AMBOY, Ronrei Don N.

CIP-2A2

1. How is jurisdiction over the subject matter conferred? (5%)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law. It is that law which
is in force at the time of the commencement of the action.

2. May jurisdiction over the subject matter be waived? Explain your answer. (5%)

NO. Since the jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law it cannot be
waived by any act or omission of the parties.

3. Explain the liberal construction rule (5%)

Under Section 6, Rule 1 of the 2019 Rules of Court, “the Rules shall be construed
liberally to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding”. Procedural rules are set not to frustrate the ends of substantial justice but
to expedite the resolution of cases on the merits. Thus, the general rule is compliance
with the Rules set forth and the exception being only when there is abandonment or
when there is a suspension of the Rules, which shall only be done in the most
exceptional of circumstances.

4. What is equity jurisdiction and when will it apply? (5%)

Equity jurisdiction is the power of the court to resolve issues in a case, in accordance
with the natural laws of fairness and justice, and in the absence of a clear and positive
law governing the issues in the case. It is applicable only in the absence of law and shall
not act as its replacement. Such is based on Article 9 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines which states that, “No judge or court shall decline to render judgement by
reason of the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the law”

5. State the jurisdiction of the RTC. (10%)

The Regional Trial Court shall have Original Exclusive Jurisdiction over:

a) All civil actions in which the subject of the case is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
b) All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
c) In all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest thereof, where the assessed value exceeds P20,000, outside Metro
Manila, or where the assessed value exceeds P50,000, within Metro Manila,
except in actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, whose original
 jurisdiction is with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
d) In all matters of probate, testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds P300,000, outside Metro Manila, or where the gross value od
the estate exceeds P400,000, within Metro Manila;
e) All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand exceeds
P300,000, outside Metro Manila, or where the demand exceeds P400,000,
within Metro Manila;
f) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations
g) All other cases where the demand or the value of the property in controversy
exceeds P300,000, outside Metro Manila, or where the demand or value of the
property in controversy exceeds P400,000, within Metro Manila, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs; and
h) All civil actions and special proceedings falling under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Court of
Agrarian Relations.

The Regional Trial Court shall have Concurrent and Original Jurisdiction with:

a) The Supreme Court in action affecting consuls, ambassadors, and other

public ministers; and
b) The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and bodies in petitions for
quo warranto and habeas corpus.

The Regional Trial Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction over:

a) All cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their territorial jurisdictions.

The Regional Trial Court may also be designated by the Supreme Court to handle
exclusively criminal cases, domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban and land
reform cases whose jurisdiction does not fall under any quasi-judicial body or agency,
and any other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine.
 6. B filed his Answer to A’s complaint, alleging new matters but did not attach
any actionable document to his answer. A filed a Reply to the Answer. B move
to expunge A’s Reply for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules. Is B
correct? (10%)

NO. As per the Rules of Court, if no actionable document is attached to the answer, all
new matters which are raised in the answer are deemed to be controverted, thus,
dispensing the need to file a Reply. Therefore, B’s motion to expunge A’s Reply for
being a prohibited would not be accepted by the court because his Answer does not
attach an actionable document and, thus, A need not submit a Reply to his Answer.

7. May the court dismiss motu proprio a complaint on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action? Explain your answer. (10%)

NO. The court may not dismiss motu proprio a complaint on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action. Such should be raised as an affirmative defense. The 4 grounds
for motu proprio dismissal by the court are:

a) Lack of jurisdiction;
b) Litis Pendentia;
c) Res Judicata; and
d) Barred by prescription or Statute of Limitations.

8. Must there be an actual seizure of the thing before jurisdiction over the res
may be acquired? (10%)

NO. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court (a) by placing the property
or thing under its custody (custodia legis) or constructive seizure; or (b) through
statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the subject property.

9. What are the elements of a cause of action? (10%)

Under Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, the elements of the cause of action are:
a) A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;
b) A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights; and
c) An act or omission by the defendant which violates such right of the plaintiff
resulting in damage or injury to plaintiff.

10. What is the effect of failure to plead an affirmative defense? (10%)

Under Section 12 (b), Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, “Failure to raise affirmative defenses
at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof”
 11. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint, the court determined that it
has no jurisdiction over its subject matter. Hence, the judge issued an order of
dismissal and referred the case to the appropriate court. Comment on the
action of the judge. (10%)

The judged erred in referring the case to the appropriate court. A court devoid of
jurisdiction cannot make a decision over the case in favor of any party. Its authority is
limited to only dismissing such case for want of jurisdiction. Thus, the act of the judge
referring the case to the appropriate court is erroneous, the judge should have only
dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.

12. In action for ejectment, the defendant raised as a defense the existence of a
tenancy relationship between him and the plaintiff. Does said defense deprive
the MTC of jurisdiction over the subject matter? Explain your answer. (10%)

NO. The MTC shall continue to have authority to hear and decide whether or not it
truly has jurisdiction over the case, and, if it finds that tenancy between the plaintiff and
defendant did exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Well settled is the
rule that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations stated in the
complaint. Thus, the MTC does not automatically become stripped of its jurisdiction
over an action for ejectment by the mere allegation of tenancy between parties by the
defense.