Special

Proceedings
JD 327 Atty. Francis King Añana
General Principles
▪ Substantive Law v. Remedial Law
▪ Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
▪ Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
▪ Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability
Substantive Law v. Remedial Law

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates,

defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights
and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of
the law which courts are established to administer; as
opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes
the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their
invasion. (Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, October 20,
1948 ,J. Tuazon’s opinion)
General Principles
▪ Substantive Law v. Remedial Law
▪ Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
▪ Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
▪ Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability
Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has the power to adopt and promulgate rules concerning
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated
Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII of the
Constitution)
The 1987 Constitution textually altered the power-sharing scheme under the
previous charters by deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress’ subsidiary and
corrective power… this Court’s power to promulgate judicial rules "is no longer
shared by this Court with Congress“ (Baguio Market Vendors v. Cabato-Cortes,
G.R. No. 165922, February 26, 2010)
General Principles
▪ Substantive Law v. Remedial Law
▪ Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
▪ Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
▪ Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability
Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
Although the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct resort is allowed only
when there are special, extraordinary or compelling reasons that
justify the same. The Court enforces the observance of the hierarchy
of courts in order to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous and
impertinent cases and thus afford time for it to deal with the more
fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has
assigned to it. (Saint Mary Crusade v. Riel, G.R. No. 176508, January
12, 2015)
General Principles
▪ Substantive Law v. Remedial Law
▪ Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
▪ Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
▪ Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability
Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of
justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of
another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief
sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of
jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate
courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of
justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
(Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225, September 6, 2011)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Original vs. Appellate

A court is one with original jurisdiction when

actions or proceedings may be originally filed with it.
A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it
has the power to review on appeal the decisions or
orders of a lower court. (Riano 47, 2016 Bantam
Ed.)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

General vs. Special
Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on
their own jurisdiction and take cognizance of all cases of a
particular nature.
Courts of special jurisdiction are those which have jurisdiction only for
a particular purpose or clothed with special powers for the
performance of specified duties beyond which they have no
authority of any kind. (Riano 47, 2016 Bantam Ed.)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Exclusive vs. Concurrent
Exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence and refers
to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others.
Concurrent jurisdiction is also called coordinate jurisdiction. It is the
power of different courts to take cognizance of the same subject
matter. Where such jurisdiction exists, the court first taking
cognizance of the case assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
other courts. (Riano 49, 2016 Bantam Ed.)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Doctrine Adherence of Jurisdiction
When a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over
a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to final determination of the
case is not affected by a new legislation transferring jurisdiction over
such proceedings to another tribunal. Once jurisdiction is vested,
the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. (Barrameda
Vda. De Ballesteros v. Rural Bank of Canaman Inc., G.R. No.
176260, November 24, 2010)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

BP 129 as amended by RA 11576
Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – “(1)
Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where
the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination
of the filing fees: Provided, further, That 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 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
BP 129 as amended by RA 11576
Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Civil Cases. – (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any
interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases
of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Aspects of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by
the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers. The
question, therefore, of whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, calls
for interpretation and application of the law of jurisdiction which distributes the
judicial power among the different courts in the Philippines, and since the ruling on
the matter is of far-reaching consequences, affecting, as it may, the very life and
structure of our judicial system, the law has deemed it wise to place the power and
authority to act thereon in the highest court of the land. (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-
48754, November 26, 1941)
Aspects of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to
make decisions that are binding on persons. The courts acquire
jurisdiction over complainants or petitioners as soon as they file their
complaints or petitions. Over the persons of defendants or
respondents, courts acquire jurisdiction by a valid service of
summons or through their voluntary submission. Generally, a person
voluntarily submits tothe court’s jurisdiction when he or she
participates in the trial despite improper service of summons. (De
Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp, G.R. No. 194751, November
26, 2014)
Aspects of Jurisdiction
In some instances it is said that the court should also have
jurisdiction over the issue, meaning thereby that the issue being
tried and decided by the court be within the issues raised in the
pleadings. But this kind of jurisdiction 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 express or implied of the parties. (Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No.
L-48652, September 16, 1942)
Aspects of Jurisdiction
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding
in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the
latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired
either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the
institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective. The service of summons or notice to the
defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but
merely for satisfying the due process requirements. (San Pedro v. Ong &
Caballes, G.R. No. 177598, October 17, 2008)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause —the right to act
in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend either
upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the
decisions made. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of
jurisdiction. The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered
therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction of the person and
subject matter, as we have said before, the decision of all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person and these conditions conceded,
the decision of all other question arising in the case is but the exercise of that
jurisdiction and an erroneous decision of any of these other questions could
not impair the validity and binding force of the judgment when brought in
question collaterally. (Herrera v. Barretto, G.R. No. 8692, September 10, 1913)
Jurisdiction
▪ Original vs. Appellate

▪ General vs. Special

▪ Exclusive vs. Concurrent

▪ Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction of Phil. Courts

▪ Aspects of Jurisdiction
▪ Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter; the Parties; the Issues; the Res or the Property in Litigation

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

▪ Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Jurisdiction vs. Venue
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a
cause or the right to act in a case. In addition to being conferred by
the· Constitution and the law, the rule is settled that a court's
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant
allegations in the complaint, the law in effect when the action is filed,
and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted. This is
markedly different from the concept of venue, which only pertains to
the place or geographical location where a case is filed.
(Radiowealth Finance Company v. Pineda, G.R. No. 227147, July 30,
2018)
Jurisdiction vs. Venue
On the one hand, jurisdiction is “the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction is a
matter of substantive law. Thus, an action may be filed only with the court or
tribunal where the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. Objections to
jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be brought at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal. When a case is filed with a court which has no jurisdiction over the
action, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the case.
On the other hand, venue is “the place of trial or geographical location in which
an action or proceeding should be brought. In civil cases, venue is a matter of
procedural law. A party’s objections to venue must be brought at the earliest
opportunity either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise the objection
shall be deemed waived. When the venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the
court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case. (City of Lapu-Lapu v. PEZA, G.R. No.
184203, November 26, 2014)
Kinds of action
▪ According to subject matter
▪ Real action
▪ Personal action

▪ According to binding effect

▪ Action/proceeding in rem
▪ Action in personam
▪ Action quasi in rem
Real action vs Personal action (Venue)
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein are real actions. All other actions are personal actions. (Sec.
1&2, Rule 4, ROC).
Personal actions may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court (then
Court of First Instance) where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any
of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff. On the
other hand, real actions should be brought before the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the subject
property or part thereof lies. (Paderanga v. Hon. Buissan, G.R. No.
L-49475, September 28, 1993)
Kinds of action
▪ According to subject matter
▪ Real action
▪ Personal action

▪ According to binding effect

▪ Action/proceeding in rem
▪ Action in personam
▪ Action quasi in rem
Action/proceeding in rem vs Action in personam
vs Action quasi in rem (Summons)
It is crucial to underscore the necessity of determining first whether the action is in
personam, in rem, or quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons
under Rule 14 apply according to the nature of the action.
Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the
whole world. The phrase, "against the thing," to describe in rem actions is a
metaphor. It is not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem action; only legal or
natural persons may be parties even in in rem actions. The following are some of
the examples of actions in rem: petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res
which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, correction of
entries in the birth certificate; or annulment of marriage; nullity of marriage; petition
to establish illegitimate filiation; registration of land under the Torres system; and
forfeiture proceedings.
Action/proceeding in rem vs Action in personam
vs Action quasi in rem (Summons)
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
action quasi in rem, an individual is names as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as
defendant. But, unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only
between the parties. The following are some of the examples of actions quasi in
rem: suits to quiet title; actions for foreclosure; and attachment proceedings.
Action/proceeding in rem vs Action in personam
vs Action quasi in rem (Summons)
In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly.
Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek
to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person. In a proceeding in
rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has
jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the
seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which
the power of the court is recognized and made effective. (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No.
194262, February 28, 2018)
Kinds of cases
▪ Civil action
▪ Ordinary; Special

▪ Criminal action
▪ Special proceeding
Civil action
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong.
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. (Sec. 3(a), Rule 1, ROC)
Kinds of cases
▪ Civil action
▪ Ordinary; Special

▪ Criminal action
▪ Special proceeding
Criminal action

A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a

person for an act or omission punishable by law. (Sec. 3(b),
Rule 1, ROC)
Kinds of cases
▪ Civil action
▪ Ordinary; Special

▪ Criminal action
▪ Special proceeding
Special proceeding
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact. (Sec. 3(c), Rule 1, ROC)
Unlike a civil action which has definite adverse parties, a special proceeding has no
definite adverse party. The definitions of a civil action and a special proceeding,
respectively, in the Rules illustrate this difference. A civil action, in which “a party
sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong”. On the other hand, a special proceeding, “by which a party
seeks to establish a status, right, or a particular fact,” has one definite party, who
petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, right, or particular fact, but no
definite adverse party. (Montaner v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174975, January
20, 2009)
Special proceeding
Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is
the act by which one seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
Hence, action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a
formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is but a petition
for a declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a party litigant seeks to recover
property from another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his purpose is to seek the
appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to
establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship.
Considering this distinction, 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.