.JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR PROPERTY IN LITIGATION
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or
property which is the subject of the action. (RIANO, 2019, p. 95)
Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation is acquired either by:
1. Actual or constructive seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into the custody of the law; or
2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective (Biaco v. Philippine
Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, 2007).
If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over the res, although
summons must be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the
requirements of due process (Gomez v. CA, G.R. No. 127692, 2004)
In cases where jurisdiction over the person of a defendant cannot be acquired,
the preliminary seizure is to be considered necessary in order to confer
jurisdiction upon the court. In this case the lien on the property is acquired by
the seizure; and the purpose of the proceedings is to subject the property to that
lien. (El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, Mar. 26, 1918)
In this instance, the action is converted from one in personam to one in rem
JURISDICTION OVER THE REMEDIES
Post-judgment remedies, such as an appeal, is neither a natural right nor is a
component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law
ERROR OF JURISDICTION: Occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction
not conferred upon it by law or when a court or tribunal acts in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion ( correctible by certiorari)
ERROR OF JUDGMENT: Occurs when a court or tribunal clothed with
jurisdiction commits mistakes in the appreciation of the facts and evidence
leading to an erroneous judgment (correctible by appeal)
3
4.JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint, petition,
or other initiatory pleading. (Davao Light & Power v. CA, G.R. No. 93262,
1991)
Effect of Unauthorized Complaint
An unauthorized complaint (i.e., one which is filed by a person not authorized
by the plaintiff) does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should
dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the
complaint and the plaintiff. (Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219,
2012)
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by:
1. A valid service of summons upon him; or
2. His voluntary submission to the court‘s authority. (Macaset v. Co, G.R. No.
156759, Jun. 5, 2013)
As an exception, a motion to dismiss raising the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is not deemed voluntary appearance. Under
the 2019 Amendments, if a movant raises other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, this shall be deemed as voluntary
appearance. (Sec. 23, Rule 14).
When Jurisdiction Over Defendant is Required
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in
personam. It is not required in an action in rem or quasi in rem.
(TOTALITY RULE)
Q: 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
Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for
P500,000.00. Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on
joinder of causes of action? (2015 Bar)
A: Yes. The 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 sum 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.
4BLUE 95 NOTE: R.A. No. 11576 was enacted in 2021 increasing the
jurisdiction of the RTCs in all actions and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand or claims exceeds P2,000,000.
Q: At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while crossexamining 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 amount 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. Should the court dismiss the
case? (2015 Bar)
A: 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 v. Hon. Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr., G.R. No.
125078, May 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 v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20,
2013)

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court
or any government offices is allowed.
There must have been confrontation between the parties before the lupon
chairman or pangkat and a showing that there was no settlement reached or that
it was repudiated by the parties before a complaint, petition, action or
proceeding may be filed or instituted in court or in a government office for
adjudication
A case filed in court without compliance with prior barangay conciliation,
which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication, may be dismissed upon
motion of defendant/s on the ground of failure to comply with a condition
precedent
Non-compliance with the said condition precedent could affect the sufficiency
of the plaintiff‘s cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal
on ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity; but the same would not
prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power of
adjudication over the case before it, where the defendants failed to object to
such exercise of jurisdiction
Agreement to Arbitrate:
The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing to have the
matter in dispute decided by arbitration by the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat
Venue.
(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 complainant.
(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.
(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.
CONCILIATION.
Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court.
No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the
authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other
government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation
between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no
conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary
or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless
the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.
WHEN MAY PARTIES GO DIRECTLY TO THE COURT:
1. Accused is under detention
2. Where a Person has otherwise deprive of personal liberty calling
for habeas corpus proceeding
3. Actions coupled with PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
4. Actions barred by Statute of Limitations
5. Conciliation among Members of Indigenous Cultural
Communities
4
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-9330 enumerated the cases
which are not covered by the mandatory barangay conciliation, to wit:
1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality
thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities,
since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1 , Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);
5. 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;
6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment
exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from
being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or
detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law);
b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on
acting in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations
(Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as
amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and
mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the
Department of Labor and Employment);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly
in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).
Subject to the above exemptions, a party's failure to comply with the
requirement of prior barangay conciliation before filing a case in court would
render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with a
condition precedent

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE
Petitions for the issuance of writs of CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION &
MANDAMUS against: 1. Court of Appeals. 2. Commission on Elections. 3.
Commission on Audit. 4. Sandiganbayan. 5. Court of Tax Appeals.
2. ORIGINAL AND CONCURRENT
(CA)
1. Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against: a. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); b.
Civil Service Commission (CSC); c. Quasi-Judicial Agencies; d. RTC
and lower courts.
2. Petitions for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
NOTE: This is subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
(CA, SB, RTC)
1. Petition for writ of amparo;
2. Petition for writ of habeas data.
NOTE: For a petition for a writ of habeas data, the action may be filed
with the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of
government offices.
(CA, RTC )
1. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto;
2. Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts or bodies;
3. Petitions for the issuance of writ of continuing mandamus in
environmental cases
(RTC)
Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.
NOTE: Under R.A. 10660, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in criminal
cases involving ―officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher
3. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Appeal by Notice of Appeal)
In criminal cases where:
1. The CA renders a judgment imposing reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment,
or a lesser penalty, the judgment is appealable to the Supreme Court by
notice of appeal filed with the CA. (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124, as amended;
Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, Jul. 1, 2015).
2. The Sandiganbayan decides a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction;
the notice of appeal shall be filed with the Sandiganbayan and served
upon the adverse party. (Sec. 1(a), Rule XI, 2018 Revised Internal Rules
of the Sandiganbayan).
(Appeal by Certiorari/ Petition forReview on Certiorari R.45)
In civil cases involving:
1. Appeals from the Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, involving pure questions of law
2. Appeals from the following, involving questions of law, fact, or both: a.
Court of Appeals; b. Court of Tax Appeals, en banc; and c.
Sandiganbayan (Sec. 1(a), Rule XI, 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the
Sandiganbayan)
3. Appeals in the following cases involving questions of law, fact, or both:
a. Petition for a writ of amparo (Sec. 19, The Rule on the Writ of
Amparo);
b. Petition for a writ of kalikasan (Sec. 16, The Rules of Procedure in
Environmental Cases
c. Petition for a writ of habeas data.
In criminal cases where:
1. The Court of Appeals renders a judgment imposing reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment, or a lesser penalty, and the appeal raises
pure questions of law. (Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, Jul. 1,
2015);
2. The Sandiganbayan decides a case in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, involving pure questions of law, fact or both.
(Special Civil Action of Certiorari within 30 days, R.64)
Decision, order or ruling of: 1. Commission on Elections &
Commission on Audit.
(Appeal by Automatic Review)
In criminal cases:
1. Whenever the CA finds that the penalty of death should be imposed, the CA
shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and
forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for
review. (Sec. 13(a), Rule 124, as amended);
2. Where the judgment of the CA also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses
committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that
gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed,
and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the case certified for
review to the Supreme Court. (Sec. 13(b), Rule 124, as amended);
3. Whenever the Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
imposes the death penalty, the records of the case, together with the
stenographic notes, shall be forwarded to the SC for automatic review and
judgment.
5
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
1. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
a. Exclusive jurisdiction – over actions for annulment of judgment
of RTC (on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction)
b. Concurrent jurisdiction – to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or
processes
4blue 95:This jurisdiction with concurrent with RTC and SC, as
such, even if you can file it with SC, still that is not possible since
you have to file it with CA due to the hierarchy of courts.
2. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal or Record on Appeal)
Appeals from:
1. RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, except in all cases
where only questions of law are raised or involved, which are appealable
to the SC by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule
45;
2. RTC on constitutional and jurisdictional questions which involve
questions of fact; 3. Family Courts. In criminal cases when: 1. RTC
decides a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; and 2. RTC
imposes penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or where
lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the
more serious offense for which death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed, appeal shall be by notice of appeal to the CA
(Appeal by Petition for Review)
An appeal may be taken to the CA whether the appeal involves
questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of law,
in the following cases:
Regular
1.Appeals from RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Special
1. Appeals from CSC; 2. Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Agencies; 3.
Securities and Exchange Commission; 4. Office of the President; 5.
Land Registration Authority; 6. Social Security Commission; 7. Civil
and Aeronautics Board; 8. Intellectual Property Office; 9. National
Electrification Administration; 10. Energy Regulatory Commission; 11.
National Telecommunications Commission; 12. Department of Agrarian
Reform under RA 6657; 13. Government Service Insurance System; 14.
Employees‘ Compensation Commission; 15. Insurance Commission; 16.
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission; 17. Board of Investments; 18.
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission; 19. Voluntary
Arbitrators authorized by law; 20. Ombudsman, in administrative
disciplinary cases;and NCIP
From the judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA, the
aggrieved party may appeal by certiorari to the SC as provided in Rule
45. Judgments and final orders of the CTA en banc are now appealable
to the SC through a petition for review under Rule 45, pursuant to RA
9282.
(Appeal by Automatic Review)
If RTC imposes death penalty, no notice of appeal is necessary; CA will
automatically review the judgment.

Supreme Court
Q: Distinguish Questions of Law from Questions of Fact. (2004 Bar) A:
A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law
is on a certain set of facts, while a question of fact is when doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. (Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Co. of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22533, February 9, 1967)
Q: Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al Pakino, filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for specific performance against
Robert White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, Robert White filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of the appropriate
board resolution from the Board of Directors of Good feather Corporation to
show the authority of Al Pakino to represent the corporation and file the
complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss and,
accordingly it ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion
for reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing more could be done by
Al Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals
(CA). Robert White moved for dismissal of the appeal in the ground that the
same involved purely a question of law and should have been filed with the
Supreme Court (SC). However, Al Pakino claimed that the appeal involved
mixed questions of fact and law because there must be a factual determination
if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file
the complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (2014 Bar)
A: Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal involved mixed questions of
fact and law. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as
to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a
question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood
of the alleged facts. (Mirant Philippines Corporation v. Sario, G.R. No. 197598,
November 21, 2012) Since the complaint was dismissed due to the alleged lack
of appropriate board resolution from the Board of Directors of Goodfeather
Corporation, the appeal will necessarily involve a factual determination of the
authority to file the Complaint for the said Corporation. Hence, the appeal
before the Court of Appeals is correct.
Court of Appeals
Q: Give at least three instances where the Court of Appeals may act as a trial
court. (2008 Bar)
A: a. In annulment of judgment under Secs. 5 and 6, Rule 47. Should the Court
of Appeals find prima facie merit in the petition, the same shall be given due
course and summons shall be served on the respondent, after which trial will
follow, where the procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed;
b. When a motion for new trial is granted by the Court of Appeals, the
procedure in the new trial shall be the same as that granted by a Regional Trial
Court (Sec. 4, Rule 53);
c. A petition for habeas corpus shall be set for hearing (Sec. 12, Rule 102);
d. In a petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data, a hearing can be
conducted;
e. Under Section 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court of
Appeals has the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues cases which fall
within its original and appellate jurisdiction;
f. The Court of Appeals can grant a new trial based on the ground of newly
discovered evidence (Sec. 14, Rule 124);
g. The Court of Appeals, under Section 6, Rule 46, whenever necessary to
resolve factual issues, may conduct hearing thereon or delegate the reception of
the evidence of such issues to any of its members or to an appropriate agency
or office.
Q: Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the Decisions in
criminal and administrative cases of the Ombudsman? (2006 Bar) A: Yes, but
only in administrative cases. In administrative and disciplinary cases, appeals
from the Ombudsman must be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
Conversely, the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. (Lanting v. Ombudsman, G.R.
No. 141426, May 6, 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16,
1998; Sec. 14, RA 6770) Court of Tax Appeals Q: Mark filed with the Bureau
of Internal Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes paid, but it was not acted
upon. So, he filed a similar complaint with the Court of Tax Appeals raffled to
one of its Divisions. Mark‘s complaint was dismissed. Thus, he filed with the
Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Does the Court of
Appeals have jurisdiction over Mark‘s petition? (2006 Bar)
A: No. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11 of R.A. 9282, which provides that
decisions of a division of the Court of Tax Appeals must be appealed to the
Court of Tax Appeals en banc. Further, the CTA now has the same rank as the
Court of Appeals and is no longer considered as a quasi-judicial agency. It is
likewise provided in the said law that the decisions of the CTA en banc are
congnizable by the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
6
Sandiganbayan
Q: The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite preliminary investigation,
found probable cause to charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a
private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended). Before the information
could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an ambush.
This, notwithstanding, an information was filed against Gov. Matigas and
Carpintero. At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero, through counsel, filed a Motion
to Quash the information, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, arguing that with the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public
officer charged in the information. Is the Motion to Quash legally tenable?
(2014 Bar)
A: No. While it is true that by reason of the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no
longer any public officer with whom he can be charge for violation of R.A.
3019, it does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between
them can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already
expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of Gov. Matigas is his
criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the
basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and Carpintero. The requirement
before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019, among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in
conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such
person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer.
Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators in an indictment
for conspiracy. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) Regional
Trial Courts
Q: Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific
performance praying for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of their
contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled to
an RTC designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered
judgment adverse to Era, who, upon realizing that the trial court was not a
regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition to have the
judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you give to Era?
Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)
A: The advice I would give to Era is that the petition for annulment of
judgment on lack of jurisdiction will not prosper. It has been held that a special
commercial court is still a court of general jurisdiction and can hear and try a
non-commercial case. (Concorde Condominium Inc. v. Baculio, Gr. 203678,
February 17, 2016) Hence, the special commercial court has jurisdiction to try
and decide the action for specific performance and to render a judgment
therein.
Q: Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with
Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio
City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage,
solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the
wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up
his business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that
Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to
the United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the
Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent
jurisdiction against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina,
whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City. (2015 Bar)
a. As Hades' lawyer, what petition should you file in order that your client
can avoid prosecution for bigamy if he desires to marry Hestia? A: As
Hade‘s lawyer, I would file a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage
under Rule 108 with prayer for recognition of foreign divorce judgment.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a foreign
divorce decree must first be recognized before it can be given effect. The
Supreme Court stated that the recognition may be prayed for in the
petition for cancellation of the marriage entry under Rule 108. (Corpuz v.
Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010)
b. In what court should you file the petition? A: I would file the petition in
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, where the corresponding civil
registry is located. (Sec 1, Rule 108)
c. What is the essential requisite that you must comply with for the
purpose of establishing jurisdictional facts before the court can hear the
petition?
A: For the Rule 108 petition, the jurisdictional facts are the following:
a. Joinder of the local civil registrar and all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected by petition.
b. Notice of the order of hearing to the persons named in the
petition.
c. Publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.

JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
1. CIVIL CASES – EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
1. Civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
2. Civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, REAL property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
P20K, or P50K if in Metro Manila, except actions forcible entry and unlawful
detainer which are cognizable by the MeTC, MTC, MCTC;
3. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds P300K, or P400K if in Metro Manila;
4. Matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds P300K, or P400K if in Metro Manila;
5. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, as RTC being a court of
general jurisdiction;
6. Actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations in areas
where there are no established Family Courts;
7. Civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts as now provided by law;
8. 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 P300K, or P400K if in Metro Manila.
4blue95: If the claim for damages is the main cause of action, the amount
thereof shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
2.CRIMINAL CASES – EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN
Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or
body, such as the following:
1. Penalty provided by law exceeds 6 years imprisonment, irrespective of fine.
2. Under no. 1 above not falling under the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan where none of the principal accused are occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade ―27‖ or higher, or military and PNP officers
occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent;
3. Those officers falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but the
related information:
a. Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery;or
b. Alleges damages damage to the government or bribery arising from the
same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding
P1,000,000
NOTE: Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases
falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court shall be tried in the
judicial region other than where the official holds office.
4. Only penalty provided by law is a fine exceeding P4K.
5. Violations of the:
a. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
b. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (specifically,
those involving violence against women and children as defined under Section
5).
c. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
d. Omnibus Election Code and other election laws. (FERIA, 2013, p.193-194)
N.B.: Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases
where one or more of the accused is below 18 years old, or when one or more
of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense.
However, if the victim has already died, such as in homicide cases, the regular
courts can have jurisdiction..
OTHER CASES:
1. Actions for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or for
vacation, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any
application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision.
2. Actions for determination of just compensation to land under the CARL.
1. CONCURRENT(MEANING: IT IS SHARED W/ OTHERS) ..PLS VIEW
SC AND CA
(With the Insurance Commissioner) Claims not exceeding P100K. This is applicable
if subject of the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation; otherwise, jurisdiction is
concurrent with the MeTC.
2. APPELLATE JURISDICTION – ALL CASES DECIDED BY THE INFERIOR
COURTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS
3. SPECIALJURISDICTION
THE SC MAY DESIGNATE CERTAIN BRANCHES OF THE RTC TO HANDLE
EXCLUSIVELY CRIMINAL CASES, JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CASES, AGRARIAN CASES, URBAN LAND REFORM CASES WHICH DO NOT
FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND
AGENCIES, AND/OR SUCH OTHER SPECIAL CASES AS THE SC MAY
DETERMINE IN THE INTEREST OF A SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
BAR:Daniel is charged with attempted homicide. After trial, he is convicted of slight
physical injuries ,the court finding that the alleged intent to kill had not been proved.
1.on appeal, may the RTC convict Daniel of attempted homicide?
2.of frustrated murder?
1.YES, RTC may reverse,affirm or modify the penalty imposed by the trial court(Rule
124 sec11). An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this
includes the penalty, which may be increased.
2.NO, since the Frustrated Murder, a graver offense than attempted homicide, may
not have been included in the offense charged in the information (rule 120, sec4)
4. FAMILY COURT
4BLUE 95 notes: A branch of the RTC cannot enjoin another branch of same court
since they are co-equal and cannot restrain one another. As such, RTC also cannot
possess jurisdiction to restrain SEC since they are co-equal bodies , only the Supreme
Court can restrain SEC.
7
JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT
ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is 15≤x<18 years old, or
where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the
offense: provided, that if the minor is foundguilty, the court shall promulgate
sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused mayhave incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant
tothe Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603).
2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to
the latter.
3. Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof.
4. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and
those relating to marital
status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under
different status andagreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal
partnership or gains
5. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment.
6. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of the Family
Code of the Philippines(E.O No. 209).
7. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or
neglected children;petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of
children; the suspension, termination, orrestoration of parental authority and
other cases cognizable under the Child and Youth Welfare Code(PD 603),
Authorizing the Ministry of Social Services and Development to Take
Protective Custodyof Child Prostitutes and Sexually Exploited Children, and for
Other Purposes (E.O. 56), and otherrelated laws.
8. Petitions for constitution of the family home.
9. Cases against minors cognizable under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2005.
10.Violations of Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act(RA 7610), as amended by RA 7658 and
RA 9231.
11.Cases of domestic violence against:
1. Women – which are acts of gender-based violence that results, or are
likely to result in physical,sexual or psychological harm or suffering to
women; and other forms of physical abuse such asbattering or threats and
coercion which violate a woman‘s personhood, integrity and freedom
ofmovement; and
2. Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation,violence, and discrimination and all other conditions
prejudicial to their development.
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be
subject to criminal proceedingsand the corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an
incident in any case pending in theregular courts, said incident shall be
determined in that court.:
Q: How should the records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or RTC
designated by the Supreme Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt
with? Under what conditions may the identity of parties in child and family cases be
divulged? (2001 Bar)
A: The records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or Regional Trial
Courts designated by the Supreme Court to handle Family Court cases shall be dealt
with utmost confidentiality and shall not be divulged unless necessary and with
authority of the judge. (Sec. 12, Family Courts Act of 1997)
Q: Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their
Children filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court
issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO, Juliet
filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition raised, among others, the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing
the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the
1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of
the TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court
judge reasoned that Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional
issues, being a special court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law
creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court
judge correct when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262?
(2015 Bar)
A: No, the Family Court Judge is not correct when it declined to resolve the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. In Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court held that
the Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a
statute. In spite of its designation as a family court, the RTC remains to possess the
authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases
whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship,
naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. This authority is embraced in the general
definition of judicial power to determine the valid and binding laws in conformity
with the fundamental law. (G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013)
 8

JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

CIVIL CASES
1. Civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate
or amount of demand does NOT exceed P300K, or P400K if in Metro Manila,
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney‘s fees, litigation expenses,
and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged. However, interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney‘s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be
included in the determination of the filing fees.
2. Admiralty and maritime cases where the demand or claim does NOT exceed
P300K, or P400K if in Metro Manila.
3. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer regardless of value of property involved, with
jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership only to resolve the issue of
possession.
4. Civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, REAL property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does NOT
exceed P20K, or P50K if in Metro Manila, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney‘s fees, litigation expenses, and costs. In cases of land not declared for
taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots.
5. Inclusion and exclusion of voters.
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.
CRIMINAL CASES
EXCEPT in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC or
SB—
1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment NOT exceeding 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 kind, nature, value or amount thereof.
3. Offenses under (2) above include those NOT falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the SB where none of the accused is occupying positions corresponding
to salary grade ‗27‘ or higher.
4. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence.
5. In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine of not more than P4K.
DELEGATED
Q: Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land located in a
remote part of their barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited the property
after she took a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her
childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house on her property. Both
Estrella and John were residents of the same barangay. To recover possession,
Estrella filed a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
alleging that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her certificate of
title and tax declaration which showed the assessed value of the property as
P21,000.00. On the other hand, John refuted Estrella‘s claim of ownership and
submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Estrella. After
the filing of John‘s answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one of
ownership and not of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a
full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally filed with it. The
RTC reasoned that based on the assessed value of the property, it was the court
of proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment declaring John
as the owner of the land and, hence, entitled to the possession thereof.
(a) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction?
Why or why not? A: No. It is well settled that jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations contained in the complaint. The contention of defendant in his
Motion to Dismiss has nothing to do in the determination of jurisdiction.
Relative thereto, the MTCs has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer. (Section 33, B.P. 129) Hence, the MTC is
not correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. At any rate, the
rules allow provisional determination of ownership in ejectment cases 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. (Sec.
16, Rule 70) Accordingly, the inferior courts have jurisdiction to resolve
questions of ownership whenever it is necessary to decide the question of
possession in an ejectment case. (Serreno v. Spouses Gutierrez, G.R. No.
162366, November 10, 2006)
(b) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the assessed value of the
property, the case was within its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may
conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed with
it? Why or why not? (2014 Bar) A: No. It is settled that forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
MTC. Moreover, all cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the
RTC irrespective of the amounts involved. (Sec. 22, B.P. 129) Quasi-judicial
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 P100K, 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. These cases are assigned and not automatically
delegated.

SPECIAL JURISDICTION Q: What court has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance filed by
In the absence of all the RTC Judges in a province of city— a subdivision homeowner against a subdivision developer? Explain. (2002 Bar)
1. Hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas corpus. A: An action for specific performance by a subdivision homeowner against a
2. Hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases. subdivision developer is within the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB). Sec. 1 of P.D. 1344 provides that the HLURB has
jurisdiction over cases involving specific performance of contractual and
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots and condominium units
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (Manila Bankers Life
CIVIL Insurance Corp. v. Eddy Ng Kok Wei, G.R. No. 139791, December 12, 2003;
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of Kakilala v. Faraon, G.R. No. 143233, October 18, 2004; Sec. 1, PD 1344)
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, but if attorney‘s fees are awarded,
the same shall not exceed P20,000.00; and
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) or two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interests and
costs

CRIMINAL
1. Traffic violations.
2. Rental law violations.
3. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
4. Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
5. All other cases where penalty does NOT exceed 6 months and/or fine of P1K,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise.
6. In offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, where the
imposable fine does not exceed P10K.

JURISDICTION OVER SMALL CLAIMS, CASES COVERED BY THE
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE AND BARANGAY
CONCILIATION
all 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
claims or demands may be:
1. For money owed under a contract of lease, loan, services, sale, or mortgage;
2. For liquidated damages arising from contracts;
3. Enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement; or
4. Arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to
the Local Government Code. (Sec. 5, Revised Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases, as amended)
These Rules shall govern the procedure in actions before the MTCs for
payment of money where the value of claim does not exceed the jurisdictional
amount of P400,000.00 for the MeTCs and P300,000.00 for the MTCCs,
MTCs, and MCTCs, exclusive of interest and cost. (Sec. 2, Revised Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended)
Venue
For small claims cases, the regular rules of venue shall apply, at the election of
the plaintiff, in the MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC:
1. Where the plaintiff resides;
2. Where the defendant resides; or
3. Where he may be found, in the case of a nonresident defendant.
However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of lending, banking and
similar activities, in the city where the defendant resides, if the plaintiff has a
branch in that city. (Sec. 7, Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases, as amended)
Pleadings Allowed In Small Claims Cases Under the Revised Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases, the pleadings allowed in small claims
cases are:
i. Statement of Claims (Sec.6);
ii. Response (Sec. 13); and
iii. Counterclaim (Sec. 15).
Procedure for Small-Claims Cases A small-claims action is commenced by
filing with the court:
1. An accomplished and verified Statement of Claim in duplicate;
2. A Certification of Non-forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of
Action, and Multiplicity of Suits accompanying the Statement of Claim;
and
3. 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. (Sec. 6, Revised Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases, as amended)
The 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 amounts. (Sec. 8, Revised
Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended
The defendant shall file his Response within 10 days from the receipt of the
summons and serve the same upon the plaintiff. It shall be accompanied by
certified photocopies of the documents, as well as the affidavits of witnesses
and other evidence to support his defense. (Sec. 13, Revised Rules of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases, as amended)
Any claim that the defendant has against the plaintiff shall be filed as a
Counterclaim in the Response, if at the time the action is commenced, the
defendant has a claim against the plaintiff that:
1. Is within the coverage of this Rule exclusive of interests and costs;
2. Arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the
plaintiff‘s claim;
3. Does not require the joinder of third parties; and
4. Is not the subject of another pending action. (Sec. 15, Revised Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended)
Prohibited Pleadings in Small Claims Cases The prohibited pleadings in
small-claims cases are: i. Motion to dismiss the complaint; ii. Motion for a
bill of particulars; iii. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial; iv. Petition for relief from judgment;
v. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
paper; vi. Memoranda; vii. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court; viii.
Motion to declare the defendant in default; ix. Dilatory motions for
postponement; x. Reply and rejoinder; xi. Third-party complaints; and xii.
Interventions. (Sec. 16, Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases, as amended)
9
The rule shall govern the summary procedure in the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs,
and MCTCs.
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
FOR CIVIL CASES
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE AMOUNT of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered,
but if ATTORNEY’S FEES are awarded, the same shall not exceed
P20,000.00;
(BAR) Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest
house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao,
Davao City. Danielle‘s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur,
has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle‘s
certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by
Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public. Was the action properly instituted before
the RTC of Davao City? No, the action was not properly instituted before the
RTC of Davao City. The Rules on Civil Procedure provides that actions
affecting title to or possession of real property shall be filed in the proper court
having jurisdiction wherein the said real property or a portion thereof is situated.
Furthermore, it is the MTC which has jurisdiction over actions for ejectment
under Batas Pambansa blg. 129. In the instant case, the property is located in
Digos City, Davao del Sur. As such, the case should have been filed in MTC of
Digos City considering that it is one for ejectment. Accordingly, the action was
not properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City.
2. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of
the plaintiff’s claim does not P100,000 or P200,000 in Metropolitan Manila,
exclusive of interests and costs. (Sec. 1(A), Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, as amended)
In small claims cases, the following amounts are excluded in determining
jurisdictional amount:
1. Interest;
2. Costs. (Sec. 1(A)(2), Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as mended)
Scope and Applicability of Rules on Summary Procedure for Criminal Cases
1. Traffic violations.
2. Rental law violations.
3. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
4. Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).
5. All other cases where penalty does NOT exceed 6 months and/or fine of P1K,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise.
6. In offenses involving damage to property through criminalnegligence, where
the imposable fine does not exceed P10K.
Exception:
The Rule on Summary Proceedings 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 is it applicable to a criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily
related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure
Appeal:
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial
Court.
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 further appeal that may be taken therefrom. (Sec. 22, Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)
ALLOWED PLEADINGS IN SUMMARY-PROCEDURE CASES THE
PLEADINGS ALLOWED IN SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE:
i. Complaint;
ii. Compulsory Counterclaim pleaded in the Answer;
iii. Cross-Claims pleaded in the Answer; and iv. Answers to the above
pleadings.
All pleadings shall be verified (Sec. 3, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as
amended)

PROCEDURE FOR CASES UNDER SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Should the court find that the case falls under summary procedure and there are
no grounds for dismissal of the complaint, it shall then issue summons stating
that the rules for summary procedure shall apply. (Sec. 4, Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure, as amended)
An answer shall then be filed within 10 days from the service of summons and
serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff. (Sec. 5, Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure, as amended)
Defenses not pleaded are deemed waived except for lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter. Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in
the answer are likewise barred. (Sec. 5, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
as amended)
Answer to the counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within 10
days from the service of the answer in which they are pleaded. (Sec. 5, Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)
Failure to file an answer the complaint within the reglementary period shall
allow the court, motu propio, or on motion by the plaintiff, render judgment as
may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is
prayed for therein. (Sec. 6, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as amended)
The prohibited pleadings in cases falling under summary procedure are:
i. 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;
ii. Motion for a bill of particulars;
iii. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of judgment, or for
opening of trial;
iv. Petition for relief from judgment;
v. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
paper;
vi. Memoranda;
vii. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any
interlocutory order issued by the court;
viii. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(BAR) Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Louie. When
the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate the property. Her refusal
prompted Louie to file an action for unlawful detainer against Laura who
failed to answer the complaint within the reglementary period. Louie then
filed a motion to declare Laura in default. Should the motion be granted?
No, the motion to declare Laura in default should not be granted. The law
provides that a motion to declare the defendant in default is prohibited in
actions that are governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure.
Considering that the instant case involves an action for unlawful detainer,
one that is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, an action to
declare the defendant Laura in default, is prohibited. Hence, such motion
shall not be granted.
ix. Dilatory motions for postponement;
x. Reply;
xi. Third party complaints; and xii. Interventions.
10
Q: Charged with the offense of slight physical injuries under an information duly filed
with the MeTC in Manila which in the meantime had duly issued an order declaring
that the case shall be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the
accused filed with said court a motion to quash on the sole ground that the officer who
filed the information had no authority to do so. The MeTC denied the motion on the
ground that it is a prohibited motion under the said Rule. The accused thereupon filed
with the RTC in Manila a petition for certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the
nullification of the MeTC‘s denial of his motion to quash. The RTC in due time
issued an order on the ground that it is not allowed by the said Rule. The accused
forthwith filed with said RTC a motion for reconsideration of its said order. The RTC
in time denied said motion for reconsideration on the ground that the same is also a
prohibited motion under the said Rule. Were the RTC‘s orders denying due course to
the petition as well as denying the motion for reconsideration correct? Reason. (2004
Bar)
A: The RTC‘s orders denying due course to the petition for certiorari as well as
denying the motion for reconsideration are both not correct. The petition for certiorari
is a prohibited pleading under Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure and the motion for reconsideration, while it is not prohibited motion (Lucas
v. Fabros, AM No. MTJ-99- 1226, January 31, 2000, citing Joven v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 80739 August 20, 1992), should be denied because the petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading.
Q: Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Louie. When the lease
expired, Laura refused to vacate the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an
action for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to answer the complaint within
the reglementary period. Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. Should
the motion be granted? Explain your answer. (2017 BAR)
A: No. The motion should not be granted because it is a prohibited pleading Under
Section 19 (h) of the Rules on Summary Procedure, a motion to declare defendant in
default is among the pleadings that are prohibited in cases covered by said Rule:
Considering that an action for unlawful detainer is covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, Louie‘s motion to declare Laura in default is a prohibited pleading, and
thus, should not be granted.
Q: Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint
for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle‘s
property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP
25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle‘s certification on non-forum
shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary
public. Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient? (2018 BAR)
A: Yes. Considering that the action is for unlawful detainer, the Rules on Summary
Procedure will apply. Rule II, Section 3(B) of the Rules on Summary Procedure
requires that all pleadings submitted to the court be verified; hence, a mere
certification on non-forum shopping, the complaint being an initiatory pleading is
insufficient.
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
Q: Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a
complaint of mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Public Works
and Highways, Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of
Agriculture, Department of Budget and Philippine National Police before the RTC of
Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing their duties
has resulted in serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the
degradation of the marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed that said government
agencies be ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water quality to Class C
waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree 1151, otherwise known as the Philippine
Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that the clean up of the lake is not a
ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to perform the same.
The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision declairing that it is the duty of the agency to
clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent writ of mandamus ordering said
agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law relating to the cleanup of Laguna
de Bay.
Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? Explain.
A: Yes, the RTC is correct in issuing the writ of mandamus. Generally, the writ of
mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. While the
implementation of the government agencies mandated tasks may entail a decision-
making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law
exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. Here,
the duty to clean up Laguna Lake and restore its water quality to Class C is required
not only by Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the Philippine
Environment Code, but also in its charter. It is, thus, ministerial in nature and can be
compelled by mandamus. Accordingly, the RTC may issue a writ of continuing
mandamus directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer
thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall
remain effective until the judgement is fully satisfied. (Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48,
December 18, 2008)
 11

ACTIONS IN REM, IN PERSONAM, AND QUASI IN REM

ACTIONS IN REM

An action in rem is:

1. A proceeding to determine the state or condition of a thing;
2. Directed against the thing itself;
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required; and
4. Judgment is binding on the whole world. (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No.
194262, Feb. 28, 2018).

In an action in rem, jurisdiction over the res (or thing) is acquired either:
(a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution
of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective. (Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, Jul. 29,
2005).

Examples of actions in rem are: petition for adoption, correction of entries

in the birth certificate; or annulment of marriage; nullity of marriage;
petition to establish illegitimate filiation; registration of land under the
Torrens system; and forfeiture proceedings. (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No.
194262, Feb. 28, 2018).

Nevertheless, in a proceeding in rem, summons must be served upon the

defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but
merely for satisfying the due process requirements. (Gomez v. CA, G.R.
No. 127692, Mar. 10, 2004)

ACTIONS IN PERSONAM

1. An action to impose a responsibility or liability upon a person directly.

2. Directed against a particular person.
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required
4. Judgment is binding only upon the parties impleaded or their
successors in interest. (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, Feb. 28, 2018).

Where the action is in personam, that is, one brought against a person on
the basis of her personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
Service of summons upon the defendants is essential in order for the court
to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. (Velayo-Fong v. Spouses
Velayo, G.R. No. 155488, Dec. 6, 2006).

Examples of actions in personam are: action for collection of sum of

money and damages; action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; action
for specific performance; action to enforce a foreign judgment in a
complaint for a breach of contract. (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262,
Feb. 28, 2018).

ACTIONS QUASI IN REM

1. It is a proceeding, the purpose of which is to subject the interest of a

named defendant over a particular property to an obligation or lien
burdening it.
2. Directed against particular persons.
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required as long as
jurisdiction over the res is acquired.
4. Judgment is binding upon the particular persons. (Id.)..

Examples of actions quasi in rem: suits to quiet title; actions for

foreclosure; and attachment proceedings. (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No.
194262, Feb. 28, 2018).

An action quasi in rem is an action in personam concerning real property.

Thus, the judgment in proceedings of this nature is conclusive only
between the parties and does not bind the State or the other riparian
owners who may have an interest over the island involved herein.
(Jagualing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94283, Mar. 4, 1991)

Converting an Action In Personam to an Action In Rem or Quasi In

Rem

If the defendant is a non-resident and, who remains beyond the range of

the personal process of the court and he refuses to come in voluntarily, the
court never acquires jurisdiction over the person at all. Here the property
itself is in fact the sole thing which is impleaded and is the responsible
object which is the subject of the exercise of judicial power
But it does not mean that notice or summons to the parties interested is
not necessary. Due process still requires that they be notified and given an
opportunity to defend their interest. (Gomez v. CA, G.R. No. 127692,
Mar. 10, 2004). This is satisfied through extraterritorial service