UNDER THE LAW

Katarungang Pambarangay
Law
Under Local Government Code
of 1991
 PERO BAGO NATIN
PAG USAPAN ANG MGA
KORTE
ALAMIN MUNA NATIN ANG
PRE-REQUISITE BAGO NATIN
PWEDENG I-FILE SA KORTE.
 SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE COURTS (CA/CTA

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

BARANGGAY CONCILIATION
 Katarungang
Pambarangay Law
•CHAPTER VII
•Sections 399 - 422
•RA 7160
•Otherwise known as local
government code of 1991
 CHAPTER VII
Katarungang Pambarangay
RA 7160
• SECTION 409. Venue. – (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in
the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the
lupon of said barangay.

• (b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same
city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent
or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the
complainant.

• (c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be
brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion
thereof is situated.

• (d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are
employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study,
shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is
located.

• Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the

punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal
question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections
to venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice or
 What disputes and offenses
covered by KP?
• Almost all civil disputes and every criminal offense
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year or a
fine not exceeding P5,000.00 are subject to amicable
settlement under the KP when parties involved are
individuals who are residing in the same city or
municipality. (dilg.gov.ph)

• Thus : (Under RPC)

*Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro- 6
months and 1 day to 6 years
*Arresto Mayor- 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
*Arresto Menor- 1 day to 30 days
 Possible Covered Criminal
Cases
• Theft
• Less Serious Physical Injuries
• Malicious Mischief
• Unjust Vexation
• Swindling (Estafa)
• Destroying or damaging statues,
public monuments or paintings
• Arson
• Possession of picklocks or similar
tools.
 Pre-condition to Filing of
Complaint in Court. 1/3
• SECTION 412. Conciliation. –
• (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in
Court. – No complaint, petition, action, or
proceeding involving any matter within the
authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted
directly in court or any other government office
for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the
lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no
conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat
secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat
chairman or unless the settlement has been
repudiated by the parties thereto.
 Pre-condition to Filing of
Complaint in Court. 2/3
• (b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. –
The parties may go directly to court in the
following instances:
• (1) Where the accused is under detention;
• (2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived
of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings;
• (3) Where actions are coupled with provisional
remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, delivery of personal property and
support pendente lite; and
• (4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by
the statute of limitations.
Pre-condition to Filing of
Complaint in Court. 3/3

• (c) Conciliation Among Members of

Indigenous Cultural Communities.

• The customs and traditions of

indigenous cultural communities shall
be applied in settling disputes between
members of the cultural communities.
The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural
communities shall be applied in settling disputes
between members of the cultural communities.
[NOT APPLICABLE!]
• [ G.R. No. 221139. March 20, 2019 ]
• SUMATRA VS LAPINID

• FACTS:
• 1. Sumatra found guilty of Rape
• 2. Warrant of Arrest Against Sumatra
• 3. Motion to Quash by Sumatra citing the IPRA
Law.[xxxx no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused xxxx]
• 4. SC Denies the Petition
 Case of CITING CASE
G.R. NO. 167261
March 2, 2007
Pang-et v. heir of Manacnes

• https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_167261_2007.html

• Remanding it to the lupon

• Facts of the Case

• Petitioner filed an action for the recovery of the possession of real property
before mctc in besao-sagada in mountain province.
• Parties agreed to refer in barangay lupon
• 1st lupon agreement for arbitration were refused by manacnes thus the case
were forwarded to mctc.
• An order issues by the mctc to remand the case again back to the lupon
ordering the latter to render arbitration award.
• Manacnes repudiated the arbitration award and filed a motion for the
resumption of the court proceeding.
• petitioner filed with the Lupon a Motion for Execution of the Arbitration
Award.
• incumbent Punong Barangay of Dagdag issued a Notice of Execution of the
Award.
• Said Notice of Execution was never implemented.
• herein petitioner Pang-et filed with the MCTC an action for enforcement of the
Arbitration Award
DISINI V
SANDIGANBAYAN
• https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=64425&cati
d=1533&Itemid=566
UNDER THE LAW
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
(MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS)
 SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE COURTS (CA/CTA

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

BARANGGAY CONCILIATION
 FIRST LEVEL COURTS
• Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) established
in Metropolitan Manila.

• Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs)

outside Metropolitan Manila.

• Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) in each of the

other cities or municipalities, and

• Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) in

each circuit comprising such cities and/or
municipalities as grouped by law.
RULES ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES
IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
(AMOUNT OF CLAIMS)

SMALL SUMMARY
CLAIMS PROCEDURE

PHP 1 – PHP PHP 1,000,001 –

1,000,000 PHP 2,000,000
NEW AMMENDED RULES OF
JURISDICTION : RA 11576

>
MTC PHP 2,000,000 > RTC
(PERSONAL PROPERTY)
(COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY)
NEW AMMENDED RULES OF
JURISDICTION : RA 11576

>
MTC PHP 400,000 > RTC
(REAL ACTION/ REAL PROPERTY)

(ACTION INVOLVING TITLE TO POSSESSION OR REAL

PROPERTY OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN)
APPLICABLE
LAWS
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11576, July 30, 2021 AN ACT FURTHER EXPANDING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980,” AS
AMENDED
• Section 2. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:

• “Section 33. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

• “(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;
• “x x x
• “(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.

• “(4) Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or
claim does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).”
In short

• Congress enacted Republic Act No. 11576, which

expanded the jurisdictional amount cognizable
by the First Level Courts in civil cases to Two
Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00) and the
jurisdictional amount for recovery of real
property with the assessed value to Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00);
 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC
RULES ON EXPEDITED
PROCEDURES IN THE
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
(11 April 2022)

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC THE 2016 REVISED RULES OF

PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES EFFECTIVE
FEBRUARY 1, 2016
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC November
21, 2000
RE: THE RULE OF
PROCEDURE FOR SMALL
CLAIMS CASES
 SMALL CLAIMS
A “small claim” is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim
or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement
of a sum of money. It excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside
from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled
with provisional remedies. The claim or demand may be:

(a) For money owed under any of the following:

1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan and other credit accommodations;
3. Contract of Services; or
4. Contract of Sale of personal property, excluding the recovery of the
personal property, unless it is made the subject of a compromise
agreement between the parties.

(b) The enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and

arbitration awards, where the money claim does not exceed One Million
Pesos (₱1,000,000.00), provided that no execution has been enforced by the
barangay within six (6) months from the date of the settlement or date of
receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged
in the arbitration award becomes due and demandable, pursuant to
Section 417, Chapter VII of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as
The Local Government Code of 1991.
(Par. 2 Small Cases) Civil Case. Rule 1 of the RULES ON EXPEDITED
PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS )
DECISIONS OF SMALL
CLAIMS
• The decision shall be final,
executory and unappealable.

(Section 24, RULE IV THE RULE

ON SMALL CLAIMS, RULES
ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES
IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURT
(A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
FINAL AND EXECUTORY AND
UNAPPEALABLE (FEU)
RTC via Appeal or
Rule 45

SUPREME
MTC COURT
Via Rule 65

CA via Appeal or
Rule 45

DECISIONS OF SMALL
CLAIMS ONLY!
 Summary Procedure Appealable?
• C. APPEALS IN SUMMARY PROCEDURE
• Section 1. Ordinary appeal. – Any judgment, final order, or
final resolution in a Summary Procedure case may be
appealed to the appropriate Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territory under Rule 40 for civil cases
and Rule 122 for criminal cases, of the Rules of Court. The
appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal, together
with proof of payment of the appeal fees, with the court that
rendered the judgment, order or resolution appealed from,
within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the same.
• Sec. 2. Remedy from judgment on appeal. – The judgment
of the Regional Trial Court on the appeal shall be final,
executory, and unappealable. (page 19)
FINAL AND EXECUTORY AND
UNAPPEALABLE (FEU)
SUPREME
APPEAL? COURT
Via Rule 45

APPEAL
MTC RTC
SUPREME
COURT
Via Rule 65

DECISIONS OF SUMMARY
PROCEDURE
 Summary Procedures
• A. CIVIL CASES (1) Summary Procedure Cases, as follows: (a) Forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases, regardless of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to
be recovered. Where attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00).
• (b) All civil actions, except probate proceedings, admiralty and maritime actions, and
small claims cases falling under Rule IV hereof, where the total amount of the plaintiff ’s
claim does not exceed Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs.
• (c) Complaints for damages where the claim does not exceed Two Million Pesos
(₱2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
• (d) Cases for enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and arbitration
awards where the money claim exceeds One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00), provided that
no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six (6) months from the date of
the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated
or adjudged in the arbitration award becomes due and demandable, pursuant to Section
417, Chapter VII of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government
Code of 1991.
• (e) Cases solely for the revival of judgment of any Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
pursuant to Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
• (f) The civil aspect of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law),
if no criminal action has been instituted therefor. Should a criminal action be later
instituted for the same violation, the civil aspect shall be consolidated with the criminal
action and shall be tried and decided jointly under the Rule on Summary Procedure. All
other cases not included herein shall be governed by the regular rules of procedure.
 Jurisdiction of first level courts
on Criminal cases
• B. CRIMINAL CASES
• The following criminal cases shall be governed by the Rule
on Summary Procedure:
• (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
• (2) Violations of the rental law;
• (3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
• (4) Violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing
Checks Law); and
• (5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by
law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding
one (1) year, or a fine not exceeding Fifty Thousand Pesos
(₱50,000.00), or both, regardless of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom.
• In offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, this
Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed
One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱150,000.00).
 RULE 38 OF THE RULES OF
COURT
Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other
proceedings. — When a judgment or final order is entered, or any
other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may
file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. (2a)

“ Xxx the present Rule extends the remedy of relief to include

judgments or orders of the Court of Appeals since the Rule uses
the phrase "any court".20 We disagree.
The procedural change in Rule 38 is in line with Rule 5,
prescribing uniform procedure for municipal and regional trial
courts and designation of municipal/metropolitan trial courts as
courts of record. While Rule 38 uses the phrase "any court", it
refers only to municipal/metropolitan and regional trial courts.
xXx” (Case of Mesina V. Meer, G.R. No. 146845 July 2, 2002)
 MCTC or DARAB?
• There must be evidence to prove the tenancy relations such
that all its indispensable elements must be established, to
wit:
• (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
• (2) the subject is agricultural land;
• (3) there is consent by the landowner;
• (4) the purpose is agricultural production;
• (5) there is personal cultivation; and
• (6) there is sharing of the harvests.

• All these requisites are necessary to create tenancy

relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will
not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant xxxx.
(Salmorin v. Zaldivar G.R. No. 169691 July 23, 2008) and
Lagon v. Terre [ G.R. No. 219670. June 27, 2018 ]
• [T]hat the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of
the action and the subject matter thereof cannot be
made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court
or upon a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the
defendant. xxx The [MTCC] does not lose its jurisdiction
over an ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party
raising as defense therein the alleged existence of a
tenancy relationship between the parties. But it is the
duty of the court to receive evidence to determine the
allegations of tenancy. If after hearing, tenancy had in
fact been shown to be the real issue, the court should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. (Salmorin v.
Zaldivar G.R. No. 169691 July 23, 2008)
UNDER THE LAW
2nd LEVEL COURTS
(REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS)
 SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE COURTS (CA/CTA

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

BARANGGAY CONCILIATION
 BP 129 AS AMMENDED BY RA 11576
• Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as “The
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,” as amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows:

• “Section 19. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
• “(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation; [no changes : still at BP 129]
• “(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts;
• “(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or
claims exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
• “(4) In all matters of probate, both estate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)’
• “(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; [no
changes : still at BP 129]
• (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; [no changes : still at BP 129]
• (7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and [no changes : still at BP 129]
• “(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the
NEW AMMENDED RULES OF
JURISDICTION : RA 11576
EQUAL TO

PHP 2,000,001 > MORE

SHALL BE WITHIN THE

JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
(ADMIRATLY & MARITIME)
(GROSS VALUE OF THE ESTATE – PROBATE, TESTATE OR
INTESTATE)
(IN ALL OTHER CASES, WITH DEMAND, [
INTEREST/DAMAGES/ATTORNEY’S FEES, LITIGATE
EXPENSES AND COSTS = NOT INCLUDED]
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal
cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in
all criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now
falling under the exclusive and
concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be
exclusively taken cognizance of by the
latter.
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other
cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction which may be
enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and
other public ministers and consuls.
Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis
of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court
of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by the Regional
Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts
in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review
to the
Court of Appeals which may give it due course only
when the petition shows prima facie that the lower
court has committed an error of fact or law that will
warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed.
 SC SC

G
CA CA Q
L
AD

Q
L/
Q
F

RTC R41 R42 R45 R65

RTC (O) RTC (A) RTC (O) RTC

ATTY. ANCIANO ILLUSTRATION

R40 (INITIAL ONLY) APPEALS
MTC
Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try
special cases. – The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the
Regional Trial Courts to handle
exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and
domestic relations cases, agrarian cases,
urban land reform cases which do not fall
under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
bodies and agencies, and/or such other
special cases as the Supreme Court may
determine in the interest of a speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
• JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT - RA
1401 IN THE CITY OF MANILA. OCA-Circular-No.-11-1999
(xxx involving youthful offenders)

• AGRARIAN CASES - SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS –

CITED IN SEC 56 JUDICIAL REVIEW XIII OF RA 6657
AND IN THE CASE OF LANDBANK VS. GARCIA G.R.
208865
“THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, ACTING AS SPECIAL
AGRARIAN COURTS, HAVE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER ALL PETITIONS FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION. ITS
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE LAND
IS FINAL.” CASE OF JUST COMPENSATION (DARAB V
RTC): LAND BANK VS. ESCARO G.R. NO. 204526,
FEBRUARY 10, 2021

• URBAN LAND REFORM CASES :G.R. NO. 129889 JULY 11,

2002 , SPOUSES FRILLES VS SPOUSES YAMBAO
(opportunity to exercise their preferential right to purchase it
under Presidential Decree No. 1517 vs On the other hand,
respondents claim that P. D. No. 1517 does not apply to this case
because the lot involved is not part of the declared Areas for
 1987 Constitution
Article III, Sec. 9
"Private property
shall not be taken
for public use
without just
compensation."
 SUMMARY: JURISDICTION OF RTC (BP
129 AS AMMENDED BY RA 11576
• In all actions involving the contract of
marriage and marital relations.
• In all civil actions in which the subject of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation
• In all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court X X X
• In all civil actions and special
proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and of the
Courts of Agrarian Relations as now
provided by law;
 What is incapable of Pecuniary
Estimation?
• ROLDAN v. BARRIOS
• G.R. No. 214803. April 23, 2018

Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary

estimation are those for:
• specific performance,
• support, or
• foreclosure of mortgage or
• annulment of judgment; also
• actions questioning the validity of a mortgage,
• annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to
recover the price paid and for rescission,
which is a counterpart of specific
performance.
 MONTERO v MONTERO (G.R. No.
217755. September 18, 2019)
• Seeking the cancellation of certain documents, i.e.,
the Affidavit of Adjudication, Tax Declaration No.
5289, and OCT No. P-14452.

• SC is not convinced

• The Court has held that even if the action is

supposedly one for annulment of a deed, the
nature of an action is not determined by what is
stated in the caption of the complaint but by the
allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed
for. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs
is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed
in the proper court having jurisdiction over the
assessed value of the property subject thereof.
 Partition : Incapable of Pecuniary
Estimation (Cognizable by RTC)?
• AGARRADO v AGARRADO
• G.R. No. 212413. June 06, 2018
• Clearly, therefore, jurisprudence has ruled
that an action for partition, while one not
capable of pecuniary estimation, falls under
the jurisdiction of either the first or second
level courts depending on the amounts
specified in Secs. 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129,
as amended.
BUTIONG v FRANCISCO G.R. No.
187524 August 5, 2015

• Since the action herein was not

merely for partition and recovery of
ownership but also for annulment of
title and documents, the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation
and thus cognizable by the RTC.
UNDER THE LAW
COURT OF APPEALS
 SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE COURTS (CA/CTA

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

BARANGGAY CONCILIATION
 COURT OF
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
APPEALS (CA)
(CTA)
RA 9282
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA),
ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A
COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL
JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS
MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW
CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (RA 9282,
March 30 2004)
ATTY. ANCIANO ILLUSTRATION
(INITIAL ONLY) APPEALS CA CTA

RA 9282

CA CA CTA CA
Q
L/
Q
F

R41 R42 R43

RTC (O) RTC (A) QJB

R65
RTC (OA)
 GENERAL FLOW
• STEP 1 : NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF
THE CURRENT COURT (MTC OR RTC)
• STEP 2: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
• STEP 3: APPEAL

SPECIAL STEPS:
IF : MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED
THEN EITHER:
FILE RULE 65 ON THE HIGHER COURTS RESPECTING
THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS
OR
APPEAL (RULE 41 OR RULE 42) TO HAVE A CHANCE
TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CURRENT
(LOWER COURT)
 Motion for reconsideration (Coquilla v.
Commission on Elections

• Among the ends to which a motion for

reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to
convince the court that its ruling is erroneous
and improper, contrary to the law or the
evidence and in doing so, the movant has to dwell
of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the
court. If a motion for reconsideration may not
discuss these issues, the consequence would be
that after a decision is rendered, the losing party
would be confined to filing only motions for
reopening and new trial.
Modes of appeal. ­(2019 AMENDMENTS TO
THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC)
CA
Rule 41
APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

• (a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases

decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal
shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of
multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require.
In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like
manner. (R41)

• (b) Petition for review. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

• (c) Appeal by certiorari. - In all cases where only questions of law are
raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by
petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. (n)
 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A
COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND
ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED,
CTA
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF
TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Republic Act No. 9282
March 30 2004) 1/3
• Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:
• "a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
• "1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds
of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
• "2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds
of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case
the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
• "3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or
resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
• "4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or
other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other
penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Customs;
• "5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial
or city board of assessment appeals;
• "6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review
from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section
2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
• "7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product,
commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity
or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the
Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party
may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A
COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND
ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF
TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Republic Act No. 9282
March 30 2004) 2/3

• b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein

provided:

• "1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising

from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and
Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses
or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount o
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the
Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action
and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for
taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with,
and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing
of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the
filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil
action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.
 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A
COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND
ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF
TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Republic Act No. 9282
March 30 2004) 1/3

• "c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:

• "1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and
executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided,
however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.

• "2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:

• "a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their
respective territorial jurisdiction.

• "b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax
collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their
respective jurisdiction."
 NEYPES RULING : 15 DAY FRESH
PERIOD DOCTRINE

NEYPES V. CA G.R. No. 141524 September 14, 2005

In Neypes, the Court modified the rule in civil cases on the

counting of the 15-day period within which to appeal. The
Court categorically set a fresh period of 15 days from a
denial of a motion for reconsideration within which to
appeal,
 RULE 65 SECTION
1
• Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
 Rule 65

• Left without any remedy in the ordinary course of law,

Templonuevo was justified in resorting directly to the
CA via a Rule 65 petition. Indeed, an independent
action for certiorari may be availed of only when there is
no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law and certiorari is not a
substitute for the lapsed remedy of appeal. In other
words, because petitioner could not avail a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal, her choice of a Rule 65
petition was proper. (ALMARIO v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 198583.
June 28, 2017)

• XXX Moreover, a petition for certiorari may only be

resorted to in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law as the
two remedies are mutually exclusive.
• CUNANAN v CA (G.R. No. 205573, August 17, 2016)
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SHOULD BE FILED TO THE NEXT
HIGHER COURT AND NOT TO SC
DIRECTLY
• Fourthly, the filing of the instant special civil action
directly in this Court is in disregard of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. 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.There being no special,
important or compelling reason, the petitioner thereby
violated the observance of the hierarchy of courts,
warranting the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.
(SAINT MARY CRUSADE V. RIEL, G.R. No. 176508,
January 12, 2015)
 MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION BEFORE
RULE 65
• CIR V. CA G.R. No. 190680, September 13, 2012

• The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration

is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a
petition for certiorari (Rule 65). Its purpose is to
grant an opportunity for the court to correct any
actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-
examination of the legal and factual circumstances
of the case. X X X The "plain speedy, and adequate
remedy" referred to in Section 1, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court is a motion for reconsideration of the
questioned order or resolution.
UNDER THE LAW
SUPREME COURT
 SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE COURTS (CA/CTA

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

BARANGGAY CONCILIATION
 ELEVATING THE CASE TO
THE SUPREME COURT

SC SC SC SC
OR
DI RU
AP NA RU RU
PE RY LE LE LE
AL 45 65 64

CA/
CA
SEC. 13(C), RULE 124 OF THE RULES OF
RTC/
QJB
Recio v. Heirs of the Spouses Agueda
CA/RTC/
MTC/QJB
COA/
COMELEC

COURT Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, GRAVE ABUSE OF

JUDGMENT INVOLVING jurisdiction is generally limited to DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
RECLUSION PERPETUA OR LACK OR EXCESS IN
LIFE IMPRISONMENT the review oferrors of law JURISDICTION
committed by the appellate court.
 THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
• Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
 THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
SC POWERS & FUNCTIONS
• SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
• (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.
• (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
• (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
• (5) 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. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
• (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
 SECTION 6. The Supreme Court
shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
 SUPREME COURT :
Original cases cognizable
• Section 1. Original cases
cognizable. - Only petitions
for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, disciplinary
proceedings against
members of the judiciary and
attorneys, and cases
affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls
may be filed originally in the
Supreme Court. (n)
 HOW TO APPEAL
• RULE 45
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts,
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court
a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may
include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or
other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of
law which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek
the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the
same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency. (As
amended by A.M No. 07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007.)
 RULE 65
• Section 1. Petition for certiorari.
- When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or
any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law,
a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
 GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
• Grave abuse of discretion is defined, thus:

• By grave abuse of discretion is meant such

capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be grave as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility and must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
• (lee vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 234664-67.
January 12, 2021 )
 EXAMPLES OF GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
• x x x grave abuse of discretion that
is strictly limited whenever there is
a violation of the prosecution's right to
due process such as when it is denied
the opportunity to present evidence or
where the trial is sham or when there
is a mistrial, rendering the judgment
of acquittal void. (PEOPLE V.
ABALOS, G.R. No. 228281, June 14,
2021 )
 EXAMPLES OF GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
• The trial court denied the motion to release cash
bond on the ground that the dismissal was only
due to the desistance of the complainant and not
because the accused was acquitted or that the
crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Such ruling, however, has no legal basis. In fact,

the provision of Section 22, Rule 114 is clear: the
dismissal of the criminal case results to the
automatic cancellation of the bail bond. (cruz v
people, G.R. No. 224974. July 03, 2017)
EXAMPLES OF GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
• x x x ordering the attachment of
property without absolutely any
statutory authority therefore,
which has been held to be an
excess of jurisdiction. (Alafriz v
Nable, G.R. No. 47780. June 10,
1941.)