You are on page 1of 14

VICTORINO C. FRANCISCO vs.

WINAI PERMSKUL AND CA the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in the statement
GR. NO. 81006, MAY 12, 1989 attached to the said decision.
CRUZ, J.

FACTS: Ong Chiu Kwan v. CA


Permskul, lessee of an apartment, deposited Php 9,000 to lessor Francisco. After a
year, and 10 days he vacated the property and requested the refund of his deposit minus Php Facts: An information was filed charging Ong Chiu Kwan with unjust vexation for cutting the
1,000 for the 10 days occupancy after the expiration of the lease. Francisco refused and electric wires, water pipes and telephone lines of "Crazy Feet," a business establishment
alleged that Permskul still owed him for electricity and water bills and Php 2,500 for the owned and operated by Mildred Ong. He ordered Wilfredo Infante to "relocate" the telephone,
repainting of the leased premises. After a summary of judgement, METTC ordered Francisco electric and water lines of "Crazy Feet," because said lines posed as a disturbance. However,
to return Php 7,750 after deducting only the water and electricity bills. RTC affirmed this by a Ong Chiu Kwan failed to present a permit from appropriate authorities allowing him to cut the
memorandum decision reading in full as follows: “After a careful and thorough perusal, electric wires, water pipe and telephone lines of the business establishment. Municipal Trial
evaluation and study of the records of this case, this Court hereby adopts by reference the Court's Ruling: The MTC found Ong Chiu Kwan guilty of unjust vexation, and sentenced him
findings of facts and conclusions of law in the decision of METTC of Makati, Br. 63 and finds to imprisonment for twenty days. The court also ordered him to pay moral damages, finding
that there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. Wherefore the judgment appealed from is that the wrongful act of abruptly cutting off the electric, water pipe and telephone lines of
hereby affirmed in toto.” Francisco challenged the constitutionality of memorandum decisions. "Crazy Feet" caused the intemrption of its business operations during peak hours, to the
detriment of its owner, Mildred Ong. Regional Trial Court's Ruling: The RTC adopted the
ISSUES: decision of the lower court in toto, without stating the reasons for doing so. Appellate Court's
1. Whether or not the memorandum decisions are valid. Ruling: The CA dismissing the appeal, agreeing with the MTC's finding that Ong Chiu Kwan
2. Whether the incorporation by reference was a valid act that effectively elevated the was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of unjust vexation.
decision of METTC for examination by the CA.
Issue: Whether Ong Chiu Kwan is guilty of unjust vexation
HELD: Supreme Court's Ruling: The decision of the lower courts are reversed and set aside, and
1. YES. The purpose by the Constitution in requiring that decisions shall express Ong Chiu Kwan is sentenced to pay a fine while award for damages are deleted. SC noted
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, is to inform the that the RTC did not make a full finding of fact and conclusion of law on its own. This violated
person reading the decision especially the parties of how it was reached by the the Constitution and Rules of Court. The SC, however, chose to make a full finding of fact
court after consideration of the pertinent facts and examination of the applicable and conclusion of law on its own. Ong Chiu Kwan admitted having ordered the cutting of the
laws. It will also give the losing party an opportunity to analyze the decision, then electric, water and telephone lines of Mildred Ong's business establishment because these
appeal or be persuaded to accept the decision. Third, it will serve as precedent in lines crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show evidence that he had the
the resolution of future controversies and to expedite the termination of litigations necessary permit or authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the intemrption of
for the benefit of the parties as well as the courts. electric, water and telephone services during peak hours of the operation of business of the
complainant. Thus, his act unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant. Consequently, Ong
2. YES. Though merely incorporated by reference in the memorandum decision of Chiu Kwan is liable for unjust vexation.
the RTC, RTC judge’s decision was available to the CA. It is this circumstance
that spared this case from constitutional infirmity. The same circumstance moved
the SC to lay down a requirement as a condition for the proper application of Alfredo Ching v. CA, Pedro Asedillo
Sec. 40, which is: “The memo decision to be valid, cannot incorporate the Facts:
findings of facts and conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote · Alfredo Ching is the legitimate son of Ching Leng;
· Ching Leng bought a property from Sps. Nofuente and the former registered the property in
(challenged decision not immediately available to the person reading the memo her name on September 18, 1961, her postal address was in Pasay City;
decision) reference. Incorporation by reference must provide for direct access to
· Ching Leng died in Boston and his legitimate son was appointed as administrator of her Ching Leng is an innocent purchaser for value as shown by the evidence adduced in his
estate; behalf by petitioner herein, tracking back the roots of his title since 1960, from the time the
· 13 years after the death of Ching Leng, a suit was commenced on December 27, 1978 by decree of registration was issued.
private respondent Pedro Asedillo against Ching Leng for the reconveyance of said property;
· An amended complaint was made by private respondent alleging “that on account of the fact
that the defendant has been residing abroad up to the present, and it is not known whether The sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously
the defendant is still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served by summons and other registered in another’s name after one year from the date of the decree is not to set aside the
processes only by publication.” decree but respecting it and to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
· Summons by publication was made through “Economic Monitor”, newspaper of general damages if the property has transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.
circulation in Province of Rizal, Pasay City. Since no responsive pleading was filed after the
lapse of 60 days, judgment on the merits in favor of private respondents was made. ARMAND NOCUM and THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC., Petitioners, vs. LUCIO
· Consequently, the title of Ching Leng was cancelled and transferred to private respondent TAN, Respondent.
who sold the same to Villa Esperanza Dev., Inc. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
· Petitioner learned of the decision, and so he filed a petition to set it aside as null and void for Doctrine: Jurisdiction vs Venue; Venue can be waived in civil cases
lack of jurisdiction;
FACTS: Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali,
Lower court decision: ALPAP and Inquirer with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking moral and exemplary
RTC: At first, granted the verified petition to set aside as null and void the prior order of the damages for the alleged malicious and defamatory imputations contained in a news article.
RTC; however, on motion by private respondent, the same was set aside. So, petitioner filed INQUIRER and NOCUM alleged that the venue was improperly laid, among many others. It
for reconsideration but was denied. appeared that the complaint failed to state the residence of the complainant at the time of the
*the case was elevated directly to SC alleged commission of the offense and the place where the libelous article was printed and
first published.
Issue: WON reconveyance and cancellation of title is in personam which cannot give
jurisdiction to the court by service of summons by publication. RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground of improper venue.
(Note: private respondents argue that they are quasi in rem) Aggrieved, Lucio Tan filed an Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal and
admission of the amended complaint. In par. 2.01.1 of the amended complaint, it is alleged
Ruling: Yes, reconveyance and cancellation of title are acts in personam. that "This article was printed and first published in the City of Makati", and in par. 2.04.1,
that "This caricature was printed and first published in the City of Makati"
Actions in personam and actions in rem differ in that the former are directed against specific
persons and seek personal judgments, while the latter are directed against the thing or
property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole RTC admitted the amended complaint and deemed set aside the previous order of
world. dismissal stating that the mistake or deficiency in the original complaint appears now to have
been cured in the Amended Complaint. Also, there is no substantial amendment, but only
An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it formal, in the Amended Complaint which would affect the defendants’ defenses and their
binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Answers.

Private respondent’s action for reconveyance and cancellation of title being in personam, the Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. Two petitions
judgment in question is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the deceased for certiorari were filed, one filed by petitioners and the other by defendants .The two petitions
defendant Ching Leng. Verily, the action was commenced thirteen (13) years after the latter’s were consolidated. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this PETREV filed by the
death. petitioners. Petitioners argue that since the original complaint only contained the office
address of respondent and not the latter’s actual residence or the place where the allegedly
According to Dumlao v. Quality plastic products, the decision of the lower court insofar as the offending news reports were printed and first published, the original complaint, by reason of
deceased is concerned is void for lack of jurisdiction over his person. He was not, and he the deficiencies in its allegations, failed to confer jurisdiction on the lower court.
could not have been validly served with summons. He had no more civil personality, that its
fitness to be subject of legal relations was lost through death. ISSUE: WON THE LOWER COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE CIVIL CASE
UPON THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
HELD: YES. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the as it relates to the place of trial. In contrast, in criminal actions, it is fundamental that venue is
complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the jurisdictional it being an essential element of jurisdiction.
plaintiff's causes of action. Here, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the case
was filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent’s cause of action is for damages Petitioners’ argument that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case because
arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised respondent failed to allege the place where the libelous articles were printed and first
Penal Code provides that it is the RTC that is specifically designated to try a libel case. published would have been tenable if the case filed were a criminal case. The failure of the
original complaint to contain such information would be fatal because this fact involves the
Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. The Hon. Florenz D. Regalado, issue of venue which goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is not to be
differentiated jurisdiction and venue as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and because the case before us is a civil action where venue is not jurisdictional.
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 CA’s DECISION AFFIRMED.
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
Villacastin vs Pelaez
fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the
act or agreement of the parties.

Here, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint that the article and the Facts: Pelaez and his wife mortgaged their agricultural lands Development Bank of the
caricature were printed and first published in the City of Makati referred only to the question Philippines (DBP). For failure of the Pelaez spouses to pay their mortgage obligation, the
of venue and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations would neither confer jurisdiction on
the RTC nor would respondent’s failure to include the same in the original complaint divest properties were foreclosed and subsequently sold at public auction.
the lower court of its jurisdiction over the case. Respondent’s failure to allege these
allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a party, to dismiss the complaint The purported tenants of the property filed an action to annul the mortgage, foreclosure and
on the ground that venue was not properly laid. The term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the sale of the properties, claiming that they are the owners thereof under Presidential Decree
Revised Penal Code as referring to the place where actions for libel shall be filed or "venue." No. 27. Case was filed in the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in Cebu
The amendment was merely to establish the proper venue for the action. It is a well-
established rule that venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions.
Villacastin filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in Cebu
Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where the action was instituted, that
would be procedural, not a jurisdictional impediment. with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with the MCTC of Bantayan, Cebu,
against Pelaez and a certain Elesio Monteseven. The complaint averred that Villacstin are
The dismissal of the complaint by the lower court was proper considering that the the owners and actual possessors of the subject landholding.
complaint, indeed, on its face, failed to allege neither the residence of the complainant nor
the place where the libelous article was printed and first published. Nevertheless, before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in Cebu rendered a decision in favor of the tenants.
finality of the dismissal, the same may still be amended. In so doing, the court acted properly
and without any grave abuse of discretion. MCTC rendered judgment in civil case in favor of Villacastin. RTC affirmed this decision.

ISSUE: WON VENUE MAY BE WAIVED IN CIVIL CASES CA, however, ruled that regular courts should respect the primary jurisdiction vested upon the
DARAB in cases involving agricultural lands such as the property subject of this case.
HELD: YES. It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel
may be waived since they do not involve a question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is
procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the Villacastin contend that the case they filed did not involve any agrarian matter and thus, the
person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction. It is a MCTC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the case.
procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of trial or geographical location
in which an action or proceeding should be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court. It Issue: Whether or not the MCTC (and also the RTC) has jurisdiction over the case filed by
is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts Villacastin.
Held: MCTC has jurisdiction. Vital-Gozon did not respond to the order of the court. Thus CA declared, that the said
resolution declared dela Fuente as the lawful and de jure Chief of Respondents, particularly
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint. In Dr. Isabelita Vital-Gozon, had no discretion or choice on the matter; the resolution had to be
complied with. A writ of execution was issued thereafter. On her motion for reconsideration,
ascertaining, for instance, whether an action is one for forcible entry falling within the
Vital-Gozon argued that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction over the question of damages
exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts, the averments of the complaint and the character in a mandamus action and referred this to the Office of Solicitor General. Court of Appeals
of the relief sought are to be examined. A review of the complaintreveals that the pertinent denied the motion and ruled that the Solicitor General has no authority to appear as counsel
allegations thereof sufficiently vest jurisdiction over the action on the MCTC. for respondent Gozon.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are the owners and legal as well as actual
possessors of a parcel of agricultural land. That Pelaez, by strategy and through stealth
entered the above-described land of the Villacstin and took possession thereof. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction, in a special civil action of
mandamus against a public officer, to take cognizance of the matter of damages sought to be
recovered from the defendant officer
It has not escaped our notice that no landowner-tenant vinculum juris or juridical tie was
alleged between petitioners and respondent, let alone that which would characterize the
relationship as an agrarian dispute. HELD: The Solicitor General's Office evidently searched said Section 9 for an explicit and
specific statement regarding " actions for moral and exemplary damages, " and finding none,
Rule II of the DARAB Rules17 provides that the DARAB "shall have primary jurisdiction, both concluded that the Court of Appeals had not been granted competence to assume
original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, cognizance of claims for such damages. The conclusion is incorrect. Section 19, governing
the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in civil cases, contains no reference
controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
whatever to claims "for moral and exemplary damages," and indeed does not use the word
ComprehensiveAgrarian Reform Program "damages" at all; yet it is indisputable that said courts have power to try and decide claims for
moral, exemplary and other classes of damages accompanying any of the types or kinds of
Petitioners' action is clearly for the recovery of physical or material possession of the subject cases falling within their specified jurisdiction. The Solicitor General's theory that the rule in
property only, a question which both the MCTC and the RTC ruled petitioners are entitled to. question is a mere procedural one allowing the joining of an action of mandamus and another
It does not involve the adjudication of an agrarian reform matter, nor an agrarian dispute for damages, is untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages arising from the omission or
falling within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. failure to do an act subject of a mandamus suit may be litigated separately from the latter, the
matter of damages not being inextricably linked to the cause of action for mandamus, which
VITAL GOZON VS. CA (G.R. No. 129132) is certainly not the case. It being quite evident that Dr. Vital-Gozon is not here charged with a
crime, or civilly prosecuted for damages arising from a crime, there is no legal obstacle to her
being represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. The petition was DENIED and the
FACTS: Executive Order No. 119 issued on January 30, 1987 ordered the reorganization of resolution was affirmed.
the various offices of the Ministry of Health where Dr. Alejandro S. de la Fuente was demoted
to Medical Specialist II from being the Chief of the Clinics of the National Children's Hospital. ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
De la Fuente filed a protest with the DOH Reorganization Board but was ignored and she COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS, respondents.
brought this to Civil Service Commission. While the case was pending, the position of Chief
of Clinics were turned over to and were allowed to be exercised by Dr. Jose D. Merencilla. REGALADO, J.:
Dr. de la Fuente's case was decided and declared that the demotion/transfer of appellant de
la Fuente, Jr. from Chief of Clinics to Medical Specialists II as null and void, the resolution FACTS:
became final. De la Fuente there upon sent two (2) letters to Dr. Vital-Gozon, the Medical
Center Chief of National Children's Hospital, demanding the implementation of the Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St.
Commission's decision but she did not answer Dr. de la Fuente's letters or to take steps to Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no contract of employment
comply or otherwise advise compliance, with the final and executory Resolution of the Civil executed between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-monthly payroll.
Service Commission. She instituted in the Court of Appeals an action of " mandamus and On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment for allegedly misappropriating
damages with preliminary injunction" to compel Vital-Gozon, and the Administrative Officer, P38,000.00. Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its employee
Budget Officer and Cashier of the NCH to comply with the final and executory resolution but but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of petitioner St.Martin’s Funeral Home and
in January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so the latter took over the management Decision and allowed BACIWA to present evidence prompting A.L Ang Network to file a
of the business. petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City against NWRB and
BACIWA. The NWRB moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the proper recourse of
Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private respondent and his wife
respondent was to the Court of Appeals, citing Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Lower Court's
were no longer allowed to participate in the management thereof. As a consequence, the
latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated his employment. The Ruling: The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of NWRB and dismissed A.L. Ang Network's
labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner declaring that no employer-employee petition for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC held that with Art. 89 of PD 1067 having been long
relationship existed between the parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over the repealed by BP 129, as amended, it is the Court of Appeals which has exclusive appellate
case. jurisdiction over all decisions of quasi-judicial agencies except those within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
Appellate Court's Ruling: The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the decision of the
RULING: RTC and held that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over appeals from NWRB's decisions.
As no repeal is expressly made, Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 is certainly meant to be an
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC were
eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari was and exception to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over appeals or petitions for certiorari of
still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. This finds harmony with Paragraph 2, Section 4, Rule
word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is stated that, "If it involves the acts of a quasi-judicial
lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and
modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction between cognizable only by the Court of Appeals." Evidently, not all petitions for certiorari under Rule
them, however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil 65 involving the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies must be filed with the Court of Appeals.
action for certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of
Appeals; whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the SC are The rule admits of some exceptions as plainly provided by the phrase 'ounless otherwise
allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of the Congress as expressed in provided by law or these rules" and Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 is verily an example of these
the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495. exceptions.

Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129 to supposed appeals from Issue'. Whether Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over appeals from decisions,
the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to resolutions or orders of the National Water Resources Board.
petitions for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be
initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NWRB and reversed and
courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and upheld the Order of the Regional Trial
Court of Bacolod Citv. Since the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari,
National Water Resources Board (NWRB) vs. A.L. Ang Network, Inc.,
prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, like the
Facts: NWRB, should be filed with it. This is what Rule 65 of the Rules imposes for procedural
uniformity. The only exception to this instruction is when the law or the Rules itself directs
A.L. Ang Network filed on January 23,2003 an application for a Certificate of Public otherwise, as cited in Section 4, Rule 65. Article 89 of PD 1067 had long been rendered
Convenience (CPC) with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) to operate and inoperative by the passage of BP 129. Aside from delineating the jurisdictions of the Court of
maintain a water service system in Alijis, Bacolod City which application was later approved Appeals and the RTCs, Section 47 of BP 129 repealed or modified: x x x. [t]he provisions of
on August 20, 2003 despite opposition by the Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA). Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, of
BACIWA opposed A.L. Ang Network's application on the ground that it is the only govemment Republic Act No. 5179, as amended, of the Rules of Court, and of all other statutes, letters of
agency authorized to operate awater service system within the city. BACIWA moved to have instructions and general orders or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act x x
the decision reconsidered, contending that its right to due process was violated when it was x. The general repealing clause under Section 47 "predicates the intended repeal under the
not allowed to present evidence in support of its opposition. The NWRB reconsidered its condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts." In enacting BP
I29, the Batasang Pambansa was presumed to have knowledge of the provision of Article 89 litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of
of P.D. No. 1067 and to have intended to change it. The legislative intent to repeal Article 89 first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
is clear and manifest given the scope and purpose of BP 129, one of which is to provide a The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the
document in question. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is
homogeneous procedure for the review of adjudications of quasijudicial entities to the Court
just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-
of Appeals. While Section 9 (3) of BP 129 and Section I of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court does described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by
not list the NWRB as "among" the quasi-judicial agencies whose final judgments, orders, law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
resolutions or awards are appealable to the appellate court, it is settled that the list of sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted
quasijudicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to be exclusive. The therein.
employment of the word "among" clearly instructs so.

Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738; GR No. 119347, March 17, 1999 VILLENA V PAYOYO

(Civil Procedures – Jurisdiction; Civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary
of pecuniary estimation) estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be
ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
Facts: Petitioners discovered a public document, which is a declaration of heirs and deed of considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends
confirmation of a previous oral agreement, of partition, affecting the land executed by and on the amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue is something other than the
among the respondents whereby respondents divided the property among themselves to the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
exclusion of petitioners who are entitled thereto as legal heirs also. consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are actions whose subjects are
Petitioners filed a complaint, denominated “DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND PARTITION” incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by the RTCs.
against defendants with the RTC claiming that the document was false and perjurious as the
private respondents were not the only heirs and that no oral partition of the property ********
whatsoever had been made between the heirs. The complaint prayed that the document be
declared null and void and an order be issued to partition the land among all the heirs. Facts:
Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed value of the subject land Payoyo and Novaline, Inc., through its president, Villena, entered into a contract for the
is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. delivery and installation of kitchen cabinets in Payoyo's residence. The cabinets were to be
No. 7691, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. delivered within 90 days from downpayment of 50% of the purchase price. Payoyo paid the
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss saying that the RTC has jurisdiction downpayment. Another contract was entered into for the delivery of home appliances and
over the case since the action is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation within the Villena also paid the 50% downpayment. Despite demand, Villena failed to install the kitchen
contemplation of Section 19(l) of B.P. 129, as amended. cabinets and deliver the appliances.

Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the nature of the civil case. Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages against Villena.
Villena posits that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint since it is mainly for
Held: Yes. The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is one incapable of pecuniary recovery of a sum of money in the amount of P184,821.50 which is below the jurisdictional
estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said court. amount set for RTCs.
In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, the Supreme Court ruled that:
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of Payoyo, on the other hand, contends that the RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint as the
pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the allegations therein show that it is actually a case for rescission of the contracts. The recovery
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the of a sum of money is merely a necessary consequence of the cancellation of the contracts.
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the
claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of Issue:
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
compensatory damages such as are proved during the hearing of this case. So also are
attorneys fees and moral damages, all to be proved during the hearing of this case. Since
Held: there was no hearing yet, they are not in a position to determine how much is to be charged.
At any rate, if after hearing the Clerk of Court determine that the filing fees is still insufficient,
Yes. In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary considering the total amount of the claim, the Clerk of Court should determine and, thereafter,
estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it if any amount is found due, he must require the private respondent to pay the same. From
is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary this Order, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification on whether plaintiffs
estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends on the amount of the claim. But, where should be allowed to continue prosecuting the case as indigent litigants. RTC again denied
the primary issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and
money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by the preliminary injunction for the nullification of the Orders by the RTC. The CA dismissed the
RTCs. petition. The CA found that SC Circular No. 7 would not apply where the amount of damages
or value of the property was immaterial; that the Circular could be applied only in cases
Verily, what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are where the amount claimed or the value of the personal property was determinative of the
the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. court's jurisdiction. The CA found that respondents had paid the corresponding docket fees
upon the filing of the complaint, thus, the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the case despite
The complaint, albeit entitled as one for collection of a sum of money with damages, is one the failure to state the amount of damages claimed in the body of the complaint or in the
incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, one within the RTC's jurisdiction. The allegations prayer thereof. The CA found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
therein show that it is actually for breach of contract. A case for breach of contract is a cause amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner's motion to dismiss.
of action either for specific performance or rescission of contracts. An action for rescission of
contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific performance, is incapable of pecuniary ISSUE:
estimation, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The averments in the
complaint show that Payoyo sought the cancellation of the contracts and refund of the THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT
downpayments since Villena failed to comply with the obligation to deliver the appliances and COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
install the kitchen cabinets subject of the contracts. While the respondent prayed for DISMISS DESPITE RESPONDENTS' NON-PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES.
the refund, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the rescission or
cancellation of the contracts. (Villena vs. Payoyo, G.R. No. 163021, April 27, 2007) RULING:

Respondents' complaint was filed in 1999, at the time Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129, the
CEFERINA DE UNGRIA vs. CA Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, was already amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691,
G.R. No. 165777 July 25, 2011 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, amending for the purpose BP Blg. 129.
FACTS:
The first cause of action involves the issue of recovery of possession and interest of the
Private filed with the RTC of GenSan a Complaint for ownership, possession and damages, parties over the subject land which is a real action. Respondents alleged that the assessed
and alternative causes of action either to declare two documents as patent nullities, and/or for value of the subject land was P12,780.00. Thus, since it is a real action with an assessed
recovery of Rosario's conjugal share with damages or redemption of the subject land against value of less thanP20,000.00, the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC. Notably,
petitioner Ceferina de Ungria and defendants. The documents they sought to annul are (1) however, respondents in the same Complaint filed alternative causes of action assailing the
the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest including Improvements thereon allegedly validity of the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest executed by Fernando in favor of
executed by Fernando in favor of Eugenio de Ungria, petitioner's father; and (2) the Affidavit petitioner's father. Respondents also sought for the reconveyance to respondent Rosario of
of Relinquishment executed by Eugenio in favor of petitioner. the undivided one-half portion of the subject land as conjugal owner thereof in case the Deed
of Transfer of Rights and Interest will be upheld as valid; and/or for redemption of the subject
Ceferina filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the court has no jurisdiction over the case for land. Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which comprehends more than the
failure of plaintiffs to pay the filing fee in full. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. Ceferina issue of possession of, or any interest in the real property under contention, but includes an
filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied. On the omnibus motion regarding action to annul contracts and reconveyance which are incapable of pecuniary estimation and,
filing fees, the plaintiffs asserted in its motion that they are charging defendant actual and thus, properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
SURVIVING HEIRS OF ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA VS. LINDO
G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014 It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought. In this regard, the Court, in Russell v. Vestil,
Facts: wrote that "in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable
of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of
Alfredo R. Bautista (Bautista), petitioner’s predecessor, inherited in 1983 a free-patent land the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the
located in Davao Oriental and covered by OCT No. (1572) P-6144.A few years later, he claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
subdivided the property and sold it to several vendees, herein respondents, via a notarized municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim." But where the
deed of absolute sale dated May 30, 1991. Two months later, OCT No.(1572) P-6144 was basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money
canceled and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in favor of the vendees. claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
On August 1994, Bautista filed a complaint for repurchase against respondents before the terms of money, and, hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation.
RTC, anchoring his cause of action on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141,
otherwise known as the “Public Land Act,” which reads:
Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384 (April 29, 2005) Case Digest
“SECTION 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership > Actions
provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal Available to Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Accion Publiciana and Accion
heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance.” Reinvindicatoria

During the pendency of the action, Bautista died and was substituted by petitioner, Efipania. Facts:
Respondents, Sps. Lindo entered into a compromise agreement with petitioners, whereby
they agree to cede to Epifania 3,230 sq.m..portion of the property as well as to waive, Hilario filed a complaint with the RTC against Salvador alleging that they were the co-owners
abandon, surrender, and withdraw all claims and counterclaims against each other. RTC of the parcel of land where Salvador constructed his house without their knowledge and
approve the compromise agreement on January 2011. refused to vacate despite their demands.

Other respondents, filed a Motion to Dismissed on February 2013 alleging lack of jurisdiction Salvodor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He
of the RTC on the ground that the complaint failed to state the value of the property sought to contended that the complaint did not state the assessed value of the property, which
be recovered and alleges that the total value of the properties in issue is only P16,500 pesos. determines the jurisdiction of the court.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondent dismissing the case.
Hilario maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction since their action was an accion
Issue: reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, regardless of the
Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the motion for the dismissal of the case on the assessed value of the subject property, exclusive jurisdiction fell within the said court. Also, in
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. their opposition to Salvador's motion to dismiss, they mentioned the increase in the assessed
value of the land in the amount of P3.5 million. Moreover, they maintained that their action
Ratio: was also one for damages exceeding P20,000.00, over which the RTC had exclusive
jurisdiction.
Yes. Jurisdiction of courts is granted by the Constitution and pertinent laws. Jurisdiction of
RTCs, as may be relevant to the instant petition, is provided in Sec. 19 of BP 129. Issue:

Issue: Whether or not the action filed by Hilario was an accion reinvindicatoria.
Whether the action filed by petitioners is one involving title to or possession of real property
or any interest therein or one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Hilario.

Ratio: Held:
The Court rules that the complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent is a civil action
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The action filed by Hilario did not involve a claim of ownership over the property. They prayed
that Salvador vacate the property and restore possession to them. Hence, it was an accion The MeTC then issued an order denying the motion to dismiss, ruling that, under
publiciana, or one for the recovery of possession of the real property. It was not an aaccion Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, the MeTC had exclusive original jurisdiction
reinvindicatoria or a suit for the recovery of possession over the real property as owner. over actions involving title to or possession of real property of small value. Their motion for
reconsideration was also denied.
The nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction is determined
by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC which was also dismissed.
the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
some or all of the claims asserted therein.
Petitioners then filed with the CA another petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the
The complaint did not contain an allegation stating the assessed value of the property. petition holding that certiorari was not available to petitioners as they should have availed
Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it could not thus themselves the remedy of appeal.
be determined whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
action. Issue:

The law also explicitly excluded from the determination of the jurisdictional amount the Whether or not the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTV had jurisdiction
demand for interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and over private respondent’s complaint for accion reivindicatoria.
costs.
Held:
Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the
decision of the RTC, were null and void. Yes they did.

To put the matter to rest, the Court reiterates the ruling in Heirs of Valeriano S.
San Pedro vs Asdala Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, to wit:

593 SCRA 397 In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance of or for
cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the
Facts: classification of cases that involve “title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein.”
Private respondents filed with the MeTC of Q.C. a complaint against petitioners and
Wood Crest Residents Assoc., Inc., for accion reivindicatoria, quieting of title and damages, “Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a
with prayer for preliminary injunction. Private respondents alleged that subject property case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under
located in Batasan Hills, Quezon City, with an assessed value of P32,100.00, was titled in the Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, or one involving title to property under Section 19(2). The
name of spouses Apolonio and Valeriana Dionisio; but petitioners, with malice and evident distinction between the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A.
bad faith, claimed that they were the owners of a parcel of land that encompasses and covers No. 7691 in 1994, which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to
subject property. Private respondents had allegedly been prevented from entering, include "all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
possessing and using subject property. It was further alleged in the Complaint that therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty
petitioners' Transfer Certificate of Title over their alleged property was spurious. Private thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
respondents then prayed that they be declared the sole and absolute owners of the subject does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
property; that petitioners be ordered to surrender possession of subject property to them; that whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs." Thus, under the present law,
petitioners and Wood Crest and/or its members be ordered to pay actual and moral original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of,
damages, and attorney's fees. real property or any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the
first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the
Petitioners, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Metc had no jurisdiction, benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs
as the subject of litigation was incapable of pecuniary estimation. which would result in the speedier administration of justice."
Clearly, the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTC had jurisdiction over Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
private respondents' complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;

MASLAG V MONZON (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
FACTS: In 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint7 for reconveyance of real property with thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where x x x the
declaration of nullity of original certificate of title (OCT) against respondents Elizabeth assessed value of the property exceeds Fifty thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) except
Monzon, William Geston and the Registry of Deeds of La Trinidad, Benguet. actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
After trial, the MTC found respondent Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT over Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
petitioner’s property, that cause the respondent to appeal to the RTC of La Trinidad.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil
October 22, 2003, declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over petitioner’s cause of action. Cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. shall exercise:

On May 4, 2004, Judge Diaz De Rivera issued a Resolution reversing the MTC Decision. to (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
turn over the possession of the 4,415 square meter land she presently occupies to [Monzon]. possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
This case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings to determine whether property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
[Maslag] is entitled to the remedies afforded by law to a builder in good faith for the or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
improvements she constructed thereon. thousand pesos (P50,000.00)

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal15 from the RTC’s May 4, 2004 Resolution and prayed that Judge Cabato, erred in applying Section 19(1) of BP 129 in determining which court has
jurisdiction over the case and in pronouncing that the MTC is divested of original and
the MTC Decision be adopted.
exclusive jurisdiction.In the mistaken choice of their remedy, they can blame no one but
themselves.
Respondents moved to dismiss petitioner’s ordinary appeal for being the improper remedy.
They asserted that the proper mode of appeal is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 because
Petition is denied for lack of merit.
the RTC rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in its appellate jurisdiction.

September 22, 2006, The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal cited the earlier October 22, 2003
Order of the RTC declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over the case. A perusal of the May Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs. Cyborg Leasing Corp.
4, 2004 Resolution of the RTC, which is the subject matter of the appeal, clearly reveals that
it took cognizance of the MTC case in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Facts:Cyborg Leasing Corp filed before the MTC of Manila a case captioned "Damages withprayer for a writ
Replevin" against Conpac and Movers. It was alleged that pursuant toa lease agreement, Cyborg had
ISSUE: W o N the CA was correct in dismissing petitioner’s appeal. delivered one forklift to Conpac. The lease agreementstipulated a monthly rental of P11,000.00 for
the use of the equipment. Conpac failedand refused to pay the stipulated rentals. Petitioner took
HELD: YES, the CA is correct in affirming RTC decision. control of the operations ofConpac and seized all the cargoes and equipment in ludi g the subject
porklift.Petitioner ignored Cyborg's demand for the return to it of the equipment and the formaldisclaimer of
Under the present state of the law, in cases involving title to real property, original and ownership made by Conpac. A Writ of Replevin was issued.Petitioner was served with a copy of the summons
exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC or the MTC, depending on the assessed and the latter filed a motion todismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of
value of the subject property.28 Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129,29 as the of MTC sincethe complaint had asked for the actual market value of the equipment,
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691. actual damage,,exemplary damages and atty's fees. MTC dismissed the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction.Cyborg filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injuction
againstMTC Judge, COnpac and Movers before the RTC f Manila. RTC granted Cyborg'sapplication for determining jurisdiction. He relied on Administrative Circular No. 09-94 which provides that “in
premininary injunction. Petitiner assails the decision of RTC. Hence this petition cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action. . . the amount of such claim
shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court” Also, the petitioners’ defense
Issue: WON, MTC has jurisdiction over the complaint?
of lack of jurisdiction has already been barred by estoppel and laches. He contends that after
Held: NOMTC's jurisdiction over the action filed by Cyborg is the concern of the case. actively taking part in the trial proceedings and presenting a witness to seek exoneration, it
The jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the action must be determined by theaverments in would be unfair and legally improper for petitioners to seek the dismissal of the case.
the complaints and the character of the relief sought. The complaint filedby Cyborg with the MTC prayed for the
return of the Nissan Forklift to it as the owner orin the alternative for the payment of 150T plus damages, amount
of unpaid lease andatty's fees.It would be incorrect to argue that the actual damages in the form of unpaid
rentalswere just in incident of the action for the return of the forklift considering that RTC ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioners filed an MR which was denied. Subsequently,
privaterespondent specifically sought in the complaint not only seizure of the forklift frompetitioner Movers they filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
but also payment of unpaid and outstanding rentals. MTC's dismissing the complaint was properly
decreed, Petition for review is granted

Issues: (1) Whether petitioners are barred from raising the defense of the RTC’s lack of
Mangaliag v. Pastoral jurisdiction? NO

(2) Whether it is the amount of P71,392.00 as medical expenses, excluding moral, nominal
damages and attorney’s fees, which determines jurisdiction, hence it is MTC which has
Facts: Respondent Serquina filed a complaint for damages with the RTC against petitioners jurisdiction? NO
Mangaliag and Solano. This complaint alleges that the Serquina and his co-passengers
sustained serious injuries and permanent deformities from the collision of their tricycle with
the petitioners’ dump truck and the gross negligence, carelessness and imprudence of the
petitioners in driving the dump truck. Respondents seek damages in the form of medical Ruling:
expenses amounting to P71,392.00. Respondents also claim P500,000.00 by way of moral
(1) On the matter of estoppel and laches: In the present case, no judgment has yet
damages, as a further result of his hospitalization, lost income of P25,000.00 or the nominal
been rendered by the RTC. As a matter of fact, as soon as the petitioners discovered the
damages, and attorney’s fees. alleged jurisdictional defect, they did not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to
dismiss. Hence, finding the pivotal element of laches to be absent, the Sibonghanoy doctrine
does not control the present controversy. What happened in the Sibonghanoy, the party
invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage when the
Petitioners filed their answer with counterclaim. After pre-trial conference, trial on the merits proceedings had already been elevated to the CA. Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case
ensued. After the respondent rested his case, petitioners testified in their defense. because of the presence of laches. But in this case, there is no laches. Thus, the general rule
Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over that the question of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must
the subject matter. They alleged that since the principal amount prayed for, in the amount of apply. Petitioners are not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC.
P71,392.00, falls within the jurisdiction of MTC. Petitioners maintain that the court’s
jurisdiction should be based exclusively on the amount of actual damages, excluding
(2) On the issue which of the amounts is determinative of jurisdiction: The well-
therefrom the amounts claimed as moral, exemplary, nominal damages and attorney’s fee,
entrenched principle is that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is
etc. determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. In
the present case, the allegations in the complaint plainly show that private respondent seeks
to recover not only his medical expenses, lost income but also damages for physical suffering
The respondent opposed the motion saying that since the claim for damages is the main and mental anguish due to permanent facial deformity from injuries sustained in the vehicular
action, the totality of the damages sought to be recovered should be considered in accident. Viewed as an action for quasi-delict, the present case falls squarely within the
purview of Article 2219 (2), which provides for the payment of moral damages in cases of of facts. Therefore, a strict application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is not necessary
quasi-delict causing physical injuries. when the cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but legal
questions.
Private respondent’s claim for moral damages of P500,000.00 cannot be considered as
merely incidental to or a consequence of the claim for actual damages. It is a separate and
distinct cause of action or an independent actionable tort. It springs from the right of a person In the present case, petitioners submit a pure question of law involving the interpretation and
to the physical integrity of his or her body, and if that integrity is violated, damages are due application of paragraph 2 of Administrative Circular No. 09-94. This legal question and in
and assessable. Hence, the demand for moral damages must be considered as a separate order to avoid further delay are compelling enough reasons to allow petitioners’ invocation of
cause of action, independent of the claim for actual damages and must be included in this Court’s jurisdiction in the first instance.
determining the jurisdictional amount.

(Maybe it is important to note that the petition for certiorari was filed from the denial of the
If the rule were otherwise, i.e., the court’s jurisdiction in a case of quasi-delict causing RTC of the petitioners’ motion to dismiss. There is no final adjudication yet as to the
physical injuries would only be based on the claim for actual damages and the complaint is complaint for damages.)
filed in the MTC, it can only award moral damages in an amount within its jurisdictional
limitations, a situation not intended by the framers of the law. MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM
CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
ROBERT H. CULLEN, Respondent.
(3) (Not really an issue raised by the respondent himself, but was nonetheless
discussed by the SC) On the issue whether a direct recourse by petition for certiorari Facts:
to the SC from the order of RTC: Generally a direct recourse to this Court is highly Respondent (Cullen) purchased from Meridien Land Holding, Inc. (MLHI) condominium Unit
improper, for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of No. 1201 of the petitioner. Old title was later cancelled and new title (CCT 64218) was issued
courts. Although this Court, the RTCs and the CA have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs in respondent’s name. On 19 September 2002, petitioner (MPMCC) demanded from Cullen
of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such payment for unpaid association dues and assessments claiming a carry-over of MLHI. Cullen
concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. This refused claiming they are being religiously paid. Consequently, Cullen was prevented from
Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions exercising his right to vote and be voted during election of MPMCC’s BOD. When MLHI
assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. clarified that his dues had already been settled and upon MPMCC’s failure to explain why is
such, he filed a Complaint for Damages against MPMCC in RTC Makati, acting as a regular
court. MPMCC and MLHI moved to dismiss mainly on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On 9
Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired September 2009, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action falls within
the exclusive jurisdiction of HLURB and that the issues raised are intra-corporate between
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances,
the corporation and
such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the member.
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. On appeal, the CA reversed RTC decision holding that the
controversy is an ordinary civil action for damages within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
When motions for
reconsideration was denied, petitioners filed the present
Be that as it may, the judicial hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally applies petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
to cases involving warring factual allegations. For this reason, litigants are required to repair
to the trial courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity of these contending Issues:
allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Cases which depend on disputed 1. Whether or not the controversy is an intra-corporate, not
facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts as they are not triers an ordinary action.
2. Whether or not RTC acting as a special commercial court, relationship, but must as well pertain to the enforcement of
not RTC acting as a regular court, and not HLURB, has the parties’ correlative rights and obligations under the
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate
regulatory rules of the corporation."24 In other words,
Ruling: jurisdiction should be determined by considering both the
YES. Petition is Granted. CA Decision is Reversed. relationship of the parties as well as the nature of the question
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is involved.25
determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not Applying the two tests, we find and so hold that the case
affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in involves intra-corporate controversy. It obviously arose from
an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction the intra-corporate relations between the parties, and the
would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of questions involved pertain to their rights and obligations
the defendant.18 Also illuminating is the Court’s under the Corporation Code and matters relating to the
pronouncement in Go v. Distinction Properties Development regulation of the corporation.26
and Construction, Inc.:19 Admittedly, petitioner is a condominium corporation duly
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter organized and existing under Philippine laws, charged with the
of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the management of the Medical Plaza Makati. Respondent, on the
complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts other hand, is the registered owner of Unit No. 1201 and is
constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature of an action, as thus a stockholder/member of the condominium corporation.
well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based Clearly, there is an intra-corporate relationship between the
on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective corporation and a stockholder/member.
of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of The nature of the action is determined by the body rather than
the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the the title of the complaint. Though denominated as an action
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested for damages, an examination of the allegations made by
by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested respondent in his complaint shows that the case principally
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by petitioner
or some of the claims asserted therein. x x x20 against respondent as well as the validity of petitioner’s act in
Based on the allegations made by respondent in his complaint, preventing respondent from participating in the election of the
does the controversy involve intra-corporate issues as would corporation’s Board of Directors. Respondent contested the
fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special alleged unpaid dues and assessments demanded by
commercial court or an ordinary action for damages within the petitioner.
jurisdiction of regular courts? The issue is not novel. The nature of an action involving any
In determining whether a dispute constitutes an dispute as to the validity of the assessment of association dues
intra-corporate controversy, the Court uses two tests, namely, has been settled by the Court in Chateau de Baie
the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test.21 Condominium Corporation v. Moreno.27 In that case,
An intra-corporate controversy is one which pertains to any of respondents therein filed a complaint for intra-corporate
the following relationships: (1) between the corporation, dispute against the petitioner therein to question how it
partnership or association and the public; (2) between the calculated the dues assessed against them, and to ask an
corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar accounting of association dues. Petitioner, however, moved
as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of
between the corporation, partnership or association and its jurisdiction alleging that since the complaint was against the
stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among owner/developer of a condominium whose condominium
the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.22 Thus, project was registered with and licensed by the HLURB, the
under the relationship test, the existence of any of the above latter has the exclusive jurisdiction. In sustaining the denial of
intra-corporate relations makes the case intra-corporate.23 the motion to dismiss, the Court held that the dispute as to the
Under the nature of the controversy test, "the controversy validity of the assessments is purely an intra-corporate matter
must not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate between petitioner and respondent and is thus within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special THE PHILIPPINES and CATERPILLAR, INC., respondents. (G.R. Nos. 160054-55, July 21,
commercial court. More so in this case as respondent 2004)
repeatedly questioned his characterization as a delinquent
member and, consequently, petitioner’s decision to bar him Facts:The petitioner, owner/proprietor of ITTI Shoes/Mano Shoes Manufactuirng
from exercising his rights to vote and be voted for. These Corporation,allegedly sold or offers the sale of garment product using the trademark
issues are clearly corporate and the demand for damages is
³Caterpillar´ to the prejudice of Caterpillar, Inc., private respondent in this case. The
just incidental. Being corporate in nature, the issues should be
threshed out before the RTC sitting as a special commercial respondent filed the case withthe RTC. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the trial
court. The issues on damages can still be resolved in the same court over the offense chargedcontending that the case should be filed with the MTC
special commercial court just like a regular RTC which is still because violation of unfair competition is penalized with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to under RA 7691.
intra-corporate disputes filed before it.28
Moreover, Presidential Decree No. 902-A enumerates the Issue:Which court has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases for violation of intellectual
cases over which the Securities and Exchange Commission propertyrights?
(SEC) exercises exclusive jurisdiction:
Ruling of the Court: The SC held that under Section 163 of the IPC, actions for unfair
To be sure, RA 4726 or the Condominium Act was enacted to competition shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under
specifically govern a condominium. Said law sanctions the
creation of the condominium corporation which is especially existing laws. The law contemplated in Section 163 of IPC is RA 166 otherwise known as the
formed for the purpose of holding title to the common area, in Trademark Law. Section 27 of theTrademark Law provides that jurisdiction over cases for
which the holders of separate interests shall automatically be infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false
members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in description or representation, is lodged with theCourt of First Instance (now Regional Trial
proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective Court). Since RA 7691 is a general law and IPC inrelation to Trademark Law is a special law,
units.34 The rights and obligations of the condominium unit the latter shall prevail. Actions for unfair competition therefore should be filed with the RTC.
owners and the condominium corporation are set forth in the
above Act.
Clearly, condominium corporations are not covered by the
amendment. Thus, the intra-corporate dispute between
petitioner and respondent is still within the jurisdiction of the
RTC sitting as a special commercial court and not the HLURB.
The doctrine laid down by the Court in Chateau de Baie
Condominium Corporation v. Moreno35 which in turn cited
Wack Wack Condominium Corporation, et al v. CA36 is still a
good law.
WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition and REVERSE the
Court of Appeals Decision. XXX The Complaint before the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 58, which is not a
special commercial court, XXX is ordered DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction. Let the case be REMANDED to the
Executive Judge of the RTC Makati City for re-raffle
purposes among the designated special commercial
courts.
-

MANOLO P. SAMSON, petitioner, vs. HON. REYNALDO B. DAWAY, in his capacityas


Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, PEOPLE OF

You might also like