PART II

Jurisdiction
 
1. Jurisdiction in General
 Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case. It has also been
referred to as the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and
determine certain controversies (De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103,104).

It has reference to the power of the court over the subject matter, over the res or property in contest,
and to the authority of the court to render the judgment or decree it assumes to make (20 Am Jur §88
1965).

 Jurisprudence considers jurisdiction as not only the authority of the court to hear, try, and determine a
case. It is also considered as an authority to execute the decisions rendered by the court.

It was held that the power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction
and that the most important part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of
decisions where supervening events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to
intervene and adjust the rights of litigants to prevent unfairness

 Jurisdiction is not the power of the judge -Jurisprudence holds that jurisdiction is not the
authority of the judge but of the court.
o it was stressed that jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. Hence, the
continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death,
resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it.
o Jurisdiction does not refer to the decision itself - Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a
case, and not the decision rendered therein
o The fact that the decision is erroneous does not divest the court that rendered it of the
jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case. Since jurisdiction is the power to hear and
determine a particular case, or the jurisdiction over the subject matter, it does not
depend upon the regularity of the exercise by the court of its power (Lim v. Pacquing,
236 SCRA 211,
 The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not
whether the decision is right or wrong
 Duty of a court to determine its jurisdiction- Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of
their authority and they may act accordingly by dismissing the action even though the issue of
jurisdiction is not raised by the pleadings or not even suggested by counsel
 Effect of lack of jurisdiction –
o general rule is that proceedings conducted or decisions made by a court are legally void
where there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is true even
where the court in good faith believes that the subject matter is within its jurisdiction
 Aspects of jurisdiction
o (a) jurisdiction over the subject matter;
o (b) jurisdiction over the parties
 o (c) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and
o (d) jurisdiction over the res or thing involved in the litigation.

2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

2.1.             Definition of jurisdiction over subject matter

 It is the power or authority to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceeding in question belongs
 The term, “subject matter” also refers to the item with respect to which the controversy has
arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or
the contract under dispute (De la Rama v. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704, 711). Under this extended
definition, the matters giving rise to ‘unlawful detainer,’ or ‘forcible entry,’ are subject matters.
So are those giving rise to accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, partition of property,
foreclosure of mortgage, expropriation, habeas corpus, and action for damages, among others.
 the basic questions that ipso facto are to be immediately resolved by the court on its own
are:What is the subject matter of the complaint filed before the court? Does the court have
jurisdiction over the said subject matter? Answering these questions inevitably requires
looking into the applicable laws conferring jurisdiction.

2.2.             Jurisdiction versus Exercise of Jurisdiction

 Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court The exercise of this power or authority is
called the exercise of jurisdiction.
 Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of
jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered
therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all
other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. The errors which the
court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the
proper subjects of an appeal,

2.3.             Error of Jurisdiction versus Error of Judgment

Error of jurisdiction Error of judgement

Meaning is one where the act complained of  presupposes that the court is
was issued by the court without or in vested with jurisdiction over the
excess of jurisdiction subject matter of the action but in
 the process of exercising that
jurisdiction it committed mistakes
in the appreciation of the facts
and the evidence leading to an
erroneous judgment.

Occurrence occur when the court exercises a court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction not conferred upon it by jurisdiction
law

although with jurisdiction, acts in

excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction
Effect is a nullity erroneous judgment is not a void
judgment
Remedy correctible only by the correctible by appeal
extraordinary writ of certiorari

Lack of jurisdiction excess of jurisdictio

not vested by law with authority or existence of an auth
power to take cognizance of a case. court to assume jur
case but in the proc
exercise of that aut
beyond the power c

 Jurisdiction and cause of action

o A cause of action does not
refer to the authority of the
court. A cause of action is
the act or omission of a
person violative of the
rights of others. Under Sec.
2, Rule 2 of the Rules of
Court, a cause of action “is
the act or omission by
which a party violates a
right of another.”
 How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
o is conferred by law which may be either the Constitution or a statute and not the rules
o Jurisdiction over the subject matter is a matter of substantive because it is conferred by
law
 Consequences of the rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, it cannot be:
o Conferred by voluntary act or agreement of the parties,
 o Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties, or
o Conferred by the acquiescence of the courts [De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No. 133882
(2006)]
o Conferred by administrative policy of any court, or [Arranza v. B.F. Homes, Inc., G.R. No.
131683 (2000)]
o Conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction.

 How jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined

 by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body
has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the
plaintiff,
 cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what the
allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe. The designation or caption is not
controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint themselves are, for it is not even an
indispensable part of the complaint
 The defenses and the evidence do not determine jurisdiction
o for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the
defendant.
 Exception to the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint
 in ejectment cases in which the defendant averred the defense of the existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
 stressed that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. 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.
 doctrine of primary jurisdiction
o General Rule: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding
before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their
proper jurisdiction. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Dev’t Corp., G.R.
No. 197592 (2013)]
o The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining
whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative
agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the
proceeding before the court. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Dev’t
Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]
o Exceptions:
 a. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine,
 b. Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to
lack of jurisdiction,
 c. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant,
 d. Where the amount involved is relatively small,
  e. Where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts,
 f. Where judicial intervention is urgent,
 g. When its application may cause great and irreparable damage,
 h. Where the controverted acts violate due process,
 i. When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
rendered moot,
 j. When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy,
 k. When strong public interest is involved, and
 l. In quo warranto proceedings. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction
and Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 197592 (2013)]
o The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies in which courts cannot determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the
resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal. [International Service v.
Greenpeace
 Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction
o Also known as doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction [1 Riano 85-86, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
o Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it continues until the case is finally terminated.
The trial court cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent happenings or events,
although of a character that would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance [Baritua v. Mercader, G.R. No. 136048 (2001)]
o General Rule: Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a
controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the case is not
affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceeding in another tribunal
[Southern Food v. Salas, G.R. No. 56428 (1992)]
o Exceptions:
 a. Where there is an express provision in the statute; and
 b. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its
enactment [People v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 117970 (1998); Southern Food v.
Salas, G.R. No. 56428 (1992)]]

Law which governs jurisdiction- the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court

 Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

o When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the claim. [Sec. 1, Rule 9]
o The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and
may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction
of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal [SEAFDEC v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 86773 (1992)]
o Under the Amended Rules, a motion to dismiss is now a prohibited motion, but one of
the exceptions provided is the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the claim. [Sec. 12, Rule 15] Moreover, under the Amended Rules, lack of jurisdiction
 over the subject matter is also an affirmative defense which can be raised in a
defendant’s answer. [Sec. 12(d), Rule 8 in relation to Sec. 5(b), Rule
o The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to
dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer because lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss
o The general rule is that the objection for want of jurisdiction of the controversy or the
subject matter may be made at any time and at any stage of the proceedings. If the
question is not raised in the lower court, it may be raised for the first time on appeal
Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall
include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8,
Rule 15, Rules of Court). A motion to dismiss which seeks the dismissal of a claim is undoubtedly an
omnibus motion and is thus, covered by the rule enunciated in Sec. 8 of Ride 15. Thus, for instance, if a
motion to dismiss is filed by the defendant on certain grounds but failed to include therein an available
defense like improper venue, said ground can no longer be invoked later as an affirmative defense in the
answer.But lack of juris is not considered waived.

2.4.             Effect of Estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

 
 jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since it is
conferred by law, it is nevertheless settled that a party may be barred from raising it on the
ground of estoppel (“A party who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court over a particular
matter to secure affirmative relief cannot be permitted to afterwards deny that same
jurisdiction to escape liability.”)
 “based upon grounds of public policy x x x and is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
 The rule also applies to administrative proceedings. The active participation of an individual
before the administrative proceedings and the belated challenge to the jurisdiction of the said
body bars him from assailing such acts under the principle of estoppel

 General rule: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. The reason for this is that jurisdiction is
conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the
action [Asiatrust Development Bank v. First Aikka Development, Inc., G.R. No. 179558 (2011)]
 Exception: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy [G.R. No. L- 21450 (1968)] espoused the doctrine of estoppel
by laches, which held that a party may be barred from questioning a court’s jurisdiction after
invoking the court’s authority in order to secure affirmative relief against its opponent, when
laches would prevent the issue of lack of jurisdiction from being raised for the first time on
appeal by a litigant whose purpose is to annul everything done in a trial in which it has actively
participated [Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, G.R. No. 154684 (2005)]

 Note: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy must be construed as an exception to the general rule and applied
only in the most exceptional cases where the factual milieu is similar to that in the said case
[Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406 (2008)]

 Note: Even if Sec. 12(b), Rule 8 of the Amended Rules provides that the failure to raise an
affirmative defense at the earliest opportunity constitutes a waiver thereof, the failure to raise
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter as an affirmative defense in the answer does not
 waive such defense. The retention of Sec. 1, Rule 9 maintains the status of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter as a non-waivable defense. As such, the proper action if one failed to
raise the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in the answer would be to file a
motion to dismiss, which can be filed at any point during the proceedings, subject to the
doctrine in Tijam.

3. Jurisdiction over the Issues

 Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the
pleadings of the parties [Reyes vs Diaz, G.R. No. 48754 (1941)]
 An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their
several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision [1 Riano 83, 2016
Bantam Ed., citing Black’s Law Dictionary 745, 5th Ed.]
 Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by
o a. The pleadings of the parties, which present the issues to be tried and determine
whether or not the issues are of fact or law [Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L- 48754 (1941)]
o b. Stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations
of facts or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of the case [Sec. 2(c), Rule 18]
o c. Waiver or failure to object to evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here
the parties try with their express or implied consent on issues not raised by the
pleadings. [Sec. 5, Rule 10] [1 Riano 83-84, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
 The rule is that a party is entitled only to such relief consistent with and limited to that sought
by the pleadings or incidental thereto. A trial court would be acting beyond its jurisdiction if it
grants relief to a party beyond the scope of the pleadings. [Gonzaga v. CA, G.R. No.
142037 (2004)]

4. Jurisdiction over the Res  or property in litigation

 Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which
is the subject of the action [1 Riano 104, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
 “Res,” in civil law is a “thing” or “object.” It is everything that may form an object of rights, as
opposed to a “persona,” which is the subject of rights. It includes object, subject matter or
status [1 Riano 86, 2016 Bantam Ed., citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1172, 5th Ed.]
 How Acquired:
o a. By seizure of the thing under legal process whereby, it is brought into actual custody
of the law (custodia legis); or
o b. From the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law,
the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective (potential
jurisdiction over the res) [Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417
(2007); El Banco Español- Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. 11390 (1918)]
 In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court
should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient.
o Example: A land registration case is a proceeding in rem. In such a case, actual
possession of the through publication and service of notice. [1 Riano 89, 2016 Bantam
Ed.]
 Jurisprudence holds that if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over the res, although summons
 must also be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process.
[Gomez vs CA, G.R. No.127692 (2004)]

5. Jurisdiction over the Parties

 Jurisdiction in personam is the power which a court has over the defendant’s person and
which is required before a court can enter a personal or an in personam judgment (Black’s,
5th Edition, 766 citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565). A decision in personam
imposes a responsibility or liability upon a person directly and therefore, binds him
personally
 The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether
the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.

5.1.             How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired

 Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint or petition. By doing so,
he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court

5.2.             How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired

 Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his
voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons
 Voluntary appearance of the defendant
o To constitute voluntary appearance, it must be the kind that amounts to a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Submission to the court’s jurisdiction takes
the form of an appearance that seeks affirmative relief except when the relief sought is
for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
defendant.
o As a rule, an appearance in whatever form without expressly objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the
court (Carballo v. Encamacion, 92 Phil. 974, 976). Hence, the filing of an answer per se
should not be treated automatically as a voluntary appearance. When the appearance
is precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, it is not considered
an appearance in court (French Oil Machinery Company v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA
462, 469) and should not be construed as a submission by the defendant of his person
to the jurisdiction of the court.
 When jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required
o required only in an action in personam. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem.
o An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An
action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose
of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening
the property


  An objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be raised as a ground
for a motion to dismiss (Sec. l[a], Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no motion to dismiss has been filed,
the objection may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer
 objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the provisions of
Sec. 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which clearly provide: “Defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.”
 the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be pleaded in the
same motion where such ground is available at the time the motion is filed, otherwise it is
deemed waived pursuant to the omnibus motion rule.
 omnibus motion rule embodied in Sec. 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, is explicit and
unequivocal: “Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion “attacking a pleading,
order, judgment, or proceed ing shall include all objections then available, and all objections
not so included shall be deemed waived”(italics supplied).

 The omnibus motion rule, enumerates certain defenses which are not deemed waived even if
not raised in the motion to dismiss. Also, under Sec. 1 of Rule 9 when any of these grounds
appears from the pleadings or in the evidence on record, the court is authorized to dismiss the
claim.
 These defenses are:
o (a) that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
o (b) that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause
(litis pendencia);
o (c) that the action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata); or
o (d) that the action is barred by the statute of limitations (prescription). (Bar 2011).
 The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not one of those
defenses which are not deemed waived under Sec. 1 of Rule 9. Such defense must be invoked
when a motion to dismiss is filed to prevent a waiver of the defense.

6. Jurisdiction of Courts
6.1.             Supreme Court

General Rule: The SC is not a trier of facts.

Exception: The SC can look into the facts of a case:

 When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
 When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
 Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
 When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
 When the findings of fact are conflicting;
 When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
 When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
 When the findings of fact are conclusions
 without citation of specific evidence on When the facts set forth in the petition as
 well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
 When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and contradicted by the evidence on record. [Aklan v. Enero, G.R. No. 178309, January 27, 2009]

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against appellate courts, namely:
a. Court of Appeals, [Sec. 17, R.A. 296]
b. Commission on Elections, [Sec 7, Art. IX, Constitution]
c. Commission on Audit, [Sec. 7, Art. IX,
Constitution]
d. Sandiganbayan, and [P.D. 1606 as amended] [1 Riano 106, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
e. Court of Tax Appeals (not en banc). [1 Riano 92, 2016 Bantam Ed.] (if en banc, SC in appellate
jurisdiction)

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

 With CA
• Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against first-level courts and bodies, namely
RTCs [Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129]
• Civil Service Commission [R.A.7902]
• Central Board of Assessment Appeals [P.D. 464; B.P. 129; R.A.7902]
• NLRC and [St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998); R.A. 7902]
 Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies.[B.P. 129; R.A. 7902; Heirs ofHinog v. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954 (2005)
[1 Riano 106-107, 2014Bantam Ed.]

Note: Although there is concurrent jurisdiction as the Constitution grants this to the SC, SC A.M. No. 07-
7-12 issued on 4 December 2007 provides that if the petition involves an act/omission of a Quasi-
Judicial Agency, the petition shall only be cognizable by the CA and must be filed there

• Quo Warranto petitions,

• Writ of Habeas Corpus,
• Writ of Amparo,
• Writ of Habeas Data, and [1 Riano 93- 94, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
• Writ of KaIikasan. [Sec. 3, Rule 7, Part

3, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases]

 With RTC
• Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls [Sec. 21(2), B.P. 129]
• Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts [1 Riano 93, 2016
Bantam Ed.]
• Quo Warranto petitions,
• Writ of Habeas Corpus,
• Writ of Amparo, and
• Writ of Habeas Data.
 With Sandiganbayan
• Writ of Amparo, and
• Writ of Habeas Data.
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SC has appellate jurisdiction over petitions for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45)
against the
a. CA,
b. Sandiganbayan,
c. RTC with respect to:
1. Pure questions of law [Sec. 1, Rule45] and
2. Cases falling under Sec. 5, Art. VIII,Constitution
(i) 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.
(ii) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.

6.2.             Court of Appeals

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC [see: Sec. 9(2), B.P. 129; Sec. 1, Rule 47]

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

 With SC
• Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against first-level courts and bodies, namely
i. RTCs [Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129]
• Civil Service Commission [R.A.
7902]
• Central Board of Assessment Appeals [P.D. 464; B.P. 129; R.A.
7902]
• NLRC and [St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998); R.A. 7902]
• Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies. [B.P. 129; R.A. 7902; Heirs of
Hinog v. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954 (2005) [1 Riano 106-107, 2014Bantam Ed.]
• Quo Warranto petitions,
• Writ of Habeas Corpus,
• Writ of Amparo,
• Writ of Habeas Data, and [1 Riano 93- 94, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
• Writ of KaIikasan. [Sec. 3, Rule 7, Part
3, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases]

d. With RTC
1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies
2. Quo warranto petitions, and
3. Writ of Habeas Corpus [1 Riano 96,2016 Bantam Ed.]
4. Writ of Amparo, and [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo]
5. Writ of Habeas Data [Sec. 3, Rule onthe Writ of Habeas Data]
6.
e. With Sandiganbayan
1. Writ of Amparo, and
2. Writ of Habeas Data
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1. By ordinary appeal
a. From judgments of RTC and Family Courts, [Sec. 9(3), B.P. 129, as amended; Sec. 14, R.A. 8369]
b. Over decisions of the MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction.
[Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691
 By petition for review
• From judgments of the RTC rendered in its appellate jurisdiction, and [Sec. 22, B.P. 129, as
amended; Rule 42; Sec. 9, B.P. 129]
• From decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the Civil Service Commission and other quasi-
judicial bodies mentioned in Rule 43. [Sec. 9(3), B.P. 129]

Note: The enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies under Sec. 1, Rule 43 is not exclusive [Wong v. Wong,
G.R. No. 180364 (2014), quoting Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132 (2008)]

 From decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases

[1 Riano 96-97, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

6.3.             Sandiganbayan

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

 Violations of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 Violations of R.A. 1379 or An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have
Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor
 Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC), where one or more of the principal accused are
occupying the following positions in government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
the time of the commission of the offense
• Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(R.A. 6758), specifically including:
• Provincial governors, vice- governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and
provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads
• City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniangpanlungsod, city
treasurers,assessors, engineers, and other city department heads
• Officials of the diplomatic serviceoccupying the position of consul and higher
• Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
• Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and
those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher
• City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
• Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or foundations
• Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under R.A. 6758
• Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
• Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution
 • All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under R.A. 6758

Note: Exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC or MTC, as the case may be, where
none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, or military and
PNP officers mentioned above [Sec. 4,P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

 Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of section 4 (as amended) in relation to their
office
 Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14-A
 Petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A, issued in1986 [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

With SC, CA, and RTC for petitions for writs of amparo [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and habeas
data [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
orders of the RTC, whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction, as herein provided [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]

6.4.             Court of Tax Appeals

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

1. Over 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 P1,000,000 shall be tried by the proper Municipal
Trial Court Metropolitan Trial Court, and Regional Trial Court.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
• Over appeals from the judgements, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
• 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 the Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdictions.
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal:
• Decision 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 Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue.
• Inaction by 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 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.
• Decision, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in the local tax cases originally
decided oy resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction.
• 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.
• 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.
• Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs duties elevated to him automatically for
review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under
Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
• 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 an agricultural product,
commodity, or article involving dumping and countervailing duties under Secs. 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where either
party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
[1 Riano 98-100, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

6.5.             Regional Trial Court

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
a. All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation [Sec. 19(1),
B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Test: If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation. On the other hand, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum
of money, and the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought,
such actions are cases where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Heirs of
Padilla v. Magdua, G.R. No. 176858 (2010), quoting Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, G.R. No. L-27343 (1979)]

An action to nullify a Deed of Assignment and Conveyance is not one involving a subject
matter incapable of pecuniary estimation if the plaintiff also seeks to the transfer of possession and
control of properties: In Home Guaranty v. R-II Builders [G.R. No. 192649 (2011)], an action that sought
the nullification of a Deed of Assignment and Conveyance was characterized by the respondent on an
MR before the SC as one involving a subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation. The SC disagreed
and held that since the action was not solely for the annulment of the Deed of Assignment and
Conveyance – indeed, the respondent consistently sought the transfer of possession and control of
properties – following the its ruling in Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corp. v. Formaran
III, G.R. No. 175914 (2009), the subject of the action was capable of pecuniary estimation.

However, if the principal nature of an action to cancel a contract to sell, where the defendant has
already taken possession of the property, involves a determination on whether a suspensive condition
has been fulfilled – then the subject matter involved is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation:
In Olivarez Realty v. Castillo [G.R. No. 196251 (2014)], the action instituted in the trial court was one for
the cancellation of a contract to sell, and prior to the institution of the action the defendant had already
 proceeded to occupy the property involved. In this instance, the SC held that the action involved a
subject matter that was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The difference in the ruling of the SC here
and in Home Guaranty lies in that fact that in Olivarez Realty, what the plaintiff had principally sought
was a determination that a suspensive condition for the perfection of the contract had not been
fulfilled: “the trial court principally determined whether Olivarez Realty Corporation failed to pay
installments of the property’s purchase price as the parties agreed upon in the deed of conditional
sale. The principal nature of Castillo’s action, therefore, is incapable of pecuniary estimation.”

See also: Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo [G.R. No. 208232 (2014)], where an action to redeem a land subject
of a free patent was characterized by the SC as one whose subject matter was incapable of pecuniary
estimation since the reacquisition of the land was merely incidental to and an offshoot of the exercise of
the right to redeem the land, pursuant to Sec. 119 of CA 141.

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation [Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Francisco
Pastor, G.R. No. 138896 (2000)]

Lastly, an action for specific performance in one incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Russel v. Vestil, 304
SCRA 738 (1999)] Any amount of damages claimed in addition to the prayer for specific performance is
not determinative of jurisdiction. [1 Riano 135,2016 Bantam Ed.]

 Civil actions involving title to, or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where assessed
value exceeds P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila [Sec. 19(2), B.P.
129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Exception: Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (FEUD) cases, as FEUD cases are within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the MTC. [Sec. 33(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiff's cause of action is based on a claim
that he owns such property or that he has the legal rights to have exclusive control, possession,
enjoyment, or disposition of the same. Title is the "legal link between (1) a person who owns property
and (2) the property itself." [Heirs of Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla, G.R. No.174497 (2009)]

 Any action if the amount involved exceeds P300,000 outside Metro Manila or exceeds P400,000 in
Metro Manila in the following cases [B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]:
• Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the amount refers to demand or claim
[Sec. 19(3)]
• Matters of probate (testate or intestate), where the amount refers to gross value of
estate [Sec. 19(4)]
• In all other cases where the amount refers to the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs [Sec. 19(8)]

 All actions involving the contract of marriage and family relations [Sec. 19(5), B.P. 129, as amended by
R.A. 7691], and all civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Note: This jurisdiction is deemed modified by Sec. 5, R.A. 8369, the law establishing the Family Courts.
However, in areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases within their jurisdiction shall be
adjudicated by the RTC [Sec. 17, R.A. 8369; 1 Riano 147, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
 All civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of
Agrarian Reform [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

 All cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions [Sec. 19(6), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691] This jurisdiction is often
described as the “general jurisdiction” of the RTC making it a court of general jurisdiction. [1
Riano 146, 2014
Bantam Ed.]

 Intra-corporate controversies
• Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of board of directors, business
associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be
detrimental to interest of public and/or of stockholders, partners, members of associations or
organizations registered with SEC
• Controversies arising out of intra- corporate or partnership relations, between and among
stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or
right to exist as such entity
• Controversies in election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such
corporations, partnerships or associations
• Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in state of suspension of
payments in cases where corporation, partnership of association possesses sufficient property to cover
all its debts but foresees impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where
corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under
management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee
[Sec. 52, Securities and Regulations Code]

 Petitions for declaratory relief [Sec. 1, Rule 63]

 Cases originally falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where the
information:
• Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
• Alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding P1 million. [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A.
10660]

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

f. With SC
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls [Sec. 21(2),
B.P. 129]
2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts [1 Riano 93, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
3. Quo Warranto petitions,
4. Writ of Habeas Corpus,
5. Writ of Amparo, and
6. Writ of Habeas Data
 With CA
7. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies
8. Quo warranto petitions, and
9. Writ of Habeas Corpus [1 Riano 96,
2016 Bantam Ed.]
10. Writ of Amparo, and [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo]
11. Writ of Habeas Data [Sec. 3, Rule on
the Writ of Habeas Data]
With Sandiganbayan
12. Writ of Amparo, and
13. Writ of Habeas Data

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts (i.e. MTC) in their respective territorial
jurisdictions, except those made in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction, which are appealable in the
same manner as decisions of the RTC. [Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended]

SPECIAL JURISDICTION
Special jurisdiction - SC may designate certain branches of RTC to try exclusively criminal cases, juvenile
and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases not falling within the
jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body and other special cases in the interest of justice [Sec. 23, B.P. 129]

 Drug Courts
 Special Commercial Courts
 Election Courts
 Environmental Courts
 Land Registration

6.6.             Family Courts

 Criminal cases where one or more accused is below 18 but not less than 9 years old or where one or
more victims was a minor at time of commission of offense,
 Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus in relation to children,
 Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof,
e. Petitions for support and/or
acknowledgment,
f. Summary judicial proceedings brought
under the provisions of Family Code,
g. Petitions for declaration of status of
children as abandoned, dependent or
 Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to status and
property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements,
and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains,
 neglected children, voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, suspension, termination or
restoration of parental authority, and other cases cognizable under P.D. 603, E.O. 56, s. 1986, and other
related laws,
g. Petitions for constitution of family home,
h. Cases against minors cognizable under Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, (now R.A. 9165)
i. Violations of R.A. 7610, or the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act”, and
j. Cases of domestic violence against Women and Children.
[Sec. 5, R.A. 8369]

6.7.             Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts in Cities/Municipal Trial Courts/ Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

2. Where the value of personal property, estate, or amount of demand does not exceed P300,000 outside
Metro Manila or does not exceed P400,000 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, in the following cases:
a. Civil actions,
b. Probate proceedings, (testate or intestate)
c. Provisional remedies in proper cases. [Sec. 33(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

Totality Rule
If several claims or causes of action are embodied in the same complaint, the amount of all the
demands shall be the basis in computation of the amount involved, if
1. Claims are in the same complaint
2. Claims are against the same defendant
3. No misjoinder of parties [1 Riano 104,2016 Bantam Ed.]

3. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

(FEUD)
Note: When defendant raises questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding issue of ownership, the latter issue shall be resolved only to
determine the former issue [Sec. 33(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
4. All civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where assessed
value of property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or does not
exceed P50,000 in Metro Manila [Sec. 33(3), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
5. Inclusion and exclusion of voters [Sec. 49, Omnibus Election Code]
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
Special jurisdiction over petition for writ of habeas corpus OR application for bail in criminal cases in the
absence of all RTC judges in the province or city. [Sec. 35, B.P. 129]

DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Delegated jurisdiction of 1st level courts assigned by SC to hear and decide cadastral and land
registration cases covering
 Lots where there is no controversy or opposition
 Contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, the value is to be ascertained:
• By the claimant’s affidavit
• By agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; or
 • From corresponding tax declaration of the real property

MTC decisions in cadastral and land registration cases are appealable in the same manner as RTC
decisions, since MTCs acting in their delegated capacity are treated under law like RTCs.
[Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1ST LEVEL COURTS

k. Metropolitan Trial Court – in each metropolitan area established by law [Sec. 25, B.P. 129],
particularly Metro Manila [Sec. 27, B.P. 129]
l. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities – In every city not part of a metropolitan area [Sec. 29,B.P. 129]
m. Municipal Circuit Trial Court – in each circuit comprising such cities and municipalities grouped together
pursuant to law [Sec. 25, B.P. 129]
n. Municipal Trial Courts – in municipalities not comprised within a metropolitan area and a municipal
circuit [Sec. 30, B.P. 129]

6.8.             Shari’a Courts
 
 7. Jurisdiction over Small Claims Cases
The Revised Rules shall govern the procedure
in actions for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed PHP 400,000 in cases
filed before the MeTC, and P300,000 in cases filed before the MCTC, MTCS, and MTCC, exclusive of
interest and costs. [ February 26, 2019 Resolution in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC] [OCA Circular No. 45-2019]

Applicability
All actions which are purely civil in nature, where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely
for payment or reimbursement of sum of money.

The claim or demand may be:

 For money owed under a contract of lease, loan, services, sale, or mortgage,
 For liquidated damages arising from
contracts, or
 The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claim
covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of the LGC.
[Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, February 1, 2016]

8. Rule on Summary Procedure

a. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (FEUD), irrespective of the amount of damages or
unpaid rentals sought to be recovered,
b. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff‘s claim
does not exceed P100,000 outside Metro Manila or P200,000 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interest
and costs [Sec. 1, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
as amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC]

9. Barangay Conciliation

The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in
the same municipality or city for amicable settlement of all disputes.
Except:
 Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof
 Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions
 Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding P5,000
 Offenses where there is no private offended party
 Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
 Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
 Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice [Sec. 408, Local Government Code]
 Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities, since only individuals shall
be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents, [Sec. 1, Rule VI,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; also see SC Administrative Circular No. 14-93]
 Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further
continued, specifically:
• A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention,
• A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his liberty or one
acting in his behalf,
• Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin
and support pendente lite, or
• Where the action may be barred by the Statute of Limitations,
 Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relationship,
 Where the dispute arises from the CARL, or
 Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be directly filed in court.
[Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 14-
93]
Note: Barangay conciliation is a condition precedent for filing a case. However, failure to comply with a
condition precedent is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. It is now
included in the enumerated Affirmative Defenses that may be set out in the answer under Sec. 12(a),
Rule 8. Being a waivable defense, the failure to raise non-compliance with condition precedent in the
answer constitutes a bar from raising such
defense later in the proceedings.

10. Totality Rule

2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases as amended, 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure