You are on page 1of 4

CASE DOCTRINES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE UNDER DEAN JARA - DAVID

3. BARRIDO VS. NONATO


JURISDICTION CASES

1. SANTE VS. CLARAVALL NO. The petition is without merit. Contrary to Barridos
contention, the MTCC has jurisdiction to take
HELD: NO. We deny the petition, which although denominated as cognizance of real actions or those affecting title to real
a petition for certiorari, we treat as a petition for review on certiorari property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the
under Rule 45 in view of the issues raised. Based on the partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a
foregoing, there is no question that at the time of the filing of the mortgage on real property. Section 33 of Batas
complaint on April 5, 2004, the MTCCs jurisdictional amount has Pambansa Bilang 1298 provides: Section 33. Jurisdiction
been adjusted to P300,000.00. In the instant case, the complaint of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
filed in Civil Case No. 5794-R is for the recovery of damages for the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases.
alleged malicious acts of petitioners. The complaint principally sought Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
an award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees Municipal Circuit
and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and injury suffered by
respondent by reason of petitioners utterance while they were at a
police station in Pangasinan. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred 4. BRGY. SAN ROQUE VS.PASTOR
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.[20] It is clear, based on the allegations of the YES. An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary
complaint, that respondents main action is for damages. Hence, the estimation. Accordingly, it falls within the jurisdiction of
other forms of damages being claimed by respondent, e.g., exemplary the regional trial courts, regardless of the value of the
damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses, are not merely subject property.
incidental to or consequences of the main action but constitute the
primary relief prayed for in the complaint.Considering that the total RTC HAS THE AUTHORITY AND POWER TO HEAR,
amount of damages claimed was P420,000.00, the Court of TRY AND DECIDE THE CASE. It should be stressed
Appeals was correct in ruling that the RTC had jurisdiction over the that the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is
case. whether the government or any of its instrumentalities
has complied with the requisites for the taking of private
2. SEBASTIAN VS. LAGMAY property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of
the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation,
MCTC HAS THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TO and the observance of due process.Error! Hyperlink
EXECUTE THE KASUNDUAN. We deny the petition of Michael. reference not valid. In the main, the subject of an
We note at the outset that Michael raised - in his brief before the C expropriation suit is the governments exercise of
A - the issue of wrong remedy. He alleged that Angelita's recourse eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary
should have been to file a civil action, not a mere motion for estimation. True, the value of the property to be
execution, in a regular court. However, the CA failed to address expropriated is estimated in monetary terms, for the
this issue and only ruled on the issues of the kasunduan's court is duty-bound to determine the just compensation
irregularities and the MCTC's jurisdiction. for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the
expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined
A simple reading of Section 417 of the Local Government Code only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the
readily discloses the two-tiered mode of enforcement of an expropriation. We are not persuaded by respondents
amicable settlement. The provision reads: Section argument that the present action involves the title to or
417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award possession of a parcel of land. They cite the observation
may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months of retired Justice Jose Y. Feria, an eminent authority in
from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the remedial law, that condemnation or expropriation
settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or proceedings are examples of real actions that affect the
municipal court. The second mode of enforcement, on the other title to or possession of a parcel of land.Error!
hand, is judicial in nature and could only be resorted to through the Hyperlink reference not valid. Their reliance is
institution of an action in a regular form before the proper misplaced. Justice Feria sought merely to distinguish
City/Municipal Trial Court.11The proceedings shall be governed by between real and personal actions. His discussion on
the provisions of the Rules of Court.Thus, the motion for this point pertained to the nature of actions, not to the
execution that Angelita filed was intended to be an initiatory jurisdiction of courts.
pleading or an original action that is compliant with the
requirement under Section 3, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court that 5. GONZALES vs. GJH LAND
the complaint should allege the plaintiffs cause of action and
the names and residences of the plaintiff and the defendant.
The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure
The kasunduan has the force and effect of a final judgment. to be followed when a commercial case - such as the
The MCTC has the authority and jurisdiction instant intra-corporate dispute -has been properly
to enforce the kasunduan regardless of the amount involved. filed in the official station of the designated Special
Commercial Court but is, however, later wrongly
assigned by raffle to a regular branch of that station.

As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's


acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case's subject
CASE DOCTRINES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE UNDER DEAN JARA - DAVID

2. BLOSSOM and CO., petitioner, vs. MANILA GAS


matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its CORPORATION
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case
is conferred by law, whereas a court's exercise of
jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by
That finding is sustained upon the theory that the
the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by
defendant broke its contract which it made with the
the Court.26 In Lozada v. Bracewell,27 it was recently held
plaintiff for the sale and delivery of the tars on and after
that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the
April, 1926. After careful study of the many important
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
questions presented on this appeal in the exhaustive
jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure
brief of the appellant, we are clearly of the opinion that,
and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
as found by the lower court, the plea of res
judicata must be sustained. The judgment of the
Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8,
lower court is affirmed. It is so ordered, with costs
2000. By virtue of said law, jurisdiction over cases enumerated
against the plaintiff-appellant. RES JUDICATA
in Section 528 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A29 was
APPLIES.
transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general jurisdiction. The
Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under CASE DOCTRINE: XPN: A CONTRACT TO DO
Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby SEVERAL THINGS AT SEVERAL TIMES IS DIVISIBLE
transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the IN NATURE, THIS KIND OF OBLIGATION
appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the AUTHORIZES SUCCESSIVE ACTIONS AND A
Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may JUDGMENT RECOVERED FOR A SINGLE BREACH
designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall DOES NOT BAR A SUIT FOR A SUBSEQUENT
exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall BREACH. (INSTALLMENTS), HOWEVER IF THERE IS
retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE
disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved RENUNCIATION GOES INTO THE WHOLE
within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The CONTRACT AND WILL BE TREATED AS A
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of COMPLETE BREACH WHICH WILL ENTITLE THE
payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until INJURED PARTY TO BRING HIS ACTION ONCE.
finally disposed. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
RULE 3
Going back to the case at bar, the Court nonetheless deems
that the erroneous raffling to a regular branch instead of to a
Special Commercial Court is only a matter of procedure - that 1. SWAGMAN HOTELS AND TRAVEL,
is, an incident related to the exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
should not negate the jurisdiction which the RTC of Muntinlupa
City had already acquired. In such a scenario, the proper ISSUE: May a complaint that lacks a cause of action
course of action was not for the commercial case to be at the time it was filed be cured by the accrual of a
dismissed; instead, Branch 276 should have first referred the cause of action during the pendency of the case?
case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a
commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should
then assign said case to the only designated Special HELD: NO. It thus follows that a complaint whose cause
Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch 256. of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or
remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading
Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action
acquiring jurisdiction over the case has multiple special while the case is pending.Error! Hyperlink reference
commercial court branches; in such a scenario, the Executive not valid. Such an action is prematurely brought and is,
Judge, after re-docketing the same as a commercial case, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed
should proceed to order its re-raffling among the said special by the court upon proper motion seasonably filed by the
branches. defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a
person should not be summoned before the public
RULE 2 tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature.

1. DE LARENA VS. VILLANUEVA 2. ADA VS. BAYLON


CASE DOCTRINE: (XPN TO THE XPN) IF AT THE TIME OF
THE BRINGING OF SUIT, SEVERAL INSTALLMENTS ARE
ALREADY DUE, ALL MUST BE INCLUDED AS
INTEGRATING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION, OTHERWISE By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of
THOSE NOT INCLUDED WOULD BE BARRED. RES
JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY.NOTE: GR: A CONTRACT causes of action is meant the uniting of two or more
EMBRACES ONLY ONE CAUSE OF ACTION. XPN: A
CONTRACT TO DO SEVERAL THINGS AT SEVERAL TIMES demands or rights of action in one action, the statement
IS DIVISIBLE IN NATURE, THIS KIND OF OBLIGATION
AUTHORIZES SUCCESSIVE ACTIONS AND A JUDGMENT of more than one cause of action in a declaration. It is
RECOVERED FOR A SINGLE BREACH DOES NOT BAR A
SUIT FOR A SUBSEQUENT BREACH. (INSTALLMENTS) the union of two or more civil causes of action, each of
CASE DOCTRINES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE UNDER DEAN JARA - DAVID

against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt,

through the filing of a personal action for collection


which could be made the basis of a separate suit, in the same
of sum of money or the institution of a real action to
complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may under certain
foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies
circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or
29 are alternative, and each remedy is complete by itself.
rights of action in one declaration, complaint or petition.
Thus, if the creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real
The objectives of the rule or provision are to avoid a
estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection
multiplicity of suits where the same parties and subject matter
of the unpaid debt, except only for the not cumulative or
are to be dealt with by effecting in one action a complete
successive, recovery of whatever deficiency may remain
determination of all matters in controversy and litigation
in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor
between the parties involving one subject matter, and to
after deducting the bid price in the public auction
expedite the disposition of litigation at minimum cost. The
sale of the mortgaged properties. Accordingly, a
provision should be construed so as to avoid such multiplicity,
deficiency judgment shall only issue after it is
where possible, without prejudice to the rights of the
30 established that the mortgaged property was sold at
litigants. Nevertheless, while parties to an action may
public auction for an amount less than the outstanding
assert in one pleading, in the alternative or otherwise, as
obligation. In the present case, records show that
many causes of action as they may have against an opposing
petitioner, as creditor- mortgagee, instituted an action for
party, such joinder of causes of action is subject to the
judicial foreclosure pursuant to the provisions of Rule 68
condition, inter alia, that the joinder shall not include special
31 of the Rules of Comt in order to recover on Rafael's
civil actions governed by special rules.
debt. In light of the foregoing discussion, the availment

Here, there was a misjoinder of causes of action. The action of such remedy thus bars recourse to the subsequent

for partition filed by the petitioners could not be joined with the filing of a personal action for collection of the same

action for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in debt, in this case, under the principle of litis pendentia,

favor of Florante. Lest it be overlooked, an action for partition considering that the foreclosure case only remains

is a special civil action governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of pending as it was not shown to have attained finality.

Court while an action for rescission is an ordinary civil action

governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure.

NORLINDA S. MARILAG VS. MARCELO MARTINEZ

In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule

is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action RULE 3


CASE DOCTRINES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE UNDER DEAN JARA - DAVID

1. ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA, etal. Vs EDUARDO R. ERMITA 3. ROSENDO BACALSO, RODRIGO BACALSO,

et.al vs. MAXIMO PADIGOS


ISSUE: WON THE INSTITUTED CLASS SUIT IS VALID?
ISSUE: WON AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY
WHICH IS NOT IMPLEADED RENDERS
HELD: NO. Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines a THE COMPLAINT VOID ON THE GROUND
OF LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION?
class suit, as follows: 4.
YES. THE COURT RULED IN AFFIRMATIVE
IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS
Sec. 12. Class suit. When the subject matter of the

controversy is one of common or general interest to many

persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as

parties, a number of them which the court finds to be

sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the

interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of

all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to

protect his individual interest. Here, the petition failed to state

the number of NPO employees who would be affected by the

assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly represented

by petitioners.

2. ROGER V. NAVARRO, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE

L. ESCOBIDO

ISSUE: WON KAREN GO IS A REAL PARTY-IN-

INTEREST?

HELD:YES. Karen Go is a real party-in-interest, Under

Rule 3, Sec. 2, A real party is a party who stands to be

benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the

party entitled to the avails of the suit, unless otherwise

authorized by the law or these Rules, every action must

be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party

in interest.