PART ONE THE ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION ‘A. Basic Concepts and General Principles Remedial law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasions." It is also called ‘procedural ‘or adjective law. It refers to rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. It includes the rules on pleadings, practice and evidence.” Remedial or procedural law is different from substantive law. The latter is defined as that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give rise to a cause of action. It is that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for their invasions.* To further distinguish the two legal concepts, the Court in one case has laid down the test for determining whether a law is procedural or substantive: In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress * Bustos v, Lucero, 81 Phil. 640. Agpalo, Statutory Construction (1986 ed.), pp. 269-272, cited in Tan, Jr. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136368, January 16, 2002. Bustos v. Lucero, supra, citing 36 CJ. 27 and 52 C.1.S. 1026. 1 Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER . 1 RELIMINARY CONSIDERATION for a disre, ea away a Vested right action Of them, If the rule takes Cates a right such ag te Procedural. If the rule Classified as a sub: as the right to appeal. it may be & Means of im, ie stantive matter; but if it operates as deals merely with pron existing right then the rule laws oro distinction between substantive and procedural Which natural {© P*spectivity. Unlike substantive laws laws can b ‘ally can be applied only prospectively, procedural regulatin, € applied Tetrospectively in the sense that statutes Ticsine the Procedure of the courts will be construed as app) licable to actions Pending and undetermined at the time of their passage,5 Thus, it is held that the fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants’ rights may not preclude their Tetroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of Procedural laws is not violative of any right of @ person who may feel that he or she is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general tule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural Jaws. It has been held that a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his or her case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure.* It is the Supreme Court that is the primary source of procedural law. It has the law-making power granted by the Constitution. According to Section 5 (par. 5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Court has the following power: Promulgate rules Concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading. prac- ee “ Fabian v, Desierto, 295 SCRA 470 (1998), cited in Bernabe v. Alejo, G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002. * Agpalo, supra, cited in Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra. Ibid. Scanned with CamScannerONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE CONT" (As Amended by A.M. No, 19-10.20-S¢) ane tice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide ¢ simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase. or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure’ of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court, The above-cited constitutional provision does not only give the Court the power to promulgate rules Concerning the cedure in all courts; it also mandates the Court to have a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Such rules of procedure shall also be uniform in all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights, B. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997, Recently, the Supreme Court has promulgated A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC amending certain provisions, particularly Rules6 to 35, of the Rules of Court. These amendments took effect on May 1, 2020. The Rules apply in all courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.’These courts are the: a.) Supreme Court; b.) Court of Appeals; c.) Sandiganbayan; d.) Court of Tax Appeals; e.) regional trial courts; and, f.) metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal trial court in cities, and municipal circuit trial courts. The Rules also govern the procedures to be observed in any action, whether it is civil, criminal or special proceedings® A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or ee sect i S#tion2, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 'd, Section 3. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION Tedress of a Wrong. It may either be ordinary or special. Both ere Boverned by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to © specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.” A criminal action, on the other hand, is one by which the State Prosecutes a person for an act or omission by law;"” while a special Proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, ora particular fact."’ __ The Rules however do not apply to election cases, land registration cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, except by analogy or ina suppletory character and whenever Practicable and convenient.” The Rules provide that its provisions shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a Just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and Proceeding."? [eee ee ee * ‘Id,, Section 3(a), i" Id., Section 3(b), ty [a Section 3c). 2 Id., Section 4, Id., Section 6, Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN AC’ Before a complaint for any kind of civil court, plaintiff should primarily consider ntial Rey subject matter, Secondly, at he or she has a caus Additionally, if the circumstances so warrant, plaintiff must ensure that he or she has complied with other procedural requirements. Some of these conditions precedent are: (a) the referral to the barangay for conciliation and mediation; (b) exhaustion of administrative remedies; (c) 4 referral to arbitration if the commercial agreement between the parties requires prior resort to said alternative mode of dispute resolution; and, (d) resolution of dispute between family members. A. Jurisdiction important in the study of remedial law. In as the concept of jurisdiction, on upon W _ Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corp. v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No, 209830, "June 17, 2015, citing Spouses Genato v. Viola, 625 Phil. 514, 527 (2010); further citing Zamora v. Court of Appeals, 262 Phil. 298, 304 (1990). Foronda- Crystal v. Lawas Son, G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 2017. Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE 3 (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) tice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. The above-cited constitutional provision does not only give the Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the procedure in all courts; it also mandates the Court to have a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Such rules of procedure shall also be uniform in all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. B. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997, Recently, the Supreme Court has promulgated A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC amending certain provisions, particularly Rules to 35, of the Rules of Court. These amendments took effect on May 1, 2020. The Rules apply in all courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.’These courts are the: a.) Supreme Court; b.) Court of Appeals; c.) Sandiganbayan; d.) Court of Tax Appeals; e.) regional trial courts; and, f.) metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal trial court in cities, and municipal circuit trial courts. The Rules also govern the procedures to be observed in any action, whether it is civil, criminal or special proceedings® A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or j, Section 2, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Id., Section 3. Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) has delegated jurisdiction over a property in cadastral and land registration cases involving contested lots, the parties or the court is required by the law, Section 34 of B.P. Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act, to ascertain the same in three (3) ways: (a) by the affidavit of the claimant; (b) by agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; or, (c) from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. metropolitan trial court) Where the Case is Principally an Action for Damages In action where a claim for damages is merely incidental to the main action, the amount of damages cannot be considered in determining which court has jurisdiction. However, where the action is principally a claim for damages, in other words it is the main action, A.M. No. 09-94% has provided the following rule: 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. Under the above-cited rule, where the claim for damages is the main cause of action or one of the causes of action, i.e. principally a claim for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, the amount of such claim shall ® Republic v. Bantigue Point Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012 E (citation omitted). Guidelines in the Implementation of R.A. 7691. “id,, par. 2. Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE — 3 (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) tice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. The above-cited constitutional provision does not only give the Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the procedure in all courts; it also mandates the Court to have a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Such rules of procedure shall also be uniform in all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. B. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997. Recently, the Supreme Court has promulgated A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC amending certain provisions, particularly Rules% to 35, of the Rules of Court. These amendments took effect on May 1, 2020. The Rules apply in all courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.’These courts are the: a.) Supreme Court; b.) Court of Appeals; c.) Sandiganbayan, d.) Court of Tax Appeals; e.) regional trial courts; and, f) metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal trial court in cities, and municipal circuit trial courts. The Rules also govern the procedures to be observed in any action, whether it is civil, criminal or special proceedings* A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or ” Section 2, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. * id,, Section 3. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II " CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ACTION (3) All actions involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds PHP300, 000. 00 if outside Metro Manila, or PHP400, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds PHP300, 000. 00 if outside Metro Manila, or PHP400, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. (5) In all actions within the jurisdiction of a family court where such family court is unavailable. (6) In all actions not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions. (7) Cases involving agrarian relations, (8) All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or value of the property in controversy exceed$PHP300, 000. 00 if Outside Metro Manila, or “ Section 19 of B.P. 129 (as amended by R.A. 7691); Section 17 (3 par.) o! R.A. 8369, j f ; ' Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) affirmed by the CA -- that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the regional trial courts regardless of the value of the property -- no longer holds true. As things now stand, a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below 20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and ®50,000.00, if within. Republic Act No. 7691 which amended Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and which was already in effect when respondents filed their complaint with the RTC on October 27, 1994, expressly provides: “SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: XXXX “(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. XXXX “SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. --- Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: XXXX “(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in alt civil actions which involve title to, or possession of , real property, or any interest therein where the assessed i Scanned with CamScanner 2CHAPTER »* CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ACTION (2) Jurisdiction Over the Parties arties is and their submission to its Jurisdiction over the Pp al rance in authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted i ‘urisdiction over the plaintiff is plaint, petition or other with the | ‘On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent is acquired either by the proper service of summons or voluntary appearance before the court through the filing of answer, pleadings. Failure to acquire motion, or other responsive jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through an invalid service of summons cans be invoked as one of the affirmative defenses in the answer for the dismissal of the ‘. 24 case. i : (3) Jurisdiction Over the Res Jurisdiction over the property or res is acquired either: _(a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby - it is brought into actual custody of the law; or, (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.”° (4) Jurisdiction Over the Issues Jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. Where, for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the defendant cannot be said to have been served with process as to that issue. Whether or not the court has B s - pai face Espaiiol Filipino v. Palanca; 37 Phil. 921; Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. ena 7 gs 2ection 12(a) of Rule 8, as added by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC. San Pedro v. Ong, et al., G.R. No. 1775: k I, I., GR. No. 98, October 17, 2008, citing Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 495. 5 Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE 9 (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires nothing except an examination of the pleadings.”° Classifications of Jurisdiction () In our system of laws, the following are the main classifications of jurisdiction, viz.: it refers to a power of a court that holds cases_except those 1 trial IG r are considered cou! it can handle all kinds of cases except if expressly withheld by law. — Special jurisdiction is the [eourts' jurisdic? € a eS OF cases,”* It is also called limited jurisdiction. In the Philippines, it is the municipal trial court (or metropolitan trial court) that exercises special or limited jurisdiction. © a it refers to a court's power to hear and lecide a case before any appellate review.” Xclusive, — it refers to a type of jurisdiction where a a °T OV (©) WppEHatE it refers to the power of a court to hear appeals from lower courts. It includes the power to reverse or modify the lower court's decision." yes v. Diaz, G.R. No. al, v, Vergara, G.R. id on July 31, 2020. cessed on July 31, Accessed on July trieved on July 31, Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I ee ” CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ining which court has jurisdictio, be considered in determi over the case. the Court in one case has held: By way of illustration, Ry sm In the instant case, the complaint filed 1 ei Case No. 5794-Ris for the recovery of damages ba he alleged malicious acts of petitioners. The compl en principally sought an award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, forthe alleged shame and injury suffered by respondent by reason of petitioners utterance while they were at a police station in Pangasinan. Itis settled 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 plaintiff's causes of action. It is clear, based on the allegations of the complaint, that respondent's main action is for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages being claimed by respondent, e.g. exemplary damages, attorney's 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. "3 In Mendoza v. Soriano, it was 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 respondent's claim of ?929,000.06 in damages and 25,000 attorney's fees plus 500 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. Also, in Iniego v. Purganan, the Court has held: ‘The amount of dama i is withi _ the ges claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER Bie M CONDIT! IONS PRECEDENT IN FILING ‘AN ACTION (2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, OF toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. ; (3) All cases in which the ; jurisdiction of any lower court is mae in issue. scan | (4) All appeal by certiorari where | only question of law is involved on the decisions of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and. regional trial courts ot other courts, whenever authorized by law.** COURT OF APPEALS Exclusive Original Petition for annulment of judgment of the regional trial Jurisdiction courts.” Concurrent Original (1) Petition for certiorari, Jurisdiction with the prohibition, and mandamus Supreme Court against the decision of the regional trial courts.” (2) Petition for writ of kalikasan.** Concurrent Original Petitions for certiorari, OF M Jurisdiction with the Prohibition, ‘mandamus, habeas Stipe: and corpus, quo warranto, amparo, habeas data, and petition for the TO k » { Section 5(2), Article VIll of the 1987 Constituti i , ‘tution; Se a aera ap iat n; Section 1 of Rule 45, seh Sit anil vm of the 1987 Constitution; Section 9(2) of B.P. 129 , le 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8- Faye Ste Lot 09-6-8SC or the Rules of Procedure for Scanned with CamScanner16 CONDITIONS to, or possession of, or any interest in, real property, where HAPTER TT AN ACTION PRECEDENT IN FILING the assessed value of the property | involved PHP20, | 000. 00 iF outside Metro Manila, | or PHP50, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. | 4 (3) All actions involving admiralty | and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim does not exceed PHP300, 000. 00 if outside Metro Manila, or PHP 400, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate does not exceed PHP300, 000. 00 if outside Metro Manila, or PHP400, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. (5) All other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attor- ney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or value of the property in controversy exceeds PHP300, 000. 00 if outside Metro Manila, or PHP400, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. (6) All cases,covered-by.the 1991 Rules on'Summary Procedure. (7) All cases covered by the (ean ale for i $ a Se ection 33 of B.P, 129 (as amended by R.A. 7691); The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; and i Procadliré for mall tate pase ea ee Re Scanned with CamScannerCONCEFIUAL APPROACH TO. cl IVi (As Amended by A.M. No, INTE 8 e from the same or from different Causes of action. is diction, the other important factor to action is the cause of action. The rule is ba if it cannot be determined through a ere is a cause of action, such complaint filed ismissal for failure to state a rE of action. of action requires, as essential elements, not 5 the plaintiff and the correlative duty o} nt but also the act or omission of the defendant in legal right; the cause of action does not he party obligated refuses, expressly or mply with their duty.” { eg ! rravall, G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010, citing Nocum v. “September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 639; Mendoza v. (012, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 260; and Iniego v. 166876, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 394, uses Gabor, et al, G.R, No. 182970, July 23, 2014. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R, No. 153267, June 23, 2005, ing v. Millena, G.R. No. 141380, 14 April 2004, 427 Scanned with CamScanner(As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) Delegated Jurisdiction | Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or those contested lots where the value of which does not exceed PHP100, 000. 00.” Action Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation One of the kinds of cases that is cognizable by the “regional trial court“in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction is an actio ‘apable of pecuniary estimation. estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the courts of first level 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 damages, where the money claim or claims for damages is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, such action is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and is cognizable by the regional trial courts.*° FG Action Involving Title to, or Possession 4 of, or Interest in, Real Property In case of real action or one involving title to, or posses- sion of, or any interest in, real property, the jurisdiction of the court depends on the assessed value of the property. Under the pertinent provision of B.P. 129, if the assessed value of teal property does not exceed twenty thousand (Php20, 000. : Section 34 of B.P. 129. Genesis investment, Inc., et al. v. Heirs of Ebarasabal, et al., G.R. No. 181622, November 20, 2013, citing Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, 177 Phil. 575 (1979). paauelu Scanned with CamScanneriction i i the basic foundation of isdiction is considered as t judicial proceedings. Without it, a jad Lae Py : court is null and void and may be attacxe? ae me 26 result, a void judgment for want of juris ju t all. It{can neither be the source of any right nor ie seatcr, of 0 eat and all acts performed Pa t to itand all Claims emanating from it have no legal effect. i : nncept of jurisdiction has several FG ean, namaety Ma inn vee subject matter, ) iction over the parties; (Cc) jurisdiction over the issues of ase; and, @) ji cases involving property, Jurisdiction over ‘or the thing which is the subject of litigation. (1) Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is. ] d'determine the general class to whic 1@ proceed jong. It istonferred, by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.'* One can determine r £ +8 Shuley Mine, Inc. v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 214923, August 28, 2019, citing Tiu v. First. Plywood Corporation, ,, 629 Phil. 120 (2010); Zacarias v. Anacay, 744 Phil, 201 (2014); and Lukang v. «, Pagbilao Development Corporation, 728 Phil, 608, 617 (2014). a Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013, citing Hasegawa v. Kitamura, G.R. 149177, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 261; further citing Regalado, | Remedial Law Compendium(8" ed.), bp. 28: and Riano, | Civil Procedure: The Bar Lecture Series(2011 ed.), pp. -65. ** Ibid., citing Spouses Genato v. Viola, supra; Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corp., 556 Phil. 822, 836 (2007); Philippine Coconut Produ- _ Gs Federation, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, January 24, 2012, 663 SCRA 514, 569; Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. v. Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CI [VILPROCEDURE = 13 (As Amended by ‘A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) issuance of writ of continuing mandamus.” ‘Appellate Jurisdiction (1) Appeal by notice of appeal of the decision or judgment of the regional trial courts in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; (2) Petition for review of the decision or judgment of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and, (3) Petition for review of the decision of the different government agencies exercising quasi-judicial power.” Regional Trial Court Exclusive Original Jurisdiction recy, OGM vel he hegig hoy \eaye ni tre nan yoy syuinot Sw (1) All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. P' (2) Alll civil actions involving title to, or possession of, or any interest in, real property, where the assessed value of the property involv cee PHP20, 000. 00 if outside Metro Manila, or PHPS0, 000. 00 if within Metro Manila. an Mawit’ unchon — eo peeblenp fa nneng ‘uhmahoo oleae MIC Pit deea wh tnol ® section 5(1), Article Vill of the 1987 Constitution; Section 21(1) of B.P. 129; Section 7, Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Section 2 of Rule 102; Section 3 of A.M. No. 07-09-12-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Amparo; Section 3 of A.M. No, 08-1-16-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data; and Section 2, Rule 8 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. 8 cocti Section 9(3) of B.P, 129, Section 2(a)(b) of Rule 41; and Section 1 of Rule 43. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER IL Ee CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ACTION i in Tum 7 the rule, the Court echoed its pronouncement npag y Tumpog,” thus: Generally, the facts alleged in the ct suit is within its juris¢ however, when a rigid appl result in defeating substantial 4, aparty's substantial right. x x x . But we should not lose consideration of the fact that this liberal application can be justified. only by attaching the sworn eclaration of real property to the complaint since it bears the “assessed value of the property at issue, and jurisprudence teaches us that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency. court should only look into the complaint to determine whether a diction. There may be instances, lication of this rule may justice or in prejudice to (1) Accion Publiciana In accion publiciana cases, the court that has jurisdiction 4g lepends on the assessed value of the property. If the assessed value of the property does not exceed PHP20, 000. 00, or i Metro Manila PHP50, 000. 00, then the municipal trial court has jurisdiction. If. the assessed value exceeds the said amounts, then the regional trial court has jurisdiction. This is the effect of the ruling of the Court in Quinagoran vs. Cour of Appeal*where it held the following: The question posed in the present petition is not complicated, i.e, does the RTC have jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value of the property involved? The answer is no. The doctrine on which the RTC anchored its denial of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, as SET he rile ie MI = 744 Phil. 423, 430 (2014). Gabrillo v. Heirs of Pastor, su gg (2018). G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007. pra, citing Cabling v. Dangcalan, 787 Phil 187 Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER II CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ACTION ‘or in Metro Manila, Php50, 000. 00), the Jeddiction i in the municipal trial court (or metropolitan trial court); otherwise, it is in the regional trial court. Jurisprudence has held that an action involving title to real property means that the plaintiff's cause of action is based on a claim that he or she owns such property or that he or she has the legal rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. Hence, the Court has held that even if the action is supposedly ‘one for annulment of a deed, the nature of an action is not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations therein and the reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiff 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.” The basis of determining which court has jurisdiction in a real action depends on the assessed value of the property. What is the assessed value, and how is it different from the market value? alii calculated by multiplying the market value by the assessment level. on the other hand, is 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. Assessed value pertains to the taxable value of the real property while the fair market value is tantamount to the estimated value of the real property as st Montero v. ies or pono, GR. No, 217755, September 18, 2019, citing Heirs of Site ebe v. Heirs of Veronica Sevilla, 618 Phil. 395 (2009). ', Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo. 453 Phil. 170 (20031 Scanned with CamScanner0 CHArIEN : CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ACTION s defined as the ability to exercise nt courts at the same time, within the same territory, and over the same subject matter. However, whichever court actually exercises its jurisdiction first will do so exclusively.” In our system of laws, although courts have concurrent jurisdiction in certain types of cases, we still observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. ‘ (g) ees it is the grant of authority to courts of t level to hear and determine certain types of cases, such as cadastral and land registration cases originally pertaining to the regional trial courts. 0) (concurrent it is de al review by differe Different Jurisdiction of Courts # ld Our courts have different jurisdiction, whether exclusively original, original but concurrent with other courts, or appellate over decisions of inferior courts. The following tables show the different kinds of cases cognizable by different courts in their exclusive original, concurrent original, and appellate jurisdiction, thus: » SUPREME COURT ~ a Exclusive Original Petition for certiorari, Jurisdiction rohibition, and mandamus ust te judgment, final order, and Tesolution of the Court of Appeals, Commission on lections, and Comimission, Lon Audit, Concurrent Original (1) Petition for certiorari, Jurisdiction with the prohibition, and mandamus oe law.cornell.edu/wex/appellate_jurisdiction. Retrieved on July //definitions.ustegal.com/c/concurrent-jurisdiction/. Retrieved on July 5(2), Article Vill of the 1987 Constitution. Scanned with CamScanner> PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away 2 vested right. it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as 2 substantive matter: but if it operates as ameans of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure." tween substantive and procedural laws is with regard to prospectivity. Unlike substantive laws which naturally can be applied only prospectively, procedural laws can be applied retrospectively in the sense that statutes ill be construed as regulating the procedure of the courts wil applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Thus, it is held that the fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants’ tights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he or she is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. It has been held that a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his or her case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure.® It is the Supreme Court that is the primary source of procedural law. It has the law-making power granted by the Constitution. According to Section 5 (par. 5), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the Court has the following power: Another distinction be Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, prac- oe © Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470 (1998), cited in Bernabe v. Alejo, G.R. No. s 140500, January 21, 2002. ® Agpalo, supra, cited in Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra. Ibid. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER IL ae ILING AN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT INFI i , ctions!\If the ance’ of the two the —_ to the maint ae 0 acti same — or evidence woul vaste pe a 7 . ind a are considered the same, anc rence, a party cannot, by bar to the subsequent acto! different method of it dopting a P ing the form op or a ae Presenting his or her case, escape the operat ‘ ction shall not * principle that one and the same cause oe ay ate twice litigated between the same parties Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining ¢ jingle or common Cause of 0. suits relate to a sing! aw fajywhether the same evidence would support and sustain both’ the first and second causes of action; and*(b) whether the defense in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. If the answer in any of the foregoing tests is in the ative, there is a ground for the dismissal of thi subsequent either on the ground of litis pendentia or of r judicata. Hf Ie inde of Causes of Action 4 . The opposite of splitting a single cause of action, which is proscribed, is the joinder of causes of action, which is allowedYbut always subject to the approval of the court. The fue Tegarding joinder of causes of action provided by the Rules, which is alwayspermissive, are as follows: { § A party may, in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as % Yop v. Court of Appeals, et al., GR, No, 186730, June 13, 2012 Ibid, cit ic ic id., citing Subic Telecommunications Company, Inc. v. Subic Bay en eet Sh No. 185159, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 470; . Canoga , 20,2011, 654scra ass, *eeRment Corporation, GR. No, 167246, Ju Scanned with CamScannerCONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE —.27 (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) One Suit for a Single Cause of Action he The rule is that a single calise of ¥ more suits on the basis of the same cause of action, it is called splitting a gingle cause of action. This If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.” . © Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions upon them. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be i split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or "i Oe ie Syotang | aide, 0 Stoge, Lay ob uate mnt to determine if there is identity of causes of actor ction does not mean absolute identity; Id easily escape the operation of res f the action or the relief Identity of causes of a otherwise, a party coul judicata by chan; ging the form o' ® Section 3, Rule 2. % 3 Id., Section 4. : 75 Chu v, Spouses Cunanan, 5, September 12, 2011, citing Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. No. 157616, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 89; Nabus V, Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 91670, February 7, 399%, 193 SCRA 732; Tuttle v. Everhot Heater Co., Inc, 249 NW. 467 (1933); Mallon v Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 336; and Perez ¥ Court of Appeals, GAR. No. 157616, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 89, G.R, No. 15618: Scanned with CamScanner(CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO CIVIL PROCEDURE 19 (As Amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller under reasonable and ordinary conditions. As stated above, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 is explicit that the jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to, or possession of, or any interest in, a real property is determined by its assessed value and not the market value thereof. It The assessed value of the property must be alleged in the complaint, for it is well-settled that courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value or even the market value of the land. It must be clearly set forth in the complaint to prompt the court whether it can or cannot take cognizance of the e. Thus, In some cases, however, the Court made a liberal application of the rule. For instance in Foronda-Crystal v. Son, it was held that the failure to allege the real property's assessed value in the complaint would not be fatal if, in the documents annexed to the complaint, an allegation of the assessed value could be found. In justifying the relaxation of 5 Gabrillo v. Heirs of Pastor, G. R. No. 234255, October 02, 2019, citing BF Citiland Corp. v. Otake, 640 Phil 261 (2010); and Hilario v. Salvador, 497 Phil. 327 (2005) * Ibid. citing Hilario v. Salvador, supra. * Ibid,, citing Regalado v, De la Pena, G.R. No. 202448, December 13, 2017, gg 848 SCRA S43. * G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 280. Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER I ro CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN FILING AN ACT! interest therein does not ae Of the sand pesos (20,000.00) or, in civil sctine in Metro Manila, where such assseccdivarve does not exceed fifty thousand pesos (P50, m ny exclusive of interest, damages or whatever HH } attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: provi ded that 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.(Emphasis supplied)” The Court has also declared that all cases involving title to or possession of real property with an assessed value of less than ®20,000.00 if outside Metro Manila, falls under the original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. In Atuel v. Valdez the Court likewise expressly stated that: “Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction ‘in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property.’ However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed 50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and 20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property,”6 (2) Delegated Jurisdiction __ The municipal trial court exercises delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value does not exceed one hundred thousand (PHP100, 000. 00) pesos.”' In determining whether a municipal trial court (or «bid. Section 34, B.P. Big. 129, Scanned with CamScanner