JURISDICTION DEFINED Since jurisdiction refers to power or
authority to hear, try and decide a case, it
Traditional Meaning
Jurisdiction has, traditionally, been
referred to as the power and authority of
the court 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.
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. Secretary of Justice, 301
SCRA 96).
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 grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of
Government. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
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. Barretto, 25 Phil. 245)
cannot depend on the correctness or
rightfulness of the decision made.
(Century Insurance Co. v. Fuentes, 2
SCRA 1168 [1961])
Correctness or rightfulness of the decision
relates to the exercise of and not to the
authority itself.
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 though the
issue of jurisdiction is not raised or not
even suggested by counsel (Ace
Publications vs. Commissioner of
Customs, 11 SCRA 147).
Effect if the court has no jurisdiction or
of absence or lack of jurisdiction over
the case — it has no power or authority to
try a case and because it has no authority
it must not exercise it.
Exercise of jurisdiction 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.
Effect 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).
JURISDICTION v. EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction – is the power or authority of
the court to hear, try, decide and execute
a case.
Exercise of Jurisdiction – is the exercise
of the power of the court or authority of the
court to hear, try, decide and execute a
case.
ILLUSTRATION: Where there is
jurisdiction over the person and the
subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of that jurisdiction.
ERROR OF JURISDICTION V. ERROR
OF JUDGMENT
Distinctions:
Error of judgment – happens when the
court vested with jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action, while in the
process of exercising the jurisdiction, it
committed mistakes in the appreciation of
the facts and the evidence leading to an
erroneous judgment.
When a court acquires jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the decision or order on all
other questions arising in the case is but
an exercise of jurisdiction; Errors which
the court may commit in the exercise of
such jurisdiction, like errors of procedure
or mistakes in the court's findings, are
merely ERRORS OF JUDGMENT;
whereas,
Error of jurisdiction – is one which
occurs when the court exercises a
jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law.
When a court takes cognizance of a case
over the subject matter of which it has no
jurisdiction, or acts in excess of jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the court
commits an ERROR OF
JURISDICTION.(GSIS vs. Oliza 304
SCRA 421).
ILLUSTRATION: When the court acts
without authority (error of jurisdiction) such
act would be null and void or at least
voidable, but if the court has authority but
commits a mistake in the exercise of such
authority (error of judgment) such mistake
will bind unless corrected.
ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are
reviewable by the extraordinary writ of
certiorari; whereas, ERRORS OF
JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.
Importance of the distinction — is to
determine the proper remedy
An error of judgment should be raised
on ordinary appeal, not by certiorari
because certiorari is only confined to
correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion.
The governing rule is that the remedy of
certiorari is not available when
the remedy of appeal is available or
even if available, when it will not be a
speedy and adequate remedy.
And when the remedy of appeal is lost,
you cannot revive it by resorting to
certiorari because certiorari is not a
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
Error of jurisdiction — petition for certiorari
is only confined to correcting errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
Aspects of Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the parties;
3. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case;
and
4. Jurisdiction over the res or thing
involved in the litigation (Boston Equity
Resources, Inc. v CA, G.R. No. 173946,
June 19, 2013)
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER
Jurisdiction over the subject matter — It
refers to the jurisdiction of the court over
the class of cases to which a particular
case belongs.
Example of subject matters are: real
actions, personal actions, actions
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
How jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred?
- It is conferred by law which may be either
the Constitution or a statute.
Consequences of the rule that jurisdiction
is conferred by law:
- It cannot be granted by the agreement of
the parties;
- It cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged,
or diminished by any act or omission of the
parties;
- It cannot be conferred by the
acquiescence of the courts (Republic vs
Estipular, 336 SCRA 333, 340).
The law applicable to the case:
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive
law, the established rule is that the statute
in force at the time of the commencement
of the action determines the jurisdiction of
the court (Barangay Mayamot vs Antipolo
City, G.R. No. 187349, August 17, 2016).
Determination of the subject matter or
nature (class) of the action — 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).
Exception to the rule that jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations of the
complaint
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] plainly, after joining of the issues and
the ultimate fact is revealed and therefore
the relief sought as well.
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.
General 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).
Bar by Estoppel Is an Exception and
Not the General Rule
The doctrine laid down in Tijam is the
exception , 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.
DOCTRINES ON JURISDICTION
1. Doctrine of hierarchy of courts —
Where courts have concurrent jurisdiction
over a subject matter, such concurrence of
jurisdiction does not grant the party
seeking relief the absolute freedom to file
a petition in any court of his choice.
Pursuant to this doctrine, a case must be
filed first before the lowest court possible
having the appropriate jurisdiction, except
if one can advance a special reason which
would allow a party a direct resort to a
higher court.
When the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts may be disregarded:
In relation to cases filed with the Supreme
Court, a direct resort to it was allowed in
certain cases, like:
- When there are special and important
reasons clearly stated in the petition;
- When directed by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy;
- When demanded by the broader interest
of justice;
- When the challenged orders were patent
nullities;
- When analogous exceptional and
compelling circumstances called for and
justified the immediate and direct handling
by the court.
- When there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time.
2. Doctrine of non-interference
(Doctrine of judicial stability) — Holds
that courts of equal and coordinate
jurisdiction cannot interfere with each
other’s orders.
3. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
(Primary administrative jurisdiction) —
Under this doctrine, a remedy within the
administrative machinery must be
resorted to give the administrative officers
every opportunity to decide a matter within
its jurisdiction. Such remedy must be
exhausted first before the court’s power of
judicial review can be sought.
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).
Exceptions to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction :
- Where there is estoppel on the part of the
party invoking the doctrine;
- Where the challenged administrative act
is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
- Where there is unreasonable delay or
official inaction that will irretrievably
prejudice the complaint;
- Where the amount involved is relatively
small so as to make the rule impractical
and oppressive;
- Where the question involved is purely
legal and will ultimately have to be decided
by the courts of justice;
- Where judicial intervention is urgent;
- When its application may cause great
and irreparable damage;
- Where the controverted acts violate due
process;
- When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been
rendered moot;
- When there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy;
- When strong public interest is involved;
and
- In quo warranto proceedings.
4. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
(Continuity 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]).
The court, once jurisdiction has been
acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it
finally disposes of the case (De La Rosa
vs. Roldan, 501 SCRA 34).
As a consequence of this principle,
jurisdiction is not affected by a new law
placing a proceeding under the jurisdiction
of another tribunal except when otherwise
provided in the statute or if the statute is
clearly intended to apply to actions
pending even before its enactment
(People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267)
Exceptions 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])
5. Doctrine of ancillary (incidental)
jurisdiction — This power refers to the
authority of an office or tribunal to do all
things necessary for the administration of
justice within the scope of its jurisdiction,
and for the enforcement of its judgment
and mandate (University of the
Immaculate Conception vs Office of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R.
Nos. 178085-178086, September 14,
2015).
6. Doctrine of Judicial stability — The
doctrine of judicial stability is one which
precludes a court from interfering by
injunction with the regular orders of a co-
equal court.
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 earliest opportunity of a party to
raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion
to dismiss filed before the filing or service
of an answer.
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
is a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec.
1(b), Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no
motion is filed, the defense of lack of
jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative
defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16)
Omnibus Motion rule, a motion attacking
a pleading like a motion to dismiss, shall
include all grounds then available, and all
objections not so included shall be
deemed waived (Sec. 8 Rule 15).
The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter is however, a defense not
barred by the failure to invoke the same
in a motion to dismiss already filed.
Even if a motion to dismiss was filed and
the issue of jurisdiction was not raised
therein, a party may, when he files an
answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an
affirmative defense because this defense
is not barred under the omnibus motion
rule.
Thus, the prevailing rule is that
jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on
appeal (Calimlim vs. Ramirez, 118 SCRA
399; Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip
469 SCRA 424).
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).
Lack of jurisdiction is one of those
excepted grounds where the court may
dismiss a claim or a case at any time when
it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that any of those
ground exists, even if they were not raised
in the answer or in a motion to dismiss.
That the issue of lack of jurisdiction was
raised only by the defendants in their
memorandum filed before the trial court
did not render them in estoppel (Vda. De
Barrera vs. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR
No. 174346 Sept. 12, 2008).
Q: When the court dismisses the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, should it refer or forward
the case to another court with the proper
jurisdiction?
A: It is submitted that the court should not
do so. Its only authority is to dismiss the
complaint and not to make any other
order.
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.
General 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).
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.
A: 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 Jurisdiction over the persons of
the parties is acquired ( Bar 2009)
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person?
A: 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).
First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM
OF COERCIVE PROCESS IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW
- The first instance when a court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is through a service upon him of
the appropriate court process which in civil
law is called service of summons. This is
the counterpart of warrant of arrest in
criminal procedure.
- So if the defendant was never served
with summons, any judgment rendered by
the court will not bind him. Even if he is the
loser in the case, judgment cannot be
enforced because the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over his person.
- The same principle holds true in criminal
cases. A court cannot try and convict an
accused over whose person the court
never acquired jurisdiction. In criminal
cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person through the issuance and
service of a warrant of arrest. The warrant
cannot have its effect even if it was issued,
if the same had not been served, i.e. by
effecting the arrest of the accused by
virtue of a warrant.
Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant
of arrest be effected?
A: Once an information has been filed in
court, the court issues a warrant. Then, the
arresting officer will arrest the accused.
The court acquires jurisdiction by
ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE for
effective arrest of the accused pursuant to
the warrant of arrest.
Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY
SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT
Another way to acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the accused even if the
accused is not arrested is through
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there
is no more need for the warrant, the court
will recall the same.
In civil cases, it is the voluntary submission
of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Q: Defendant was served with summons
improperly or irregularly therefore, he
could question the jurisdiction of the court
over his person. But instead, he did not
question the jurisdiction of the court
despite the defective service of court
process. Did the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant?
A: YES, because 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)
This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject
matter wherein the case could be
dismissed upon filing in the wrong court.
The SC said that when you remained
silent despite the defects, your silence has
cured the defect. Meaning, the jurisdiction
over your person was acquired by waiver,
or consent, or lack of objection.
Q: 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.
Certain actions which could be
construed as voluntary appearance
are:
- when the defendant’s counsel files the
corresponding pleading thereon;
- when the defendant files a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment by
default;
- when the defendant files a petition to set
aside the judgment of default;
- when the defendant and plaintiff jointly
submit a compromise agreement for the
approval of the court;
- when the defendant files an answer to
the contempt charge;
- when the defendant files a petition for
certiorari without questioning the court’s
jurisdiction over his person (Navale v. CA,
253 SCRA 705, 709, 710, 709-712 [1996])
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).
Effect of pleading additional defenses
aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant
The rule was re-examined in La Naval
Drug Corporation vs. CA 236 SCRA 78.
The pronouncements in said case are now
embodied in Sec. 20 of Rule 14 which
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. ”
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.
Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.
A: 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 issue is, therefore,
conferred and determined by the
pleadings of the parties.
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:
1. 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;
2. 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])
Take note that jurisdiction over the issues
in civil cases is acquired after defendant
has filed an answer. In criminal cases,
jurisdiction over the issues is acquired
when the accused enters a plea of not
guilty or pleads guilty but seeks to prove a
mitigating circumstance.
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.
Question of Law v. Question of Fact (
Bar 2004)
There is a question of law when the doubt
or difference arises as to what the law is
applicable on a certain set of facts. There
is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of the alleged facts (Sps.
Santos vs. CA 337 SCRA 67).
When the issue involves a review of the
evidence, it involves a question of fact
because evidence, as defined, is the
means, sanctioned by the rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1
Rule 128)
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)
Define jurisdiction over the res.
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 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)
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).
Importance of jurisdiction over the res
— The court obtains the authority to bind
the “thing”. 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 status against which or in
relation to which the judgment can be
enforced.
In Rule 57 Section 1, among the grounds
for issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment is:
“(f) In an action against a party who does
not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, or on whom summons may be
served by publications.”
JURISDICITON OF REGULAR COURTS
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT
The Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts — The SC is not a trier of facts,
which means that passing upon a factual
issue is not within the province of the Court
(Romy’s Freight Service vs. Castro, 490
SCRA 160).
The findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals are not generally reviewable by
the SC (Sarmiento vs. Yu 497 SCRA 513).
Also, factual findings of the trial court,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are generally binding on the
Court (Tan vs. GVT Engineering Services
498 SCRA 93; Office of the Ombudsman
vs. Lazaro-Baldazo GR No. 170815
February 2, 2007).
It is not the function of the SC to determine
the weight of the evidence supporting the
assailed decision (JR Blanco vs. Quasha
318 SCRA 373).
XPN to the factual-bar issue rule
However, factual issues may be delved
into and resolved where the findings and
conclusions of the trial court or the quasi-
judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent
with the findings of the CA (Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Tongson 499 SCRA
567).
The highest court of the land is the
Supreme Court. It was not affected by the
Judiciary Law (BP 129) which reorganized
the judiciary in 1983. Being a
constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found
in the fundamental law itself. The SC is
both an original and appellate court.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT
Article VIII, Section 5 , paragraph 1 of
the 1987 Constitution enumerates the
ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the SC:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers:
“Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto , and habeas corpus.”
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT
The appellate jurisdiction is found in
Section 5, Paragraph (2), Article VIII
1987 Constitution:
“Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm
on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
- All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
- All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
- All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.
- All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
All cases in which an error or question of
law is involved.
- All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.”
So if the RTC in a certain civil case
declares the law as unconstitutional since
it has the power to do so, the same has to
be appealed directly to the SC. It cannot
pass through the CA because the SC has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction regarding
the matter.
“b) All cases involving the legality of any
tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.”
This is related to the legality of tax cases
– whether a tax or tax penalty is legal or
not. However, whatever decision the lower
court gives, it has to be appealed directly
to the SC.
Take note that ONLY questions of law is
involved. So, if there is a mixed question
of law and a question of fact, the appeal
must be filed with the CA. This applies to
both criminal and civil cases.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT
Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a),
1987 Constitution:
“Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote x x x. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.”
The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act
also as courts of justice.
They have powers to decide certain cases
within their jurisdiction.
- Election cases are filed with the
COMELEC
- Claims against the government – COA.
- disallowance on disbursement by
government officers or removal from
government service – CSC.
Any decision, order or ruling of these
commissions may be brought to the SC on
certiorari, etc.
However, Congress amended the
Judiciary Law particularly Section 9 on the
jurisdiction of the CA by now making
decisions of the CSC appealable to the
Court of Appeals.
Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph,
1987 Constitution:
“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of
the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.”
If there’s an electoral protest for the
President and Vice-President, the matter
is not to be decided by the COMELEC but
by the SC.
This is what is called as the SC acting as
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
The only case so far was that filed by
Defensor-Santiago but which was
dismissed, the SC ruled that when she ran
for the Senate, she has already technically
abandoned her interest for the
Presidency.
Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987
Constitution – Commander-in-Chief
Clause
“The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or
extension thereof, and must promulgate
its decision thereon within thirty days from
its filing.”
So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen review the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire
into the basis on why martial law is
declared.
Which therefore abandons the Political
Question doctrine laid down in many
earlier cases that it is the prerogative of
the President to determination, at his
discretion, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ
or the extension thereof.
Article VIII, Section 2, 1987
Constitution:
“The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may
not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 hereof.”
Congress may change or even remove the
jurisdiction of the RTC or CA. The law can
change them because jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred by law.
However, Congress does not have the
power to lessen or deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction under Section 5,
Article VIII.
However Article VI, Section 30 states:
“No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution
without its advice and concurrence.”
Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can
increase the SC’s powers and jurisdiction,
PROVIDED it is with the latter's advice
and concurrence.
The provision under the Ombudsman Law
with regard to the Ombudsman’s
disciplining power appealable directly to
the SC, was declared unconstitutional by
the SC because it increased the SC’s
jurisdiction and was passed without the
advise and concurrence of the SC.
So more or less, these are the scattered
provisions of the Constitution dealing with
the SC’s jurisdiction.
The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction
of the SC refers to petitions for the
issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus as defined in Rule 65
against the following: the CA, the
COMELEC, COA, Sandiganbayan,
Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
NLRC or the Secretary of Labor under the
Labor Code.
The cases where its original
jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the
CA are likewise petitions for the issuance
of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus against the following: the SEC,
the CSC, the different boards, tribunals or
agencies which replaced the old Public
Service Commission (e.g. LTFRB). Also,
issuance of writ of certiorari against the
RTC and other quasijudicial agencies,
courts, instrumentalities and
commissions.
SC CONCURRENT with the RTC are
those actions affecting ambassadors and
other public ministers and consuls. This is
based on the Judiciary Law and the
Constitution.
SC CONCURRENT with the CA and
RTC are those involving habeas corpus,
quo warranto, and writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against
inferior courts and bodies. For example, a
petition for mandamus against the MTC of
Davao City can be filed with the SC, CA,
or RTC although the policy of the Supreme
Court is that it should be filed with the RTC
based on the hierarchy of the courts.
(Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)
Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA
8249), there is now a CONCURRENCE
between the SC and the
Sandiganbayan in so far as petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas
corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs
in aid of the Sandiganbayan's
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT
1. Automatic review of death penalty.
- So when the RTC imposes the death
penalty, whether the accused appeals or
not, the case will be elevated to the SC;
2. Ordinary appeal from the RTC direct to
the SC.
- This only applies to criminal cases where
the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed or other offenses
which arise out of the same occurrence or
committed by the accused on the same
occasion;
3. Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45.
When it comes to appeal by Certiorari,
there are three types:
a. From the CA or all appeals from the CA
are certiorari which is different from the
certiorari in Rule 65.
b. From the RTC direct to the SC. Now,
this is not ordinary appeal because this
only applies to criminal cases. In civil
cases, if you want to go directly to the SC,
you can do so by appeal by certiorari,
provided that the following conditions are
met:
- If no question of fact is involved and the
case involves the constitutionality or
legality validity of any tax, impost, etc., or
jurisdiction of the lower courts is in issue (
Article VIII, section 5 par.(2)
4. only an error or question of law involved;
5. a judgment rendered upon an award
under the Arbitration Law (RA 876)
appeal on pure questions of law in
cases of appeal to the RTC from inferior
courts.
- So, from the MTC to the RTC – ordinary
appeal. From the RTC, on pure questions
of law, to the SC – appeal by certiorari.
Procedure when the SC en banc is
equally divided ( Bar 2012)
Where the opinion of the SC en banc is
equally divided, or the necessary majority
cannot be had, the case shall again be
deliberated on. If after such deliberation a
decision is reached, the original action
commenced in the court shall be
dismissed.
In appealed cases, the judgment or order
appealed from shall stand affirmed.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS
Original Concurrent Section 9,
paragraph 1, BP 129 Section 9 –
Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals
shall exercise:
“Original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction.”
Original Jurisdiction
Exclusive
1. Actions for annulment of judgments of
the Regional Trial Courts (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 9[2]); 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 47).
2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus involving an act or omission of
a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law (Rule 65, Sec. 4, as
amended by A.M. No. 077-12-SC dated
December 12, 2007).
Concurrent
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus against:
1. RTC
2. NLRC, but it should be filed with the CA
first St. Martin Funeral Home vs CA
(GR130866 September 16, 1998
3. Other quasi-judicial agencies
mentioned in Rule 43
4. Court of tax appeals
Q. Being concurrent, what will happen if
such a case is filed simultaneously in the
CA and SC?
A: The consequence is found in Section
17 of the Interim Rules. In other words, the
Interim Rules are still intact.
Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs
of certiorari, etc. - No petition for certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or
quo warranto may be filed in the IAC if
another similar petition has been filed or is
still pending in the SC. Nor may such
petition be filed in the SC if a similar
petition has been filed or is still pending in
the IAC, unless it is to review the action
taken by the IAC on the petition filed with
it. A violation of this rule shall constitute
contempt of court and shall be a cause for
the summary dismissal of both petitions,
without prejudice to the taking of
appropriate action against the counsel or
party concerned.
Original Exclusive Section 9,
paragraph 2, BP 129
(2) “Exclusive” jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts;
Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of
RTC’s, is this similar to an appeal? Is this
the same as appealing the decision of the
RTC to the CA?
A: No, because in appeal, you are
invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the
CA. Here in paragraph 2, it is not appellate
but original jurisdiction. Meaning, you are
filing an action before the CA for the first
time. And the nature of the action is to
annul a judgment of the RTC.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS
Paragraph 3, Sec. 9 of BP 129 defines
the appellate jurisdiction of the CA.
Section 9, paragraph 3, BP 129
1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of the RTCs and quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards
or commissions, including the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil
Service Commission, except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC
in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under PD
442, as amended, the provisions of this
Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the
fourth paragraph of Sec. 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.
Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of
Appeal or with Record on Appeal
2. Appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts, except those appealable to the
Supreme Court under Sec. 2(3) of I.B.
above.
3. Appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts on constitutional, tax, jurisdictional
questions involving questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact and law or which
should be appealed first to the Court of
Appeals (Republic Act No. 296 [1948]
Sec. 17, par. 4.4, as amended, which was
not intended to be excluded by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 9[3]).
4. Appeals from the decisions and
final orders of the Family Courts (Republic
Act No. 8369 [1997], Sec. 14).
5. Appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts, where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
or where a lesser penalty is imposed but
for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the same
occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense for which the penalty of
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
imposed (Rule 122, Sec. 3[c], as amended
by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective October
15, 2004; People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos.
147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640)
6. Direct appeal from land registration
and cadastral cases decided by
metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial
courts, and municipal circuit trial courts
based on their delegated jurisdiction.
7. Special civil action of certiorari
(Rule 65) against decisions and final
resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission (A. M. No. 99-2-01-SC; St.
Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 13086,
September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494;
Torres, et. al. v. Specialized Packaging
Development Corp., et. al., G.R.
No.149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455)
8. Automatic review in cases where
the Regional Trial Courts impose the
death penalty14 (Secs. 3[d] and 10, Rule
122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-
SC, effective October 15, 2004; People vs.
Mateo, supra)
9. Petition for Review Appeals from
the Civil Service Commission (Rep. Act
No. 7902 [1995]; Rule 43, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure).
10. Appeals from the Regional Trial
Courts in cases appealed from the
Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, which are not a matter
of right (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983],
Sec. 22; Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure; Rule 122, Sec. 3[b]).
11. Appeals from awards, judgments,
final orders, or resolutions of, or
authorized by, quasi-judicial agencies in
the exercise of their quasi-judicial
functions. Among these are:
A. Securities and Exchange Commission;
Office of the President;
B. Land Registration Authority;
C. Social Security Commission;
D. Civil Aeronautics Board;
E. Intellectual Property Office (formerly F.
the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and
Technology Transfer);
G. National Electrification Administration;
H. Energy Regulatory Board;
I. National Telecommunications
Commission;
J. Department of Agrarian Reform under
Rep. Act No. 6657;
K. Government Service Insurance
System;
L. Employees Compensation
Commission;
M. Agricultural Inventions Board;
N. Insurance Commission;
O. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
P. Board of Investments;
Q. Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission;
R. Voluntary arbitrators authorized by
law; and 19. Decisions of Special
Agrarian Courts
12. Appeals from the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) (Rep. Act No. 8371 [1997], Sec.
67).
13. Appeals from the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases (A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian v.
Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September
16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470).
Take note, the appellate jurisdiction of the
CA is generally EXCLUSIVE except in
criminal cases decided by the RTC when
the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment or death.
Q:A labor case is not supposed to be filed
in court but with a quasi-judicial agency
known as the NLRC and you start in the
local level – from the Labor Arbiter, then
the decisions of the Labor Arbiter are
appealable to the NLRC and then from
there, where will you go?
NOTE:Subparagraph 4 of the fourth
paragraph of Section 17 refers to appeal
from the RTC on pure legal question which
should be filed with the SC.
Q: Suppose there are questions of fact, or
it is an appeal on questions of fact and
questions of law?
A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you
cannot appeal directly to the SC. You must
appeal to the CA. The same thing when
the issue is on the constitutionality of a
treaty, law, legality of tax, when the
jurisdiction of the lower court is in issue, as
explained here in this paragraph of the
Judiciary Act of 1948, if the appeal is
100% constitutional issue, jurisdictional or
legality issue – appeal is to the SC under
the Constitution. But if it is mixed with
questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You
go first to the CA. That is what the
paragraph is all about.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal
- Appeals from RTC and family courts,
except those appealable to the Supreme
Court or Sandiganbayan
- Appeals from RTC on constitutional, tax,
jurisdictional questions involving
questions of fact which should be
appealed first to the CA.
2. Petition for Review
- Appeals from Civil Service Commission
(CSC)
- Appeals from Central board of
assessment appeals and other bodies
mentioned in Rule 43
- Appeals from RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, which are not a
matter of right
- appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
- Appeals from National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
- Appeals from the office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases
3. Decisions of the MTC in cadastral and
land registration cases pursuant to its
delegated jurisdiction
Power to try and conduct hearings
[4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129:
“The Court of Appeals shall have the
power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues
raised in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or
further proceedings. Trials or hearings in
the CA must be continuous and must be
completed within three (3) months unless
extended by the Chief Justice. (As
amended by RA 7902)“
Even if the CA is not a trial court, under the
law it has the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to
resolve factual issues in cases falling
within its original and appellate
jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or further
proceedings (Sec. 9 [3], BP 129 as
amended by RA 7902). The CA may pass
upon factual issues as when a petition for
certiorari is filed before it (Alcazaren vs.
Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475
SCRA 636).
It may receive evidence but only those
evidence which were overlooked by the
trial court. It can order a new trial or
conduct a new trial itself.
The CA may pass upon factual issues as
when a petition for certiorari is filed before
it(Alcazaren vs. Univet Agricultural
Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636) or in
petitions for writ of amparo or habeas
corpus data or in case of actions to annul
judgment of the RTC over which the CA
has original jurisdiction (Bar 2008).
JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT
Exclusive and original
1. All actions in admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro
Manila;
2. Probate proceedings, both testate and
intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 in
Metro Manila;
3. In all other cases in which the demand,
exclusive of IDALEC or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds P300,000
or P400,000 in Metro Manila
4. Actions Involving the title to or
possession of real property or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds P20,000 or
P50,000 in Metro Manila, except actions
for forcible entry and unlawful detainer;
5. Actions involving personal property
valued at more than P300,00 or P400,000
in Metro Manila
6. Subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
7. In all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
8. In all civil actions and special
proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts and of the
Court of Agrarian Relations as now
provided by law
9. Under Sec 5.2 of Securities Regulation
Code:
10. Cases involving devices or schemes
employed by or any acts of the board of
directors, business associates, its officers
or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation
11. Controversies arising out of intra-
corporate or partnership relations
12. Controversies in elections or
appointments of directors, trustees,
officers or managers of such corporations,
partnerships or associations
Petitions of corporations, partnerships or
associations to be declared in a state of
suspension of payment
RTC used to have jurisdiction over all
actions involving the contract of marriage
and marital relations but such is now
exclusive to the Family Courts
Actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation
Basic issue is one other than recovery of
money. In this kind of action the money
claim is merely incidental
Complaint for expropriation, specific
performance, support, foreclosure of
mortgage, annulment of judgment,
annulling a deed of sale, partition of land,
annul a deed of declaration of heirs.
Extent of RTC’s jurisdiction when
acting as a probate court
A probate court cannot adjudicate or
determine title to properties claimed to be
part of the estate and also claimed by
outside parties
Only issue is whether they should be
included in the inventory or list of
properties to be administered
Probate court may only decide on
question of ownership when no third
parties are prejudiced and all parties
consent to the assumption of jurisdiction
by the court
JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY
COURTS RA 8369
- Petition for guardianship, custody of
children and habeas corpus involving
children
- Petition for adoption for children and the
revocation thereof
- Complaints for annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and those
relating to status and property relations of
husband and wife or those living together
and for dissolution of conjugal partnership
of gains
- Petition for support and/or
acknowledgment
- Summary judicial proceedings under the
family code
- Petition for declaration of status of
children as abandoned, dependent, or
neglected children, petitions for voluntary
or involuntary commitment of children, the
suspension, termination or restoration of
parental authority and cases under PD
603 and other related laws
- Petitions for the constitution of a family
home
JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS
1. Actions involving personal property
where the value of the property does not
exceed Php 300,000 or Php 400,000 in
Metro Manila
The jurisdictional amount does not
include the following:
- Interest;
- damages of whatever kind;
- attorney’s fees;
- litigation expenses; and
- costs
Although excluded in determining the
jurisdiction of the court, the above items
however, shall be included in the
determination of the filing fees.
Administrative Circular No. 09-94: “The
exclusion of the term ‘damages of
whatever kind”
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.
Meaning of Interest: Gomez vs.
Montalban 548 SCRA 693
If interest on the loan is a primary and
inseparable component of the cause of
action, not merely incidental thereto, and
already determinable at the time of filing of
the Complaint, it must be included in the
determination of which court has the
jurisdiction over petitioner’s case.
Totality rule:
where there are several claims or causes
of actions between the same or different
parties embodied in the same complaint,
the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes
of action arose out of the same or different
transactions
2. Actions for claim of money where the
demand does not exceed Php 300,000 or
Php 400,000 in Metro Manila
3. Probate proceedings, testate or
intestate, where the value of the estate
does not exceed Php 300,000 or Php
400,000 in Metro Manila
4. Actions involving title to or possession
of real property or any interest therein
where the value or amount does not
exceed P20,000 or P50,000 in Metro
Manila, exclusive of interest damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expense, and
costs determined by the assessed value
of the said property and NOT the market
value thereof.
(FMV*assessment level = AV) as found in
a tax declaration. In cases of land not
declared for taxation purposes, the value
of such property shall be determined by
the assessed value of the adjacent lots
Fair Market Value — the price at which a
property may be sold by a seller, who is
not compelled to sell, and bought by a
buyer, who is not compelled to buy
Title is the “legal link between a person
who owns property and the property itself.
It also gives the owner the right to demand
or be issued a “certificate of title”.
accion reivindicatoria is a suit which has
for its object the recovery of possession
over the real property as owner. It involves
recovery of ownership and possession
based on said ownership.
an accion publiciana is one for the
recovery of possession of the right to
possess.
It is also referred to as an ejectment suit
filed after the expiration of one year after
the occurrence of the cause of action or
from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty. It is considered a
plenary action to recover the right of
possession when dispossession was
effected by means other than unlawful
detainer or forcible entry(accion
interdictal).
5. Maritime claims where the demand or
claim does not exceed Php 300,000 or
Php400,000 in Metro Manila
6. The MTC also exercises delegated
jurisdiction in cadastral and land
registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots the value of which does not
exceed P100,000.00,as may be delegated
by the Supreme Court. value of the lot
shall be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than
one, or from the corresponding tax
declaration of the real property.
The decisions of these courts shall be
appealable in the same manner as the
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts
6. Inclusion or exclusion of voters
7. Cases covered by Rules on Summary
Procedure
8. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
otherwise known as accion interdictal.
- Raises the question of ownership in the
pleadings and the issue of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the
issue of ownership, the court may resolve
the issue of ownership but only for the
purpose of determining the issue of
possession.
- the issue of ownership should be
regarded merely as provisional, a
necessary consequence of the nature of
the case where the only issue to be settled
is the physical or material possession over
the real property, that is, possession de
facto and not possession de jure.
9. Cases covered by the Rules on Small
Claims
10. Grant provisional remedies — The
MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to
grant provisional remedies in such
principal cases in its jurisdiction.
Appeal — Judgments of the MTC shall be
appealable to the pertinent Regional Trial
Court
. managers of government-owned or
SANDIGANBAYAN
EXLCUSIVE: “Violations of Republic Act
No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter
II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more
of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of
the offense”:
1. Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified
as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:
A. Provincial governors, vice-
governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads:
1. City mayors, vice-mayors,
members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and
other city department heads;
2. Officials of the diplomatic
service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
3. Philippine army and air force
colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
higher rank;
4. Officers of the Philippine
National Police while occupying the
position of provincial director and those
holding the rank of senior superintendent
and higher;
5. City and provincial
prosecutors and their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
Presidents, directors or trustees, or
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations.
2. Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher
under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
3. Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
4. Chairmen and members of the
Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
5. All other national and local officials
classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under
the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
Other offenses or felonies whether simple
or complexed with other crimes committed
by the public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection a. of this section
in relation to their office.
Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to
and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
EXCLUSIVE: “Final and executory
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and
penalties where the principal amount of
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties claimed is not less than Php
1,000,000.00.
APPELLATE: Charges and penalties
claimed is less than Php1M tried by the
proper: MTC, MeTC and RTC.
QUASI-COURTS
It is the power of administrative
authorities to make determinations of facts
in the performance of their official duties
and to apply the law as they construe it to
the facts so found. The exercise of this
power is only incidental to the main
function of administrative authorities,
which is the enforcement of the law.
Determinative Powers: Enabling,
Directing, Dispensing, Summary and
Equitable.
SHARIA’H COURTS
“appellate, district, circuit”
1. All cases involving custody,
guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and
filiation arising under the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws;
2. All cases involving disposition,
distribution and settlement of estate of
deceased Muslims, probate of wills,
issuance of letters of administration or
appointment of administrators or
executors regardless of the nature or
aggregate value of the property
3. Petitions for declaration of absence and
death for the cancellation or correction of
entries in the Muslim Registries
4. All actions arising from the customary
contracts in which the parties are Muslims,
if they have not specified which law shall
govern their relations
5. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition,
injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
all other auxiliary writs and processes in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
RULE 4 — VENUE OF ACTIONS
Venue is the place, or the geographical
area which a court with jurisdiction may
hear and determine a case or the place
where a case if to be tried (1 RIANO,
supra at 146).
In civil proceedings, venue is procedural,
not jurisdictional, and may be waived by
the defendant if not seasonably raised
either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., v.
Sps. Yujuico, G.R. No. 175796, July 22,
2015).
It is meant to provide convenience to the
parties, rather than restrict their access to
the courts as it relates to the place of trial
(Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, G.R. No.
112905, February 3, 2000).
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in
criminal cases. (Heirs of Lopez v. De
Castro, G.R. No. 112905, supra).
Venue
As to Definition
The place where the case is to be heard or tried The auth
As to Governing Law
Matter of procedural law
As to Relations Established
Establishes a relation between plaintiff and Establishes
defendant, or petitioner and respondent
As to Basis
May be conferred by the act of agreement of the Fixed by
parties
(Nocum v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022,
September 23, 2005)
Note: A court may not motu proprio
dismiss a complaint on the ground of
improper venue as it is not one of the
grounds wherein the court may dismiss an
action motu proprio.
EXCEPTION: Actions covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure and
Small Claims Cases.
- In these types of action, the court may
motu proprio dismiss a case from an
examination of the allegations of the
complaint and such evidence as may be
attached thereto on any of the grounds
apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a
civil action. (1 RIANO, supra at 148.)
The SC has the power to order a change
of venue to prevent a miscarriage of
justice (CONSTI. Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 4)
Basic Venue Analysis: in order to know
the venue of a particular action, the basic
and initial step is to determine if the action
is real or personal. (1 RIANO, supra at
148).
SECTION 1. VENUE OF REAL
ACTIONS
Actions affecting title to or possession of
real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court
which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall
be commenced and tried in the MTC of the
municipality or city wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated.
Real Actions
An action is real when it affect title to or
possession of real property, or interest
therein. All other actions as personal
actions. (Id. At 151)
A real action is local, i.e., its venue
depends upon the location of the property
(Id.).
Where the subject-matter of the action
involves various parcels of land situated in
different provinces, the venue is
determined by the singularity or plurality of
the transactions involving the said parcels
of land. Thus:
Where the parcels of land are the objects
of one and the same transaction – the
venue is in the court of any of the
provinces wherein a parcel of land is
situated; or
If subjects of separate and distinct
transactions – there is no common venue
and separate actions should be laid in the
court of the province wherein each parcel
of land is situated (1 REGALADO, supra
at 118).
SECTION 2. VENUE OF PERSONAL
ACTIONS
All other actions may be commenced and
tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs reside, or where the
defendant or any of the principal
defendant reside, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant, where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Personal Action
One which is not founded upon the privity
of real rights or real property (Id. at 23).
A personal action is transitory. The venue
is either
- Where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides; or
- Where the non-resident defendant may
be found.
Note: All at the election of the plaintiff
The residence of the person is his
personal, actual, or physical habitation or
actual residence or place of abode,
whether permanent or temporary as long
as he resides with continuity and
consistency therein. (Ang Klek Chen v.
Sps. Calasan, G.R. No. 161685, July 24,
2007).
When there is more than one defendant or
plaintiff in the case, the residences of the
principal parties should be the basis for
determining the proper venue. Otherwise,
the purpose of the Rule would be defeated
where a nominal or formal party is
impleaded in the action since the latter
would not have the degree of interest in
the subject of the action which would
warrant and entail the desirably active
participation expected of litigants in a
case. (1 REGALADO, supra at 121).
SECTION 3. VENUE OF ORDINARY
CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST NON-
RESIDENTS
Non-resident found in the Philippines
For personal actions – where the plaintiff
resides; and
For real actions – where the property is
located.
Non-resident not found in the Philippines
Personal status of the plaintiff – where
plaintiff resides; and
Any property of said defendant located in
the Philippines – where the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found.
SECTION 4. WHEN RULE NOT
APPLICABLE
The Rules on venue are not applicable in
any of the following cases:
Where a specific Rule or law provides
otherwise (e.g., Civil actions on damages
in case of libel, as special Rules of venue
are provided for in Art. 360 of the Revised
Penal Code) (1 REGALADO, supra at
123); or
Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof.
Requisites of Stipulations on Venue:
(WEB)
In Writing;
Exclusive as to the venue; and
Made Before the filing of the action (1
RIANO, supra at 156).
The mere stipulation on the venue of an
action is not enough to preclude the
parties from bringing a case in other
venues. It must be shown that such
stipulation is exclusive. In the absence
of qualifying or restrictive words, such
as “exclusively” and “waiving for his
purpose any other venue”, “shall only”
preceding the designation of the venue,
“to the exclusion of all other courts”, or
other words of similar import, the
stipulation should be deemed as merely
an agreement on an additional forum, not
as limiting venue to the specified place
(Auction in Malinta, Inc., v. Luyaben, G.R.
No.173979, February 12, 2007).
Thus, in contracts involving passage
tickets, a condition printed at the back
thereof of all actions arising out of that
contract of carriage can be filed only in a
particular province or city, to the exclusion
of all others, was declared void and
unenforceable due to the state of the
shipping industry. The Court noted that the
acute shortage of inter-island vessels
could not provide enough
accommodations for the plaintiffs to travel
to the venue indicated, aside from the fact
that the passengers did not have the
opportunity to examine the fine print
providing for such venue (Sweet Lines,
Inc. v. Teves, Jr., G.R. No. L-37750,
May 19, 1978).
Note: Where the action is no longer based
on the agreement but on the tortious act of
sending collection telegrams despite the
fact that the obligation had already been
paid, venue is no longer based on the
written stipulation but at the election of the
plaintiff as fixed by law (Zoleta v. Romillio,
Jr., G.R. No. L-58080, February 15, 1982).

Effect of venue stipulation when the

validity of the written instrument is
controverted
A complaint directly assailing the validity
of the written instrument itself should not
be bound by the exclusive venue
stipulation contained therein and should
be filed in accordance with the general
Rules on venue. It would be inherently
inconsistent for a complaint of this nature
to recognize the exclusive venue
stipulation when it, in fact, precisely
assails the validity of the instrument in
which such stipulation is contained
(Briones v. CA, G.R. No. 204444, January
14, 2015).

Complementary-Contracts-Construed
Together Doctrine
An accessory contract must be read in its
entirety and together with the principal
agreement. Thus, suretyship agreement
can only be enforced in conjunction with
the promissory note also applies to the
suretyship agreement as an ancillary
contract of the promissory note (Philippine
Bank of Communications v. Lim, G.R. No.
158138, April 12, 2015).