JURISDICTION OF THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC, automatically you know the jurisdiction of
the MTC. In criminal cases for example, sa RTC, imprisonment of more than 6 years until death
penalty. So, necessarily 6 years or below, sa MTC. Same with civil cases.
Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:
A.) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33
B.) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34
C.) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35
A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts,
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 hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
not exceed four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), 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 the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions.
Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims and probate cases, automatically you
will also know that of the MTC. Under the law, it is only the principal claim or the main claim which is
computed. Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and cost are not
included in determining the jurisdiction.
Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees do not determine jurisdiction, they must still be
specifically alleged in the complaint for the purpose of payment of docket fees. Thus, the higher the
amount one is claiming the higher the filing fee.
So with that , we will now go to decided cases involving docket fees.
JURISPRUDENCE ON THE FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:
Rule 111, the filing of criminal action, the civil aspect is deemed instituted. If it claims for moral
and exemplary damages, the filing fees should be paid immediately. If not stated, then it will be a lien
in the judgment. Compensatory damages are exempt from the filing of the fee.
Technically, a complaint in a civil case is not considered as filed unless you pay the complete
amount of the docket fee. Even if a complaint is filed, say, on December 1 and the payment is made
only on the December 4, the complaint is deemed officially filed on the December 4 when the payment
of the whole amount is effected.
This is so material for the purpose of prescription. Suppose today December 1 is the last day for the
filing of the complaint and the whole amount is not fully paid. ON December 2, the action is prescribed
already. Thus, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the case until the filing of the fee for the whole
amount is made.
JBD
41
In the case of
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA
149 SCRA 562
FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the docket fee but he did not specify the
amount of the damages he was claiming. He contended that he is claiming for moral
damages in such amount as the court will grant. Respondent contended, on the other hand,
that it cannot be done, there is a necessity to state the exact amount of the damages in order
to determine the correct amount of the docket fee. So the plaintiff amended the complaint
and paid the balance of the docket fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment cures the defect?
HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action has to be dismissed. The court
acquires no jurisdiction over the case. The remedy is to re-file the complaint and pay again
the complete amount of the docket fee. The prior payment made is forfeited in as much as
the defect in the first complaint is incurable.
So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the defect by merely amending the
complaints. The moment the case is filed, the court acquires jurisdiction. You cannot by yourself confer
jurisdiction. Very harsh noh? However, the SC, after reflecting on what it said in the case of
MANCHESTER, realized the harshness of their decision. This Manchester ruling was relaxed in the
subsequent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE which now the governing law:
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
170 SCRA 274 [1989]
HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefore is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but
also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the
judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left
for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy
to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
For example, I make a partial payment of the docket fee because of inadequacy of money. Under
the SUN INSURANCE ruling, kung kulang ang bayad, huwag namang i-dismiss ang kaso! Give the
party a reasonable time to pay the balance. “When the filing of the initiatory (complaint) pleading is
not accompanied by the payment of the docket fees, the court may allow the payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the prescriptive period.” Meaning, if by the time you paid the
balance, nag prescribe na ang cause of action, ah wala na! So, provided that the action has not
prescribed.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims. So this answers the question:
Q: Is the defendant obliged to pay the docket fee?
JBD
42
A: It DEPENDS: if the counterclaim is permissive, dapat magbayad ka. If the counterclaim is
compulsory, libre yan!
And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance: if the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleadings, the filing fee therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk
of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to enforce the lien, assess and collect the additional fee.
Q: When can this possibly happen?
A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man was hospitalized because of physical
injuries. Nag file siya ng kaso. Sabi ng court, may damages ito. So the court acknowledged the claim of
P300,000. But after the case is filed, di pa rin siya nakabayad sa hospital. After filing, marami pang
gastos! So in other words he might ask from the court another P 50,000.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?
A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the filing of the case. The additional
expenses occurred only after filing the case. So nagkulang ngayon ang docket fee. Bayaran mo, don’t
dismiss the case!
The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was followed with a third case in December
1989 which further clarified the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
NOTE: When this case was filed, wala pa yong INSURANCE. The guiding rule was still
MANCHESTER. But while this was pending lumabas na yong SUN INSURANCE.
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages (accion publiciana). So it is not
purely for damages. So how will you assess the filling fees? Based on the value of the land,
binayaran ng plaintiff ang docket fee. Defendant moved to dismiss based on MANCHESTER
because the plaintiff did not specify in the complaint how much damages he was claiming.
Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion to dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing
MANCHESTER.
Of course sabi ng SC wala na ang Manchester because of Sun Insurance. But here is
another rule:
HELD: Dalawa ang filing fee: the assessed value of the land and for the damages. There
are two (2) options here: (1.) Kung nabayaran ang docket fee for the recovery of land pero
wala ang para sa damages, do not dismiss the entire case! That is crazy if you will dismiss
the entire case kasi nagbayad man siya ng docket fee for the recovery of the land. Just do not
consider the claim for the damages. Or, (2.) second option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give
him reasonable time to pay the balance. So that's the case of TACAY.
“Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the
legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property and (b) the total
amount of related damages sought. The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the
filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if
the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of
the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription
has set in the meantime.”
Now, there are other interesting cases on the issue on docket fees.
FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
171 SCRA 674 [1989]
JBD
43
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of the
Philippines for infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of reasonable
compensation for damages. According to him, these companies used in their operation a
certain type of machine which he claimed he invented. His patent was infringed. Thus, all
these companies are all liable to him for royalties. The estimated yearly royalty due him is
P236,572. Since the violation has been for many years already, his claims reached millions.
The trial court ordered him to pay P945,636.90 as docket fee. He had no money so he
questioned it. So sabi rig court: “We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is
deductible from whatever judgment of damages shall be awarded by the court.” So, parang
file now pay later.
HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No justification can be found to
convert such payment to something akin to a contingent fee which would depend on the
result of the case. Hindi pwede sa gobyerno yan! Example is kung matalo ka sa kaso – the
case is dismissed. Tabla ang gobyerno? So, di pwede yan!
“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms
of cost of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc.,
computed as to man hours used in handling of each case. The payment of said fees
therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken, without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.”
Alam ninyo, ang dapat sana n'yang ginawa, nag file sya ng motion to allow him to litigate as a
pauper. In legal ethics, pwede yan sa abogado – yung contingent fee: “Attorney, will you handle my
case? Wala akong pera. I will offer a contingent fee.” “Okay, I’ll handle your case. Pag-talo, wala kang
utang. Pag panalo, kalahati sa akin.” Yan! Pwede yan. Pero sa gobyerno, wala yan because usually the
judiciary gets its budget from the filing fees.
LACSON vs. REYES
182 SCRA 729
FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a motion to direct the plaintiff
to pay him his attorney’s fees – a motion for payment of attorney’s fees. So sabi ng court:
“Attorney, magbayad ka ng docket fee.” “Bakit? Motion nga lang yan, may docket fee pa?
Grabeeh!”
HELD: No, bayad ka uli. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was but an
incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve from the payment of docket fees
because as in all actions, whether separate or as an offshoot of a pending proceeding, the
payment of docket fees is mandatory. The docket fee should be paid before the court would
validly act on the motion.”
SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)
FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing, the court dismissed the
case because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte be considered applicable to
Cebu. OCA granted his request.
Charles questioned it because of the rule that the payment of docket fee is jurisdictional.
HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to exempt any party not
otherwise exempt under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment of the
prescribed docket fees. It may be noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme
Court, there are numerous instances when a litigant has had to re-file a petition previously
dismissed by the Court due to a technicality (violation of a pertinent Circular), and in these
JBD
44
instances, the litigant is required to pay the prescribed docket fee and not apply to the refiled case the docket fees paid in the earlier dismissed case.”
“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s complaint cannot be deemed to have been
‘re-filed’ in Cebu City because it was not originally filed in the same court but in the RTC
Leyte. Thus, when Mortz’s complaint was docketed by the clerk of court of the RTC Cebu
City, it became an entirely separate case from that was dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to
improper venue. As far as the case in Cebu is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of
dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits of the case, the order, nevertheless, is a final
order. This means that when private respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order became
final and executory for all legal intents and purposes.”
DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]
FACTS: The question for decision is whether in assessing the docket fees to be paid for
the filing of an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale, the value of the real
property, subject matter of the contract, should be used as basis, or whether the action
should be considered as one which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the
fee charged should be a flat rate of P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the
Rules of Court.
Polgas argued that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real
property is a real action and, therefore, the amount of the docket fees to be paid by Dagul
should be based either on the assessed value of the property, subject matter of the action, or
its estimated value as alleged in the complaint.
Since Dagul alleged that the land, in which they claimed an interest as heirs, had been
sold for P4,378,000.00 to Polgas, this amount should be considered the estimated value of
the land for the purpose of determining the docket fees.
Dagul countered that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real
property is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the docket fees should be the fixed
amount of P400.00 in Rule 141, Section 7(b).
HELD: Dagul is correct. “In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and
whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would
depend on the amount of the claim. “
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific
performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a
mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance.”
“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the determination
of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed to be more
within the competence of courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts of record at
the time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction.”
“Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly pronounced to be
exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance and no cogent reason appears, and none is
here advanced by the parties, why an action for rescission (or resolution) should be
differently treated, a "rescission" being a counterpart, so to speak, of ‘specific performance’.”
“In both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an investigation into facts
that would justify one act or the other. No award for damages may be had in an action for
rescission without first conducting an inquiry into matters which would justify the setting
JBD
45
aside of a contract. Issues of the same nature may be raised by a party against whom an
action for rescission has been brought, or by the plaintiff himself.”
“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for damages in an action for rescission
should be taken as the basis for concluding such action as one capable of pecuniary
estimation — a prayer which must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be
compensated for what he may have suffered as a result of the breach committed by
defendant, and not later on precluded from recovering damages by the rule against splitting
a cause of action and discouraging multiplicity of suits.”
“Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it is the nature of the
action as one for rescission of contract which is controlling.”
“Since the action of Polgas against Dagul is solely for annulment or rescission which is
not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the action should not be confused and equated with
the ‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction; that by the very nature of the case, the
allegations, and specific prayer in the complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money
and/or value of the transaction, or for actual or compensatory damages, the assessment and
collection of the legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits of the case and/or what
may be its end result.”
TOTALITY RULE
Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:
“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 the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions.”
What do you call that rule? The TOTALITY RULE.
ILLUSTRATION: Joinder of causes of action. The defendant secured from me two or more loans.
Let’s say, apat na utang covered by four (4) promissory notes and all of them are due and he has not
paid me any. Let's say each note covers a principal amount of P75,000. Now, I decided to file one
complaint embodying my four causes of action against him although I have the option also to file four
separate complaints. If you will look at the value of each claim which is P75,000 that is triable by the
MTC. But if you will add the four claims that will be P300,000.00.
Q: Which will prevail? The amount of each of the claim or the total?
A: The total amount will prevail. So it should be filed in the RTC. That is the totality rule.
Never mind that there are four (4) separate loans because the law says “irrespective of whatever the
cause of action arose out of the same or different transactions.” Now in that example, there is only one
plaintiff and one defendant. The plaintiff has four claims against the same defendant. Now suppose
there are 4 plaintiffs suing the same defendant in what is called in procedure as joinder of causes of
action and joinder of parties.
EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public vehicle. They were all injured when the
bus met an accident and all of them were hospitalized. So after they were discharged, the four of them
wanted to sue the bus company for damages arising from contract of carriage or culpa contractual.
Since they hired the same lawyer, the lawyer said, “Why will I file 4 complaints? Isahin na lang. I will
join them.” In effect, he joined 4 causes of action.
Q: The same question will arise. What will be now the basis of jurisdiction? The claim of every
plaintiff or the total claims of the 4 plaintiffs?
A: The total claims. You apply the totality rule because the law says “where there are several claims
or cause of action between the same or different parties.” So whether the parties are the same or the
parties are different embodied in the same complaint the amount of the demand shall be the totality of
the claims the totality rule applies in both situations.
JBD
46
We will now go to paragraph [2] of Section 33.
[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall
be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. x x x x”
This is related to the Law on Property – FORCIBLE ENTRY (recovery of physical possession, e.g.
squatting) and UNLAWFUL DETAINER (e.g. you eject a lessee does not pay his rent.) – MTC lahat
iyan. The two cases should not be confused with accion publiciana which is also the recovery of
possession but that is a better right. Now, in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff also prays not only to eject
the defendant but also to claim for back rentals or the reasonable amount of the use and occupation of
the property in case of forcible entry.
Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half a million pesos – so, unlawful
detainer plus back rentals of half a million. Where should the case be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What determines jurisdiction is the nature of the
action, and not the amount of recoverable rentals. Kahit na one (1) million pa yan, MTC pa rin yan.
Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the party present evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate ownership. That has to be threshed
out in the proper civil action in the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented in the forcible entry
or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only resolved to determine the issue of
possession. But the declaration of ownership is not final – that is only prima facie. The question of
ownership must be litigated in a separate action in the RTC.
Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as amended by R.A. 7691:
[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 interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for tax purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
(As amended by RA 7691)
Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs have now jurisdiction over other real
actions like accion publiciana and accion reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed value of the land
should be P20,000 or less. In Metro Manila, it is P50,000 or less. That is the amendment brought about
by RA 7691 which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC.
B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained
by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if
there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declarations of the real
property.
Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)
Review: These are related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds (The Property Registration
Decree) When you file a petition for land registration, the object is to have your property registered and
fall under the Torrens System of the Land Registration. Patituluhan ba! Now, what is the difference
between a land registration proceeding and a cadastral proceeding? Cadastral is compulsory
registration.
JBD
47
Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about?
A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which involve the titling of property under
the Torrens system or cadastral land registration.
Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has authority to entertain land registration
and cadastral cases. But now, Section 34 gives the Supreme Court the authority to DELEGATE MTCs to
hear and decide land registration and cadastral cases under the following conditions:
1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting your petition; or
2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the land to be titled does not exceed
P100,000.
In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are appealable directly to the CA. Para
bang acting RTC sila ba. That’s what it is called delegated jurisdiction. ‘Delegate’ means it really has to
be assigned to you.
Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the P20,000 under Section 33. Section 34 deals
with cadastral and land registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases (accion publiciana, etc.)
C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases.
- In the absence of all
the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal
cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
This is what we call special jurisdiction. That only applies to two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas
corpus and (2) hearing of petitions for bail.
Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is with the RTC. Also, the
hearing on petition for bail, RTC yan because the offense may be a heinous one, but under the law on
criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail to have your temporary freedom while the case is
going on. That’s supposed to be in the RTC.
But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are sick or all of them are attending a
convention (this actually happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in the absence
of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas corpus case petitions and applications or petitions for
bail in criminal cases. So acting pa rin yan because they are urgent and the liberty of a person is at
stake.
That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There is no need for a SC authorization.
However, this is only allowed in the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back, he
has to take over the petition.
So with that we are through with the jurisdiction of our courts. So we will now proceed to remedial
law proper.

JBD
48