G.R. No.

171855, October 15, 2012

Fe Rapsing, etc., petitioners
vs Hon. Jdge Maximino Ables, etc., respondents
Ponente: Peralta

Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the orders of the RTC of
Masbate.

Respondents are members of the Alpha Company, 22nd infantry Battalion of the Philippine
Army in Masbate. Petitioners are widows of Rapsing, Villanueva and Aparejado, who were
allegedly killed by the respondents.

Petitioners claimed that there was no encounter ensued. Hence, they requested the NBI to
conduct investigation. NBI, relying on the statements of the witnesses who claim that the military
massacred helpless and unarmed civilians recommended to the prosecutor of Masbate to
conduct a preliminary investigation against the respondents for the crime of multiple murder.

Then, before the warrant of arrest of respondents was issued by the RTC Masbate, Judge
advocate general's office of the AFP filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the case against
respondents be transferred to the jurisdiction of the military tribunal, it was granted.

Petitioners then sought reconsideration of the order, but was denied by the RTC. Hence, this
present petition.

Issue:
Whether Judge Ables abused his discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in granting the
transfer.

Held:
Petition is meritorious. RTC abused its discretion in not taking cognizance of the case, which
actually falls within its jurisdiction.

It is rule of the procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is conferred by
law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint. what determines the jurisdiction of the
court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing in the complaint.

In this case, murder is a crime within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The military tribunals cannot
exercise jurisdiction over this case because the offense charged is not included in the
enumeration of the "service-connected offenses or crimes".
 MENDOZA vs. GERMINO, GR 165676
FACTS:
THE petitioner filed a complaint with the (MTC) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija against respondent
Narciso Germino for forcible entry, claiming that they were the registered owners of a five-
hectare parcel of land in Soledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija (subject property). On his answer,
respondent claimed, among others, that his brother, was the plaintiffs' agricultural lessee and he
merely helped the latter in the cultivation as a member of the immediate farm household. After
several postponements, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in view of the tenancy issue raised by
respondent Narciso. The MTC issued an order remanding the case to the DARAB for further
proceedings. PARAD found that the respondents were mere usurpers of the subject property,
and ordered the respondents to vacate the subject property, and pay the plaintiffs 500 cavans of
palay as actual damages. On appeal to DARAB, respondent argued that the case should have
been dismissed because the MTC's referral to the DARAB was void with the enactment of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. DARAB affirmed the PARAD decision. CA, however, set aside
the DARAB decision and remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether the MTC or the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:
The CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the DARAB decision. While we lament the
lapse of time this forcible entry case has been pending resolution, we are not in a position to
resolve the dispute between the parties since the evidence required in courts is different from
that of administrative agencies.
It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by
the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or acquired through or waived, enlarged or
diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to
emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter
being legislative in character. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691,
the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer. Furthermore, allegation of tenancy does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction.

Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, as well as Section 34 of Executive Order No. 129-A, the
DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program, and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.

An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to, among others, tenancy over lands
devoted to agriculture. For a case to involve an agrarian dispute, the following essential
requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship must be present: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the
purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of
harvest or payment of rental.
 ANTONINO VS. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY AND TAN TIAN SU
G.R. No. 185663
June 20, 2012
REYES

Doctrine: 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 the jurisdiction.

Facts:
Remedios Antonino had been leasing a residential property located at Makati City owned by
Private Respondent Tan Tian Su.

Under the governing lease contract, Antonino was accorded with the right of first refusal in
the event Su would decide to sell the property.

The RTC also ruled that it did not acquire jurisdiction over Antonino’s complaint in view of
her failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees.
Antonino filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that her complain is a real action and
the location of the property is determinative of its venue and there was due observance of
the rules on motions, which was subsequently denied by RTC.
Antonino filed a motion for annulment of judgment in CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
CA dismissed petition.

Issue:
1. WON RTC of Makati is the proper venue.
2. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

1. No. Antonino’s complaint is a personal action such that the proper venue therefore is
either the city of Manila or Muntinlupa.
2. RTC of Makati does not have jurisdiction over the case.

Ratio:
1. Antonino’s complaint is one for specific performance, damages, and sum of money,
which are personal actions that should have been filed in the court of the place where
any of the parties reside. Makati is no the proper venue.
2. The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.
Jurisdiction is different from the exercise thereof. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a
case and not the decision rendered therein (exercise of jurisdiction). 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 the jurisdiction.
 De Leon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96107 (June 19, 1995) Case Digest

Facts:

Balbuena, owner of a parcel of land, entered into a lease agreement with Inayan in 1970, who
bound himself to deliver 252 cavans of palay each year as rental.  The ownership of the land
was then transferred to Balbuena's daughter, De Leon.  

In 1983, Inayan stopped paying the agreed rental.  In 1984, Balbuena filed a complaint for
"Termination of Civil Law Lease; Recovery of Posession; Recovery of Unpaid Rentals and
Damages" with the RTC against Inayan.

The RTC ruled in favor of De Leon.  On appeal to the CA, Inayan questioned the jurisdiction of
the RTC.  The CA, in Inayan's motion for reconsideration, dismissed the civil case filed by De
Leon for want of jurisdiction.  It ruled that De Leon's complaint was based on accion interdictal,
a summary action for recovery of possession that should have been brought before the MTC.  It
found that the 1-year period had not yet elapsed from the time when the civil case for the
recovery of possession was filed.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint filed was for an unlawful detainer making the RTC want
jurisdiction over the case.

Held:

A detainer suit exclusively involves the issue of physical possession.  The case filed by De Leon
was not an unlawful detainer since it involved more than the issue of possession.  De Leon
prayed that Inayan be ordered to vacate the premises, pay back rentals, unpaid irrigation fees,
moral and exemplary damages and litigation fees.

Where the issues of the case extend beyond those commonly involved in unlawful detainer
suits, such as for instance, the respective rights of parties under various contractual
arrangements and the validity thereof, the case is converted from a mere detainer suit to one
"incapable of pecuniary estimation," thereby placing it under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the RTC.