HOME GUARANTY Case:

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the

right to act in a case.
In addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the law, the rule is
settled that a courts jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
1. the relevant allegations in the complaint,
2. the law in effect when the action is filed, and
3. the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.
4. In cases where fees are prescribed, a court acquires jurisdiction
over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and
docket fees this is in consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules of Court which provides that the prescribed fees
shall be paid in full upon the filing of the pleading or other
application which initiates an action or proceeding

DAVAO LIGHT vs. CA: (Jurisdiction vs Venue)

Venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by
consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the
consent of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county
may be waived by the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the
court may render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or
agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.
NOCUM vs TAN: (Jurisdiction vs Venue)
(a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where the case
is to be heard or tried;
(b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law;
(c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a
relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and,
(d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred
by the act or agreement of the parties.
PADLAN vs DINGLASAN: (How to determine a courts jurisdiction over the case?)

 In order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, an examination of the
complaint is essential.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiff's 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, irrespective of whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be
consulted.
Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
therein.
GONZALES vs PE: (Doctrine of Residual Power/Jurisdiction)

prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA, the RTC
may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the
prevailing party, as in this case, the issuance of the writ of execution
because the respondents appeal was not perfected.

BAGUNU vs SPS AGGABAO: (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction)

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts must refrain from

determining a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter,
where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact

ELEMENTS:
1. the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the
matter involved is also judicial in character.

2.

However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills
and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate
questions of facts are involved,

3.

relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be

supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.

OMICTIN vs CA: (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction)

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a 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. The court cannot
or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where
the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining
technical and intricate matters of fact.

AGRA vs COA: (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; other view)

The court cannot exercise jurisdiction if the case is cognizable by an administrative body which
has an original and exclusive jurisdiction of the matter as granted by law.
SPS FAJARDO vs FLORES: (same doctrine as Agra)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over
which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR);
more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
CABILI vs HON. BALINDONG: (Doctrine of Judicial Stability/ Non-Interference)

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or

judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the
administration of justice.

Definition: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders

of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the
relief sought by the injunction.

The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court
that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate
courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in
furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in
connection with this judgment.

VILLAMOR vs SALAS: (Doctrine of Judicial Stability)

ISSUE: Whether or not take cognizance of the actions for damages against another Judge for allegedly having rendered an
unjust order of direct contempt against a party seeking for relief/damages?

No. No Regional Trial Court can pass upon and scrutinize, and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another Regional
Trial Court and sentence the judge thereof liable for damages without running afoul with the principle that only the higher appellate
courts, namely, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, are vested with authority to review and correct errors of the trial
courts.

To allow respondent Judges to proceed with the trial of the actions for damages against the petitioner, a co-equal judge of a coequal court, would in effect permit a court to review and interfere with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate jurisdiction or power of review. The various branches of a Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) being
co-equal, may not interfere with each other's cases, judgments and orders

HEIRS OF MARASIGAN vs MARASIGAN: (Questions on jurisdiction must be raised on the earliest

opportunity)
Court Resolution: no

new issues may be raised by a party in his/its

Memorandum and the issues raised in his/its pleadings but not included in
the Memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned.

The raising of additional issues in a memorandum before the Supreme Court

is irregular, because said memorandum is supposed to be in support merely
of the position taken by the party concerned in his petition, and the raising of
new issues amounts to the filing of a petition beyond the reglementary
period
The purpose of this rule is to provide all parties to a case a fair opportunity
to be heard. No new points of law, theories, issues or arguments may be
raised by a party in the Memorandum for the reason that to permit these
would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process

TIJAM vs SIBONGHANOY: (exceptions to the above rule)

While it is the general rule that neither waiver nor estoppel shall apply to
confer jurisdiction upon a court, the Court may rule otherwise under
meritorious and exceptional circumstances.
after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision
on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or
power of the court.