JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint.

On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority (Orion Security Corporation v. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 163287, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 617, citing Casimina v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 147530, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 171, 177). The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process (Spouses Mason v. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 689, 699 (2003), citing National Power Corporation v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 89, 107 (1997). As a rule, if defendants have not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Evangelista, 441 Phil. 445, 453 (2002). WHAT IS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER? > Power to hear and decide cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers . WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER? 1. Nature of the offense 2. Authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable given the allegation in the information 3. Territorial jurisdiction of the court imposing the penalty JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND ITS SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE DEFENSES SET FORTH IN AN ANSWER OR A MOTION TO DISMISS Jurisdiction of a court over the nature of the action and its subject matter does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an answer (Salas v. Castro, G.R. No. 100416, December 2, 1992, 216 SCRA 198, 204) or a motion to dismiss (Hilado v. Chavez, G.R. No. 134742, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 623, 641). Otherwise, jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant or result in having "a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple stratagem. Indeed, the "defense of lack of jurisdiction which is dependent on a question of fact does not render the court to lose or be deprived of its jurisdiction" (Salas v. Castro, supra). The same rationale applies to an answer with a motion to dismiss(Mamadsual v. Moson, G.R. No. 92557, September 27, 1990, 190 SCRA 82, 87 cited in MONTAER VS. SHARIA DISTRICT COURT, G.R. NO. 174975, JANUARY 20, 2009, FIRST DIVISION, PUNO, C.J.). Errors of judgment vs. Error of jurisdiction In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its competence such as errors of judgment. Errors of judgment of the trial court are to be resolved by the appellate court in the appeal by and of error or via a petition for review on certiorari in this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct errors of judgment. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal.

Error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, 10 June 2004, 431 SCRA 610) DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. For instance, in agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). (SPOUSES JESUS FAJARDO AND EMER FAJARDO VS. ANITA R. FLORES, G.R. NO. 167891, JANUARY 15, 2010,NACHURA, J.). WHAT IS ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION? > Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of the litigation > Remains with the court until the case is finally terminated > Exception to the rule: when a newly enacted statute changing the jurisdiction of a court is given retroactive effect. It can divest a court of jurisdiction over cases already pending before it is which were filed before the statute came to force or became effective.

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY OF COURTS The Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari; the rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of recourses to these courts. In original petitions for certiorari, the Supreme Court will not directly entertain this special civil action unless the redress desired cannot be obtained elsewhere based on exceptional and compelling circumstances justifying immediate resort to the Supreme Court (Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 378, 384-385; De los Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 294, 297; and Santos v. Cruz, G.R. Nos. 170096 and 170097, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 66, 75 cited in CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) vs. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), G.R. No. 174697, July 8, 2010, BRION, J.). Parenthetically, a direct resort to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari is incorrect for it violates the hierarchy of courts (Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA 338, 346). In other words, a regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals (Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 235, 285 citing People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002, 384 SCRA 152). This rule, however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances (Morales v. Skills International Company, G.R. No. 149285, 30 August 2006, 500 SCRA 186, 194 citing Microsoft Corporation v.

Maxicorp, Inc., G.R. No. 140946, 13 September 2004, 438 SCRA 224 cited in MIAQUE VS. PATAG, G.R. NOS. 170609-13, JANUARY 30, 2009, FIRST DIVISION, CORONA, J.). CIVIL PROCEDURE: THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR TIME IS CONSIDERED A SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority (Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 170, 186). A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court(United Coconut Planters Bank v. Ongpin, G.R. No. 146593, October 26, 2001, 368 SCRA 464, 470). In Go vs. Cordero, however, the Supreme Court clarified that although the Motion to Dismiss filed by Robinson specifically stated as one (1) of the grounds the lack of "personal jurisdiction," it must be noted that he had earlier filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading even beyond the time provided in the summons by publication. Such motion did not state that it was a conditional appearance entered to question the regularity of the service of summons, but an appearance submitting to the jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the summons by publication issued by the court and praying for additional time to file a responsive pleading. Consequently, Robinson having acknowledged the summons by publication and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court to secure affirmative relief in his motion for additional time, he effectively submitted voluntarily to the trial courts jurisdiction. He is now estopped from asserting otherwise, even before this Court (See Dole Philippines, Inc. (Tropifresh Division) v. Quilala, G.R. No. 168723, July 9, 2008, 557 SCRA 433, 437-438 cited in ALLAN C. GO, VS. MORTIMER F. CORDERO, G.R. NO. 164703, MAY 4, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR., J.). ERRORS OF JUDGMENT BEYOND THE PROVINCE OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI: When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of a special civil action for certiorari(Sebastian v. Morales, error committed by the trial court or quasi-judicial agency special civil action for certiorari, then trial would never end would be clogged beyond measure. of judgment are not proper subjects 445 Phil. 595, 608 (2003). If every were to be the proper subject of a and the dockets of appellate courts

For this reason, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision, the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 787 (2003). Thus, if the petitioners filed the instant special civil action for certiorari, instead of appeal via a petition for review, the petition should be dismissed. (ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC. VS. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. NOS. 167583-84, JUNE 16, 2010,PERALTA, J.).

THE FILING OF A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE OR INVOCATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT A special appearance before the courtchallenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other groundsis not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78). In other words, a defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. (GARCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009). In Edna Lhuillier vs. British Airways, the Supreme Court clarified that the special appearance of the counsel of respondent in filing the Motion to Dismiss and other pleadings before the trial court cannot be deemed to be voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the said trial court. The High Court disagreed with the contention of the petitioner and ruled that there was no voluntary appearance before the trial court that could constitute estoppel or a waiver of respondents objection to jurisdiction over its person. Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta cum necessitate juris dicendi means jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice. (50 C.J.S. 1089). (EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010, DEL CASTILLO, J.). JURISDICTION OVER CASES WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF ACTION In Irene Sante and Reynaldo Sante vs. Hon. Edilberto Claraval, the Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs causes of action (Nocum v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 639, 644-645). Since it is clear, based on the allegations of the complaint therein that respondents main action is for damages, the other forms of damages being claimed by respondent, e.g., exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of the main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint. The exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court (Administrative Circular No. 09-94). This is the tenor of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Mendoza v. Soriano, (G.R. No. 164012, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 260, 266-267), where it held that 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. In the said case, the respondents claim of P929,000.06 in damages and P25,000 attorneys fees plus P500 per court appearance was held to represent the monetary equivalent for compensation of the alleged injury. The Court therein held that the total amount of monetary claims including the claims for damages was the basis to determine the jurisdictional amount. x x x x x

Similarly, in Iniego v. Purganan, G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 394, 4020, the Supreme Court held that the amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action. x xxx Considering therefore that the total amount of damages being claimed by respondent herein (moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00;P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 attorneys fees; P20,000.00 litigation expenses; and costs of suit) for the alleged shame and injury suffered by reason of petitioners utterance while they were at a police station in Pangasinan was P420,000.00, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pangasinan. (IRENE SANTE AND REYNALDOSANTE vs. HON. EDILBERTO T. CLARAVALL, G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR., J.). JURISDICTION: ACTIONS WHICH ARE INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS It is well-settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Relative thereto, the statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. An action for specific performance, such as a suit to enforce the Agreement on Joint Child Custody, belongs to this species of actions. Thus, jurisdiction-wise, it belongs to the RTC. (Dacasin vs. Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 05, 2010, CARPIO, J.).

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT as a Post-Judgment remedy after the finality of a judgment Annulment of Judgment is a recourse equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner. Section 2 of the said Rule provides that the annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, although jurisprudence recognizes denial of due process as an additional ground. A. Fraud Fraud is of two categories. It may either be: (a) actual or constructive and (b) extrinsic or intrinsic. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Constructive fraud is construed as such because of its detrimental effect upon public interest and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons. On the other hand, fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. There is intrinsic fraud where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where the act prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured, so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to the transaction sued upon. xxxxx

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The fraud or deceit cannot be of the losing party's own doing, nor must such party contribute to it. The extrinsic fraud must be employed against it by the adverse party, who, because of some trick, artifice, or device, naturally prevails in the suit. It affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which the said judgment is obtained. Extrinsic fraud is also present where the unsuccessful party has been prevented by his opponent from exhibiting fully his case by keeping the former away from court or giving him a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, having been kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent a party and connived at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sold out his client's interest to the other side. The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court (CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGAYTAY vs. GUERRERO, G.R. Nos. 140743 & 140745, September 17, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.). Where a fraud is the ground for annulment of judgment, it must be extrinsic or collateral. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully presenting his case to the court as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his clients interest (SY BANG vs. SY, G.R. No. 179955, April 24, 2009, Thied Division, Chico-Nazario, J.). B. Lack of jurisdiction An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim (NUDO vs. CAGUIOA, G.R. No. 176906, August 4, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.). When a petition for annulment of judgment or final order under Rule 47 is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the petitioner does not need to allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of his or her own (GALURA vs. MATH-AGRO CORPORATION, G.R. No. 167230, August 14, 2009, First Division, Carpio, J.). CIVIL PROCEDURE: VENUE Venue essentially concerns a rule of procedure which, in personal actions, is fixed for the greatest convenience possible of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The ground of improperly laid venue must be raised seasonably, else it is deemed waived. Where the defendant failed to either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue or include the same as an affirmative defense, he is deemed to have waived his right to object to improper venue (IRENE MARCOSARANETA, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008, Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J.). In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages. Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. In accordance with the wordings of Sec. 1 of Rule 4, the venue of real actions shall be the proper court which has territorial jurisdiction

over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. The venue of personal actions is the court where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. In this connection, Sec. 2 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court indicates quite clearly that when there is more than one plaintiff in a personal action case, the residences of the principal parties should be the basis for determining proper venue. According to Justice Jose Y. Feria, the word principal has been added [in the uniform procedure rule] in order to prevent the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff or defendant as the venue. Eliminate the qualifying term principal and the purpose of the Rule would, to borrow from Justice Regalado, 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 (IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008, Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J.). JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel." However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position that the lower court had jurisdiction (Lozon v. NLRC 310 Phil. 1 1995 cited in ATTY. RESTITUTO G. CUDIAMAT, et al. vs. BATANGAS SAVINGS, et al., G.R. No. 182403, March 9, 2010, First Division, Carpio Morales, J.).