CIV PRO

Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the person is the legal power of the court

to render a personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding
2. Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try
and decide issues raised in the pleadings of the parties. An issue is a disputed
point or question to which parties to
an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon
which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.
3. “Res” in civil law is a ‘thing,’ an ‘object.’ It means
everything that may form an object of rights in opposition to
‘persona’ which is the subject of rights. It includes an object, subject matter or
status
4. Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction
over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action. This
type of jurisdiction is necessary when the action is an action in rem
or quasi in rem. When the action is one in personam, jurisdiction
over the res is not sufficient to authorize the court to render a
judgment against the defendant. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the
person of
the defendant is required
5. Jurisdiction over the issue “should be distinguished from
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the latter being conferred by law
and the former, by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike
jurisdiction over the subject matter, may be conferred by consent
either of the parties, either express or implied, x x x Although an
issue is not duly pleaded, it may be validly tried and decided if no
timely objection is made thereto by the parties. This cannot be done
when jurisdiction over the subject matter is involved
6. Jurisprudence suggests that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
required only in an action in personam. Jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem
7. Any relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem actions must
be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render a
judgment against the defendant.
8. For instance, if in an action to foreclose a real estate
mortgage, where the jurisdiction acquired by the court is only over
the res and not over the person of the defendant because the debtormortgagor is
a non-resident who is also outside of the Philippines,
the relief of the creditor extends only to the property foreclosed. If in
the foreclosure sale, there arises a deficiency, a deficiency judgment
authorized by Sec. 6 of Rule 68 against the debtor-mortgagor would
not be feasible. This is because the collection of the deficiency is a proceeding in
personam which requires jurisdiction over the person of the debtormortgagor.
There being no personal jurisdiction over his person, a
deficiency judgment cannot be rendered against him.
9. An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal
liability. An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against
the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to
the obligation or lien burdening the property (Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals,
296 SCRA 539, 552). Petitions directed against the “thing” itself or the res which
concerns the status of a person like a petition for adoption, annulment of
marriage, or correction of entries in the birth
certificate, are actions in rem (Alba v. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA
495, 505-506)
10. In actions in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to
conferring jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res. Nonetheless, summons must be served upon
the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process. For
this purpose, service may be made by publication as such mode of
service is allowed in actions in rem and quasi in rem

MTC/MeTC/RTC

11. The MTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over

civil actions where the value of the personal property, estate or
amount of the demand does not exceed P300,000.00 outside Metro
 Manila, or not more than P400,000.00 within Metro Manila (Sec. 1,
R.A. No. 7691; Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129, as amended). Where the
demand exceeds the amounts mentioned, the Regional Trial Court
has exclusive original jurisdiction (Sec. 19[8], B.P. 129, as
amended).

Note: The amount of P300,000.00 is the result of adjustments

authorized under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7691

12. The jurisdictional amount does not include the following:

(a)interest;
(b)damages of whatever kind;
(c) attorney’s fees;
(d) litigation expenses; and
(e) costs (Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129, as amended).

Although excluded in determining the jurisdiction of the court, the above items
however, shall be included in the determination of the filing fees (Sec. 33[1], B.P.
129, as amended).

13. In Administrative Circular No. 09-94, it was made clear

that “The exclusion of the term ‘damages of whatever kind’ in
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and
Section 33 (1) of B.P. Big. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies
to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where
the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.
14. Under the totality rule, where there are several claims or
causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in
the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions
15. The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
where the value of the personal property in controversy does not
exceed P300,000.00 (outside Metro Manila), or does not exceed
P400,000.00 in Metro Manila (Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129, as amended; Sec.
3, R.A. 7691). If the value of the property exceeds the said amounts,
 the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction (Sec. 19[8], B.P. 129,
as amended)
16. Heirs of Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla 84 likewise stressed that if the primary cause of
action is based on a claim of ownership or a claim of legal right to control,
possess, dispose, or enjoy such property, the action is a real action involving title
to real property.
17. GR: Habeas corpus not a post sentence remedy. EXC. Depravation of
constitutional rights, court has no jurisdiction, imposed penalty is excessive.
18. Petition for relief of judgment not a remedy for a criminal case
19. Sec Justice v. BIR/water district July 2018
20. In re: Glenn Miller, August 28, 2019