JURISDICTION

Solicitor Jose Angelo A. David

 OUTLINE OF TOPICS
• Aspects of jurisdiction
• Jurisdiction over the parties
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter
• Jurisdiction over the issues
• Jurisdiction over the res or the property in litigation
• Classification of jurisdiction
• Original vs. appellate
• General vs. special
• Exclusive vs. concurrent
• Doctrines of hierarchy of courts and continuity of jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
 OUTLINE OF TOPICS
• Jurisdiction vs. exercise of jurisdiction
• Jurisdiction vs. venue
• Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts
• Jurisdiction over cases covered by Barangay Conciliation,
Small Claims Cases, and cases covered by Summary Procedure

JURISDICTION
GENERAL CONCEPTS
 JURISDICTION DEFINED

• Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court

to hear, try and decide a case as well as to enforce
or execute its judgments or final orders.

JURISDICTION
 VENUE vs. JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
Venue Jurisdiction

Place where the case is instituted, heard, or tried. Power of the court to hear and decide a case.

Procedural Substantive

Jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the nature of the
May be waived
action is conferred by law and cannot be waived.

May be changed by the written agreement of the parties Cannot be the subject of the agreement of the parties

Not a ground for a motu proprio dismissal (except in

Ground for a motu proprio dismissal
summary procedure)

JURISDICTION
 VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL
IN CRIMINAL CASES
• Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the
place where the crime was committed determines not
only the venue of the action but constitutes an
essential element of jurisdiction. (Macasaet v. PP, G.R.
No. 156747, February 23, 2005)
• Defect on venue cannot be waived.

JURISDICTION
 VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL
IN CRIMINAL CASES

• General Rule:
• The offense must have been committed or any
of its essential ingredients took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. (Rule 110,
Sec. 15[a])
JURISDICTION
 VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL
IN CRIMINAL CASES
• Exceptions:
• Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private vehicle
while in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed
during such its trip, including the place of its departure and arrival.
• Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the
criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of entry or of
any municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the
generally accepted principles of international law.
• Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the Revised
Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed. (Rule
110, Sec. 15 [b-d])

JURISDICTION
 VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL
IN CRIMINAL CASES
• Libel (Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code)
• The action may be instituted at the election of the offended or suing party in the
province or city:
• Where the libelous article is printed and first published;
• If one of the offended parties is a private individual, where said private
individual actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense;
• If the offended party is a public official, where the latter holds office at the time
of the commission of the offense.

JURISDICTION
 VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL
IN CRIMINAL CASES
• Libel (Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code)
• The action may be instituted at the election of the offended or suing party in the
province or city:
• Where the libelous article is printed and first published;
• If one of the offended parties is a private individual, where said private
individual actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense;
• If the offended party is a public official, where the latter holds office at the time
of the commission of the offense.

JURISDICTION
 VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL
IN CRIMINAL CASES

• Cyberlibel: Follow same rules as libel.

• However, when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a
website on the internet, there would be no way of determining
the situs of its printing and first publication. Thus, the venue
should be where the private individual actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense. (Bonifacio v. RTC of
Makati, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010)

JURISDICTION
 ASPECTS OF
JURISDICTION
 ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION

• Jurisdiction over the parties

• Jurisdiction over the subject-matter
• Jurisdiction over the issues
• Jurisdiction over the res
JURISDICTION
 JURISDICTION OVER
THE PARTIES IN CIVIL CASES
• JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF, HOW ACQUIRED –
acquired by the plaintiff’s filing of the complaint or petition. By
doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

• JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT, HOW ACQUIRED –

obtained either by a valid service of summons upon him or by his
voluntary submission to the court’s authority.
• Waivable if not objected to or the defendant asks for affirmative
relief without questioning the absence of jurisdiction over his
person

JURISDICTION
 JURISDICTION OVER
THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

• Requires that the person charged with the offense must have
been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest
or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
• May be acquired by consent of the accused or by waiver of
objections. If the accused fails to make his objection in time, he
will be deemed to have waived it.

JURISDICTION
 JURISDICTION OVER
THE SUBJECT MATTER

• It is the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of

the action.
• This aspect of jurisdiction is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations in the complaint.

JURISDICTION
 HOW JURISDICTION IS
CONFERRED AND DETERMINED
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law
which may either be the Constitution or a statute. It is NOT conferred
by:
• a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction;
• agreement or submission of the parties; or
• parties’ silence, acquiescence or consent (exception: estoppel by
laches)

JURISDICTION
 HOW JURISDICTION IS
CONFERRED AND DETERMINED
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations of the complaint regardless of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to the claims asserted therein. It is NOT
determined by:
• the defenses in the answer or motion to dismiss; or
• by the evidences in the trial.

(Padlan v. Dinglasan, et al., G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013)

JURISDICTION
 OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
• The court may, if it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that it has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, dismiss the case on its own initiative (motu proprio).
• A party may also object to the jurisdiction of the court in a
motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense in the answer.
• Objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any time during the proceedings, even for
the first time on appeal.

JURISDICTION
 EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON
OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
• General rule: Objections to the jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
• Exception: Estoppel may in certain instances bar the raising of
such objection.

JURISDICTION
 EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON
OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION

• The objection must have been raised so belatedly so as to

give rise to the presumption that the party entitled to assert
it had abandoned or declined to assert it. A party who has
invoked the jurisdiction of the court over a particular matter
to secure affirmative relief cannot be permitted to
afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape liability.
(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556 [1968])

JURISDICTION
 EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON
OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
• The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction 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.”
• If the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided
upon a given theory, 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.
(Metromedia Times Corp. v. Pastorin, G.R. No. 154295, July 25, 2005, 465
SCRA 320; Lozon v, NLRC, 310 Phil 1 [1995])

JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

• Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise

of this power is the exercise of jurisdiction. Where there is
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction.
There is no valid exercise of jurisdiction if there is no
jurisdiction in the first place.

JURISDICTION
 ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs.
ERROR OF JUDGMENT
Error of Jurisdiction Error of Judgment

When a court takes cognizance of a case over which it When a court with competent jurisdiction commits errors
has no jurisdiction. The act complained of was issued by in the exercise of such authority to hear the case.
the court without or in excess of jurisdiction.

Where the court has acted without jurisdiction, such act In error of judgment, the judgment is still a valid judgment.
is an absolute nullity.

Correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Correctible by appeal.

JURISDICTION
 JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
• 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.
• Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to try and decide the
issues raised in the pleadings of the parties. It is generally conferred and
determined by the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings present the
issues to be tried and determine whether these are of fact or of law.
Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred by:
• Stipulations of parties (e.g. in the pre-trial) [R18, S1]; or
• By waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a
matter not raised in the pleadings. [R10, S5]

JURISDICTION
 JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR
PROPERTY IN LITIGATION
• Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over
the thing or the property which is the subject of the action. It
may be acquired by the court placing the property or thing
under its custody (e.g. attachment). If the action is in rem or
quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not necessary; jurisdiction over the res is required although
summons must also be served in order to satisfy the
requirements of due process.

JURISDICTION
CLASSIFICATION OF
JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL vs. APPELLATE
• Courts of Original Jurisdiction – Those courts which, under
the law, have the power to take judicial cognizance of a case
instituted for judicial action for the first time or at the first
instance under the conditions set by the law.

• Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction – Those courts which have

the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a
lower court.

JURISDICTION
GENERAL vs. SPECIAL
• Courts of General Jurisdiction – Those courts with competence to
decide on their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases
except those expressly withheld from them either by the Rules or
by law.
• A court may also be considered ‘general’ if it has the competence to
exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions (e.g. RTC).

• Courts of Special/Limited Jurisdiction – Those courts whose

jurisdiction extends only to particular or specified cases.

JURISDICTION
EXCLUSIVE vs. CONCURRENT
• Exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence and
refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others
(Cubero v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., 509
SCRA 410, 416)
• Concurrent jurisdiction is the power of different courts to
take cognizance of the same subject matter. Where there is
concurrent jurisdiction, the court first taking cognizance of the
case assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
(Neñaria v. Veluz, G.R. No. L-4683, May 29, 1952)

JURISDICTION
 DOCTRINE OF CONTINUITY
OF JURISDICTION
• Once a court has acquired jurisdiction, such jurisdiction cannot
be ousted by subsequent events although they be of a
character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance. Once jurisdiction has been
acquired, it continues until the court finally disposes of the
case. (Aruego Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 711)

JURISDICTION
 DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

• Lower courts shall initially decide a case before it is considered

by a higher court. A higher court will not entertain direct resort
to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts. (Diocese of Bacolod, G.R. No. 205728,
January 21, 2015; People v. Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418 [1989])

JURISDICTION
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF
HIERARCHY OF COURTS
• Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the following
grounds are present: (1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are
raised that must be addressed immediately; (2) when the case involves
transcendental importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the
constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court; (5) when
time is of the essence; (6) when the subject of review involves acts of a
constitutional organ; (7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition includes
questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by
the broader interest of justice; (9) when the order complained of was a
patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was considered as an
inappropriate remedy. (De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October
10, 2017)
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
OF COURTS
 ACTIONS CAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
• An action is capable of pecuniary estimation is one
wherein the primary or principal relief sought is one of
either:
• A claim for a sum of money, or
• Assertion of title to or possession of personal or real
property
(Sections 19 and 33, B.P. 129)
JURISDICTION
 ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
• The converse of actions capable of pecuniary
estimation
• An action is incapable of pecuniary estimation is one
wherein the primary or principal relief sought does not
involve either a claim for a sum of money, or an
assertion of title to or possession of personal or real
property (Sections 19 and 33, B.P. 129).

JURISDICTION
Actions: Capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation?
• Expropriation
• Sum of Money
• Quasi-Delict
• Reconveyance
• Specific Performance
• Foreclosure of Mortgage
• Partition
• Declaratory Relief
JURISDICTION
 REAL ACTION vs. PERSONAL ACTION

• Real Action – one affecting title to or possession

of real property, or interest therein. (R4, S1,
Rules of Court)
• Personal Action – one where the recovery of
personal property or damages for breach of
contract is sought.

JURISDICTION
 WHAT IS THE TEST?

• ALWAYS REMEMBER: Jurisdiction over the subject

matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to the claims asserted therein. (Padlan v.
Dinglasan, et al., G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013)
• Designation of the complaint is not controlling.
(Sumulong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108817, May
10, 1994)

JURISDICTION
 REAL ACTIONS
• Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real
property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over
the assessed value of the property subject thereof.
• An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiff's
cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that
he has the legal rights to have exclusive control, possession,
enjoyment, or disposition of the same.
• Title is the "legal link between (1) a person who owns property and (2)
the property itself." "Title" is different from a "certificate of title" which is
the document of ownership under the Torrens system of registration
issued by the government through the Register of Deeds. While title is
the claim, right or interest in real property, a certificate of title is the
evidence of such claim.
(Padlan v. Dinglasan, et al., G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013)

JURISDICTION
 ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
• Expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The subject of
an expropriation suit is the government’s exercise of eminent
domain. (San Roque v. Pastor, G.R. No. 138896, June 20, 2000)
• Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the
mortgage indebtedness. In a real estate mortgage when the
principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the
right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized
and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of
the obligation. Therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real action so far
as it is against property, and seeks the judicial recognition of a
property debt, and an order for the sale of the res. (Roldan v.
Barrios, G.R. No. 214803, April 23, 2018).

JURISDICTION
 REAL ACTIONS
• Petitioners’ cause of action is based on their right as purchaser of the 50-
square meter portion of the land from respondents. They pray that they
be declared owners of the property sold. Thus, their complaint involved
title to real property or any interest therein.
• Petitioners’ argument that the present action is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation considering that it is for annulment of deed of sale
and partition is not well-taken. As stated above, the nature of an action is
not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by
the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where, as in
this case, the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real
property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over
the assessed value of the property subject thereof.
(Huguete v. Embudo, G.R. No. 149554, July 1, 2003)
JURISDICTION
 Ruby Shelter v. Judge Formaran,
G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009

Serrano v. Delica, Spouses De Leon v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 136325, 29 July 2005 G.R. No. 104796, March 6, 1998
A complaint praying that the special power of The action was "solely for annulment or rescission"
attorney, the affidavit, the new titles issued in the of the contract of sale over a real property. There
names of Serrano, et al., and the contracts of sale appeared to be no transfer of title or possession to
of the disputed properties be cancelled; and that a the adverse party.
TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
ordering Serrano, et al. to immediately restore him
to his possession of the parcels of land in question;
and that after trial, the writ of injunction be made
permanent.

JURISDICTION
 TRUE OR FALSE?

• The jurisdiction over real actions always

depends on the assessed value of the property.

JURISDICTION
 TRUE OR FALSE?

• The jurisdiction over real actions always

depends on the assessed value of the property.
• FALSE!

JURISDICTION
 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
• Forcibleentry and unlawful detainer are actions that
involve possession of real property.
• Yet,regardless of the assessed value of the property,
these actions always fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC
under Section 33(2) of B.P. 129.
• When, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only
to determine the issue of possession.
JURISDICTION
 PERSONAL ACTIONS
• In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought.
• If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal
courts or in the regional trial courts would depend on the amount of the claim.
• However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, such actions as cases where the
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance.
(Lapitan v. Scandia, G.R. No. L-24668, July 31, 1968)

JURISDICTION
 Question

P filed with the RTC an action for specific performance to

compel D to finish the construction of a building or to pay him
the sum of P250,000.00. D filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the jurisdiction is with the MTC. P rebuts that the
complaint is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Should the RTC grant the motion to dismiss?

JURISDICTION
 Answer

Yes. The alternative relief for damages made the action for specific
performance capable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, the
jurisdiction lies with the MTC because the amount of the claim
does not exceed P300,000 (Cruz v. Tan, 87 Phi. 627).

JURISDICTION
 Question

Would your answer be the same if what P filed was an action for
specific performance and for payment of P250,000.00?

JURISDICTION
 Answer
No, my answer would not be the same. In such a case, the action
would be for specific performance and is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The claim for P250,000.00 is purely incidental to the
relief sought.

JURISDICTION
 Which court has jurisdiction?

• Incapable of pecuniary estimation

• RTC (Section 19[1], B.P. 129)
• Capable of pecuniary estimation? Depends on several factors
• Real Action or Personal Action?
• Within Metro Manila or Outside Metro Manila?

JURISDICTION
 Which court has jurisdiction?
• Real Action
• If the assessed value or interest in the real property EXCEEDS
P20,000 (OUTSIDE METRO MANILA), or EXCEEDS P50,000
(METRO MANILA) in actions involving title to or possession of
real property, or any interest therein depending on the assessed
value
• Personal Action
• Ifthe gross value, claim, or demand EXCEEDS P300,000
(OUTSIDE METRO MANILA), or EXCEEDS P400,000 (METRO
MANILA)

JURISDICTION
 Which court has jurisdiction?
Kind of Action Venue Assessed Value Court

Real Action Within MM More than RTC

P50,000
Real Action Within MM P50,000 or less MTC

Real Action Outside MM More than RTC

P20,000
Real Action Outside MM P20,000 or less MTC

JURISDICTION
 Which court has jurisdiction?
Kind of Action Venue Gross Value Court

Personal Action Within MM More than RTC

P400,000
Personal Action Within MM P400,000 or less MTC

Personal Action Outside MM More than RTC

P300,000
Personal Action Outside MM P300,000 or less MTC

JURISDICTION
 Real Action – Assessed Value
• A complaint must allege the assessed value of the real
property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to
determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.
Assessed value is to ascertained from the tax declaration.
• Value for which the property was sold is not the basis. (Padlan
v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013)
• The alleged BIR zonal valuation is not the kind of valuation
required by the Rule. (Ruby v. Formaran, G.R. No. 175914,
February 10, 2009)

JURISDICTION
 Real Action – Assessed Value
• First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the
assessed value of the real property as alleged in the
complaint; and
• Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed
value of the property, while not alleged in the complaint, could
still be identified through a facial examination of the
documents already attached to the complaint.
(Foronda-Crystal v. Lawas Son, G.R. No. 221815, November 29,
2017)

JURISDICTION
Personal Action – Gross Value excluding IDALEC

• Paragraph 8, Section 19 of BP 129, as amended by Republic Act

No. 7691, provides that where the amount of the demand
exceeds ₱300,000.00 (outside Metro Manila) or exceeds
₱400,000.00 (within Metro Manila), exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
and costs, exclusive jurisdiction is lodged with the RTC.
Otherwise, jurisdiction belongs to the Municipal Trial Court.

JURISDICTION
 Question

P wants to file a complaint against D for collection of a

promissory note in the amount of P350,000.00. The complaint
also prays for moral damages of P50,000.00, exemplary
damages of P50,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P40,000.00.
Which court has jurisdiction over P’s complaint?

JURISDICTION
 Answer
P wants to file a complaint against D for collection of a
promissory note in the amount of P350,000.00. The complaint
also prays for moral damages of P50,000.00, exemplary
damages of P50,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P40,000.00.
Which court has jurisdiction over P’s complaint?

The MTC.

JURISDICTION
 Question
D owes P the following: P250,000.00 representing the balance
on the purchase price of a car; P250,000.00 based on a simple
loan; P275,000.00 also based on another loan. All debts are due
and a demand to pay went unheeded. If an action is filed and
the causes of action are joined, which court has jurisdiction?

JURISDICTION
 Answer

D owes P the following: P250,000.00 representing the balance

on the purchase price of a car; P250,000.00 based on a simple
loan; P275,000.00 also based on another loan. All debts are due
and a demand to pay went unheeded. If an action is filed and
the causes of action are joined, which court has jurisdiction?

The RTC.

JURISDICTION
 Totality Rule

• Section 33 of BP 129 states that “where there are several claims

or causes of action 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.”

JURISDICTION
 Totality Rule
• Apply the totality rule in relation to the rules on permissive
joinder of parties under R3, S6, and the rules on joinder of causes
of action under R2, S5 of the Rules of Court.
• The totality rule presupposes that the various claims of the same
or different parties are allowed to be embodied in the same
complaint, or that the different causes of action, which are
joined, accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the
same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved.

JURISDICTION
 Question
D borrowed P300,000 from P, payable in one year. In their
written loan agreement, D agreed to pay interest of 12% per
annum. One year had passed and the loan became due and
demandable. Demand went unheeded, forcing P to file a
complaint against D on the loan amount and the interest
thereon. Which court has jurisdiction?

JURISDICTION
 Answer
The RTC. Accrued interest on a loan is a primary and inseparable
component of the cause of action, and not merely incidental
thereto. The interest must be included in the computation of the
jurisdictional amount where the debtor had agreed in writing to
pay interest and the accrued interest is determinable at the time of
the filing of the complaint (Gomez v. Montalban, 548 SCRA 693
[2008]).

JURISDICTION
 Question
D bumped P’s car. The incident led P to file an action for quasi-
delict against D with the RTC of Makati. P prayed for actual
damages of P350,000, moral damages of P50,000, exemplary
damages of P50,000, and attorney’s fees of P40,000. Does the
court have jurisdiction over the case?

JURISDICTION
 Answer
Yes. Under SC Circular 09-94, the exclusion of “damages of
whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional amount under BP
129, as amended by RA 7691, applies only to cases where the
damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main
cause of action. However, where the claim for damages is the main
cause of action, as in the case at bar, or one of the causes of action,
the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.

JURISDICTION
 Question
P filed an action in the MeTC of Pasay City against D asking for
two reliefs. The first was a demand for the recovery of physical
possession of a parcel of land situated in Pasay City with an
assessed value of P40,000. The second was a claim for damages
of P500,000 for D’s unlawful retention of the property. D filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the judge,
would you grant the motion?

JURISDICTION
 Answer

Motion denied.
Under Section 33 of BP 129, as amended, the MeTC has jurisdiction over
real actions where the assessed value of the realty does not exceed
P50,000 in Metro Manila. Damages are excluded in computing the
jurisdictional amount.
Here, the claim for damages was merely incidental to the cause of action
involving the claim for recovery of possession.
Thus, the MeTC has jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession
of land because its assessed value does not exceed P50,000.00

JURISDICTION
 Appeal from orders
dismissing case without
trial; lack of jurisdiction
WITHOUT TRIAL IN THE MTC (R40,S8)
• If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the
case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may
affirm or reverse it, as the case may be.
• In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if
it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if
the case was originally filed with it.
• In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further
proceedings.

JURISDICTION
WITH TRIAL IN THE MTC (R40,S8)

• If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court
on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original
jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance
with Rule 40, Section 7, i.e., submission of memorandum,
without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and
additional evidence in the interest of justice.

JURISDICTION
 HABEAS CORPUS INVOLVING THE
CUSTODY OF MINORS
• The only issue before us therefore is whether the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors
in the light of the provision in RA 8369 giving family courts exclusive original
jurisdiction over such petitions.
• The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating
to the custody of minors. Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA
8369, RA 7092 and BP 129 are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not
prohibit the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court from issuing writs of
habeas corpus in cases involving the custody of minors. Thus, the provisions of
RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 ― that family
courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue.
(Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, August 16, 2004)

JURISDICTION
PUBLIC OFFICER – NOT ALWAYS WITH THE
SANDIGANBAYAN

• Charges of violation of R.A. No. 9165 against a public

officer are cognizable by the RTCs (De Lima v.
Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017)

JURISDICTION
 GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTCs
• The jurisdiction of the RTC over boundary disputes among LGUs was
settled in National Housing Authority v. Commission on the Settlement of
Land Problems, where this Court recognized the appellate jurisdiction of
the proper RTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC was clarified in Municipality of
Kananga v. Judge Madrona, where this Court held that, even in the
absence of any specific provision of law, "RTCs have general jurisdiction to
adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from their
plenary powers. They have the power not only to take judicial cognizance of
a case instituted for judicial action for the first time, but also to do so to the
exclusion of all other courts at that stage. Indeed, the power is not only
original, but also exclusive."

JURISDICTION
Katarungang
Pambarangay
 SUBJECT MATTER FOR
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

• General Rule: All disputes between parties actually residing in

the same city or municipality may be the subject of the
barangay proceedings for amicable settlement and prior
recourse thereto is a pre-condition before a complaint in court
or any government offices may be filed.

JURISDICTION
 SUBJECT MATTER FOR
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
• Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
• Where the government is just one of three or more parties, referral is still mandatory (Gegare v.
CA, 177 SCRA 471).
• Where one party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;
• Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the
parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
• Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only individuals shall
be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents;
• Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences
to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
• Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one [1] year or a
fine of over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
• Offenses where there is no private offended party;

JURISDICTION
 SUBJECT MATTER FOR
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
• Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically the following:
• Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention;
• Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a
person illegally deprived of or on acting in his behalf;
• Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of
personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
• Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations (Sec. 412, LGC)
• Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or
upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice (Sec. 408, LGC);
• Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL);
• Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations;
• Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court.

JURISDICTION
 EFFECT OF LACK OF
REFERRAL TO THE LUPON

• Lack of referral to the Lupon results in the complaint being

dismissible for failure to comply with a condition precedent
(R16, S1[j], ROC).

JURISDICTION
 VENUE
• Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall
be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said barangay.
• Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same
city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the
respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of
the complainant.
• All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be
brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion
thereof is situated.
• Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are
employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study,
shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is
located. (Section 409, LGC)

JURISDICTION
EXECUTION
• Execution shall settle upon the expiration of 10 days from the
date of settlement or receipt of the award. The settlement or
award may be enforced by execution of the Lupon within 6
months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of
such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court (Section 416, LGC).

JURISDICTION
REPUDIATION
• Any party to the dispute may, within 10 days from the date of
the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the Lupon
chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him,
where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence or
intimidation.
• The repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the
certification necessary for filing a complaint before the courts.
• Petitionto nullify the award may also be filed before the
proper MTC within the said 10-day period. (Section 416, LGC)

JURISDICTION
SMALL CLAIMS
 SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
• This rule shall govern the procedure in actions for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed P100,000 exclusive of
interest and costs, before the MTCs where the value of the claim does
not exceed the jurisdictional amounts of these courts under R.A. 7691,
that is, P400,000 within Metro Manila, and P300,000 outside Metro
Manila (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, February 26, 2019, effective on April 1,
2019)
• Nature of actions:
• Purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money; and
• The civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal
action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule
111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

JURISDICTION
 SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
• These CLAIMS OR DEMANDS may be:
• For MONEY OWED under any of the following:
• Contract of Lease
• Contract of Loan
• Contract of Services
• Contract of Sale
• Contract of Mortgage
• For DAMAGES arising from any of the following:
• Fault or negligence
• Quasi-contract
• Contract
• The enforcement of a BARANGAY AMICABLE SETTLEMENT or an
ARBITRATION AWARD involving a money claim covered by this Rule
pursuant to Sec. 417 the Local Government Code of 1991.

JURISDICTION
 COMMENCEMENT
• A small claims action is commenced by filing with the court of an:
• Accomplished and verified Statement of Claim in duplicate;
• Accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum Shopping;
• Two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable document/s
subject of the claim;
• The affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim.
• No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached
to or submitted together with the Claim, unless good cause is shown for
the admission of additional evidence.
• No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim, is necessary to
initiate a small claims action. (Sec. 6

JURISDICTION
 RESPONSE
• The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly
accomplished and verified response within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) days from receipt of summons. It shall be accompanied by
certified photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses
and other evidence in support thereof.
• No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached
to or submitted together with the Response, unless good cause is shown
for the admission of additional evidence.
• Effect of Failure to File a Response – The court by itself shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of
Claim limited to what is prayed for. The court however, may, in its
discretion, reduce the amount of damages for being excessive or
unconscionable (Secs. 13 and 14)
JURISDICTION
 DISMISSAL
• After the court determines that the case falls under these Rules, it may, from an
examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim/s and such evidence
attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the
dismissal of the case. The order of dismissal shall state if it is with or without
prejudice.
• If, during the hearing, the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for
dismissal of the Statement of Claim/s, the court may, by itself, dismiss the case
even if such ground is not pleaded in the defendant's Response.
• However, if the case does not fall under this Rule, but falls under summary or
regular procedure, the case shall not be dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-
docketed under the appropriate procedure, and returned to the court where it was
assigned, subject to payment of any deficiency in the applicable regular rate of
filing fees. If a case is filed under the regular or summary procedure, but actually
falls under this Rule, the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for
appropriate assignment. (Sec. 11)

JURISDICTION
 PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
• Motion to dismiss the complaint, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
• Motion for a bill of particulars
• Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial
• Petition for relief from judgment
• Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper
• Memoranda
• Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court
• Motion to declare the defendant in default
• Dilatory motions for postponement
• Reply
• Third-party complaints
• Interventions (Sec. 16)

JURISDICTION
 APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
• The parties shall personally appear on the designated date of hearing.
• Appearance through a representative must be for a valid cause. The representative
of an individual-party must not be a lawyer and must be related to or next-of-kin of
the individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be represented by a lawyer in any
capacity.
• The representative must be authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 7-
SCC) to enter into an amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.
• No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
• If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or
defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another
individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter's consent.
(Secs. 18 and 19)

JURISDICTION
 NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
• Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the
Statement of Claim/s without prejudice. The defendant who appears in
the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on a permissive
counterclaim.
• Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect as failure to
file a Response under Section 14 of this Rule. This shall not apply where
one of two or more defendants who are sued under a common cause of
action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing.
• Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice
of both the Statement of Claim/s and the counterclaim.
(Sec. 20)

JURISDICTION
 DECISION

• The decision shall be final, executory and unappealable.

(Sec. 24)

JURISDICTION
 SUMMARY
PROCEDURE
 CIVIL CASES COVERED BY THE RULE

• All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount
of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered.
• All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of
the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed Php 100,000 or Php 200,000 in Metro
Manila, exclusive of interests and costs. (A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC, November
12, 2002)

JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL CASES COVERED BY THE RULE
• Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations
• Violations of the Rental Law
• Violations of municipal or city ordinances
• Violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (A. M. No. 00-11-01-SC, March 25, 2003)
• All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
charged is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding Php
1,000.00 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom
• In offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule
shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed Php 10,000.00

JURISDICTION
 INAPPLICABILITY OF THE RULE

• Where the plaintiff’s cause of action is pleaded in the same

complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary
procedure
• Criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily related
to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure

JURISDICTION
 PLEADINGS ALLOWED
• The only pleadings allowed under this Rule, which must all be
verified, are:
• Complaint
• Compulsory counterclaims pleaded in the answer
• Cross claims pleaded in the answer
• Answers thereto

JURISDICTION
 PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
• Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with Lupon referral;
• Motion for a bill of particulars;
• Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of trial;
• Petition for relief from judgment;
• Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
• Memoranda;
• Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
• Motion to declare the defendant in default;
• Dilatory motions for postponement;
• Reply;
• Third party complaints;
• Interventions.

JURISDICTION
 DIFFERENCES WITH ORDINARY RULES
• Court is allowed to dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds
apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action. (Sec. 4)
• Answer to a complaint within 10 days from service of summons
(Sec. 5)
• Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within 10 days
from the service of summons, the court, MOTU PROPRIO, or ON
MOTION of the plaintiff, shall render judgment (not an order
declaring the defendant in default) as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for
therein. (Sec. 6)
• Preliminary Conference (Sec. 7)
• Different evidentiary procedure (Secs. 9 and 10)

JURISDICTION
 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
• A preliminary conference shall be held not later than 30 days after the last
answer is filed. The rules on pre-trial shall be applicable to the preliminary
conference unless it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
• The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be a
cause for the dismissal of the complaint. The defendant in such case shall be
entitled to judgment on his counterclaim. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
• If a sole defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment as
warranted by the allegations in the complaint and limited to the reliefs prayed
for therein. This rule shall not apply when there are two or more defendants
sued under the same cause of action who had pleaded a common defense and
at least one of them attends the preliminary conference.
(Sec. 7)

JURISDICTION
 EVIDENCE AND JUDGMENT
• Within ten (10) days from receipt of order stating the matters taken up during the
preliminary conference, the parties shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses
and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the order, together with their
position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them. (Sec. 9)
• Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the
expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.
• However should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may,
during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and
require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within
ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen
(15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the
period for filing the same.
(Sec. 10)

JURISDICTION
 EVIDENCE AND JUDGMENT

• The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain

time for the rendition of the judgment. (Sec. 10)
• The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
appropriate RTC (Sec. 21)

JURISDICTION