JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

If we relate jurisdiction to courts, it

means authority or the power to
hear, try and decide a case.
In its complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the
powers to hear and decide a case, but also the power to
enforce the judgment (14 Am. Jur. 363-364) as the
judgment or decree is the end for which jurisdiction is
exercised, and it is only through the judgment and its
execution that the power of the court is made
efficacious and its jurisdiction complete (21 CJS, Courts, S
9). The power to control the execution of its decision is
an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the
subject of substantial subtraction and the most
important part of the litigation is the process of
execution of decisions (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, 301
SCRA 96).
Test of Jurisdiction
The test of jurisdiction is whether the
court has the power to enter into the
inquiry and not whether the decision is
right or wrong. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25
Phil. 245)
Duty of the court to determine its jurisdiction

It is the duty of the court to consider the question of

jurisdiction before it looks at other matters involved in
the case. It may, and must, do this on its own motion
without waiting for the question of jurisdiction being
raised by any of the parties involved in the proceeding
(20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, S 92). Courts are bound to take
notice of the limits of their authority and they may act
accordingly by dismissing the action even thought the
issue of jurisdiction is not raised or not even suggested
by counsel (Ace Publicatiions vs. Commissioner of
Customs, 11 SCRA 147).
 If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or
authority to try a case and because it has no
authority it must not exercise it. Exercise of
absent authority or power is necessarily nothing.
Thus, without jurisdiction, the entire
proceedings would be null and void.

The only recourse for the court, absent

jurisdiction, is to dismiss the case motu proprio
or on motion for without authority it cannot act.
What about if it has jurisdiction?

It is the duty of the court to exercise the

jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to
render a decision in a case properly submitted to
it. Failure to do so may be enforced by way of a
mandamus proceeding (20 Am Jur. 2d, S 93).
Constitutional Guarantee of Access to Courts
and Jurisdiction

The Constitutional guarantee of access to

courts refers to courts with appropriate
jurisdiction as defined by law. It does not mean
that a person can go to any court for redress of
grievances regardless of the nature or value of
his claim. (Santos III v. Northwest Airlines, 210
SCRA 256 [1992])
JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of

jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction pertains to the authority to hear and

decide a case. Any act of the court pursuant to
such authority, including the decision and its
consequences is exercise of jurisdiction.

The authority to decide a case, not the decision

rendered, is what makes up jurisdiction. It does not
depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that
power or upon the rightfulness of the decision
made. Where there is jurisdiction over the person
and subject matter, the resolution of all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)
The procedure or remedy in case of a mistake or
error would be dependent on whether it is an
error of jurisdiction or an error in the exercise of
jurisdiction also known as error of judg­ment.
Lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction

The respondent court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it

does not have the legal power to determine the case; where
the respondent, being clothed with the power to determine
the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law, it is
performing a function in excess of its jurisdiction (Vette
Industrial Sales Company Inc. vs. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532).
 In whom is jurisdiction vested?
Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge. A court
may be a single sala or may have several branches (multiple
sala). If the latter, each is not a court distinct and separate
from the others. So, when a case is filed before a branch,
the trial may be had or proceedings may continue before
another branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723,
May 29, 1959)
TYPES OF JURISDICTION:

Types of jurisdiction:
Based on cases tried: General Jurisdiction and Special or
Limited Jurisdiction;
Based on the nature of the cause: Original Jurisdiction and
Appellate Jurisdiction; and
Based on the nature and extent of exercise: Exclusive
Jurisdiction and Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction;
Based on situs; Territorial jurisdiction and extra-territorial
jurisdiction.
1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR LIMITED
JURISDICTION

GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to

hear and determine all actions and suits, whether civil,
criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed. It is
very broad – to hear and try practically all types of
cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority of

the court to hear and determine particular cases only.
Its power is limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34
Cal. 391)
2. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and APPELLATE
JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the court

to take cognizance of a case at its inception or
commencement. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed.,
pp. 91 and 917)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested in a

superior court to review and revise the judicial
action of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law Dict.,
2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one court has the power
to correct the decision of a lower court, the
power of this court is appellate. This is because it
is commenced somewhere else and it is just
reviewing the decision of the said lower court.
Note that in certiorari petition, the action of the
superior court is not to correct but to annul. The
power exercised by the superior court is the
power of control and supervision over an
inferior court, not appellate, that is, to limit the
inferior court within its jurisdiction, its
authority.
3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and CONCURRENT OR
COORDINATE JURISDICTION

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by a court

to the exclusion of all others.

CONCURRENT or COORDINATE JURISDICTION is that

possessed by the court together with another or
other courts over the same subject matter, the court
obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion
of the others, but the choice of court is lodged in
those persons duly authorized to file the action.
(Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12, 1962)
4. TERRITORIAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL

Territorial jurisdiction - exercised within the

limits of the place where the court is located.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction - exercised

beyond the confines of the territory where
the court is located.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES

The word jurisdiction as applied to the faculty of

exercising judicial power is used in different but
related senses which are:

The authority of the court to entertain a particular

kind of action, or
Administer a particular kind of relief depending on
the issues raised;
It may refer to the power of the court over or to
bind the parties, or
Over or to bind the property which is the subject of
the litigation.
Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in
civil cases?

A: The following:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;

Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to
the case;
Jurisdiction over the res; and
Jurisdiction over the issues.
A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject matter.

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of

the court to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong.
(Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of

the action. In criminal cases you have light, less grave
and grave offenses. In civil cases we have such actions
as actions for sum of money, actions not capable of
pecuniary estimation, real and personal actions, action
in rem, action in personam etc. This is what we call the
NATURE or classification OF THE ACTION.
When a complaint is filed in court, the basic
questions that ipso facto are to be immediately
resolved by the court on its own are:

a.)What is the nature of the action filed?

b.) Does the court have authority to try and
determine that class of actions to which the
one before it belongs?
Jurisdiction over the “subject matter” is not to be
confused with the term “subject matter of the action”.

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the proper

ground for a motion to dismiss. This is broad enough to
include the “nature of the action.” The term should not
be confused with the terms “subject or subject matter
of the action” which refer to the physical facts, the
things real or personal, the money, lands or chattels and
the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted and
not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
of the action acquired?

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by

law, which may be either the Constitution or a
statute(Tyson’s Super Concrete, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 461 SCRA 435; de la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103;
Guy vs. CA, December 10, 2007), and is never acquired
by consent or submission of the parties or by their
laches. This is a matter of legislative enactment which
none but the legislature can change. (MRR Co. vs Atty.
Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar vs. Vinson, L-18023, May 30,
1962) It cannot be acquired by an agreement of the
parties, waiver, or failure to object (silence).
So Congress plays an important role in the
exercise of judicial power, namely:

It creates the rights which are sought to be

protected or enforced;
It defines jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Both are of course in the form of substantive

laws.
Q: How is the subject matter or nature (class) of the
action determined?

A: It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject

matter is determined by the allegations in the
complaint (Baltazar vs. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74)
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to his claims asserted therein (Gocotano vs.
Gocotano 469 SCRA 328; Cadimas vs. Carrion GR No.
180394, Sept. 29, 2008).

It does not depend upon the pleas or defenses of the

defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss.
(Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J.
Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965; Serrano
vs. Muñoz Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27, 1967)
Exception to the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations of the complaint

The general rule is not applied with rigidity in ejectment cases in

which the defendant averred the defense of the existence of
tenancy relationship between the parties.

In Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan (42 SCRA 89) and other ejectment
cases (Salandanan vs. Tizon 62 SCRA 388; Concepcion vs. CFI of
Bulacan 119 SCRA 222), where tenancy was the defense, the court
went beyond the allegations of the complaint in determining
jurisdiction over the subject matter and required the
presentation of evidence to prove or disprove the defense of
tenancy. After finding the real issue to be tenancy, the cases were
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it should properly be filed
with the Court of Agrarian Reform (now DARAB) [de la Cruz vs.
CA 510 SCRA 103]
(Salmorin vs. Zaldivar, GR No. 169691, July 23,
2008) Accordingly, the MCTC does not lose its
jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the
simple expedient of a party raising as defense
therein the alleged existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties. It is
however, the duty of the court to receive
evidence to determine the allegations of
tenancy. If after hearing, tenancy had in fact
been shown to be the real issue, the court
should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court further stressed that a tenancy relationship cannot be
presumed. There must be evidence to prove the tenancy
relations such that all its indispensable elements must be
established, to wit:
The parties are the landowner and tenant;
The subject is agricultural land;
There is consent by the landowner;
The purpose is agricultural production;
There is personal cultivation; and
There is sharing of the harvests.

All these requisites are necessary to create tenancy relationship,

and the absence of one or more requisites will not make the
alleged tenant a de facto tenant. All these elements must concur.
It is not enough that they are alleged.
No Retroactive Effect of Law on Jurisdiction
over the subject matter

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law,

the established rule is that statute in force at
the time of the commencement of the action
determines jurisdiction – RA 7691 has no
retroactive application. (Yu Oh v. CA GR No.
125297, June 6, 2003)
Doctrine of Continuity of jurisdiction
(Adherence of Jurisdiction)

Under this rule, jurisdiction, once it attaches

cannot be ousted by the happening of
subsequent events although of such a
character which should have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance (Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Phil.
41 SCRA 586 [1971]).
Even the finality of the judgment does not
totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over
the case. What the court loses if the power to
amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even
after the judgment has become final, the
court retains jurisdiction to enforce and
execute it (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, 301
SCRA 96; Republic vs. Atlas Farms, 345 SCRA
296).
Exception to the Rule of Adherence/Continuity of Jurisdiction

When there is an express provision in the statute on retroactive

application; or
The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before
its enactment; or
The statute is curative. This means that even if originally there was
no jurisdiction, the lack of jurisdiction may be cured by the
issuance of the amendatory decree which is in the nature of a
curative statute with retrospective application to a pending
proceeding and cures that lack of jurisdiction. Thus, in a case, while
the CFI has no jurisdiction over a complaint for damages arising
from the dismissal of a radio station manager which was filed on
August 2, 1976, PD 1367 vesting the court with jurisdiction over such
type of cases cured the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court at the
time the instant claim was filed before it. (Garcia vs. Martinez 90
SCRA 331 [1979])
How Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter is
Acquired By the Court

It is conferred by law applicable at the time of

the commencement of the action; and
Jurisdiction must be properly invoked by filing
the complaint or information.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Statement of the Doctrine

Under this doctrine, courts will not resolve a

controversy involving a question which is within its
jurisdiction and also of an administrative tribunal,
especially where the question demands the exercise
of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in
determining technical and intricate matters of fact.
(Villaflor vs. CA, GR No. 95694, Oct. 8, 1997).
It applies “where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the claim requires
the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within
the special competence of an administrative
body, in such case, the judicial process is
suspended pending referral of such issues to
the administrative body for its view.” (US v.
Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 US 59;
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 184 SCRA
426)
Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of
business entrusted to a particular agency are
secured, and the limited functions of review by
the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by
preliminary resort for ascertaining and
interpreting the circumstances underlying legal
issues to agencies that are better equipped than
courts by specialization, by insight gained
through experience, and by more flexible
procedure.
Since the inception of the doctrine courts have resisted
creating any fixed rules or formulas for its application,
“in every case the question is whether the reasons for the
existence of the doctrine are present and whether the
purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the
particular litigation.” As the origin and evolution of the
primary jurisdiction doctrine demonstrate, the reasons
for the existence and the purposes it serves are two-fold:
the desire for the uniformity and the reliance on
administrative expertise. Thus, in determining whether
to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, we must
examine whether doing so would serve either of these
purposes.
Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction

It involves the inherent or implied power of the court

to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction.

Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine all

questions relative to the matters brought before it,
regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted,
determine the hours at which the witnesses and
lawyers may be heard, direct the disposition of money
deposited incourt in the course of the proceedings,
appoint a receiver an grant an injunction, attachment
or garnishment.
Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference

General rule:
No court has the authority to interfere by injunction
with the judgment of another court of coordinate
jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less
declare as unjust a judgment of another court.
(Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA GR No. 88550, April
18, 1990)

Exception:
The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where
a third party claimant is involved. (Santos vs. Bayhon,
GR No. 88643, July 23, 1991).
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

The court may on its own initiative object to an

erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the
case and has a clearly recognized right to determine its
own jurisdiction (Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470).
“When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter,…the court shall dismiss the same” (Sec. 1, Rule
9, Rules of Court)
The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. In
fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue
even if not raised by the parties. There is thus
no reason to preclude the Court of Appeals, for
example, from ruling on this issue even if the
same has not yet been resolved by the trial
court below (Asia International Auctioneers,
Inc. vs. GR No. 163445, Dec. 18, 2007).
Objections to Jurisdiction over the subject matter and
Estoppel by Laches

Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by which you

have misled another while laches means abandonment of
a right for failure to assert it for a long time.

Gen. Rule: You can raise your objection on jurisdiction

over the subject matter even for the first time on appeal.

The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by laches,

as laid down in TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY ( Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29, April 15, 1968).
The fact pattern common among those cases wherein the Court invoked
estoppel to prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction is a party’s
active participation in all stages of a case, including invoking the
authority of the court in seeking affirmative relief and questioning the
court’s jurisdiction only after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to
his case for the purpose of annulling everything done in the trial in
which he has actively participated. As clearly pointed out in Lao vs.
Republic 479 SCRA 439: “A party who has invoked the jurisdiction of the
court over a particular matter to secure affirmative relief cannot be
permitted to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction to escape liability.”

The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting

one’s case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if
favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (Bank of the
Philippine Islands vs. ALS Management and Development Corporation,
427 SCRA 564).
Bar by Estoppel Is An Exception and Not the
General Rule

The doctrine laid down in Tijam is the exception

to, and not the general rule (Pangilinan v. CA, 321
SCRA 51, 59 [1999]).

Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the

issue of jurisdiction only in cases in which the
factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam.
The statement that jurisdiction is conferred by
substantive law is not accurate because only
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties,
issues and res is governed by procedural laws.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON (PARTIES)

Define jurisdiction over the person.

Jurisdiction over the person is the power to render a

personal judgment against a party to an action or
proceeding through the service of process or by
voluntary appearance of a party during the progress
of a cause. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil.
291)

It is the power of the court to bring before it persons

to be affected by the judgment so as to give him an
opportunity to be heard, and to render a judgment
binding upon his person. (21C.J.S., Courts, Sec. 11,
1990)
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over
the person?

In civil cases, it is also a must that the court

acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
parties. The manner by which the court
acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends
on whether the party is the plaintiff or the
defendant.
As to Plaintiff

Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is

acquired by his/her filing of the complaint or
petition. By doing so, he submits
himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Davao Light & Power Co. Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA
343, 348 [1991])
As to Defendant

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

required only in action in personam (Asiavest Limited
vs. CA, 296 SCRA 539). Jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not a prerequisite in an action in rem
and quasi in rem (Gomez vs. CA 425 SCRA 98; Biaco vs.
Phil. Countryside Rural Bank 515 SCRA 106.
Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Defendant
in Actions in Personam, How Acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

obtained either by a valid service of summons
upon him or by his/her voluntary submission to
the court’s authority. (Ang Ping vs. CA, 310
SCRA 343, 349 [1999]; Davao Light vs. CA)
The service of summons is intended to give official
notice to the defendant or respondent that an action
has been commenced against him. He is thus put on
guard as to the demands of the plaintiff as stated in the
complaint. The service of summons is an important
element in the operation of a court’s jurisdiction upon
a party to a suit because it is the means by which the
court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Without
service of summons, or when the service is improper,
the trial and the judgment being in violation of due
process, are both null and void. (Avon Insurance PLC v.
CA, 278 SCRA 312, 325 [1997])

The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff

and the defendant applies to both ordinary and special
civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases
(Bar 1994).
jurisdiction over the person can be acquired by:
waiver;
consent; or
lack of objection by the defendant. (MRR Co.
vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter
from jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant may be cured by waiver, consent,
silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction
over the subject matter cannot be cured by
failure to object or by silence, waiver or
consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Voluntary Appearance as Voluntary Submission To
Court’s Jurisdiction

Voluntary appearance must be the kind that

constitutes voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction. Voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction cannot be inferred from the defendant’s
mere knowledge or existence of a case against him/her.
In general, the form of appearance that would be
construed as a voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction is an appearance that seeks affirmative
relief except when the relief is for the purpose of
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the defendant.
Objections to jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant

An objection to the jurisdiction over the person

of the defendant may be raised as a ground for a
motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(a) Rule 16). If no
motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection
may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the
answer (Sec. 6 Rule 16).
If a motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection to
the lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant must be pleaded in the same motion where
such ground is available at the time the motion is
filed, otherwise it is deemed waived pursuant to the
omnibus motion rule. The defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not
one of those defenses which are not deemed waived
if not raised in the motion to dismiss. Only lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia,
res judicata and prescription are not waived (Sec. 1
Rule 9 in relation to Sec. 8 Rule 15).
in Sec. 20 of Rule 14 provides: ****The
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant shall not be
deemed a voluntary appearance.
C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

RES is the Latin word for “thing.” It is applied to an

object, subject matter (not nature of the action),
status, considered as the defendant in the action or as
the object against which, directly, proceedings are
taken. (Black’s 5th Ed., 1172)

Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.

A: Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority of
the court over the thing or property under litigation.
(Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186, 190 [1939])
It is the power to bind the “thing”.
How is it acquired?

It is acquired either by the (a) the seizure of the

property under legal process whereby it is
brought into actual or constructive custody of
the court’ or (b) as a result of the institution of
legal proceedings, in which the power of the
court is recognized and made effective.
(Macahilig vs. Heirs of Grace M. Magalit, GR No.
141423, Nov. 15, 2000)
Why is jurisdiction over the res important?

Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction

over the person. There are instances when the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant like when he is abroad. But if the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the
case may go on. Even if the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, jurisdiction over the res becomes a
substitute over the person.
In the example of action for compulsory
recognition, even if the defendant is a non-
resident who is out of the country the object of
litigation is status here in the Philippines, then
acquisition of jurisdiction over the res confers
jurisdiction to the court even if the defendant is
abroad. The res here is the thing or object or
status against which or in relation to which the
judgment can be en­forced.
Acquisition of jurisdiction over the res by actual
seizure is exemplified by an attachment proceeding
where the property is seized at the commencement of
the action or at some subsequent stage in the action.
It is also acquired through a legal provision which
authorizes the court to exercise authority over a
property or subject matter such as suits involving a
person’s status or property located in the Philippines
in actions in rem or quasi in rem. (Banco Espanol
Filipino vs. Palanca 37 Phil. 921, 927 [1918]; Perkins v.
Dizon; Sec. 15, Rule 14, Rules of Court.)
In Land Registration cases or probate
proceedings, jurisdiction is acquired by
compliance with procedural requisites, such as
publication.
In a petition for change of name, the title of the
petition must be complete by including the
name sought to be adopted; otherwise, the
court acquires no jurisdiction over the
proceedings. (Telmo vs. Republic, 73 SCRA 29
(1976).
D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Meaning of Issue

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.
(Black’s 5th Ed., 745 citing Muller v. Muller, 235
Cal App. 2nd 341, 45 Cal. Rptr 182, 184)
How Jurisdiction Over The Issues Is Conferred
and Determined

In order to determine whether or not a court

has jurisdiction over the issue or issues of the
case, one must examine the pleadings.
Define jurisdiction over the issues.

Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try and

decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.
(Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484)

Q: What are pleadings?

A:Rule 6, Section 1 ‑ Pleadings are the written
allegation of the parties of their respective claims and
defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment.

In a civil case, pleadings are written statements of the

respective positions of the parties, namely, the claims
for the plaintiff and defenses for the defendant.
Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and
conferred by stipulation of the parties as when in the
pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulation of facts and
documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the
issues of the case (Sec. 2 Rule 18)

Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred by

waiver or failure to object to the presentation of
evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here
the parties try with their express or implied consent
issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried shall
be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in
the pleadings (Sec. 5 Rule 10).
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
Distinguished from Jurisdiction Over the Issues

Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by the

pleadings and by the express (stipulation) or
implied (failure to object to evidence) consent
of the parties because an issue not duly pleaded
may be validly tried and decided by the court as
long as there is no objection from the parties.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and cannot be subject to the
agreement of the parties. (Vda de Victoria v. CA,
GR No. 147550, Jan. 26, 2005)
A: The following are the distinctions:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power

to hear and try a particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the
court to resolve legal questions involved in the
case;
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired
upon filing of the complaint, while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired
upon filing of the answer which joins the issues
involved in the case.
When An Issue Arises Even If Not Raised In the
Pleadings

Although it is a rule that jurisdiction over the issue is to

be determined by the pleadings of the parties, an issue
may arise in a case without it being raised in the
pleadings. This happens when the parties try an issue
with their consent. Under Sec. 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of
Court, when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried
with the express or the implied consent of the parties,
they shall be treated in all respects, as if they had been
raised in the pleadings. Thus, if evidence on a claim for
salary differential is not objected to, the Labor Arbiter
correctly considered the evidence even if the claim is
not mentioned in the complaint. (Cindy and Lynsy
Garment v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 38, 45 [1998])
 For a decision to be effective, the court must
acquire the jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the person, the res in case the
defendant is not around, and the last is
jurisdiction over the issue.