Jurisdiction, Judge E.
Larida, Cases
SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. POLO, Presiding
Judge, Branch XIX, Regional Trial Court of Manila
and the COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE
CORPORATION, respondents.
Facts:
1. Solemnidad Buaya, petitioner was an
insurance agent of the private respondent,
country bankers insurance corporation.
2. Allegedly, an audit was conducted on
petitioners account which showed a shortage in
the amount of P358,850.72. As a result she was
charged with estafa before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila.
3. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which
motion was denied. The subsequent motion for
reconsideration of this order of denial was also
denied.
4. It was elevated with the Supreme Court. These
two Orders of denial are now the subject of the
present petition.
5. The contention of petitioner Buaya that the
Regional Trial Court of Manila has no jurisdiction
because she is based in Cebu City and
necessarily the funds she allegedly
misappropriated were collected in Cebu City.
6. The respondents on the other hand, call for
adherence to the consistent rule that the denial
of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being
interlocutory in character, cannot be questioned
by certiorari and it cannot be the subject of
appeal until final judgment or order ie rendered
(Sec. 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court).
Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the
said case.
Decision: Yes. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch XIX for further
proceedings.
1. It is well-settled that the averments in the
complaint or information characterize the crime
to be prosecuted and the court before which it
must be tried.
In order to determine the jurisdiction of the
court in criminal cases, the complaint or
information must be examined for the purpose
of ascertaining whether or not the facts set out
therein and the punishment provided for by law
fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the
complaint is filed.
The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is
determined by the allegations of the complaint
or information, and not by the findings the court
may make after the trial.
The subject information charges petitioner with
estafa committed during the period 1980 to
June 15, 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila,
Philippines
Clearly then, from the very allegation of the
information the Regional Trial Court of Manila
has jurisdiction.
The case also taps on the following:
1
2. Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Motions to
dismiss; General rule that the denial of a motion
to dismiss or to quash being interlocutory in
character, cannot be questioned by certiorari
and cannot be subject of appeal until final
judgment or order is rendered, is subject to
certain exceptions; Reason; The court has no
jurisdiction over the offense or it is not the court
of proper venue.
3. Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or
transitory offense which may be prosecuted at
the place where any of the essential elements of
the crime took place. One of the essential
elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the
offended party. The private respondent has its
principal place of business and office at Manila.
The failure of the petitioner to remit the
insurance premiums she collected allegedly
caused damage and prejudice to private
respondent in Manila.
JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and
ROMEO B. OCON, petitioners, vs. VIRGILIO M.
TULIAO, respondent.

Facts:
1. Two burnt cadavers were discovered in
Isabela, which were identified as the bodies of
Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private
respondent Virgilio Tuliao.
2. SPO2 Maderal, one of the accused at large was
arrested. On 27 April 2001, he executed a sworn
confession and identified petitioners Miranda,
Ocon, and Dalmacio, as the persons responsible
for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer
Tuliao.
3. Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint
for murder against petitioners.
4. Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan
issued warrants of arrest against petitioners.
5. On 29 June 2001, petitioners MIRANDA,
DALMACIO, and OCON filed an urgent motion to
complete preliminary investigation, to
reinvestigate, and to recall and/or QUASH THE
WARRANTS OF ARREST.
6. In the hearing of the urgent motion on 6 July
2001, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of
petitioners and issued a Joint Order denying said
urgent motion on the ground that, since the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over their
persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by
the court.
7. On 17 August 2001, the new Presiding Judge
Anghad took over the case and issued a Joint
Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge
Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the
cancellation of the warrant of arrest issued
against petitioners.
8. On 25 October 2001, respondent Tuliao filed a
petition for certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition with this Court, with prayer for a
Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to enjoin
Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the
case, and seeking to nullify the Orders and Joint
Orders of Judge Anghad and it was granted.
9. Shortly after the TRO was issued, Judge
Anghad issued a Joint Order dismissing the
Informations for murder against petitioners.
10. Respondent Tuliao filed with the Supreme
Court a Motion to Cite Public Respondent in
Contempt, alleging that Judge Anghad
deliberately and willfully committed contempt
of court when he issued the dismissal of the
informations for murder.
11. The Supreme Court referred said motion to
the Court of Appeals in view of the previous
referral to it of respondents petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
12. Court of Appeals rendered the assailed
decision granting the petition and ordering the
reinstatement of the criminal cases in the RTC of
Santiago City, as well as the issuance of
warrants of arrest against petitioners.
Issue: Whether accused (petitioners) cannot
seek any judicial relief if they do not submit their
person to the jurisdiction of the court.
2
Jurisdiction, Judge E. Larida, Cases
Held: Yes. The petition is DENIED. Court of
Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
In the petitioners argument that jurisdiction over
the person is required only in the adjudication of
applications for bail must fail.
1. Custody of the law is required before the
court can act upon the application for bail, but
is not required for the adjudication of other
reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere
application therefor constitutes a waiver of the
defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the accused.
A distinction between custody of the
law and jurisdiction over the person must be
made.
Custody of the law is accomplished either by
arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is acquired upon
his arrest or voluntary appearance.
One can be under the custody of the law but not
yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person, such as when a person arrested by
virtue of a warrant files a motion before
arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other
hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of
the court over his person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law, such as when an accused
escapes custody after his trial has commenced.
Being in the custody of the law signifies
restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived
of his own will and liberty, binding him to
become obedient to the will of the law. Custody

of the law is literally custody over the body of
the accused. It includes, but is not limited to,
detention.
2. A person applying for admission to bail must
be in the custody of the law or otherwise
deprived of his liberty. A person who has not
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
has no right to invoke the processes of that
court.
There is, however, an exception to the rule that
filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance, and the
consequent submission of ones person to the
jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of
pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the
avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which
only leads to a special appearance.
These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, whether or not
other grounds for dismissal are included; (2)
in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash
a warrant of arrest.
The first two are consequences of the fact that
failure to file them would constitute a waiver of
the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
person. The third is a consequence of the fact
that it is the very legality of the court process
forcing the submission of the person of the
accused that is the very issue in a motion to
quash a warrant of arrest.
Jurisdiction, Judge E. Larida, Cases
1. On August 19, 1991, petitioner was charged
with violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
2. The case was archived due to petitioners non-
apprehension despite the issuance of a warrant
for his arrest.3
3. The warrant of arrest was recalled and set
aside4 after petitioner posted the required bail.
He was arraigned on July 25, 1995 when he
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.5
4. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial
Court finds the petitioner guilty as charged.
5. Petitioner appealed but it was dismissed by
the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial
courts decision in toto.
6. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals
found that the check was issued as a guaranty for
the loan, thereby rejecting petitioners
investment theory.
Issue: Whether the regional trial court has
jurisdiction over the case, despite the fact that at
the time the accused was arraigned on July 25,
1995 where RA. 7691 expanding the jurisdiction
of the metropolitan trial court was already in
effect.
ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA, Held: Yes. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of
petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the Court of Appeals finding petitioner ISIDRO
respondent. PABLITO M. PALANA guilty of violating Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, is AFFIRMED.
Facts: 1. Jurisdiction to try a criminal action is
determined by the law in force at the time of
the institution of the action and not during the
3

arraignment of the accused. The Information
charging petitioner with violation of B.P. Blg. 22
was filed on August 19, 1991. At that time, the
governing law determinative of jurisdiction
is B.P. Blg. 129.
2. Where a court has already obtained and is
exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its
jurisdiction to proceed to the final
determination of the cause is not affected by
new legislation placing jurisdiction over such
proceedings in another tribunal unless the
statute expressly provides, or is construed to
the effect that it is intended to operate on
actions pending before its enactment.
Indeed, R.A. No. 7691 contains retroactive
provisions. However, these only apply to civil
cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial
stage. Neither from an express proviso nor by
implication can it be construed that R.A. No.
7691 has retroactive application to criminal
cases pending or decided by the Regional Trial
Courts prior to its effectivity. The jurisdiction of
the RTC over the case attached upon the
commencement of the action by the filing of the
Information and could not be ousted by the
passage of R.A. No. 7691 reapportioning the
jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of
which to criminal cases is prospective in nature.
IRENE SANTE AND REYNALDO SANTE,
petitioners, vs. HON. EDILBERTO T. CLARAVALL,
in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 60,
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, and VITA N.
KALASHIAN, respondents.
Facts:
4
Jurisdiction, Judge E. Larida, Cases
1. On April 5, 2004, respondent Kalashian filed
before the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for
damages against petitioners Sante. Respondent
prayed that petitioners be held liable to pay
moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00;
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00
attorneys fees; P20,000.00 litigation expenses;
and costs of suit.
2. Thus, respondent prayed that petitioners be
held liable to pay moral damages.
3. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss5 on the
ground that it was the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC) and not the RTC of Baguio, that
had jurisdiction over the case. They argued that
the amount of the claim for moral damages was
not more than the jurisdictional amount of
P300,000.00, because the claim for exemplary
damages should be excluded in computing the
total claim.
4. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The
trial court held that the total claim of respondent
amounted to P420,000.00 which was above the
jurisdictional amount for MTCCs outside Metro
Manila.
5. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition before the Court of Appeals.
6. Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming
the denying petitioners Motion to Dismiss Ad
Cautelam. In the said decision, the appellate
court held that the total or aggregate amount
demanded in the complaint constitutes the basis
of jurisdiction.

7. The Court of Appeals did not find merit in
petitioners posture that the claims for
exemplary damages and attorneys fees are
merely incidental to the main cause and should
not be included in the computation of the total
claim.
Issue: Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the
case?
Held: Yes. The petition is DENIED, for lack of
merit.
1. In the instant case, the complaint principally
sought an award of moral and exemplary
damages, as well as attorneys fees and litigation
expenses, for the alleged shame and injury
suffered by respondent by reason of petitioners
utterance.
It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law
based on the facts alleged in the complaint since
the latter comprises a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs causes
of action. It is clear, based on the allegations of
the complaint that respondents main action is
for damages.
Hence, the other forms of damages being
claimed by respondent, e.g., exemplary
damages, attorneys fees and litigation
expenses, are not merely incidental to or
consequences of the main action but constitute
the primary relief prayed for in the complaint.
2. Where damages is the main cause of action,
should the amount of moral damages prayed for
in the complaint be the sole basis for
determining which court has jurisdiction or
should the total amount of all the damages
claimed regardless of kind and nature, such as
exemplary damages, nominal damages, and
attorneys fees, etc., be used? In this regard,
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 is instructive: x
x x x 2. 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.
VICTORINO QUINAGORAN,
petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE
HEIRS OF JUAN DE LA CRUZ, respondents.
Note:
Accion Publiciana - An ordinary civil proceeding
to recover the better right of possession.
Accion Reivindicatoria - An ordinary civil
proceeding to recover possession based on
ownership.
Facts:
5
Jurisdiction, Judge E. Larida, Cases
1. A Complaint for Recovery of Portion of
Registered Land beforethe Regional Trial Court
(RTC) Branch XI of Tuao, Cagayan.
2. They alleged that they are the co-owners of a
a parcel of land containing 13,100 sq. m., which
they inherited from the late Juan dela Cruz;4 that
in the mid-70s, Quinagoran started occupying a
house on the north-west portion of the property,
covering 400 sq. m., by tolerance of the heirs of
Juan;
3. When demanded to vacate, Quinagoran
refused, claiming ownership over the lot.
4. Quinagoran filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to include all civil
actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein which does
not exceed P20,000.00.
5. He argued that since the 346 sq. m. lot which
he owns adjacent to the contested property has
an assessed value of P1,730.00, the assessed
value of the lot under controversy would not be
more than the said amount.7
6. The RTC denied petitioners Motion to
Dismiss. The present action on the basis of the
allegation of the complaint partakes of the
nature of action publiciana (sic) and jurisdiction
over said action lies with the Regional Trial Court,
regardless of the value of the property.

7. CA affirms RTC in toto.
Issue: Whether all cases of recovery of
possession or accion publiciana lies with the
regional trial courts regardless of the value of the
property?
Jurisdiction, Judge E. Larida, Cases
the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in
denying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, all
proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and
the CA erred in affirming the RTC.

Held: No.

1. As things now stand, a distinction must be

made between those properties the assessed
value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside
Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within. (BP 129
as amended by RA 7691)

2. Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed

value of the subject property ever mentioned.

3. A complaint must allege the assessed value

of the real property subject of the complaint or
the interest thereon to determine which court
has jurisdiction over the action.

3. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint

of the assessed value of the property, it cannot
be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
petitioners action.

4. The courts cannot take judicial notice of the

assessed or market value of the land.
Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon
the answer of the defendant or even upon
agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the
parties.

5. Considering that the respondents failed to

allege in their complaint the assessed value of
6