Civil Procedure 2022
Preliminary Considerations and Jurisdiction
I.
Introduction
a. Remedial Law, define.
- Remedial law is a branch of law which provides for jurisdiction of courts and the
rules concerning pleadings, practice, and procedure before the courts
b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Primary sources of remedial law, enumerate.
BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981) and other special laws
Rules of Court
SC Decisions
Circulars, Resolutions, and other admin issuances of SC
Constitution (Art. VIII on judiciary)
c. Power of Congress vs Power of SC re: SC rules of pleading, practice and procedure
- GSIS vs Caballero- Congress exempted GSIS from payment of legal fees- valid?
No. Court ruled that the provision in the Charter of GSIS which exempts it from
all taxes cannot operate to exempt it from the payment of legal fees. 1987
Constitution removed the power of Congress to repeal the Rules of the SC
concerning pleading, etc.
SC now has the sole authority to do such. Also, under S22 R141, local govt and
GOCCs are not exempted for such payments.
Estifona case – Senate enacted rules on plea bargaining (void, only SC has the
sole authority for judicial matters)
d. Classifications of Actions or proceedings
i. According to subject matter
1. Real action vs personal action
- Real action: one which affects title to or possession of real property or interest
- Personal action: does not affect title to or possession of real property or interest
-
2. Define and cite examples
Real actions: action to recover ownership of land; foreclosure (mortgage);
partition; ejection
Personal actions: Action to recover ownership of personal property; action for
specific performance; action for collection of sum of money
3. Importance of distinction: jurisdiction and venue
The distinction is important for purposes of determining the venue of the
action and the court having subject matter jurisdiction thereof.
1
Venue of real actions – proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
where the real property involved is situated.
Venue of personal actions – place where the plaintiff resides or where the
defendant resides at the election of the plaintiff
Jurisdiction of real actions – depends on the assessment value of the real
property involved
Jurisdiction of personal actions – depends on the amount of claim or
demand. (If subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
jurisdiction is automatically in RTC).
ii. According to binding effect
1. Action/ proceeding in rem vs Action in personam vs Action quasi in rem
Action in rem – not directed against a particular person but on the thing
itself which asks the court to make a declaration of or dispose of the
property. It may be personal or real, it may be a status or a right.
Action in personam – directed against particular persons and seeks a
relief which would be binding only upon such persons.
Action quasi in rem – directed against particular persons but seeks to
reach and dispose of their property located in the Philippines. Same as
action in rem, but instead, this action is directed against persons.
2. Define and cite examples
Action in rem – application for registration of land (property); change of
name (right?); declaration of insolvency (status)
Action in personam – crimes against persons
Action quasi in rem – Judicial foreclosure of mortgage (filed against a
person, but involves property); property is attached in action in
personam; action for partition
*Ejectment: action in personam because binding only between the
parties.
3. Distinguish and importance of distinction: extra-territorial service;
preliminary attachment: requirement of prior or contemporaneous
service of summons
Importance: Extraterritorial service of summons may be affected in
actions in rem or quasi in rem but not in an action in personam.
2
In preliminary attachment, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous
service of summons shall not apply where the action is in rem or quasi in
rem.
II.
Jurisdiction
a. Classification:
1. Subject matter Jurisdiction, define.
Authority and power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceeding in question belongs.
*RTC -> incapable of pecuniary estimation
2. Personal Jurisdiction, define.
Power of the court to bind a party or person. Jurisdiction over plaintiff is
acquired by the filing of complaint. Jurisdiction over the defendant is obtained
by service of summons or his voluntary appearance.
3. Jurisdiction over the res, define.
Power of the court to try a case which would bind real or personal property or
determine the status of the party.
b. Define and distinguish:
1. Original Jurisdiction
Exercised by a court in the first instance, as for the instance the jurisdiction of
MTC over ejectment cases
2. Appellate Jurisdiction
Exercised by a court over a case elevated to it by way of review. CA
3. Exclusive Jurisdiction
Exercised by a court to the exclusion of all other courts. RTC -> IPE
4. Concurrent Jurisdiction
Exercised over a case by two or more courts. Special civil action for certiorari
jurisdiction over which may be exercised by the RTC, CA, and SC
III.
Outline the jurisdiction of the SC in civil cases
I. Original
A. Exclusive
i. Pet. For CPM – CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA and SB
B. Concurrent
i. With CA
1. Pet. for CPM – RTC; and NLRC
ii. With CA and RTC
3
IV.
1. Pet. For CPM – First level court and other bodies
2. Pet. For Habeas Corpus and Quo warranto
iii. With RTC
1. Actions against ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
iv. With Sandiganbayan
1. Pet. For CPM, habeas corpus, injunctions and ancillary writs in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto in PCGG cases
v. With the CA, SB and RTC
i. Pet. For writ of amparo
ii. Pet. For a writ of habeas data
II. Appellate
1. Petition for Review on certiorari against:
i.
CA;
ii.
Sandiganbayan;
iii.
RTC in cases involving –
1. Constitutionality or validity of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, law presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance or regulation;
2. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or a penalty in
relation thereto;
3. Jurisdiction of a lower court; and
4. Pure question of law.
i. Note: appeals from MTC decisions even if on pure
question of law is to the RTC; appeal from the RTC’s
decision rendered in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction is to the CA even if on pure question/s of
law (see: S2 R42; Tan vs People, 381 SCRA 75
5. Court of Tax Appeals en banc (RA 9282)
6. Final judgment or order in a writ of amparo or habeas data
case
Outline the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in civil Cases
I. Original
A. Exclusive
i. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC;
ii. Special civil action for certiorari against a RTC’s order approving or
disapproving the rehabilitation plan or any order issued after the
approval of the rehabilitation plan (FR, Rules of Procedure)
B. Concurrent (pwede kahit alin, depende sa plaintiff)
i. with the SC
ii. with SC and RTC
iii. with SC, SB, RTC – pet for writ of amparo and habeas data
II. Appellate
i. Ordinary appeals from:
4
a. RTC, except in cases exclusively appealable to the SC
b. Family Courts
c. Special Commercial Courts
ii. Appeal by petition for review (R43) from:
a. See lists
b. Any other quasi-judicial agency, instrumentality, board or
commission in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions.
i.
See CTA special rules of appeal
c. Petition for review (R42) from the RTC in cases appealed thereto
from the lower courts
d. Petition for review (R42) from the RTC action as a special agrarian
court (see : CARL)
1. Does the CA have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence and perform acts necessary to resolve factual issues?
i. B.P. 129
ii. However, Crispino vs Tansay, 5 Dec. 2016 – CA’s power to receive
evidence is qualified by CA’s internal rules- limited in cases of new
trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- Yes. Under Sec. 9 of BP 129, the CA has the power mentioned above, in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power
to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
However, the SC has held that the CA’s power to receive evidence is qualified
by the CA’s internal rules. Therefore, in accordance with such rules, in
appeals in civil cases, the CA may receive evidence only when it grants a new
trial based on newly discovered evidence. (Crispino v. Tansay)
V.
Outline the jurisdiction of RTC in civil cases
(See Amendment jurisdictional amount –RA 11576)
A. Original
1. Exclusive
a. Actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation (IPE);
b. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein,
where the assessed value of such property exceeds P 20, 000 or in Metro
Manila P 50, 000 except forcible entry and unlawful detainer. (see
Amendment -- );
c. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds P 300, 000 or in Metro Manila P 400, 000) ( see amendment - )
d. Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds P 300, 000 or in Metro Manila P 400, 000 ( see amendment)
e. Actions involving marriage and marital relations;
5
f. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi – judicial functions (eg. boundary dispute
between a municipality and independent component city { municipality of
Kananga vs Madrona, G.R. No. 141375, 30 April 2003};
g. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs, or the value of the property exceeds ( P
300, 000 or in Metro Manila (P 400, 000): see sc circular no. 09-94);
h. Actions for annulment of MTC judgments;
i. Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreement, vacation
or modification of arbitration award, application for arbitration award and
supervision (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004);
j. Citizen suit under sect 41 of Clean Air Act;
k. Petition for assistance in the liquidation of a bank or quasi bank filed by a
receiver pursuant to New Central Bank Act ;
2. Family Courts
a. Petition for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas corpus in relation
to the latter;
b. Petition for adoption of children and revocation thereof; (see amendment);
c. Complaints for annulment or nullification of marriage, those relating to
marital status and property relations of spouses or those living together
under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of
conjugal partnership of gains;
d. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
e. Summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code;
3. Special Commercial Courts
a. Cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights;
b. Cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902- ( fraud scheme cases, intracorporate disputes, election cases, petition for suspension of payments
and/or rehabilitation proceedings);
c. Rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation cases brought under the Financial
Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 and those emanating from
administrative proceedings (A.M. No. 03-03-03- SC, as amended
4. Special Agrarian Courts
a. Original and exclusive – determination of just compensation to landowners;
b. Concurrent
i. With SC
ii. With SC and CA
iii. With SC, CA and Sandiganbayan
B. Appellate
i. All cases decided by the MTCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions
6
VI.
Outline the jurisdiction of the MTC in civil cases
(See Amendment jurisdictional amount –RA s11576)
A. Original
1. Exclusive
a. Actions involving personal property whose value does not exceed P300,000
or in Metro Manila P400, 000 (see amendment);
b. Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding P 300,000 or in metro
manila P400, 000 exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs; (see amendment);
c. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
does not exceed P300,000 or in Metro Manila P400,000 exclusive of interest,
damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; (see amendment);
d. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate where the gross value of the estate
does not exceed P300,000 or in Metro Manila P400,000 (see amendment);
e. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
f. Actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interst
therein, where the assessed value does not exceed P 20, 000 or in Metro
Manila P 50, 000 exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs. ( see amendment);
g. See insurance code- concurrent RTC/MTC with Insurance Commissioner –
insurance claim (does not exceed P5,000,000);
h. See LGC – enforcement of amicable settlement executed before the barangay
regardless of the amount
B. Delegated
a. Cadastral or land registration cases – where no controversy or opposition or
contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, as may be assigned
by the SC (if yes, RTC?) SC 64-93
1. Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of this
Administrative Circular but where trial had not commenced yet, shall be
assigned by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court who has
jurisdiction over the same to the appropriate MeTC, MTCC, MTC or MCTC
2. In RTCs where trial of cadastral or land registration cases has commenced,
the same shall remain with the court where the case had been pending as of
the time of the effectivity of this Administrative Circular. However, by
agreement of the parties, the case may be transferred to the appropriate
METC, MTCC, MTC or MCTC.
C. Special
a. Pet. For habeas corpus in the absence of RTC
D. Summary Procedure
a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; and
7
b. All other court cases except probate proceedings, where the total claim does not
exceed P 100, 000 or in Metro Manila P 200, 000 exclusive of interest and costs.
E. Rule on Small Claims
- Under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, courts are
mandated to resolve a case within thirty (30) days from the day the statement of
claim was filed.
VII.
Outline the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan in civil cases
a. Exclusive Original
1. PCGG cases for forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth (EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A in
1986); provided that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
exclusive of the SC.
b. Concurrent original with SC, CA and RTC
1. Pet. For writ of amparo and habeas data
VIII.
PRINCIPLES and CASES
1.
a. May jurisdiction be conferred by waiver?
- No.
b. By laches/estoppel?
- No. However, a party may be barred by laches or estoppel from challenging the
jurisdiction of the court. Thus, a petition for annulment of judgment based on
lack of jurisdiction must be filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel (S3
R47).
c. Action in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation (IPE) vs. capable of PE;
- If IPE, RTC (pursuant to Sec. 19 of BP 129).
Action capable of PE: one wherein the primary relief sought is a claim for sum of
money or assertion of possession of personal/real property. Such action shall be
based on the amount of the monetary claim or value of personal/real property.
Action IPE: one wherein the primary relief sought is not a claim for sum of
money. Cannot be valued in money terms.
d.
-
Examples of IPE (IRR CARDS)
Specific performance
Rescission or annulment of contract
Injunction
Declaratory relief
Reformation of contract
Action for revival of judgment
Citizen suit (Clean air act)
Action for abatement of nuisance
8
e. Can a suit for injunction be aptly filed with the SC to stop the President of the
Philippines from entering into a peace agreement with the National
Democratic Front? (03 Bar Q11)
- No. An action for injunction is IPE. Hence, SC has no jurisdiction over the same,
exclusive original jurisdiction being vested in RTC.
f. Pajares vs Remarkable Laundry, 20 February 2017 – breach of contract with
recovery of P 280,000 as damages – RTC or MTC?
- MTC. Breach of contract is capable of PE, where damages sought did not exceed
P300,000. An analysis of the complaint shows that the principal relief sought by
the plaintiff is the enforcement of the penal clause for liquidated damages.
g. Chairman Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) vs. Lim, 24
August 2016 – is an action for prohibition filed before CA proper where the rule
or regulation was issued by the government agency pursuant not to its quasijudicial but to its quasi-legislative power? RTC or CA?
- Prohibition is not proper where the rule was issued by the government agency
pursuant not to its quasi-judicial but to its quasi-legislative power.
- RTC, case is for declaratory relief, therefore IPE.
h. Is an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation? RTC or MTC?
- No. It is a real action which affects the title of the mortgaged realty as the
foreclosure sale would divest the mortgagor of their title over the realty.
- MTC or RTC, either, depending upon the assessed value of the realty mortgage.
i. Russel vs. Vestil, 364 Phil 392 (1999) Is an action for partition of real property
incapable of pecuniary estimation?
RTC or MTC?? Compare: if main purpose of the action is the annulment of a
deed of partition and declaration of heirs – RTC or MTC?
- No. It is a real action capable of PE (assessed value of the realty).
- MTC if the main purpose of partition is the distribution and delivery of a specific
portion of the property to the co-owner.
- RTC if the main purpose of the action is the annulment of partition and
declaration of heirs, with the partition of the property merely being incidental to
the main action.
*See also: Huguete vs Embudo, G.R. No. 149554, 1 July 2003 – an action for
partition is a real action – hence depending on assessed value
j. Vda. De Murga vs Chan, 25 SCRA 441 – interpretation of lease contract vs
unlawful detainer – RTC or MTC? Note: this doctrine was overturned in the case
of Union Bank vs Maunlad Homes, Inc. , G.R. No. 190071, 15 August 2012)
9
-
-
Vda De Murga v. Chan: MTC has no jurisdiction. The jugular vein of the
controversy hinges on the correct interpretation of clause 7 of the lease
contract.
Union Bank v. Maunlad Homes: MTC has jurisdiction. In ejectment cases, MTC
has the jurisdiction to preliminary determine the issue of ownership in order to
determine the issue of possession. MTC was granted authority to resolve such
issue to determine the issue of possession, wherein it is allowed to interpret and
enforce the contract of agreement.
Denying MTC jurisdiction over a complain merely because the issue of
possession requires the interpretation of a contract will effectively rule out
unlawful detainer as remedy.
k. Lapitan vs Scandia, 24 SCRA 479 – action for rescission of contract is IPE
damages sought is merely incidental.
l.
Ortigas & company, ltd vs Herrera, 120 SCRA 89 – action for specific
performance is IPE and the payment of sum of money is incidental.
m. Is an action for expropriation IPE? RTC or MTC?
- Yes, IPE. RTC, for eminent domain cases. The subject of an expropriation case is
the determination of the government’s right to take property for public use.
(Brgy San Roque v. Pastor)
n. Heirs of Bautista vs Lindo, 10 March 2014 – is an action to repurchase the land
IPE or considered as a real action since the ultimate objective is action for
reconveyance of the land – to obtain title to or possession over the land? RTC
or MTC?
- IPE. The reconveyance of the title to petitioners is sole dependent on the
exercise of such right to repurchase the lots in question and is not the principal
remedy sought. Reconveyance of the lot is merely the outcome of the
performance of the obligation to return the property comformably to the
express provision of CA 141.
o. Which court has jdn over an action filed to determine whether the
Ombudsman had the power to inquire into bank deposits under section 15(8)
of RA 6770 even if there is no pending case? Office of Ombudsman vs Ibay, 3
September 2001.
- RTC. Action for declaratory relief (According to SC decision pursuant to S1 R63
and Sec. 19 of BP129).
p. Consular Area Residents Association vs Cassanova, 12 april 2016 – See Section
21, RA 7227-Only SC can issue injuction re implementation of the projects for
conversion into alternative productive uses of the military reservations.
10
2. Ultimate Objective Test
a. Gen. Rule: action for specific performance = incapable of pecuniary
estimation
Exception: Ruby Shelters Builders vs. Formaran, G.R. No. 175914, 10 February
2009; Gochan vs Gochan, 423 Phil. 491 – the ultimate objective test provides
that even if the action is for specific performance but the ultimate objective
of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, the action is a real action
and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
b. Gen. Rule: action for annulment of deed of sale= incapable of pecuniary
estimation
Exception: Barangay Piapi vs. Talip, 7 September 2005 – the ultimate
objective test provides that even if the ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to
obtain title to real property, the action is a real action and not one incapable
of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction is determined by the assessed
value of the real property, not its market value.
c. Chua vs. Total Office Products & Services, 30 September 2005: An action for
annulment of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale of real property is a real
action since it affects the title to the real property mortgaged, hence
jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property.
d. Foreclosure of mortgage – incapable of pecuniary estimation or real action?
 Chua vs Total office products and services, 30 Sept. 2005, an action
for annulment of real estate mortgage is a real action “ if there has
already been a foreclosure sale;
 Compare: First Sarmiento Holdings inc. vs Phil Bank of
Communications, 19 June 2018- the complaint for annulment or
cancellation of a REM is incapable of pecuniary estimation even if the
property had already been foreclosed when the complaint was filed
since the ownership and possession of the property remained with
petitioner. This is because at the time the complaint was filed, the
certificate of sale was not yet registered with the Registry of Deeds.
e. Appeal to RTC:
 In real actions there is a need to allege the assessed value of the real
property subject of the action, or the interest therein, for purposes of
determining which court (RTC or MTC) has jurisdiction over the
action.
 However, it must be clarified that this requirement applies only if
these courts are in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, hence the
assessed value of the disputed lot is immaterial for purposes of the
RTC’s appellate jurisdiction. (Arrienda vs. Kalaw, 6 April 2016)
11
f. Padian vs. Dinglasan, 20 March 2013 – an action for cancellation of a TCT is a
real action where the court has to determine which of two titles over the
same lot is valid. In such a case, jurisdiction depends upon the assessed
value. Since the complaint did not allege the assessed value, the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage even on
appeal.
 Same principle in the case of Heirs of Julao vs. Sps de Jesus, 29
September 2014 – an action for recovery of possession is a real action
and the assessed value of the property sought to be recovered
determines the court’s jurisdiction. Failure to allege the assessed value in
the complaint, the same is dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the
first time on appeal.
 Compare: the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in
tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached
to it as annexes or integral parts. A mere reference to the attached
document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction (Tumpag vs
Tumpag, 29 September 2014)
 Compare: Regalado vs Dela Rama, 13 December 2017: Despite the fact
that the parcel of land was 44 hectares, it was error for the trial court to
take cognizance of the case on a presumption since jurisdiction is
conferred by law. It cannot be presumed.
g. Is an action for interpleader considered as an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation?
– No. (Makati devt corp vs Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA 401). interpleader is capable
of pecuniary estimation: Apply jurisdictional amount test.
*See Contrary opinion of Atty. Riguera.
- xxx
h. Is an action for consignation considered as an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation?
- No. (Ascue vs. CA, 196 SCRA 804). It is capable of pecuniary estimation.
Apply jurisdictional amount test.
i. An action for specific performance or to pay the sum of ___ vs An action for
specific performance and to pay the sum of ___.
 Cruz vs. Tan, 87 Phil. 627 – the alternative relief for damages made
the action for specific performance capable of pecuniary estimation
hence apply jurisdictional amount test.
 Compare: An action for specific performance and to pay the sum of
___ is an action that would be incapable of pecuniary estimation
because the claim of sum of money is not an alternative relief but
12
additional and is not equivalent of the action for specific
performance.
j. An action to compel the assignment of shares of stock is an action for
recovery of personal property is not considered as an action incapable for
pecuniary estimation (Gochan vs Gochan, G.R. No. 146089, 13 Dec. 2001.
Jurisdiction would be based on the value of the shares of stock.
3. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or quasi-court
 Which court or body has jurisdiction over a boundary dispute between a
municipality (Kananga, leyte) and independent component city (ormoc
city)? (Mun. of Kananga vs Madrona, G.R. No. 131375, 30 April 2003)
- Xxx
 Which court has jdn over an action for recognition and enforcement of a
foreign judgment, in this case, the judgment of the Hawaii District Court
against the estate of Ferdinand Marcos awarding US 1.9 Billion damages
to the human rights victim? (Mijares vs Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, 12 April
2005)
- Xxx
4. Computation of jurisdictional amount:
a. Claim for money; exclusions from jurisdictional amount
 In computing the jurisdictional amount- damages, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses and costs are excluded.
b. Gomez vs Montalban, 548 SCRA 693 – the accrued interest on a loan is a
primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely
incidental thereto, and must be included in the computation of the
jurisdictional amount, where the debtor had agreed in writing to pay interest
and the accrued interest is determinable at the time of the filing of the
complaint.
c. Jurisdiction is determined by the cause of action as alleged in the complaint
and not by the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded.
d. SC Circular 09-94: “the exclusion of damages of whatever kind” in
determining the jurisdictional amount under RA 7691 ‘applies only 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. Otherwise put, “in
cases where the cause of action principally involves a claim for damages (as
in a torts case) the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of the court.)Note: even if action is principally an action for
damages- attorneys fees is excluded in the computation.
13
e. Movers – Baseco Integrated Port Services, Ic vs. Cyborg Leasing corp., G.r.
No. 131755, 25 Oct. 1999 – damages with writ of replevin ( repossession of
forklift) is damages incidental ? p.54 Riguera
- xxx
f. Good Devt Corp vs Tutaan, L-41641, 30 Sept. 1976 – loan secured by chattel
mortgage- see relief prayed – alternative relief – p. 55 –Riguera
- xxx
g. Compare: Fernandez vs International Corporate Bank, 7 October 1999 – case
: collection of sum of money (350k) with writ of replevin ((500K) – RTC jdn?
P.55 Riguera
- xxx
h. Compare: 08 Bar Q4 – p 56-Riguera
- xxx
IX.
Special Commercial Court
1. Gonzales vs GJH Land, Inc., 10 Nov. 2015
- a court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject
matter is conferred by law; compare: court’s exercise of jurisdiction is,
unless provided by law itself, is governed by the rules of court or by the
orders issued from time to time by the court. “the matter of whether the
RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its
limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and
has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.”
2. Concorde Condominium Inc vs Bacullo, 17 Feb. 2016
- action for injunction with damages- the case was raffled to BR 146 SCC
court - the designation of Br. 146 as an SCC by no means diminished its
power as a court of gen. jdn to hear and decide cases of all nature,
whether civil, criminal or special proceedings.
X.
Special Agrarian Court
1. Just compensation, Sec 57, CARL (Land Bank vs. Dalauta, 8 August 2017)
XI.
Jurisdiction over labor matters (?)
1.`Geor Grotjahn GMBH & Co. vs Isnani, G.R. No. 109272, 10 August 1994- general jdn of
RTC vs LA – collection of loan and cash advances; later employee filed an illegal dismissal
and sought dismissal of rtc case since same is intertwined with the dismissal case.
(relate to Malayan Insurance vs Alibudbud, 20 April 2016 – re car plan
2. Compare : Banez vs Valdevilla, G.R. No. 128024, 9 May 2000
3. See Yusen Air & Sea Service, Inc. vs Villamor, G.R. No. 154060, 16 Aug. 2005 – re noncompeting clause
14
4. See PCIB vs Gomez, 23 Nov. 2015 – tort case/
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
1. What is the exclusive jdn of HLURB?
DARAB
1. What is the exclusive jdn of DARAB? See: 07 Bar Q8A;
2. Does the RTC have JDN over an action to quiet title over a public land within the
Baguio Townsite Reservation? (Heirs of Pocdo vs Avilla, 19 Mar 2014
3. JDN over cancellation of CLOAs, emancipation patents and other titles issued under
the agrarian reform program? Sec of DAR vs Heirs of Redemptor, 12 Mar 2019
COA -jdn?
National commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)- JDN? See Unduran vs Aberasturi,
20 Oct. 2015
Barangay Conciliation – JDN?
1. Residence of the attorney-in-fact? Abagatnan vs Clarito, 7 August 2017
2. Estate of a deceased person ? – juridical entity? VDA. De Borromeo vs pogoy, 126
SCRA 217
Docket fees:
Manchester Case (page 90)
Tacay v. RTC
Page 94 (allowed lien of docket fees)
Exemption in non-payment of docket fees:
1. Damages only arise after filing of initial case (court awarded damages after settlement of
case)
2. Filing of criminal action, if damages award is not indicated
3. Indigent litigants, writ of habeas data
4. Writ of Amparo
Failure to state cause of action
- ultimate facts insufficient
- not dismissible; limited to the confines of the
- raised earliest possible time
vs.
Lack of cause of action
- plaintiff failed to prove evidentiary facts
- ground for dismissal
Bacasalang vs Zamora
15