2.
Principles on General Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of Courts
Supreme Court
The judicial power shall be vested in one SC and
in such lower courts as may be established by
law. [Art. 8, Sec. 1, Consti]
Powers of the Supreme Court [Art. 8, Sec. 5,
Consti]
EXERCISE original jurisdiction over:
Cases affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls;
- RTC also has concurrent jurisdiction
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
b. Review/revise/reverse/modify/affirm on
appeal or certiorari, final judgments/orders of
lower courts In:
All cases in which the
constitutionality/validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree/proclamation/order/
instruction, ordinance or regulation is in
question;
- NOTE: power of review contemplates the ff
courts: CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, RTC, and other
courts authorized by law.
All cases involving the legality of any tax
/impost /assessment /toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto;
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue;
All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;
All cases in which only errors/questions of
law are involved.
Court of Appeals [Sec. 9, BP 129]
a. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
To issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs/processes, whether or not in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction.
Note: former rule only allowed the CA to issue
auxiliary writs and processes in aid of
jurisdiction.
- The power is concurrent with the SC.
b. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Annulment of RTC judgments.
c. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Final
judgments/decisions/resolutions/orders/awards
of:
- RTCs;
- Quasi-judicial agencies/instrumentalities/
boards/commissions including:
o SEC;
o Social Security Commission;
o ECC;
o CSC.
Exception: Those falling within the SCs
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with:
- The Constitution;
- Labor Code;
- BP 129;
- Sec. 17, Par. 3(1) and Par. 4(4) of the Judiciary
Act of 1948.
Court of Tax Appeals [Sec. 7, RA
1125, as amended by RA 9282]
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review by appeal
Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes,
fees or other charges, penalties in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue or other laws
administered by the BIR;
Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes,
fees or other charges, penalties in relations
thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other laws
administered by the BIR, where the National
Internal Revenue Code provides a specific
period of action, in which case the inaction
shall be deemed a denial;
Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCS
in local tax cases originally decided or 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 cases elevated to him automatically for
review from decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs which are adverse to the Government
under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs
Code;
Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and
Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product,
commodity or article, and the Secretary of
Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping and
countervailing duties under Sec 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.
b. Jurisdiction over cases involving
criminal offenses:
General rule: Exclusive original jurisdiction
over all criminal offenses arising from violations
of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff
and Customs Code and other laws administered
by the BIR or the Bureau of Customs
BUT! Offenses or felonies where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges
and penalties, claimed is less than
P1,000,000.00 or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular
Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of
Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil
action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes
and penalties shall at all times be
simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in the same proceeding by the CTA,
the filing of the criminal action being deemed
to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil
action, and no right to reserve the filling of
such civil action separately from the criminal
action will be recognized.
c. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in
criminal offenses:
Over appeals from the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTCs in tax cases
originally decided by them, in their respected
territorial jurisdiction.
Over petitions for review of the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTCs in the exercise
of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases
originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and
MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction.
d. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases
as herein provided: General rule: Exclusive
original jurisdiction in tax collection cases
involving final and executory assessments for
taxes, fees, charges and penalties: BUT!
collection cases where the principal amount of
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than P1,000,000.00
shall be tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC
e. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax
collection cases: Over appeals from the
judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTCs 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 RTCs in the Exercise
of their appellate jurisdiction over tax
collection cases originally decided by the
MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs, in their respective
jurisdiction.
" NOTE: RA9282 elevated CTAs rank to the level
of the Court of Appeals with special jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan [Sec.4 of RA 8249]
Decisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan shall be subject to review on
certiorari by the Supreme Court in accordance
with Rule 45 of the Rule
a. Original Exclusive Jurisdiction
Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Law);
RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired
Wealth);
Crimes by public officers or employees
embraced in Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII, Bk. II of the
RPC (Crimes committed by Public Officers)
namely:
- Direct Bribery under Art. 210 as amended by
BP 871, May 29, 1985;
- Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 as amended by
BP 871, May 29, 1985;
- Qualified Bribery under Art. 211-A as amended
by RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993;
- Corruption of public officials under Art. 212
where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the
government whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission
of the offense:
o 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 Republic Act No. 6758) specifically
including:
o Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and
other provincial department heads;
o City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panglungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other department
heads;
o Officials of the diplomatic service occupying
the position of consul and higher;
o Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval
captains and all officers of higher rank;
o Officers of the PNP while occupying the
position of Provincial Director and those holding
the rank of Senior Superintendent or higher;
o City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants; officials and the prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor ;
o President, 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 the
Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;
- Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to
the provision of the Constitution;
- Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provision
of the Constitution;
- All other national and local officials classified
as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989.
 Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed in
relation to their office by the public officials
and employees mentioned above;
Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and
in connection with EO 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in
1986
Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunction and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
- Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the
Supreme Court
Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that
may arise in cases filed or that may be filed
under EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A
OTHERS provided the accused belongs to
Salary Grade 27 or higher:
- Violation of RA 6713 - Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards
- Violation of RA 7080 The Plunder Law
- Violation of RA 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law
- RA 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money
Laundering Law when committed by a public
officer
- PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree
which makes it punishable for any official or
employee to receive directly or indirectly and
for the private person to give or offer to give
any gift, present or other valuable thing on any
occasion including Christmas, when such gift,
present or valuable thing is given by reason of
his official position, regardless of whether or
not the same is for past favors or the giver
hopes or expects to receive a favor or better
treatment in the future from the public official
or employee concerned in the discharge of his
official functions. Included within
prohibition is the throwing of parties or
entertainment in honor of the official or
employee or his immediate relatives.
- PD 749 which grants immunity from
prosecution to any person who voluntarily gives
information about any violation of Art.210, 211
or 212 of the RPC, RA 3019, Sec.345 of the
NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the Customs and Tariff Code
and other provisions of the said Codes
penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of
the public officials concerned and other laws,
rules and regulations penalizing graft,
corruption and other forms of official abuse and
who willingly testifies against the public official
or employee subject to certain conditions.
NOTE: Private individuals can be sued in cases
before the Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to
be in conspiracy with the public officer.
b. Appellate Jurisdiction
Over final judgments, resolutions or orders of
the RTC whether in the exercise of their original
or appellate jurisdiction
over crimes and civil cases falling within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but which were committed by
public officers below Salary Grade 27.
Regional Trial Courts
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction in Civil
Cases [Sec. 19, BP 129, Asked in the 2002
Bar Examinations]
Incapable of pecuniary estimation (2000 Bar
Exam);
- If the action is primarily for the recovery of a
sum of money, the claim is considered capable
of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over
the action will depend on the amount of the
claim. [RCPI v. CA (2002)]
- If the basic issue is something other than the
right to recover a sum of money, if the money
claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence
of, the principal relief sought, the action is one
where the subject of the litigation may not be
estimated in terms of money. [Soliven v.
Fastforms (1992)]
- If the thing sought to be deposited or
consigned is a sum of money, the amount of the
debt due is determinable and capable of
pecuniary estimation. [Ascue v. CA (1991)]
- Action for support is incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the court is asked to
determine first WON the plaintiff is indeed
entitled to support. [Baito v. Sarmiento (1960)]
- Action for specific performance is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Manufacturers
Distributors v. Yu Siu Liong (1966)]
- The jurisdiction of the respective courts is
determined by the value of the demand and not
the value of the transaction out of which the
demand arose.
- The alternative prayer for specific
performance is also of the same value, for the
alternative prayer would not have been made in
the
the complaint if one was more valuable than
the other.[Cruz v. Tan (1950)]
- Rescission is a counterpart of specific
performance therefore also incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Lapitan v. Scandia
(1968)]
- Action for declaration of nullity of a deed of
partition is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
[Russel v. Vestil (1999)]
- An action for expropriation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Bardillon v. Masili
(2003)]
Title to, or possession of, real property (or
any interest therein) where the propertys
assessed
value exceeds P20K or P50K (for civil actions in
Metro Manila);
Exception: Forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands/buildings
Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where
the demand/claim exceeds P300K or P400K (in
Metro Manila);
Maritime and admiralty cases involve trade and
transactions in the sea. Maritime jurisdiction
includes maritime tort. [Negre v. Cabahug
(1966)]

Probate (testate and intestate) where the
gross value of the estate exceeds P300K or
P400K (in Metro Manila);
Marriage contract and marital relations;
b. General Original Jurisdiction
All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court/tribunal/person/ body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
Within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of
the Court of Agrarian Relations;
All other cases where the demand (exclusive
of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs) or
the value of the property in controversy
exceeds P300K or P400K in Metro Manila.
- The exclusion of the term amages of
whatever kindin determining the jurisdictional
amount under Sec. 19(8) and Sec. 33 (1) of BP
129, as amended by RA7691, applies to cases
where the damages are merely incidental to or
a consequence of the main cause of action.
However, if the claim for damages is the main
cause of action, or one of the causes of action,
the amount of such claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.[Admin
Circ. 09-94]
- Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are
primarily and effectively actions for the
recovery of a sum of money for the damages
suffered because of the defendants alleged
tortious acts. This money claim is the principal
relief sought, and is not merely incidental
thereto or a consequence thereof. [Iniego v.
Purganan (2006)]
c. Original Jurisdiction [Sec. 21, BP 129]
Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which
may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions;
CONCURRENT jurisdiction with SC and CA
Actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls.
CONCURRENT jurisdiction with SC
d. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction [Sec.
22, BP 129] All cases decided by
MeTCs/MTCs/MCTCs in their respective
territorial jurisdictions. Metropolitan, Municipal
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 6. Family
Courts
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Petitions for guardianship, custody of
children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
Petitions for adoption of children and
revocation thereof;
Complaints for annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and those
relating to marital 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;
Petitions for support and/ or
acknowledgement;
Summary judicial proceedings brought under
the Family Code;
Petitions for declaration of status of children
as abandoned, dependent or neglected children,
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of
children, and for suspension, termination or
restoration of parental authority under PD 603,
EO 56 s. 1986 and other related laws;
Cases for domestic violence against women
and children, as defined therein but which do
not constitute criminal offenses subject to
criminal prosecution and penalties.
7. Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal
Trial Courts
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction [Sec.
33, BP 129]
Civil actions and probate proceedings
(testate and intestate), including the grant of
provisional remedies, where the value of the
personal property, estate or amount of the
demand does not exceed P300K or P400K (in
Metro Manila) (value excludes of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses, and costs);
- Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs shall be
included in the determination of the filing fees.
- If there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same/different parties in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be
the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, WON the causes of action arose out of
the same/different transactions.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
- If 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.
- That the MeTC has jurisdiction even in cases
where the issue of possession is closely
intertwined with the issue of ownership is now a
settled doctrine in ejectment proceedings.
[Heirs of B. Hernandez v. Vergara (2006)]
All civil actions that 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
P20K or P50K (in civil actions in Metro Manila).
- Value excludes interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and
costs
 - If land is not declared for taxation purposes,
the value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
All civil cases subject to summary procedure.
b. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and
Land Registration Cases [Sec. 34, BP 129]
Lots where there is no controversy/
opposition; or
Contested lots the value of which does not
exceed P100K.
- The value is to be ascertained:
o By the claimants affidavit;
o By agreement of the respective claimants, if
there are more than one;
o From the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property.
- MTC decisions in cadastral and land
registration cases are appealable in the same
manner as RTC decisions.
8. Shariah Courts
a. Original Jurisdiction (Article 143,
CMPL)
All cases involving custody, guardianship,
legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws;
All cases involving disposition, distribution
and settlement of estate of deceased Muslims,
probate of wills, issuance of letters of
administration or appointment of administrators
or executors regardless of the nature or
aggregate value of the property;
Petitions for the declaration of absence and
death for the cancellation or correction of
entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in
Title VI, Book Two of the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws;
All actions arising from the customary
contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if
they have not specified which law shall govern
their relations; and
All petitions for mandamus, prohibition,
injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all
2.2. Jurisdiction over the parties
NOTE: The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction
over the plaintiff and the defendant applies
both to ordinary and special civil actions.
How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is
acquired
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by
filing of the complaint or petition. By doing so,
he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the
court [Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v CA].
How jurisdiction over the defendant
is acquired
Acquired by the (1) voluntary appearance or
submission by the defendant or respondent to
the court or (2) by coercive process issued by
the court to him, generally by the service of
summons [de Joya v Marquez (2006), citing
Regalado]
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over
the person is necessary for the court to validly
try and decide the case, while in a proceeding
in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to
confer jurisdiction on the court provided the
latter has jurisdiction over the res [Alba v. CA].
2.3 Jurisdiction over the subject
matter
-Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
power to deal with the general subject involved
in the action, and means not simply jurisdiction
of the particular case then occupying the
attention of the court but jurisdiction of the
class of cases to which the particular case
belongs (Riano citing CJS). It is the power to
hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong
[Reyes v. Diaz (1941)] How conferred and
determined
It is conferred only by the Constitution or the
law.
Jurisdiction CANNOT be:
- fixed by agreement of the parties;
- cannot be acquired through, or waived,
enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission
of the parties;
- neither can it be conferred by the
acquiescence of the court [Regalado citing De
Jesus v Garcia (1967)].
- cannot be subject to compromise (Civil Code,
Art 2035)
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegations of the complaint.
It is not affected by the pleas set up by the
defendant in the answer or in the answer or in a
motion to dismiss. [Sindico v. Diaz (2004)].
Once attached to a court, it cannot be
ousted by subsequent statute.
- Exception: The statute itself conferring new
jurisdiction expressly provides for retroactive
effect. [Southern Food v. Salas (1992)]
The filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading and the payment of the
prescribed docket fee vest a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
nature of the action [CB v. CA (1992)](2008 Bar
Exam).
- Exception: Non-payment of docket fee does
not automatically cause the dismissal of the
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as long
as the fee is paid within the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period, more so
when the party involved demonstrates a
willingness to abide by the rules prescribing
such payment. [Go v. Tong (2003)]
Jurisdiction versus the exercise of
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction: the authority to hear and
determine a cause the right to act in a case.
[Arranza v. BF Homes (2000)].
Exercise of Jurisdiction.: the exercise of this
power or authority
Jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise
thereof. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a
case and not the decision rendered therein.
When there is jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction. [Herrera v Baretto et al (1913)]
Error of jurisdiction as distinguished
from error of judgment
Error of Jurisdiction
-It is one where the act complained of was
issued by the court without or in excess of
jurisdiction [ Cabrera v. Lapid (2006)]
-It is correctible only by the extraordinary writ
of certiorari [ Cabrera v. Lapid (2006)]
-Renders a judgment void or voidable [Rule 16
Sec.1, Rule 65]
Error of Judgment
-it is one which the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction [Cabrera v. Lapid]
-it includes error of procedure or mistakes in
the courts mistakes in the courts findings
[Banco Filipino Savings v. CA (2000)]
-Correctible by appeal [ Cabrera v. Lapid (2006)]
-Ground for reversal only if it is shown that
prejudice has been caused [Banco Espaol-
Filipino v. Palanca (1918)]
How jurisdiction is conferred and
determined
-Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law,
the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the
jurisdiction of the court.
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
Also known as doctrine of continuity of
jurisdiction
The court, once jurisdiction has been
acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case [Bantua v. Mercader
(2001)].
As a consequence, jurisdiction is not affected
by a new law placing a proceeding under the
jurisdiction of another tribunal, EXCEPT:
- where there is an express provision in the
statute
- the statute is clearly intended to apply to
actions pending before its enactment [Riano
citing People v. Cawaling].
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive
law, the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines
Objections to jurisdiction over the
subject matter
The Court may ex mero motu, or on its own
initiative take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction
[Fabian v. Desierto (1998)].
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.
Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter is a
ground for a motion to dismiss. If no motion is
filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be
raised as an affirmative defense in the answer.
[Riano citing Sec. 1(b) and 6 of Rule 16].
Jurisdiction over subject matter
Jurisdiction over subject matter may be
raised at any stage of proceedings, even for the
first time on appeal [Calimlim v. Ramirez
(1982)]
Effect of estoppel on objections to
jurisdiction Jurisdiction by estoppel
General Rule: Estoppel does not apply to confer
jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a
cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Where there is none, no agreement of the
parties can provide one. Settled is the rule that
the decision of a tribunal not vested with
appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.
[SEAFDEC-AQD v. NLRC (1992)] Exception:
Participation in all stages of the case before the
trial court, that included invoking its authority
in asking for affirmative relief, effectively
barred petitioner by estoppel from challenging
the courts jurisdiction. [Soliven v. Fastforms
(2004)]
Jurisdiction over the issues
The power of the court to try and decide
issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
[Reyes v. Diaz (1941)]
How conferred & determined:
- Pleadings filed by the parties,
- Agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation
[Rule 18, Sec. 2], or
- Implied consent as by the failure of a party to
object to evidence on an issue not covered by
the pleadings in Rule 10, Sec. 5. [Regalado]
Jurisdiction over the res or
property in litigation
Refers to the courts jurisdiction over the
thing or the property which is the subject of the
litigation.
Acquired either by
- actual or constructive seizure by the court of
the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia
legis (e.g.attachment or garnishment) or
- by provision of law which recognizes in the
court the power to deal with the property or
subject-matter within its territorial jurisdiction
(e.g. land registration) [Regalado]
Jurisdiction over small claims, cases
covered by the rules on Summary
Procedure and Barangay
Conciliation
[A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, the Rule of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases effective October 1, 2008]
Definition
-Small claims courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction that hear civil cases between
private litigants [Rationale of Proposed Rule].
Purpose
The purpose of small claims process is to
provide an inexpensive and expeditious means
to settle disputes over small amounts [Riano].
Scope This rule governs the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for
payment of money where the value of the claim
does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
[Sec. 2, Scope]
Applicability
The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this
Rule in 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,
and
the civil aspect of criminal action, or
reserved upon the filing of the criminal action
in court, pursuant to Rule of 111 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
These claims or demands may be:
For money owed under any of the following;
- Contract of Lease;
- Contract of Loan;
- Contract of Services;
- Contract of Sale; or
- Contract of Mortgage;
For damages arising from any of the
following;
- Fault or negligence;
- Quasi-contract; or
- Contract;
The enforcement of a barangay amicable
settlement or an arbitration award involving a
money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to
Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991. [Sec. 4,
Applicability]
Prohibited Pleadings The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
Motion to dismiss the compliant except on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction;
Motion for a bill of particulars;
Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration
of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
Petition for relief from judgment;
Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper;
Memoranda;
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order
issued by the court;
Motion to declare the defendant in default;
Dilatory motions for postponement;
Reply;
Third-party complaints; and
Interventions. [Sec. 14, Prohibited pleadings
and motions]
Totality Rule
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 transaction [Riano citing Pantranco
North Express v Standard Insurance (2005)]