JURI NOTES (9-8)

BP 129 - law on jurisdiction (for: civil case, criminal case, special proceedings, cadastral case)
RA 11576 - new law
(real property: exceed 400k = RTC, otherwise = MTC;
personal property: exceed 2m = RTC, otherwise = MTC )

APPELATE JURISDICTION

Rule 40 = MTC ---> RTC

Rule 41 = RTC ---> CA

Rule 42 = MTC ---> RTC ---> CA (petition for review)

Rule 43 = CTA and quasi-judicial agencies ---> CA

Rule 45 = CA ---> SC
RTC ---> SC (appeal by certiorari)

*Note: RTC ---> SC allowed if question of law

Q: How come Rule 65 is not mentioned above?

A: Rule 65 is NOT a mode of appeal. It is available only when “there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” This is a special civil action. It is not a continuation of the case
but rather a new case itself.

Rule 1-39 = ordinary civil case

40-45 = appeal
? = provisional remedies
61-71 = special civil action

*There are civil cases where Rule 1-39 are merely suppletory.

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
EX: RULE 65 = RTC, CA, & SC have concurrent jurisdiction

Q: Does this mean that you can file the case with SC right away?
A: No. The Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts prohibits parties from directly resorting to the Supreme Court when
relief may be obtained before the lower courts.

NLRC decision is FINAL and UNAPPEALABLE.

REMEDY: RULE 65
Be careful though. The decision being final, it will not be stayed when you file under rule 65. Hence, you should file
for provisional remedies also [ex: (a) Injunction; or (b) TRO - if urgent]

CASES

1) CANERO:
If the court has no jurisdiction, the only thing it can do is DISMISS. Judgment rendered is VOID.

REMEDY:
(a) Appeal; or
(b) Rule 65 if “there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

2) Case where the judge that penned the decision was transferred to another court. The new judge applied
previous judge’s decision. Argued that the decision is void because there was no jurisdiction.

SC: decision is valid. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. It attaches to the court, not the judge.

3) Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

EX CASE 1:
Allegation = the seller’s signature in the Deed of Sale was forged.
The property is still in the possession of the “seller.”
The property is worth 400k.
Complainant filed in MTC.
Opposition argued that MTC has no jurisdiction.

Q: Which court has jurisdiction?

A: RTC. This is an action INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION (annulment of deed of sale).
Value of the property is immaterial. The property is still w/ the seller; the case does not involve property since
they’re not seeking to recover possession.

EX CASE 2:
Same facts above but the property no longer in the possession of “seller,” and he wants to recover the property.
Jurisdiction=MTC because 400k or less.

JURI NOTES (9 -22)

CONSTI Art6, sec1 = legislative power shall be vested in the Congress

Art7, sec1 = executive power shall be vested in the President

Art8, sec1 = judicial power shall be vested in the SC

Congress creates law --> President executes --> Court interprets

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY/ ALTER EGO DOCTRINE

the heads of the various executive departments are the alter egos of the President. Acts done by the
executive department heads in relation to their duties and functions as such, are presumptively
deemed the President's own act, which are valid and binding unless disapproved or reprobated by
the Chief Executive

SC = the only court created by the Constitution

All other courts = created by law
JURISDICTION OF SC

Art8, Sec1:
JUDICIAL POWER
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Distinguished from the general notion of judicial power, the power of judicial review specially refers
to both the authority and the duty of this Court to determine whether a branch or an instrumentality of
government has acted beyond the scope of the latter's constitutional powers. As articulated in
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, the power of judicial review involves the power to resolve
cases in which the questions concern the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation.

REQUISITES TO EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW:

the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present:
(1) an actual and appropriate case and controversy exists;
(2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;
(3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota(cause of the suit or action) of the case.

Ac iP E C

XPN TO LEGAL STANDING REQ: TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.

While petitioners Saguisag et. al., do not have legal standing, they nonetheless raise issues
involving matters of transcendental importance.

While this Court has yet to thoroughly delineate the outer limits of this doctrine, we emphasize that
not every other case, however strong public interest may be, can qualify as an issue of
transcendental importance. Before it can be impelled to brush aside the essential requisites for
exercising its power of judicial review, it must at the very least consider a number of factors:
(1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and
(3) the lack of any other party that has a more direct and specific interest in raising the present
questions.

An exhaustive evaluation of the memoranda of the parties, together with the oral arguments, shows
that petitioners have presented serious constitutional issues that provide ample justification for the
Court to set aside the rule on standing. The transcendental importance of the issues presented here
is rooted in the Constitution itself. Section 25, Article XVIII thereof, cannot be any clearer: there is a
much stricter mechanism required before foreign military troops, facilities, or bases may be allowed
in the country. The DFA has already confirmed to the U.S. Embassy that "all internal requirements of
the Philippines x x x have already been complied with." It behooves the Court in this instance to take
a liberal stance towards the rule on standing and to determine forthwith whether there was grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department.

CASE ILLUSTRATION

Congress created a law allowing police to issue WOA.

There is no actual controversy yet. Can the court exercise judicial power?

YES.
The Supreme Court's "expanded" power of judicial review allows it to pass upon the
constitutionality of acts of other branches of government should the same be
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The concept of EXPANDED POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (Art 8, Sec 1):

“to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”

Here the law violates the Constitution (Art III, Sec 2).
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

PJED
Requisites for issuance of WOA:
1) probable cause
2) determined personally by the judge
3) after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
4) and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Q: Considering the SC has expanded power of judicial review in which it can invalidate laws, would this mean that
SC superior to the other branches?

A: NO. The exercise of judicial review of the SC is a consequence of the doctrine of separation of powers. All the
three branches are equal. The SC is merely exercising the power vested upon by the Constitution. It is the
constitution which is supreme.

The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative
acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through such power, the judiciary enforces and
upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the three
fundamental powers of government.

to the legislative branch of government, through Congress, belongs the power to make laws; to the
executive branch of government, through the President, belongs the power to enforce laws; and to
the judicial branch of government, through the Court, belongs the power to interpret laws.

Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and
is supreme within its own sphere.

CASES

1) BIRAOGO v PH TRUTH COMMISSION

Law during Pinoy’s admin creating the Phil. Truth Commission.

Purpose: investigate anomalies committed by the Arroyo administration.

HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Violated equal protection clause because specifically directed against the Arroyo
administration only.

2) BELGICA v OCHOA (PDAF/PORK BARREL CASE)

Here, congressmen are the ones implementing the law.

HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Violates separation of powers.

3) ARAULLO v AQUINO III

Disbursement Acceleration Program = executive branch appropriating the budget.

HELD: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Violates separation of powers.

4) ESTIPONA v JUDGE LOBRIGO

Dangerous Drug Act prohibits bargaining.

Accused charged with “possession”.
Lawyer advised to plea bargain = plea guilty instead to “use” which has lower penalty.
Judge held that plea bargaining not allowed.

The prohibition against plea bargaining is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

(Consti art 8, sec 5, para 5) power of the SC to promulgate rules.
SC created the Rules of Court which provides that plea bargaining is allowed in ALL criminal cases (Rule 118).

*NOTE: the lawyer here is smart.

Had the argument just been Rules of Court (remedial law) vs DDA (substantial law), the latter would win.
Here, however, it is Constitution (substantial law) vs DDA (substantial law), where Consti wins.

JURI NOTES (10-6)

RA 8369 created Family Courts.

Though the law has been in effect since 1997, it is only recently that actual Family Courts have been created.
Usually, before this, the RTC is just designated as a Family Court. If asked who has jurisdiction, answer “Family
Courts” (NOT RTC).

JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS

exclusive original jurisdiction over child and family cases and which have now extended to include other special
laws on domestic violence, trafficking, and cybercrimes.

Cases mentioned by Atty:

*petition for nullity of marriage
* annulment of marriage
* legal separation
*cases involving minors
Section 5. Jurisdiction of family Courts. - The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but
not less than nine (9) years of age 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 found guilty, the court shall
promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to
Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating
to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under
different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of
gains;
e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209,
otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected
children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension,
termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under
 Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related
laws;
h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic
Act No. 7658; and
k) 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 as battering or threats and coercion which violate a
woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; 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
proceedings and the corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case
pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE LEGAL SEPARATION

M = void ab initio M = valid until annulled M = valid
Can remarry Can remarry CANNOT (bc still married)
Art 35-38 45 55

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
ELEMENTS (JIG):

1) JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE
2) INCURABILITY (in the legal sense; in relation to specific person -TAN ANDAL CASE)
3) GRAVITY

Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021

SC En Banc modified the interpretation of the requirements of psychological incapacity as a ground for
the declaration of nullity of marriage.

Psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept.It is a personal condition that prevents a spouse to
perform marital obligations in relation to a specific person that may exist at the time of marriage but may have
revealed through behavior subsequent to ceremonies. It need not be a mental or personality disorder. It need not
be a permanent and incurable condition. The testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all
cases. The totality of evidence must show clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of
marriage.

Juridical antecedence (retained)

The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

Gravity (retained)
it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. It is not necessary that it must
be shown that the psychological incapacity is a serious or dangerous illness BUT that “mild characterological
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be
mere “refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.”

Incurable in the legal sense (modified)

The incurability must be in the legal sense, and not in the medical sense. Incurability in the legal sense means that
the “incapacity must be so enduring and persistent with respect to the specific partner, and contemplates a
situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only
result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.”

NEW GUIDELINE FOR DETERMINING PI (e t i g j o c / JIG COTE )

1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court however
clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing evidence which is more
than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil cases) but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases).
This is because marriage is presumed valid and in this jurisdiction, a presumption can only be rebutted with clear
and convincing evidence.

2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through
expert testimony. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality,
called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the
family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more
important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be
given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter
contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly
incapacitated spouse.

3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the partner. Psychological incapacity is so
enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s
respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be
the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. It is not
necessary that it must be shown that the psychological incapacity is a serious or dangerous illness BUT that “mild
characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The psychological
incapacity cannot be mere “refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.”

5. Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

6. Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between spouses. Hence, those covered by Articles 68 up
to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children.

7. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines
has persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular courts. Canonical decisions are, to reiterate, merely
persuasive and not binding on secular courts. Canonical decisions are to only serve as evidence of the nullity of the
secular marriage, but ultimately, the elements of declaration of nullity under Article 36 must still be weighed by
the judge.

The RTC is a court of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by
law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

CASE:
Landlord died. Numerous heirs now asking for rent. You’re unsure who among them is entitled to payment.

REMEDY = CONSIGNATION OF RENTALS (w/ the RTC since no law specifies w/c court has jurisdiction)

Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities
whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment and generally requires a
prior tender of payment. In order that consignation may be effective, the debtor must show
that: (1) there was a debt due; (2) the consignation of the obligation had been made because
the creditor to whom tender of payment was made refused to accept it, or because he was
absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claimed to be entitled to receive the
amount due or because the title to the obligation has been lost; (3) previous notice of the
 consignation had been given to the person interested in the performance of the obligation;
(4) the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court; and (5) after the consignation
had been made the person interested was notified thereof. Failure in any of these
requirements is enough ground to render a consignation ineffective.

Q: What if they file a case of EJECTMENT against you?

A: You’re safe since you’ve been continuously paying rent. What they need to do is terminate the contract of lease.

Q: What should the heirs do to receive the rent?

A: interpleader (Rule 62)

NOTE: Atty was supposed to discuss the ff. in the nxt mtng. Instead, he skipped to venue of crim cases.

* jurisdiction of the MTC

- (delegated) cadastral court (rule 41- appeal directly w/ CA)
- small claims (new amount)
- (new) rules in expedited procedures

JURI NOTES (10-13)

VENUE

CRIMINAL CASE CIVIL CASE

Venue = jurisdictional V = for the convenience of the parties

VENUE VENUE

where the crime was committed or GR:

where any of its essential ingredients occurred. At the option of the plaintiff:

(a) Residence of the plaintiff

(b) Residence of the defendant
(c) Where nonresident defendant may be found

XPN 1
specific rule or law provides otherwise

XPN 2
EXCLUSIVE venue stipulation

ELEMENTS WEB

(a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive

in nature or in intent;

(b) it is expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and

(c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit.

Must be EXCLUSIVE:

In the absence of qualifying or restrictive

words (ex: exclusively/shall only/to the
exclusion of the other courts) the stipulation
 should be deemed as merely an agreement on
an additional forum, not as limiting venue to
the specified place.

*Study the BP 22 cases in Atty’s notes.

JURI NOTES (10-27)

CASE: IVLER v SAN PEDRO

Vehicular collision. H died; W survived. W filed 2 cases against Ivler. (Split the cause of action.)

Case 1 - reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property (H).

Case 2 - “ “ resulting in slight physical injury (W).

Ivler’s lawyer is smart.

Had him plead guilty to case 2.
Argued dismissal on the ground of DOUBLE JEOPARDY in case 1.

MTC judge not agree -- (Rule 65 GAD) --> RTC judge did not agree -- (Rule 45 pure Q of law) --> SC

SC: DOUBLE JEOPARDY!

Reckless imprudence is a single crime; its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine
the penalty. Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act.

once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence
under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act
that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or
careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to
determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is
single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes and prosecutions.

1987 Constitution, Article 3 - Bill of Rights

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.

VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST

1. In Flagrante Delicto - When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

2. Hot Pursuit - When an offense has in fact been committed,

and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it.

-w/n 24 hrs.
-a tip from

3. Escaping Prisoner - When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
CASE:
Someone called the police station, saying there’s a man w/ a gun. Desk clerk answered the call. She then told the
police. Police went to the place. It was crowded bc fiesta. Your client is sitting at a table. Police approached your
client bc he “looked like a criminal” and found a gun on him after searching. Your client was arrested.

WARRANTLESS ARREST NOT VALID

Does not fall under hot pursuit. Police had no personal knowledge.

WARRANTLESS SEARCH NOT VALID

Not pursuant to lawful (warrantless) arrest.

JURISPRUDENCE RE “TIPS”
Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay
no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of
any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.

A hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest. Law enforcers must have personal
knowledge of facts, based on their observation, that the person sought to be arrested has just
committed a crime. This is what gives rise to probable cause that would justify a warrantless search
under (HOT PURSUIT) Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

CASE:

Received a tip that a foreigner carrying drugs in his bag would be riding the bus. 3 days later arrested such person.

NOT hot pursuit. 3 days is sufficient time within which they could have acquired a WOA.

JURI NOTES (11-10) (NOTES FOR THIS DATE IS NOT YET FINISHED. I’ll finish it either TUE eve or WED morn.)

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
Condition precedent. Non-compliance is ground for dismissal.

GR: All disputes should be referred to BRNGY for mandatory mediation and conciliation.

XPN: RA 7160, Sec 408