Judicial Hierarchy (4) where the constitutional issues raised are better decided

after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with

(1) Relational hierarchy of courts – the relationship
the concurrence of the majority of those who participated
between and among several courts of the judiciary in
in its discussion;
terms of jurisdiction and supervisory authority.
(5) where time is of the essence;
(2) Doctrinal hierarchy of courts – a limitation on a litigant’s
(6) where the act being questioned was that of a constitutional
right of recourse in cases where there exists, between
body;
several courts, a concurrence of subject matter
(7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate
jurisdiction.
remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free
petitioner from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in
People vs. Cuaresma violation of their constitutional rights; and
(8) the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts public policy, the broader interest of justice, or where the
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as orders complained of are patent nullities, or where appeal
according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, can be considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefor will be directed. There is after all a Gios-Samar vs. DOTC
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the
venue of appeals and should also serve as a general
Transcendental importance doctrine
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
We take this opportunity to clarify that the presence of one or
extraordinary writs.
more of the so-called “special and important reasons” is not the
decisive factor considered by the Court in deciding whether to
Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first
permit the invocation, at the first instance of its original
level inferior courts should be filed with the Regional Trial
jurisdiction over the issuance of extraordinary writs. Rather, it is
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A
the nature of the question raised by the parties in those
direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to
“exceptions” that enabled us to allow the direct action before
issue these writs should be allowed only when there are
us.
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition.
To be clear, the transcendental importance doctrine does not
clothe us with the power to tackle factual questions and play
Purpose of Hierarchy of Courts
the role of a trial court. The only circumstance when we may
(1) The hierarchy of courts serves as the general determinant
take cognizance of a case in the first instance, despite the
of the appropriate forum for such petitions.
presence of factual issues, is in the exercise of our
(2) It is a constitutional filtering mechanism designed to
constitutionally expressed task to review the sufficiency of the
enable the Court to focus on the more fundamental and
factual basis of the President’s proclamation of martial law
essential tasks assigned to it by the highest law of the
under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
land.
When a question before the Court involves determination of a
When there is concurrence of jurisdiction among courts, the
factual issue indispensable to the resolution of the legal issue,
doctrine of hierarchy of courts requires that recourse must first
the Court will refuse to resolve the question regardless of the
be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent
allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such as the
jurisdiction with a higher court.
transcendental or paramount importance of the case. Such
question must first be brought before the proper trial courts or
Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve
factual questions.
Rationale for the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
The rationale for this rule is two-fold:
(1) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Court; and
(2) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended
or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases.
Concept of Judicial Power
Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
Barroso vs. Omelio
and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
For exceptionally compelling reasons, the Court may Traditional concept
exercise its discretion to act on special civil actions for Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
certiorari filed directly with it. Examples of cases that present settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
compelling reasons are: demandable and enforceable.
(1) those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that
must be addressed at the most immediate time; Expanded concept
(2) those where the issues are of transcendental importance, To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
and the threat to fundamental constitutional rights are so of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
great as to outweigh the necessity for prudence; the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
(3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet
exists that will guide the lower courts on such issues;
Powers of the Supreme Court

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 Sec. 2, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court
is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law
is involved.
habeas corpus or the extension thereof (Sec. 18, Art. VII
of the Constitution)
4. Disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary
and attorneys (Rule 56-A of the Rules of Court)
5. Injunction in agrarian cases and others specified by law.
Rules of Procedure in environmental cases
Rule 2, Sec. 10. Issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against lawful actions of government agencies
that enforce environmental laws or prevent violations
thereof.
Types of Certiorari
1. Rule 45 – appeal by certiorari to the SC for pure questions
of law.
2. Rule 65 – grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
3. Rule 64 – review of judgments and final orders or
resolutions of the COMELEC or COA.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
stations as public interest may require. Such temporary mandamus against the Ombudsman in
assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
Criminal Cases
Case Held
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a Estrada v. Desierto (2004) / The remedy of aggrieved
miscarriage of justice. parties from resolutions of
Information Technology v. the Office of the
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and COMELEC (2017) Ombudsman finding
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, probable cause in criminal
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the cases or non-administrative
practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance cases, when tainted with
to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a grave abuse of discretion, is
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy to file an original action for
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of certiorari (Rule 65) with
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or the Supreme Court and not
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special with the Court of Appeals.
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective Carpio-Morales vs. CA The second paragraph of
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (2015) Section 14, RA 6770
provides that no appeal or
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in application for remedy may
accordance with the Civil Service Law. be heard against the
decision or findings of the
Ombudsman, with the
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the exception of the Supreme
Supreme Court Court on pure questions of
1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against law.
the:
(1) Court of Appeals (Sec. 17, Judiciary Act of 1948); Since the second paragraph
(2) COMELEC (Sec. 7, Art. IX of the Constitution); of Section 14, RA 6770
(3) COA (Sec. 7, Art. IX of the Constitution); limits the remedy against
(4) Sandiganbyan (R.A 10660); "decision or findings" of the
(5) Court of Tax Appeals (P.D No 1125 as amended); Ombudsman to a Rule 45
(6) Ombudsman in criminal cases (Sec. 14, R.A 6770) appeal and thus - similar to
the fourth paragraph of
2. Election contests involving the position of the President Section 27, RA 6770 -
and Vice President (Sec. 4, Art. VIII of the Constitution) attempts to effectively
increase the Supreme
3. Cases questioning the factual basis for the declaration of Court's appellate jurisdiction
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of without its advice and
concurrence, it is therefore
concluded that the former

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 provision is also
unconstitutional and
perforce, invalid.
Subject matter jurisdiction
(Rule 65 petition) lies with
the Court of Appeals, not
with the Supreme Court.
Gatchalian v. Ombudsman Criminal Cases
(2018) Special Civil Action for
Certiorari under Rule 65
before the Supreme Court.
Administrative Cases
Appeal under Rule 43 or a
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 before the Court of
Appeals.
 on pure questions of law;
 in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation;
 legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed;
 on the issue of jurisdiction of any lower court;
 when the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
Limitations on the power of Congress in
enacting laws which affect jurisdiction
(1) It cannot increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC
without its consent (Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution)
(2) It cannot diminish the jurisdiction of the SC as defined in
Sec. 5 (Sec. 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution).

Cases required which must be heard en banc

Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court
1. With the CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the:
(1) RTC (Sec. 21 (1), B.P. Blg. 129);
(2) Civil Service Commission (R.A. No. 7902);
(3) Central Board of Assessment Appeals (P.D. No.
464; B.P. Blg. 129; R.A. No. 7902);
(4) NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC).
(5) Other quasi-judicial agencies (Heirs of Hinog vs.
Melicor);
2. With the RTC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus against lower courts and bodies, and in
petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus. This
jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
(Secs. 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution)
3. With the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public
ministers and consuls (Sec. 21(2), B.P. Blg. 129; Sec. 5,
Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
4. With the RTC and CA for petitions of continuing
mandamus.
5. With the CA for petitions of writ of kalikasan.
6. With the RTC and CA for petitions of habeas corpus;
7. With the RTC and CA for writ of amparo.
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction by way of
petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45) against the:
a. CA;
b. Sandiganbayan; and
c. RTC.
by the Supreme Court
(a) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement or law;
(b) All cases which under the Rules of Court are required to
be heard en banc;
(c) All cases involving the constitutionality, application or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances and other regulations;
(d) Cases heard by a division when the required number in
division is not obtained;
(e) Cases involving a modification or reversal of a doctrine or
principle of law laid down previously by the SC in a
decision rendered en banc or by a division;
(f) Cases involving the discipline of judges of lower courts;
(g) Contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications
of the President or Vice President;
Baviera vs. Paglinawan
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts will not
determine a controversy involving a question within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise of said
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact.
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
Sec. 9, B.P 129
The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
1. Concurrent Original jurisdiction with the SC and
RTC to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or
processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive Original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Court; and
3. Exclusive Appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional
Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals
1. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs (Sec. 9(2),
B.P 129);
2. Extend the freeze order issued by the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC) and determine the basis of
the freeze order (R.A 10168);
Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals
1. With the SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against the:
(a) RTC;
(b) CSC;
(c) Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
(d) Other Quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43; and
(e) NLRC.
2. With the SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan to issue writs of
amparo and writs of habeas data;
3. With the SC to issue Writ of Kalikasan.
4. With the SC and RTC to issue a writ of continuing
mandamus.
5. With the SC in the issuance of a restraining order,
preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction
in any case involving the powers, duties, and
responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange
Commission that falls exclusively within its jurisdiction
(Sec. 179, R.A No. 11232)
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the
Court Appeals
1. Ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts
(Sec. 9(3), B.P 129);
2. Petition for review from the RTC rendered in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction. (Sec. 22, B.P. Blg. 129; Rule
42, Rules of Court; Sec. 9, B.P. Blg. 129);
3. Petition for review from the decisions, resolutions, orders
or awards of the Civil Service Commission, Central Board
of Assessment Appeals and other bodies mentioned in
Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases (Sec. 9(3), B.P 129);
Note: Under R.A. No. 9282, the judgments and final orders of
the Court of Tax Appeals are no longer appealable by way of
petition for review to the Court of Appeals. Judgments of the
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
Court of Tax Appeals rendered en banc are appealable to the
Supreme Court by way of Rule 45 (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9282).
This is pursuant to the doctrine of non-interference.
4. By way of petition for review from the decisions of the
Philippine Competition Commission in cases over which it
has jurisdiction.
5. Decisions and Final orders of the RTC acting as a
Special Commercial Court in cases falling under the
Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim
Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate
Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799.
6. Decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in Cadastral or Land
registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction
(Sec. 34, B.P. 129).
Duenas vs. Guce-africa
Question of law and Question of fact distinguished
Petitioner endeavors to convince us to determine, yet again,
the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence
presented. This cannot be done in this petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court where only
questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon
by us.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must
not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances.
Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the questioned posed is one of fact. Thus, the test
of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the
appellation given to such question by the party raising the
same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine
the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence,
in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question
of fact.
Determination of breach of contract is factual
It has already been held that the determination of the existence
of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually
reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45.
Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC
Evidence necessary to resolve factual issues
Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues raised in
cases falling within the Appellate Court's original and appellate
jurisdiction contemplates incidental facts which were not
touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or respondent Court.
The law could not have intended that the Appellate Court
would hold an original and full trial of a main factual issue in a
case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts.
Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
 Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Regional Trial Court
Sec. 19, B.P 129
Prior to amendment
(1) In all civil actions in
which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
(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 P20,000 or
for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where
such the value
exceeds P50,000
except actions for
forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts.
(3) In all actions
admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction where the
demand or claim
exceeds P300,000 or
in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim
exceeds P400,000.
(4) In all matters of probate,
both testate and
intestate, where the
gross value of the
estate exceeds
P300,000 or, in probate
matters in Metro
Manila, where such
gross value exceeds
P400,000.
(5) In all actions involving
the contract of marriage
and marital relations.
(6) In all cases not within
the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal,
person or body
exercising jurisdiction or
any court, tribunal,
person or body
exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and
special proceedings
falling within the
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
of the
Amendment by R.A 11567
on July 30, 2021
-----
In all civil actions which
involve the title to, or
possession of, real property,
or any interest therein,
where the assessed value
exceeds P400,000, except
for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred
upon the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, and Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts;
in In all actions in admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction
where the demand or claims
exceeds P2,000,000.
In all matters of probate,
both estate and intestate,
where the gross value of the
estate exceeds P2,000,000.
-----
-----
Note: catch all jurisdiction of
the RTC; RTC as court of
general jurisdiction.
-----
exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations
Court and of the Courts
of Agrarian Relations as
now provided by law.
(8) In all other cases in In all other cases in which
which the demand, the demand, exclusive of
exclusive of interest, interest, damages of
damages of whatever whatever kind, attorney’s
kind, attorney’s fees, fees, litigation expenses and
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
costs or the value of the property in controversy
property in controversy exceeds P2,000,000.
exceeds P300,000 or
exceeds P400,000 in
Metro Manila;
Summary: When Money is the Parameter
(3) Actions in admiralty and Demand, claim, or gross
maritime jurisdiction. value of the estate or the
(9) Matters of probate, both property exceeds
testate and intestate. P2,000,000.
(8) Any other demand,
exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the
value of the property in
controversy.
If demand, claim, or gross Automatic MTC
value does not exceed these
amounts.
Under Special Laws
1. Acting as a Special Agrarian Court, over all petitions for
the determination of just compensation to land owners,
and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law);
v Mode of appeal from decisions of RTCs acting as
Special Agrarian Court
A petition for review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules
of Court, and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, is the
appropriate mode of appeal from decisions of RTCs acting
as Special Agrarian Courts (SACs). Clearly, jurisdiction
over appeals from decisions of the SAC resides in the
Court of Appeals via a Rule 42 petition for review, which
may raise either questions of fact, or of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law. (Land bank of the Philippines
vs. J.L Jocson and Sons)
v The fact that the decision of the Adjudicator on land
valuation and preliminary determination and payment of
just compensation shall be brough directly to the Regional
Trial Courts does not mean that the RTC is exercising
appellate jurisdiction. The valuation of property in eminent
domain is essentially a judicial function which cannot be
vested in administrative agencies. (Export Processing
Zone Authority v. Dulay)
2. Acting as a Special Commercial Court, over intra-
corporate disputes and corporate rehabilitation cases
(Sec. 5.2, RA 8799).
 3. Over criminal and civil cases involving violations of the it affects title to or on the privity of
Philippine Competition Act and other competition- possession of real real estate.
related laws (Sec. 44, R.A 10667). property, or an
interest therein.
Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Parameter to Assessed value of Amount of the
Court determine the real property. claim or demand or
whether RTC value of personal
1. With the SC in actions affecting ambassadors, other public has property.
ministers and consuls; jurisdiction
Where Where the real Where the plaintiff
2. With the SC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition commenced property involved, or any of the
and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in or a portion thereof, principal plaintiffs
petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus; is situated. resides, or where
the defendant or
3. With the SC, CA, and Sandiganbayan to issue Writs of any of the principal
Amparo; defendants
resides, at the
4. With the MTC in petitions for indirect contempt where such election of the
contempt has been committed against the Municipal Trial plaintiff.
Court (Sec. 5, Rule 71).

5. With the MTC in the issuance of Temporary Protection Jurisdiction when there is a claim of
Orders or Permanent Protection Orders (Sec. 10, R.A damages
9262). Claim for damages Determination of
jurisdiction
Summary: Jurisdiction over Habeas Corpus Merely incidental or ancillary DO NOT include the amount
to the main cause of action. of damages in determining
petitions jurisdiction.
Remedy Jurisdiction Main cause of action, or one Amount of such claim shall
Habeas Corpus filed as Concurrent among the SC, of the causes of action. be considered in
main remedy under Rule CA and RTC determining the jurisdiction
102 of the court.
Habeas Corpus filed as an Exclusive RTC acting as
ancillary remedy in a petition Family Court
for custody of minors Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
Russell vs. Vestil
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court Determination of whether an action is capable of
Sec. 22, B.P 129 pecuniary estimation
Over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
respective territorial jurisdictions. The decision of the Regional adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
Trial Courts in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals. recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in instance would depend on the amount of
the claim.
Special Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court However, where the basic issue is something other than the
Sec. 23, B.P 129 right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
Certain branches of the Regional Trial Court may be purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
designated by the Supreme Court to handle exclusively sought, this Court has considered such where the subject of
criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cases, urban and land reform cases which do not fall under the cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional
jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such Trial Courts).
other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in
the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice. Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are
those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of
Real Action distinguished from Personal mortgage or annulment of judgment; also actions questioning
Action the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or
conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission,
Real Action Personal Action
which is a counterpart of specific performance.
Scope Founded on the Any other action
privity of real estate, that is not founded SSS vs. Atlantic Gulf

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES


Action for specific performance
If the controversy lies in the non-implementation of the
approved and agreed dacion en pago, it is a suit for specific
performance and one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Therefore, jurisdiction is vested upon the regional trial court.
Bardillon vs. Brgy. Masili of Calamba
Expropriation suit
An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of
money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of
its authority and right to take property for public use. As such, it
is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with
the regional trial courts.
It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an
expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its
instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking
of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority
of the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation,
and the observance of due process. In the main, the subject of
an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent
domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated
in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the
just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to
the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only
after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the
expropriation.
Mendoza vs. Teh
Appointment of an administratix for an estate
Likewise falling within its jurisdiction are actions incapable of
pecuniary estimation, such as the appointment of an
administratrix for an estate.
In the present suit, no settlement of estate is involved, but
merely an allegation seeking appointment as estate
administratrix which does not necessarily involve settlement of
estate that would have invited the exercise of the limited
jurisdiction of a probate court.
BCDA vs. UY
Action for injunction
Section 19 of BP 129 shows that a Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisprudence has
recognized complaints for injunction with a prayer for
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction as
such.
Copioso vs. Copioso
Joinder of causes of action
Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which
comprehends more than the issue of title to, possession of, or
any interest in the real property under contention but includes
an action to annul contracts, reconveyance or specific
performance, and a claim for damages, which are incapable of
pecuniary estimation and thus properly within the jurisdiction of
the RTC.
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
But as herein before stated, the issue of title, ownership
and/or possession thereof is intertwined with the issue of
annulment of sale and reconveyance hence within the
ambit of the jurisdiction of the RTC. The assessed value of
the parcels of land thus becomes merely an incidental matter
to be dealt with by the court, when necessary, in the resolution
of the case but is not determinative of its jurisdiction.
Actions capable of pecuniary estimation
Iniego vs. Purganan
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that
are capable of pecuniary estimation. As such, they fall within
the jurisdiction of either the RTC or the municipal courts,
depending on the amount of damages claimed.
Heirs of Sebe vs. Heirs of Sevilla
Action involving title to real property
The action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these
parties is the lawful owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over
which is determined by the assessed value of such lots.
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.
Determination on whether RTC or Quasi-
judicial bodies have jurisdiction
v If the resolution of the case ultimately boils down to
application of a special law within the competence of an
administrative or quasi-judicial agency, the RTC has no
jurisdiction.
v If the resolution of the case can be had without reference
to these special laws, the RTC has jurisdiction.
Halaguena et. al vs. PAL
Courts have jurisdiction when a general civil law applies
and it is not covered by a special law
Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by
reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or
a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law,
the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of
justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
In such situations, resolution of the dispute requires expertise,
not in labor management relations nor in wage structures and
other terms and conditions of employment, but rather in the
application of the general civil law. Clearly, such claims fall
outside the area of competence or expertise ordinarily ascribed
to labor arbiters and the NLRC and the rationale for granting
jurisdiction over such claims to these agencies disappears.
The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor
Code. Rather, it requires the application of the Constitution,
labor statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and
the power to apply and interpret the constitution and CEDAW is
within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of general
 jurisdiction. This Court held that not every dispute between an
employer and employee involves matters that only labor
arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Court
Summary: Modes of Review of RTC 1. With the RTC in petitions for indirect contempt when such
Decisions contempt has been committed against a lower court (Rule
71, Sec. 5).
Mode
Original Jurisdiction Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41 2. With the RTC in the issuance of Temporary Protection
Appellate Petition for Review under Rule 42 Orders or Permanent Protection Orders (Sec. 10, R.A
Jurisdiction 9262).
Special Jurisdiction Petition for Review under Rule 42
(SAC)
Special Jurisdiction Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41
Special Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
(Family Court) Court
Pure questions of Petition for Review under Rule 45 Sec. 35, B.P 129
law To hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and
applications for bail in the absence of all RTC judges in the
province or city.
Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court
Among all the courts, it is only the MTC whose subject matter Delagated Jurisdiction of the Municipal
jurisdiction is wholly ORIGINAL. It does not have appellate
jurisdiction. MTC does not supervise any courts.
Trial Court
Sec. 34, B.P 129
In cadastral and land registration cases covering lots where
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the there is no controversy or opposition or contested lots the
value of which does not exceed P100,000 as may be
Municipal Trial Court delegated by the SC.
Sec. 33, B.P 129
Prior to amendment Amendment by R.A 11676
on July 30, 2021 Totality Rule
(1) Civil actions where the Civil actions where the Sec. 33, B.P 129 (last par)
amount of the demand amount of the demand does Where there are several claims or causes of action between
does not exceed not exceed P2,000,000. the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint,
P300,000 or P400,000 the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the Scclaims
in Metro Manila; in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes
Civil actions where the value Civil actions where the value of action arose out of the same or different transactions.
of the personal property of the personal property
does not exceed P300,000 does not exceed v The TOTALITY RULE has no application in cases where
or P400,000 in Metro P2,000,000. the main claim is for damages. Recall that under
Manila; Administrative Circular No. 09-94, the exclusion of
Probate proceedings where Probate proceedings where damages of whatever kind applies only to cases where
the value of the estate does the value of the estate does the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence
not exceed P300,000 or not exceed P2,000,000. of the main cause of action.
P400,000 in Metro Manila; v However, in cases where the claim for damages is the
Admiralty and maritime Admiralty and maritime main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the
actions where the demand actions where the demand amount of such claim shall be considered in determining
or claim does not exceed or claim does not exceed the jurisdiction of the court.
P300,000 or P400,000 in P2,000,000.
Metro Manila. Remedies available to the owner/possessor
(2) Forcible entry and -----
unlawful detainer cases; to judicially recover possession of real
(3) Real actions where the Real actions where the property
assessed value of the assessed value of the
property or interest property or interest therein Accion Accion Accion
therein does not does not exceed P400,000. Interdictal Publiciana Reivindicatoria
exceed P20,000 or Scope Ejectment Possessory Reivindicatory
P50,000 in Metro Suit; action action
Manila.

Note: All are exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, Unlawful

attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. However, such detainer/
are included in the determination of the filing or docket fees to
be paid. Forcible

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 entry (force, may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine
intimidation, who has the right to possess the property.
stealth,
threat or We stress, however, that this adjudication is only an initial
strategy) determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the issue
Purpose To recover To recover To recover of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked
possession possession possession thereto. The lower court’s adjudication of ownership in the
de facto, de jure, based on ejectment case is merely provisional and would not bar or
with no independentl ownership prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to
reference to y of title the property. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the issue of
ownership or ownership. This resolution on the issue of ownership is only
title provisional for the purpose of settling the issue of possession.
What The plaintiff The plaintiff Ownership or
plaintiff merely merely title
proves alleges proof alleges proof
of a better of a better Jurisdiction if ejectment suit is not possible
right to right to A mere ejectment suit may not be the proper remedy
possess possess cognizable by the MTCs in at least two situations:
without without claim 1. The action was not brought in the proper MTC within 1
claim of title of title year from the date of actual entry on the land or from the
Period 1 year from 10 years from 30 years from date of last demand to vacate.
to file date of the date of the date when 2. The assessed value of the property may not be within the
action actual entry possession the owner has jurisdiction of the MTC and the action was not brought
on the land by another been deprived within 1 year.
or from the person of his property.
date of last In both cases, jurisdiction is already lodged in the RTC. Even if
demand to the assessed value of the property is in the millions but the
vacate proper action is still an accion interdictal, jurisdiction is still with
the MTCs.
Accion Interdictal
The main difference between the actions lies in the time when Original Jurisdiction over certain barangay-
possession became unlawful: related cases and matters
v Forcible entry – from the time of entry. R.A 7160
v Unlawful detainer – possession which at first lawful later The MTC has jurisdiction over the cases related to barangay
became illegal. settlements and arbitrations:
1. Enforcement – Any amicable settlement or arbitration
The only issue involved in Accion Interdictal is mere physical or award reached in the barangay may be enforced by
material possession (possession de facto) of which a person execution by the Lupong Tagapamayapa within 6 months
has been deprived or against whom it has been withheld. from the date of settlement. After the lapse of such time,
the settlement may be enforced by action in the MTC
De Grano vs. Lacaba (Sec. 417).
2. Nullification – The amicable settlement and arbitration
Possession in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of
It bears emphasizing that the word possession, as used in a court upon the expiration of 10 days from the date
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been
more than physical possession, not legal possession in the made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed
sense contemplated in civil law. When the law speaks of before the MTC (Sec. 416).
possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or 3. Approval – The MTC in which in which non-criminal
possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession cases not falling within the authority of the lupon are filed
de jure. may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to
the lupon concerned for amicable settlement. The
Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue Issues as amicable settlement. The amicable settlement if reached,
to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the shall be submitted to the MTC and upon approval thereof,
action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.
purpose of determining the issue of possession.

Cabrera vs. Getaruela Determination of docket fees or filling fees

to be paid
Courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to
resolve the issue of possession
In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is Manchester Dev’t Corporation vs. CA
physical or material possession of the property involved,
independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties. Jurisdiction not acquired by paying insufficient docket fee
However, where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts when there is intent to avoid its payment

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 The design to avoid payment of the required docket fee is
obvious. The Court serves warning that it will take drastic
action upon a repetition of this unethical practice. To put a stop
to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers
and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of
damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading
but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in
the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that
fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the
complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdcition
on the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based
on the amount sought in the amended pleading.
Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion
Liberal interpretation of the rules when there is no intent
to defraud in payment of docket fees
However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional
docket fee until the case was decided by this court on May 7,
1987. Thus, in Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the
government, this court held that the court a quo did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint
could not have been admitted inasmuch as the original
complaint was null and void.
In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules if
called for considering that, unlike Manchester, private
respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules
by paying the additional docket fees as required. The
promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that
sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the
additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court.
Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was
paid is still insufficient considering the total amount of the
claim. This is a matter which the clerk of court of the lower
court and/or his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk-in-charge
should determine and, thereafter, if any amount is found due,
he must require the private respondent to pay the same.
Principles regarding payment of docket fees
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket
fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action.
Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the
fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party
claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered
filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.
The court may also allow payment of said fee within a
reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the
filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed
filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left
for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
Tacay, et. al vs. RTC
Additional rules on docket fees for real actions with prayer
for damages
Where the action involves real property and a related claim for
damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis
of both:
(a) the value of the property and
(b) the total amount of related damages sought.
The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the
initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the
requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing
of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within
such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of
course, prescription has set in the meantime.
But where the fees prescribed for an action involving real
property have been paid, but the amounts of certain of the
related damages being demanded are unspecified, the action
may not be dismissed.
Ayala Corp. et al. v Madayag,
Payment of additional docket fees allowed when paid
within a reasonable time
As ruled in Tacay, the trial court may either order said claim to
expunged from the record as it did not acquire jurisdiction over
the same or on motion, it may allow, within a reasonable time,
the amendment of the amended and supplemental complaint
so as to state the precise amount of the exemplary damages
sought and require the payment of the requisite fees therefor
within the relevant prescriptive period.
Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor
Clarification of the rule in Manchester
While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a
jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of
filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case,
as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period, more so when the party involved
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing
such payment.
Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government,
the Manchester rule does not apply. This is simply a
qualification on the Manchester rule. Meaning, the Manchester
rule will only apply under the peculiar circumstances or similar
circumstances as with Manchester.
Proton Pilipinas Corp. et al. vs. Banque Nationale de
Paris
 With respect to the interest accruing after the filing of the  Insolvency proceedings.
complaint, the same can only be determined after a final
judgment has been handed down. Respondent cannot thus be Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable – These Rules shall
made to pay the corresponding docket fee therefore. Pursuant, not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as amended by naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases
Administrative Circular No. 11-94, respondent should be made not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
to pay additional fees which shall constitute a lien in the event character and whenever practicable and convenient.
the trial court adjudges that it is entitled to interest accruing
after the filing of the complaint.
Classification of Civil Actions
As to nature
Rule 1: General Provisions 1. Special Civil Actions (Rules 62-71)
 Interpleader
Sec. 1. Title of the Rules. – These Rule shall be known  Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
and cited as the Rules of Court.  Review of Judgments
 Final Orders or Resolutions of Comelec and COA
Sec. 2. In what courts applicable. – These Rules shall  Certiorari
apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the
 Prohibition
Supreme Court.
 Mandamus
 Quo Warranto
Sec. 3. Cases governed – These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and  Expropriation
special proceedings.  Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
 Partition
 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer,
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for
 Contempt.
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
2. Ordinary Civil actions – all other actions are considered
prevention or redress of a wrong.
ordinary.

A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject
to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes
a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
Both ordinary and special civil actions are governed by the
rules on ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules. In
the case of conflict between the specific rule governing a
particular type of civil action and the ordinary, the specific
rule will prevail. If the rules on specific civil actions are silent,
the rules for ordinary actions will be applied.

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party Ordinary civil Special civil action
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. action
Governing Governed by the Governed by the
rules rules for ordinary rules for ordinary
Applicability of the rules of court civil actions and civil actions and,
The general applicability of the Rules is pursuant to Article never the specific subject to the
VIII, 5(5) of the Constitution which mandates that the rules prescribed for specific rules
procedural rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court shall a special civil action. prescribed for a
be uniform for all courts of the same grade. special civil action.
Jurisdictio Filed before the Either the MTC,
The Rules of Court is the collective term to describe all the n MTC or the RTC, RTC, CA or SC.
rules from Rule 1 to Rule 144. Technically speaking, Civil depending on the
Procedure actually begins at Rule 2 because Rule 1 relates to jurisdictional amount
General Provisions. or nature of the
action involved.
The doctrine we follow here is generalia specialibus non Cause of Every ordinary civil The requirement of a
derogant or that universal things do not detract from specific action action must be cause of action does
things. The special provision will always prevail. based on a cause of not apply. It is not a
action. A cause of prerequisite for filing.
When the rules not applicable action is the act or
omission by which a
The Rules of Court do not apply where it is otherwise provided
party violates a right
by the Supreme Court, such as:
of another.
1. Summary Proceedings
2. Small Claims Cases How By filing of the By filing of the
3. Examination of Child Witnesses initiated complaint. complaint or petition.
4. Cases enumerated under Rule 1, Sec. 4. Verification Need not be under Must be verified
 Election cases; oath unless such as:
 Land registration cases; specifically required  Complaint for
 Cadastral cases; by law. (Rule 7, Sec. expropriation
 Naturalization cases; and 4) (Rule 67);

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

  Petitions for the ordinary course the tribunal acted
Certiorari, of law, may file a without or in excess
Prohibition and special civil action of his jurisdiction, or
Mandamus for certiorari on the with grave abuse of
(Rule 65); ground that the discretion amounting
 Petitions for quo tribunal acted to lack or excess of
warranto (Rule without or in excess jurisdiction, if there
66, Sec.1) of his jurisdiction, or is no appeal or other
 Rule 64 with grave abuse of plain, speedy or
petitions; discretion amounting adequate remedy in
 Pleadings in to lack or excess of the ordinary course
accion jurisdiction. of law.
interdictal (Rule
70); and
 Petitions for
indirect
contempt. (Rule As to the cause or foundation
71) 1. Real action – It affects title to or possession of real
Summons The court shall direct Rule on issuance of property, or an interest therein. It is founded upon the
the clerk of court to summons do not privity of real estate. That means that realty, or an interest
issue summons to apply to certain therein is the subject matter of the action. Not every action
the defendant within special civil actions. however, involving a real property is a real action because
5 calendar days. the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of
(Rule 14, Sec. 1.) the suit.
Defendant If the defending Default may be
declared in party fails to answer declared if a party To be a real action, it is not enough that the action must deal
default within the time fails to plead with real property. It is important that the matter in litigation
allowed, the court (claimant must involve issues relating to real property such as:
shall, upon the interpleader in Rule  Title;
motion of the 62).  Ownership;
claiming party, with  Possession;
notice to the  Partition;
But, failure to  Foreclosure of Mortgage; or
defending party, and answer does not
proof of such failure,  Any interest in real property.
lead to a default
declare the declaration under
defending party in Rule 70 where a Doctrines
default. (Rule 9, Sec. default motion is a v An action for damages to real property, while involving
3) prohibited motion. realty is a personal action because although it involves
Remedy of There can only be Special civil action real property, it does not involve any of the issue
appeal one appeal. where multiple mentioned.
appeals are allowed:
1. Expropriation; v An action to recover possession of real property plus
Appeal – remedy of
2. Foreclosure of damages is a real action. The aspect of damages is
defeated party.
mortgage; and merely an incidental part of the main action.
3. Partition.
Petition for review – v An action to recover a possession of a personal property is
remedy of a party a personal action. An action for a declaration of nullity of
aggrieved by a marriage is also a personal action. (Tamano v. Ortiz)
judgement rendered
on appeal. v An action for Specific Performance is a personal action, if
Venue Depends on whether Does not depend on it does not involve, a claim or recovery of possession of a
the action is real or whether the action is real property. Where the allegations as well as the prayer
personal. real or personal. of the complaint do not claim ownership or possession of
Special An ordinary civil A special civil action lots, but instead seeks for the execution of a Deed of Sale
civil action action cannot be for declaratory relief by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff, the action is a
as a converted into a may be converted personal action (Adamos v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.)
corrective special civil action. into an ordinary civil
relief and action. (Rule 63, v However, where a complaint is denominated as one for
conversion In exceptional cases, Sec. 6) Specific Performance but nonetheless prays for the
a party aggrieved by issuance of a deed of dale for a parcel of land, for the
a judgment in an A party aggrieved by plaintiff to acquire ownership of the land, its primary
ordinary civil action, a judgment in a objective and nature is one to recover the parcel of land
when there is no special civil action itself and thus, is deemed a real action (Gochan v.
appeal or other may file a special Gochan).
plain, speedy or action for certiorari,
adequate remedy in on the ground that 2. Personal action

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES


Hernandez vs. DBP
Venue of real actions and personal actions
A real action is local, its venue depends upon the location of
the property involved in the litigation. Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof is situated (Rule 4, Sec. 1).
On the other hand, if it's a personal action, it means it is
transitory, its venue depends upon the residence of the
plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A
personal action may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal defendant resides, or in the case
of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff (Rule 4, Sec. 2).
Declaration as null and void the cancellation of the award
of house and lot, personal action
The Action is a personal action. The nature of the action is one
to compel the recognition of the validity of the award by
seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the award is null
and void. The issue does not involve a title to the property or
interest therein.
Test of determination
If the trial court cannot decide the case without ruling on title
over real property, it is a real action. Otherwise, it is a personal
action.
3. Mixed action/Confused action – An action partaking of
the two-fold nature of real and personal actions, having for
its object the demand and restitution of real property and
also personal damages for a wrong sustained.
ex: Recovery of possession of real property with a prayer
for damages.
Navarro vs. Lucero
Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed for in the
complaint, the nature of the action as real or personal is
determined by the primary object of the suit or by the nature of
the principal claim. Thus, where the purpose is to nullify the
title to real property, the venue of the action is in the province
where the property lies, notwithstanding the alternative relief
sought, recovery of damages which is predicated upon a
declaration of nullity of the title.
Review: Real actions vs. Actions incapable
of pecuniary estimation
v The RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in civil
actions where the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
v The RTC also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title
to, or possession of, real property or any interest in it
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds P400,000.
v A real action or an action involving title to real property
means that the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal
right to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or
disposition of the same.
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
1. Specific Performance;
2. Rescission;
3. Support;
4. Foreclosure of mortgage;
5. Annulment of judgment;
6. Actions Questioning the validity of a Mortgage; and
7. Annulment of Deeds of Conveyance and Recovery of the
price paid.
Roldan vs. Spouses Barrios
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation which involve
real property, assessed value used for jurisdiction
Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment
of the mortgage indebtedness and, 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. As foreclosure mortgage is a real action, it is
the assessed value of the property which determine the court’s
jurisdiction. Considering that the assessed value of the
mortgage property is only P 13,380.00, the RTC correctly
found that the action falls within the jurisdiction of the first level
court (MTC).
In the Russell vs. Vestil, we held:
While actions under Sec. 33(3) of BP 129 are also incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they
are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the
assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed
P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located
elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 as
the case may be, it is the RTC which have jurisdiction under
Sec. 19(2).
Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while the civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of real property, or any
interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it
is not for recovery of money, the court’s jurisdiction will be
determined by the assessed value of the property involved.
As to the object of the action
1. Action in rem – directed against the thing or property or
status of a person and seeks judgments with respect
thereto as against the whole world. An action in rem is an
action against the thing itself instead of against the person.
A cadastral proceeding is an action in rem. The probate of a
will is a proceeding in rem, because the order of probate is
effective against all persons wherever residing. (In Re Estate
of Johnson)
A land registration proceeding is an action in rem. Hence,
the failure to give a personal notice to the owners or claimants
of the land is not jurisdictional defect. It is the publication of
such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the
case and vests the court with jurisdiction.
Biaco vs. Countryside rural bank
Jurisdiction how acquired in actions in rem
 Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res
is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which
the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Summons still necessary for due process
Summons must still be served upon the defendant, not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely to
satisfy the requirements of due process.
2. Action in personam – directed against specific persons
on the basis of their personal liabilities and seeks personal
judgments. No one other than the defendant is sought to
be held liable, not the whole world.
ex:
 action for reconveyance;
 action for sum of money;
 action for damages;
 action for specific performance;
 action for rescission. (Gomez vs. CA)
Cases involving an auction sale of land for the collection of
delinquent taxes is an action in personam. Mere publication of
the notice of delinquency does not suffice. Notice by
publication although sufficient in proceedings in rem does not
satisfy the requirements of proceedings in personam. (Talusan
vs. Tayag)
Ejercito vs. M.R Vargas Construction
Jurisdiction how acquired in actions in personam
In an action strictly in personam, personal service of summons
on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by
handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person.
Recall that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can
also be acquired by his voluntary appearance and submission
to the jurisdiction of the court.
Against a resident defendant in an action in personam, this
jurisdiction is acquired by service in person of summons of the
defendant (Sec. 6, Rule 14, Rules of Court) or in case he
cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, by
substituted service of summons. (Sec. 7, Rule 14).
Without a valid service of summons the court cannot obtain
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant unless the
defendant voluntarily appears in the action. This voluntary
appearance is equivalent to service of summons. (Sec. 20,
Rule 14)
Spouses Yu vs. Pacleb
Binding effect of actions in personam
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal
rights and obligations brought against the person and is based
on the jurisdiction of the person although it may involve his
right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or
seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance
with the mandate of the court.
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
A judgment in personam is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded therein and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard. The purpose of a proceeding in
personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some
responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the
defendant. An action for specific performance is an action in
personam. An action for specific performance praying for
the execution of a deed of sale in connection with an
undertaking in a contract, such as the contract to sell is an
action in personam.
3. Action quasi in rem – names a person as defendant, but
its object is to subject that person’s interest in a property to
a corresponding lien or obligation.
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons
seeking to subject the property of such persons to the
discharge of the claims assailed. In an actions quasi in rem, an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or
loan burdening the property.
Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability
of a particular property but which are intended to operate on
these questions only as between the particular parties to the
proceedings and not to ascertain or cut-off the rights or
interests of all possible claimants. (Domagas v. Jensen)
Such actions are essentially for the purpose of affecting the
defendant’s interest in the property and not to render a
judgment against him. (Valmonte v. CA)
ex:
 Action for partition;
 Action for accounting;
 Attachment;
 Judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
Summary: Judicial foreclosure of mortgage
- It is a special civil action under Rule 68.
- It is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Rusell v.
Vestil)
- It is also a real action. Thus, the determination of
jurisdiction is subject to the assessed value of the
property. (Roldan v. Sps. Barrios)
- it is an action quasi in rem.
Acosta vs. Salazar
Petition for the cancellation of the entries annotated at the
back of OCT
the registration of land under the Torrens system is a
proceeding in rem and not in personam. Such a proceeding in
rem, dealing with a tangible res, may be instituted and carried
to judgment without personal service upon the claimants within
the state or notice by mail to those outside of it. Jurisdiction is
acquired by virtue of the power of the court over the res.
However, the proceedings instituted by the Salazars – for the
cancellation of entries in the subject OCT and for quieting of
title can hardly be classified as actions in rem. The petition for
cancellation of entries annotated at the back of the said OCT
ought to have been directed against specific persons: namely,
the heirs of Juan Soriano and, indubitably, against their
successors-in-interest who have acquired different portions of
 the property over the years because it is in the nature of an parties and thing. parties and
action quasi in rem. their their
successors by successors
Accordingly, the Salazars should have impleaded as party a subsequent by a
defendants the heirs of Juan Soriano and/or Vicenta Macaraeg title. subsequent
as well as those claiming ownership over the property under title.
their names because they are indispensable parties. This was
not done in this case. Since no indispensable party was ever
impleaded by the Salazars in their petition for cancellation of
Significance of distinction
entry filed before Branch 63 of the RTC of Tarlac, herein The distinction is important to determine whether or not
petitioners are not bound by the dispositions of the said court. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required and
Consequently, the judgment or order of the said court never consequently to determine the type of summons to be
even acquired finality. employed. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case against
said defendant where the action is one in personam but not
Distinctions where the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
In personam In rem Quasi in
rem
Scope Directed Directed Brought
Foreign judgment
It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge
against specific against the against
the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to
persons on the thing or persons
properly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of
basis of their property or seeking to
Court clearly provided that with respect to actions in personam,
personal status of a subject the
as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment
liabilities and person. property of
merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the
seeks personal such
claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the
judgments. persons to
contrary. (Bayot v. Bayot)
the
discharge of
the claims Combinations
assailed. An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor
Binding Binds only the Binds the Binds only is a real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or
effect parties to the whole the parties an in rem action is a classification of actions according to the
action. world. to the object of the action. A personal and real action is a
action. classification according to foundation.
Jurisdictio Requires Requires jurisdiction over
n how jurisdiction the res. ex:
acquired over the Personal and in personam Damages
person. Personal and in rem Declaration of Nullity of
Jurisdiction is acquired
Marriage
either:
Real and in personam  Forcible Entry
1. By the seizure of the
 Unlawful Detainer
property under legal
 Recovery of Possession
process, whereby it is
Real and in rem Proceedings under Land
brought into actual
Registration Decree but not
custody of the law; or
an action for reconveyance
2. As a result of the
(in personam).
institution of legal
proceedings, in which
the power of the court An action for declaration of nullity of marriage is a personal
is recognized and action because it is not founded on real estate. It is also an in
made effective. rem action because the issue of the status of a person is one
directed against the whole world. One's status is a matter that
can be set up against anyone in the world. On the other hand,
Summons Service of Not required to obtain an action for damages is both a personal action and an action
summons is jurisdiction but merely to in personam.
jurisdictional. satisfy the requirements of
due process. Salandanan vs. Sps. Mendez
Requires
personal When non-party may be bound by a judgment in personam
service of A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property
summons to to another is in personam and a real action. Any judgment
the defendant therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and
to acquire duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. Even a non-
jurisdiction. party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit
Foreign Presumptive, Conclusive Presumptive where he is any of the following:
judgment of a right as upon the of a right as
between the title to the between the

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 (1) Trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant parties: definite party.
fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the
judgment; Plaintiff – the party who No definite
(2) Guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of demands a right. adverse party
the defendant; Defendant – the party the proceeding is
(3) Transferee pendente lite; whom the right is usually considered
(4) Sublessee; sought. to be against the
(5) Co-lessee; whole world.
(6) Member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant. Filing A complaint is filed. A petition is filed.

Place of filing the action Natcher vs. CA

1. Local action – one which must be brought in a particular
place.
ex: Real actions, since it must be filed in the court which
has territorial jurisdiction if the place where the property or
a portion thereof is situated.
2. Transitory action – an action which follows the party
wherever he may reside.
ex: Personal actions since the case can be filed where the
plaintiff or defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff.
Settlement of the estate of a deceased person
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is a civil action whereas matters relating to
settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as
advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the
nature of a special proceeding which concomitantly requires
the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of
Court. Clearly, matters, which involve settlement and
distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the
exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its
limited jurisdiction.

Special Proceedings under the Rules of Ching vs. Rodriguez

Court Action for reconveyance, civil action

Rule 72, Sec. 1 An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
a. Settlement of the estate of deceased persons; damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to
b. Escheat; settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as
c. Guardianship and custody of children; advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the
d. Trustees; nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires
e. Adoption; the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of
f. Rescission and revocation of adoption; Court.
g. Hospitalization of insane persons;
h. Habeas Corpus; Special proceeding distinguished from ordinary civil
i. Change of name; action
j. Voluntary dissolution of corporations; A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
k. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished
natural children; from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for the
l. Constitution of family home; enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
m. Declaration of absence and death; redress of a wrong. To initiate a special proceeding, a petition
n. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. and not a complaint should be filed.

Ordinary Civil Actions Special Under Article 916 of the Civil Code, disinheritance can be
Proceedings effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor
Scope A formal demand of An application or shall be specified. While the respondents in their complaint
one's right in a court of proceeding to sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
justice in the manner establish the status supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was
prescribed by the court or right of a party, ever mentioned.
or by the law. or a particular fact. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's Disinheritance, the Civil
Pleadings Required No formal case does not partake of the nature of a special proceeding
pleadings are and does not call for the probate's exercise of its limited
required unless the jurisdiction.
statute expressly
so provides. Heirs of Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario

Declaration of heirship cannot be made in a civil action

Remedy granted:
The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil
an application or
action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made
motion.
in a special proceeding.
Courts Can be tried by Courts Can only be tried
of general jurisdiction by courts of special
Republic vs. CA
or limited
jurisdiction.
Parties Two definite adverse Petitioner – A

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 When a declaration of presumptive death may be
classified as special proceeding or summary ordinary
proceeding
Take note that Rule 72, Sec. 1(m) includes declaration of
absence and death as one of the special proceedings.
However, under Article 41 of the Family Code, for the purpose
of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding
paragraph, the spouses present must institute a summary
proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of a reappearance of the absent spouse.
If it is a petition for declaration of presumptive death for
purposes of succession, it is a special proceeding but if it is a
summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death
for purposes of remarriage, it is an ordinary civil action.
There is no doubt that the petition is a summary proceeding
under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the
Revised Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the filing of a
Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding,
the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s order
sufficed.
Petition for liquidation of insolvent
corporation
A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be
classified a special proceeding and not an ordinary action.
Such petition does not seek the enforcement or protection of a
right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It
does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a
party's wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action that
can be enforced against any person.
 The cases covered by the Interim Rules for Intra-
Corporate Controversies should be considered as
ordinary civil actions. These cases either seek the
recovery of damages/property or specific performance of
an act against a party for the violation or protection of a
right.
 A petition for rehabilitation, the procedure for which is
provided in the Interim Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Recovery, should be considered as a special
proceeding. It is one that seeks to establish the status of
a party or a particular fact. (AM No. 00-8-10-SC)
Arbitration
Under the Special Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, all
proceedings under the Special ADR Rules are special
proceedings.
Under RA 9285, or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law,
proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration
agreement or for vacation, setting aside, correction or
modification of an arbitral award, and any application with a
court for arbitration assistance and supervision shall be
deemed as special proceedings.
Ong Chia vs. Republic
Rule on formal offer of evidence does not apply when not
practical and convenient in a special proceeding
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
The rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132) now being
invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to the present
case involving a petition for naturalization. The only instance
when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in
such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient." That is
not the case here, since reliance upon the documents
presented by the State for the first time on appeal, in fact,
appears to be the more practical and convenient course of
action considering that decisions in naturalization proceedings
are not covered by the rule on res judicata. Consequently, a
final favorable judgment does not preclude the State from later
on moving for a revocation of the grant of naturalization on the
basis of the same documents.
Sec. 5. Commencement of Action – A civil action is
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If
an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the
action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
Sec. 6. Construction – These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
Anson Trader Center Inc. vs. Pacific Banking
Corporation
Litigation is not a game of technicality, in which one more
deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and
position entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in
which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the
court the facts in issue and then brushing aside as wholly trivial
and indecisive all imperfection of forms and technicalities of
procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits,
unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.
Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to
justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy,
deserves scant consideration from courts.
Redena vs. CA
It is equally settled, however, that this Court’s power to liberally
construe and even to suspend the rules, presupposes the
existence of substantial rights in favor of which, the strict
application of technical rules must concede.
Tagabi vs. Tanque
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply
because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice
to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required
to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons
when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigation of an injustice
not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complaining with the procedure prescribed.
Jose vs. CA
Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat,
substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in
a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that, while
the Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to
the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are
strictly applied.
 As an exception to the exception, these rules have sometimes
been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also, in some cases
the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal
perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules
would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the
demands of substantial justice, and in the exercise of equity
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Rule 2: Cause of Action
Sec. 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of – Every ordinary
civil action must be based on a cause of action.
Sec. 2. Cause of action defined – A cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
Cause of Action
It is the delict or the wrongful act or omission committed by the
defendant in violation of the primary right of the plaintiff.
Elements of Cause of Action
(1) Right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
under whatever law it arises or is created;
(2) Obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
or not to violate such right; and
(3) Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation
of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the
latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief.
It is only upon the occurrence of the last element (violation)
that a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff the right to
maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief. (Universal Aquarius, Inc., et al. vs Q.C.
Human Resources Management)
(4) Damage – If there is no damage sustained, no suit can be
maintained because of the principle of damnum absque
injuria.
Damnum Absque Injuria
It means a loss or damage for which there is no legal remedy.
Even if there is violation of a right but the law does not consider
it as an actionable injury, the plaintiff cannot file a claim.
Violations of a right but are not actionable under the law:
1. Breach of promise to marry.
2. Gambling debts – the parties are deemed to be in pari
delicto so the courts will leave them as they are. A person
who seeks to enforce a gambling debt does not come to
court with clean hands.
3. De minimis non curat lex – the law does not deal with
trifles.
Test to determine sufficiency of cause of
action
The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the
facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the
same accordance with the prayer thereof. (Spouses Chu vs.
Benelda Estate Dev’t Corp.)
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
The test to determine whether a complaint states a cause of
action against the defendant is this: Admitting hypothetically
the truth of the allegation of fact made in the complaint, may a
judge validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint?
In determining whether the elements of a cause of action are
present or whether they have been sufficiently alleged, the
inquiry is therefore confined to the four corners of the
complaint.
There is that RIGHT, there is that OBLIGATION, and there is
that VIOLATION, and in other cases, DAMAGE is also present
that is required by law. (Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Equitable PCI
Bank)
Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation
Only material allegations in the complaint are considered
in determining whether a cause of action exists
To be taken into account are only the material allegations in
the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other
matters aliunde are not considered. The court may consider in
addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents,
other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.
Material allegations in the complaint
Only the allegations of the complaint are considered in order to
determine:
1. Whether all the elements of a cause of action are
present.
XPN: Labor case filed with the NLRC
A complaint in a case filed before the NLRC consists only of a
blank form which provides the checklist of possible causes of
action that the employee may have against the employer. The
checklist was designed to facilitate the filing of the complaints
by employees and laborers even without the intervention of
counsel. It allows the complainant to expediently set forth his
grievance in a general manner but is not solely determinative
of the ultimate cause of action that he may have against the
employer.
Thus, the complaint is not the only document from which the
complainant's cause of action is determined in a labor case.
Any cause of action that may not have been included in the
complaint or position paper, can no longer be alleged after the
position paper is submitted by the parties. In other words, the
filing of the position paper is the operative act which forecloses
the raising of other matters constitutive of the cause of action.
This necessarily implies that the cause of action is finally
ascertained only after both the complaint and position paper
are properly evaluated.
A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary right of
the plaintiff. A complaint before the NLRC does not contain
specific allegations of these wrongful acts or omissions which
constitute the cause of action. All that it contains is the term by
which such acts or omissions complained of are generally
known. It cannot therefore be considered as the final
determinant of the cause of action. (Tegmienta Chemical Phils.
vs. Buensalida)
2. Whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
 judgment. by law, it commits
Distinction between cause of action and an error
jurisdiction.
of

subject matter Absence Lack of or failure to A complaint is

Cause of Action Subject Matter state a cause of vulnerable to
action are considered dismissal on the
Definition A cause of action is The subject
affirmative defenses ground that the
the act or omission by matter is the item
only. court has no
which a party violates with respect to
jurisdiction over
a right of another. It is which the
the subject
the delict or the controversy has
matter.
wrongful act or arisen, or
omission committed concerning which Prejudice to A dismissal on the A dismissal on
by the defendant in the wrong has refiling ground that the the ground that
violation of the been done, and it complaint fails to the court has no
primary right of the is ordinarily the state a cause of jurisdiction over
plaintiff. right, the thing, or action is without the subject
the contract prejudice to refiling. matter bars the
under dispute. refiling of the
complaint in the
same court.

It is the what of ex: In a breach of contract, the contract violated is the subject
It is the why of an an action or matter while the breach thereof by the obligor is the cause of
action. proceeding. action.
Basis It is the basis of a civil It is the basis of
action. jurisdiction. Iniego vs. Purganan
Capable of Immaterial. GR: If the subject
pecuniary matter is Distinction between cause of action and subject matter
estimation incapable of What must be determined to be capable or incapable if
pecuniary pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject
estimation, matter of the action. A cause of action is the delict or wrongful
jurisdiction is act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the
lodged with the primary rights of the plaintiff.
RTC.
On the other hand, the subject matter of the action is the
XPN: Foreclosure physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money, the lands,
of Real Estate chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted,
Mortgage – and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
assessed value
will be Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and
considered in effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the
determining damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious
jurisdiction. acts. The subject matter of the action is the relief sought. That
Existence A cause of action Every action or is asking for the recovery of damages. The cause of action,
need only exist in a proceeding has a which is the act or omission by which the defendant violated
civil action. subject matter. the right of the plaintiff, was his fault or negligence.
Determination Whether one has a To determine
cause of action subject matter, Commonalities between cause of action and
depends on law, reference is
contract and other made to law.
subject matter
sources of  Only the allegations of the complaint will be examined in
obligations. determining whether there is a cause of action and
whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
 Both are used in determining whether or not res judicata
It is here where you exists (i.e., identity of causes of action and identity of
can determine what is subject matter).
your right; what is the
obligation of the
defendant; if the Special civil actions not grounded on a
defendant
such.
violated cause of action
The requirement that a suit must be grounded on a cause of
Error When the court takes When a court action applies only to ordinary civil actions and not to special
cognizance of a takes cognizance civil actions. The requirement of a cause of action finds no
cause of action when of a subject application to certain special civil actions where the violation of
none actually exists, matter not the plaintiff's rights is not a prerequisite for the commencement
it commits an error of conferred upon it of such actions.

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 Definition The right to presently The act or
1. Interpleader (Rule 62) – the the plaintiff may file a enforce a cause of omission by which
complaint even though there is no transgression of his action. a party violates a
rights as he is, more often than not, not interested in the right of another.
subject matter of the action. Effect A remedial right A formal statement
belonging to some of the operative
2. Declaratory relief (Rule 63) – when there is any breach or person. facts that give rise
violation of a statute, executive order or regulation, to such remedial
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation. right.
Existence A matter of right and A matter of
3. Partition (Rule 69) – the plaintiff has the right to compel depends on the statement and is
partition, but the defendants are joined in the suit not substantive law. governed by the
because they violated the rights of the plaintiff but because law of procedure.
the defendants are also interested in the property.
There is a right of
action if the same is There is a cause of
Special proceedings not grounded on a cause allowed by remedial action if the same
law. If there is no arises from
of action remedy provided, there substantive law.
Strictly speaking, it is only in civil actions that one speaks of a can be no redress.
cause of action. The term does not apply to special When it After the performance The moment a
proceedings which seek to establish a status, a right or a arises or fulfillment of all right is violated.
particular fact. conditions precedent.
Statute of Affected Not affected
Rehabilitation proceedings seeks to establish the inability of
limitations
the corporate debtor to pay its debts when they fall due so that
a rehabilitation plan is necessary. It does not seek a relief from
an injury caused by another party. Thus, a petition for Rule against splitting a cause of action
rehabilitation need not state a cause of action. (Rombe vs. If the plaintiff files separate cases to prosecute his several
Asiatrust Development Bank) claims individually, he violates the rule against splitting a cause
of action.
Cause of action must exist at the time of Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action – A party
filing of the complaint may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at action.
the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured
or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the Marilag vs. Fernandez
action us pending, and a supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is Loan contracts secured by real estate mortgage
not permissible. (Surigao mine exploration co., inc. vs. Harris In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is
et. al) that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action
against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through
Right of Action the filing of a personal action for collection of sum of money or
The term right of action is the right to commence and maintain the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage
an action. The right of action springs from the cause of action, security.
but does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the
cause of action have occurred. (Sps. Borbe et al. vs. Calalo) The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or
successive, and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the
creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage,
Distinction between right of action and he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid debt,
cause of action except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain
in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor after
A right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause of
deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the
action, while a cause of action consists of the operative facts
mortgaged properties.
which give rise to such right of action. The right of action does
not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent to
the action and may be taken away by the running of the statute Rationale behind prohibition of splitting a
of limitations, through estoppel, or by other circumstances
which do not affect the cause of action.
cause of action
Splitting a cause of action is the act of dividing a single cause
Performance or fulfilment of all conditions precedent upon of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and bringing
which a right of action depends must be sufficiently alleged, suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the rest for
considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a another separate action. The purpose of the rule is to avoid
right of action is upon the person initiating the suit. (Philamgen harassment and vexation to the defendant and avoid
vs. Sweetlines) multiplicity of suits. (Quadra vs. CA)

For a single cause of action or violation of a right, the plaintiff

Right of Action Cause of Action
may be entitled to several reliefs. It is the filing of the separate

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 complaints for these several reliefs that constitutes splitting of Rule on forum shopping
the cause of action. This is what is prohibited by the rule. When  If willful and deliberate – All actions may be dismissed
there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of with prejudice to refiling.
action regardless of the number of rights violated belonging to  If NOT willful and deliberate – It will be a dismissal
one person. All such rights should be alleged in a single without prejudice to refiling.
complaint, otherwise they are barred forever. (Private vs.
Magada)
Rules to determine singleness of a cause of
Effect of splitting a cause of action action
The question of whether a cause of action is single and entire
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action, effect of – If
or separate is not always easy to determine and the same
two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
must often be resolved, not by the general rules, but by
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
of the others.
The rule, therefore, is whether the entire amount arises from
one and the same act or contract which must, thus, be sued for
Splitting a cause of action amounts to:
in one action, or the several parts arise from distinct and
1. Litis pendentia – A ground for dismissal of a civil action. It
different acts or contracts, for which a party may maintain
refers to that situation wherein another action is pending
separate suits.
between the same parties for the same cause of action,
such that the second action becomes unnecessary and
1. One contract, one cause
vexatious.
A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may
be violated only once, even if it contains several stipulations.
The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that
a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding
Nonpayment of a loan secured by mortgage
the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This
Nonpayment of a loan secured by mortgage constitutes a
theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject
single cause of action. The creditor cannot split up this single
matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more
cause of action into two separate complaints, one for payment
than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be
of the debt and another for the foreclosure of the mortgage. If
avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of
he does so, the filing of the first complaint will bar the second
persons, and also to avoid the costs and expenses incident to
complaint. (Quioque vs. Bautista)
numerous suits.
2. One violation, one cause
Consequently, a party will not be permitted to split up a single
A contract which provides for several stipulations to be
cause of action and make it a basis for several suits as the
performed at different times gives rise to as many causes of
whole cause must be determined in one action.
action as there are violations.
2. Res judicata – Another ground for the dismissal of a civil
Where a contract is to be performed periodically, as by
action. It holds that a final judgment on the merits by a
installments, each failure to pay an installment constitutes a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of
cause of action and can be subject of a separate suit as the
the parties in all later suits on points and matters
installment falls due or can be included in the pending or
determined in the former suit. It rests on the principle that
supplemental pleading.
parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue
more than once.
3. Non-application of no. 2 when there is stipulation or
repudiation
3. Forum Shopping – Filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action, but with different prayers. It is he
Acceleration Clause
institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving
An acceleration clause is a stipulation stating that, on the
the same parties for the same cause of action, either
occasion of the debtor’s default, the whole sum remaining
simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that
unpaid automatically becomes due and payable. (Luzon
one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.
Development Bank vs. Conquilla)
(Yap vs. Chua)
Repudiation
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract,
(1) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the
and with the same prayer, the previous case not having
renunciation goes to the whole contract, be treated as a
been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring his
pendentia);
action at once. (Blossom and Company, Inc. vs. Manila Gas
(2) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
Corp)
and the same prayer, the previous case having been
finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res
4. Barring Effect
judicata); and
All obligations which have matured at the time of the suit must
(3) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
be integrated as one cause of action in one complaint. Those
but with different prayers; splitting of causes of action,
not so included would be barred.
where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia
or res judicata. (Collantes vs. CA)
Joinder of Causes of Action

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES

 Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action – A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party,
subject to the following conditions:
a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with
the rules on joinder of parties;
b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
c) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed
shall be the test of jurisdiction.
a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties.
Permissive joinder of parties – All persons in whom or
against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of
the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,
except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs
or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all
such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may
make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have no
interest. (Rule 3, Sec. 6)
b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules.
Rationale behind prohibition of joinder including special
civil actions or actions governed by special rules
1. To avoid confusion – The rules of procedure for civil
actions and actions governed by special rules are peculiar
to the latter. The same cannot be applied to an ordinary
civil action.
2. To avoid jurisdictional issues – Actions governed by
special rules are, more often than not, cognizable by
quasi-judicial tribunals, or maybe, courts of special
jurisdiction. There can be no joinder where one of the
issues to be tried pertain to a tribunal of special
jurisdiction.
Cases when joinder not allowed
 An action for reimbursement or for recovery of
damages may not be properly joined with the action for
ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil action requiring
a full-blown trial, while an action for unlawful detainer is a
special civil action which requires a summary procedure.
The joinder of the two actions is specifically enjoined by
Section 5 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. (Terana vs. De
Sagub)
 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be joined
with the special civil action for certiorari because the
two remedies are governed by a different set of rules. Rule
2, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court mandates that the
joinder of causes of action shall not include special actions
or actions governed by special rules, thus proscribing the
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
joinder of a special proceeding with a special civil action.
(Caballes vs. CA)
 The joinder of the action for injunction and the action
to quiet title is disallowed by the Rules of Court, the first
being an ordinary suit and the latter a special civil action
under Rule 63. Under Section 5(b), Rule 2, “the joinder
shall not include special civil action or actions governed by
special rules.”
Consequently, the RTC should have severed the causes
of action, either upon motion or motu proprio, and tried
them separately, assuming it had jurisdiction over both.
Such severance is pursuant to Section 6, Rule 2 of the
rules of Court. (Salvador vs. Patricia Inc.)
 Interpleader cannot be joined with declaratory relief.
They are both special civil actions. (Belo Medical Group
Inc. vs. Santos and Belo)
Cases when joinder allowed
 By section 4 of Rule 3, supra, applications to pronounce
the husband an absentee and to place the
management of the conjugal assets in the hands of
the wife may, in our opinion, be combined and
adjudicated in one and the same proceeding. (Preyer vs.
Martinez et. al)
 The question whether a person in the position of the
present plaintiff can in any event maintain a complex
action to compel recognition as a natural child and at
the same time to obtain ulterior relief in the character
of heir, is one which in the opinion of this court must be
answered in the affirmative, provided always that the
conditions justifying the joinder of the two distinct causes
of action are present in the particular case.
In other words, there is no absolute necessity requiring
that the action to compel acknowledgment should have
been instituted and prosecuted to a successful conclusion
prior to the action in which that same plaintiff seeks
additional relief in the character of heir. (Briz vs. Briz)
c) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein.
Joinder in the RTC
Under Rule 2, Section 5(c), the causes of action between the
same parties but pertaining to different jurisdictions can be
joined in the RTC because one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of the same.
There must be at least one cause of action the jurisdiction of
which falls within the RTC. If both cases are within the
jurisdiction of the MTCs, the can be no joinder.
d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Restatement of the Totality Rule
Corollary, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides that
where the claims in all the causes action are principally for
 recovery of money the aggregate amount claimed shall be the
test of jurisdiction.
This paragraph embodies the Totality Rule as exemplified by
Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 which states, among others,
that where there are several claims of 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
arose out of the same or different transactions.
Common question of fact or law
It is well to remember that the joinder of causes of action may
involve the same parties or different parties. If the joinder
involves different parties, as in this case, there must be a
question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising
out of the same transaction or series of transaction. (Sps.
Perez vs. Hermano)
Unlimited joinder not allowed
While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as many separate claims
as he may have, there should nevertheless be some unity in
the problem presented and a common question of law and fact
involved, subject always to the restriction thereon regarding
jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. Unlimited joinder is
not authorized.
Our rule on permissive joinder of causes of action, with the
proviso subjecting it to the correlative rules on jurisdiction,
venue and joinder of parties and requiring a conceptual unity in
the problems presented, effectively disallows unlimited joinder.
Alternative joinder
Alternative defendants – Where the plaintiff is uncertain
against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may
join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative,
although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a
right of relief against the other. (Rule 3, Sec. 13)
Cumulative Joinder
When two causes of action are pursued simultaneously (e.g
specific performance and damages in a breach of contract).
Summary: Joinder of Causes of Action
Definition By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a
joinder of causes of action, is meant the
uniting of two or more demands or rights of
action in one action; the statement of more
than one cause of action in a declaration. It is
the union of two or more civil causes of action
action, each of which could be made the basis
of a separate suit, in the same complaint,
declaration or petition.
Nature A party is generally not required to join in one
suit several distinct causes of action.
The joinder of separate causes of action,
where allowable, is permissive and not
mandatory in the absence of a contrary
statutory provision, even though the causes of
action arose from the same factual setting
and might under applicable joinder rules be
joined.
Requisites Rule 2, Sec. 5
1. it will not violate the rules on jurisdiction,
venue and joinder of parties; and
Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES
2. the causes of action arise out of the same
contract, transaction, or relation between
the parties, or are for demands for money
or are of the same nature and character.
Types  Alternative joinder
 Cumulative joinder
Misjoinder
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action – Misjoinder of
causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A
misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
the intiative of the court, be severed and proceed
separately.
Misjoinder, not a ground for dismissal
Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a
question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with
the case. They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal
thereof. Instead, under the Rules of Court, the misjoinder of
causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of
the court's jurisdiction.
It acknowledges the power of the court, acting upon the motion
of a party to the case or on its own initiative, to order the
severance of the misjoined cause of action, to be proceeded
with separately in case of misjoinder of causes of action;
and/or the dropping of a party and the severance of any claim
against said misjoined party, also to be proceeded with
separately in case of misjoinder of parties. (Republic vs.
Herbieto)
Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative
at any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any
claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately. (Rule 3, Sec. 11)
Ada vs. Baylon
Partition cannot be joined with action for recission
The action for partition filed by the petitioners could not be
joined with the action for the rescission of the said donation
inter vivos in favor of Florante. Lest it be overlooked, an action
for partition is a special civil action governed by Rule 69 of the
Rules of Court while an action for rescission is an ordinary civil
action governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure.
The variance in the procedure in the special civil action of
partition and in the ordinary civil action of rescission precludes
their joinder in one complaint or their being tried in a single
proceeding to avoid confusion in determining what rules shall
govern the conduct of the proceedings as well as in the
determination of the presence of requisite elements of each
particular cause of action.
Rule 31: Consolidation or Severance
Consolidation
Because there are common questions of fact among the
actions, this would mean that essentially the same evidence
 would be required to prove or disprove the issue. It would be
more expedient to order a joint trial.

Sec. 1. Consolidation – When actions involving a common

question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may
order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue
in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated, and
it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as
may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Severance
The court determines that it would be complicated and
confusing to simultaneously try all the claims existing in the
same case filed by the parties. This does not mean however
that the claims separated will be dismissed and prosecuted
independently by the filing of other cases. They will still be tried
in the same action.

The court may properly and logically organize a trial of the

several claims. This is a recognition of the inherent power of
the court to amend and control its process and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice under Rule 135,
Sec. 5(g).

Sec. 2. Separate trials – The court, in furtherance of

convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party
complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of
claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints
or issues.

-----------------------END OF FIRST EXAM COVERAGE----------------------

Humility and
Perseverance ⚖️

Erika Cristel Diaz | CIV PRO NOTES