You are on page 1of 10

INTRODUCTION

1. Gonzaga vs. CA (2002)

Remedial Law; Estoppel; While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity
and may be assailed at any stage, active participation in the proceedings in the court which
rendered the order or decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction.—

Petitioners claim that the recent decisions of this Court have already abandoned the doctrine laid down in
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. We do not agree. In countless decisions, this Court has consistently held that,
while an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage,
active participation in the proceedings in the court which rendered the order or decision will bar such
party from attacking its jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision
and then accepting the judgment but only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if
not.—

Petitioners should bear the consequence of their act. They cannot be allowed to profit from their omission
to the damage and prejudice of the private respondent. This Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of
a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment but only if favorable, and
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if not.

JURISDICTION

1. Sante vs. Hon. Claravall (2010)

Actions; Jurisdiction; Jurisdictional Amount; In cases where 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.—

But where damages is the main cause of action, should the amount of moral damages prayed for in
the complaint be the sole basis for determining which court has jurisdiction or should the total
amount of all the damages claimed regardless of kind and nature, such as exemplary damages,
nominal damages, and attorney’s fees, etc., be used? In this regard, Administrative Circular No. 09-
94 is instructive: x x x x 2. The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the
jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.
No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main
cause of action. However, in cases where 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.

Same; Same; Same; Where it is clear, based on the allegations of the complaint, that the main
action is for damages, the other forms of damages being claimed e.g., exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of the
main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint.—
In the instant case, the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 5794-R is for the recovery of damages for
the alleged malicious acts of petitioners. The complaint principally sought an award of moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and
injury suffered by respondent by reason of petitioners’ utterance while they were at a police station
in Pangasinan. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based incidental to or consequences
of the main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint.

Same; Same; It is a basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be allowed when
the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is
to confer jurisdiction on the court.—

We find no error, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the Court of Appeals in
affirming the RTC’s order allowing the amendment of the original complaint from P300,000.00 to
P1,000,000.00 despite the pendency of a petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.
While it is a basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be allowed when the court
has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer
jurisdiction on the court, here, the RTC clearly had jurisdiction over the original complaint and
amendment of the complaint was then still a matter of right.

2. Iniego vs. Hon. Judge Purganan (2006)

Civil Procedure; Courts; Jurisdictions; What must be determined to be capable or incapable of


pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the action.—

Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous. It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691, that what must be determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the action. A cause of action is “the
delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of
the plaintiff.” On the other hand, the “subject matter of the action” is “the physical facts, the thing
real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted,
and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.”

Same; Same; Same; Damages; 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
defendant’s alleged tortious acts.—

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 defendant’s alleged tortious acts. The
damages claimed in such actions represent the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the
plaintiff by the defendant, which are thus sought to be recovered by the plaintiff. This money claim
is the principal relief sought, and is not merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It bears
to point out that the complaint filed by private respondent before the RTC actually bears the
caption “for DAMAGES.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; Subsection (d) of Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides that
where the claims in all such joined causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.—
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims for moral and exemplary damages arose
from a cause of action other than the quasi-delict, their inclusion in the computation of damages for
jurisdictional purposes is still proper. All claims for damages should be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of the court regardless of whether they arose from a single cause of action or
several causes of action. Rule 2, Section 5, of the Rules of Court allows a party to assert as many
causes of action as he may have against the opposing party. Subsection (d) of said section provides
that where the claims in all such joined causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Actions for damages based on quasidelicts are actions that are
capable of pecuniary estimation.—

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation. As
such, they fall within the jurisdiction of either the RTC or the municipal courts, depending on the
amount of damages claimed. In this case, the amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction
of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the
jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes
of action.

3. Sante vs. Hon. Claravall (2010)

Actions; Jurisdiction; Jurisdictional Amount; In cases where 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.—

But where damages is the main cause of action, should the amount of moral damages prayed for in
the complaint be the sole basis for determining which court has jurisdiction or should the total
amount of all the damages claimed regardless of kind and nature, such as exemplary damages,
nominal damages, and attorney’s fees, etc., be used? In this regard, Administrative Circular No. 09-
94 is instructive: x x x x 2. The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the
jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.
No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main
cause of action. However, in cases where 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.

Same; Same; Same; Where it is clear, based on the allegations of the complaint, that the main
action is for damages, the other forms of damages being claimed e.g., exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of the
main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint.—

In the instant case, the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 5794-R is for the recovery of damages for
the alleged malicious acts of petitioners. The complaint principally sought an award of moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and
injury suffered by respondent by reason of petitioners’ utterance while they were at a police station
in Pangasinan. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based incidental to or consequences
of the main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint.
Same; Same; It is a basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be allowed when
the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is
to confer jurisdiction on the court.—

We find no error, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the Court of Appeals in
affirming the RTC’s order allowing the amendment of the original complaint from P300,000.00 to
P1,000,000.00 despite the pendency of a petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.
While it is a basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be allowed when the court
has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer
jurisdiction on the court, here, the RTC clearly had jurisdiction over the original complaint and
amendment of the complaint was then still a matter of right.

4. Murga vs. Chan (1968)

Municipal court; Jurisdiction; Action not capable of pecuniary estimation; Where the issue
hinges on the correct interpretation of a clause in contract of lease, the municipal court has no
jurisdiction.—

Where the pleadings of the parties clearly show that the jugular vein of the controversy hinges on
the correct interpretation of a clause in their contract of lease, that is, whether or not said clause
contemplated an automatic renewal of the lease, the action is not for unlawful detainer but one not
capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, beyond the competence of the municipal court (Cf.
Cruz v.Alberto, 39 Phil. 991; Legarda Koh v. Ongsiaco, 36 Phil. 189).

5. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Maunlad Homes (2012)

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Ejectment; Unlawful Detainer; Words and Phrases;
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully
withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under
any contract, express or implied.―

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully
withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal
but became illegal due to expiration or termination of the right to possess. Under Section 1, Rule 70
of the Rules of Court, the action must be filed “within one (1) year after [the] unlawful deprivation
or withholding of possession[.]”

Special Civil Actions; Ejectment; Venue; The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a stipulation
in a contract providing for a venue for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules of
Court.―

While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states that ejectment actions shall be filed in “the
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved x x x is
situated[,]” Section 4 of the same Rule provides that the rule shall not apply “[w]here the parties
have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.”
Precisely, in this case, the parties provided for a different venue. In Villanueva v. Judge
Mosqueda, etc., et al., 115 SCRA 904 (1982), the Court upheld the validity of a stipulation in a
contract providing for a venue for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules of Court.
Since the unlawful detainer action is connected with the contract, Union Bank rightfully filed the
complaint with the MeTC of Makati City.

6. Cruz vs. Tan (1950)

JURISDICTION OF RESPECTIVE COURTS HOW DETERMINED.—

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.

7. Ortigas vs. Herrera (1983)

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Actions; Specific Performance; Where party to a written
contract agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter of
certain conditions, action involved is one for specific performance, not for a sum of money, and
is incapable of pecuniary estimation, cognizable by the CFI; Case at bar.—

The action involved in this case is one for specific performance and not for a sum of money and
therefore incapable of pecuniary estimation because what private respondent seeks is the
performance of petitioner’s obligation under a written contract to make a refund but under certain
specific conditions still to be proven or established. In a case for the recovery of a sum of money, as
the collection of a debt, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation (Lapitan vs.
Scandia, Inc., 24 SCRA 479) because the obligation to pay the debt is not conditioned upon any
specific fact or matter. But when a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum
of money upon compliance by the latter of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith
may what is legally due him under the written contract be demanded, the action is one not capable
of pecuniary estimation. The payment of a sum of money is only incidental which can only be
ordered after a determination of certain acts the performance of which being the more basic issue
to be inquired into.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Factual allegations of complaint seeking performance of an


obligation under a written contract which is a matter clearly incapable of pecuniary
estimation prevail over designation in complaint as one for a sum of money and damages.—

Although private respondent’s complaint in the court a quo is designated as one for a sum of money
and damages, an analysis of all the factual allegations of the complaint patently shows that what
private respondent seeks is the performance of petitioner’s obligation under the written contract to
make the refund of the rate of P10.00 per square meter or in the total amount of P4,820.00, but only
after proof of having himself fulfilled the conditions that will give rise to petitioner’s obligation, a
matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation.

8. Brgy. San Roque, Talisay, Ceby vs. Heirs of Francisco Pastor

Actions; Eminent Domain; Expropriation; Jurisdiction; Courts; An expropriation


suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and falls within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts.—
We agree with the petitioner that an expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The test to determine whether it is so was laid down by the Court in this wise: “A review of
the jurisprudence of this Court indicates 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 the principal action or remedy sought.

If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.

However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific
performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a
mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance. The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the
determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed
to be more within the competence of courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts of
record at the time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating
jurisdiction (Act 136 of the Philippine Commission of June 11, 1901).”

9. Strategic Alliance Development Corp. vs. Star Infrastructure Development


Corp. (2010)

Same; Same; Same; Special Commercial Courts (SCCs) like the Regional Trial Court (RTC) are
still competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before
them.—

Even prescinding from the different factual and legal milieus of said cases, the CA also failed to take
into consideration the fact that, unlike the SEC which is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, SCCs like
the RTC are still competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed
before them.

Same; Same; Jurisdiction; The better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction over a
case would be to consider not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature
of the question that is the subject of their controversy; The combined application of the
relationship test and the nature of the controversy test has, consequently, become the norm in
determining whether a case is an intra- corporate controversy or is purely civil in character.—

The unqualified application of the relationship test has been modified on the ground that the same
effectively divests regular courts of jurisdiction over cases for the sole reason that the suit is
between the corporation and/or its corporators. It was held that the better policy in determining
which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not only the status or relationship of
the parties but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. Under the
nature of the controversy test, the dispute must not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-
corporate relationship, but must also refer to the enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and
obligations under the Corporation Code as well as the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules
of the corporation. The combined application of the relationship test and the nature of the
controversy test has, consequently, become the norm in determining whether a case is an intra-
corporate controversy or is purely civil in character.

Same; Same; Same; Pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the
Securities Regulation Code, the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A has been
transferred to Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) designated by the Court as Special Commercial
Court (SCC) pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000.—

In addition to being conferred by law, it bears emphasizing that the jurisdiction of a court or
tribunal over the case is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the
relief sought, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the
claims asserted therein. Moreover, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise
known as the Securities Regulation Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all cases enumerated
under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A has been transferred to RTCs designated by this
Court as SCCs pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000.

10. Home Guaranty Corporation vs. R-II Builders and NHA (2011)

Jurisdiction; Determination of Jurisdiction; The rule is settled that a court’s jurisdiction over
the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations in the complaint, the law in effect
when the action is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.—

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case. In
addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the law, the rule is settled that a court’s
jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations in the complaint, the
law in effect when the action is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether
the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.

Same; Jurisdiction over the case; The well-entrenched rule is to the effect that a court acquires
jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.—

Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that the prescribed
fees shall be paid in full “upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an
action or proceeding,” the well- entrenched rule is to the effect that a court acquires jurisdiction
over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.

Same; Actions; A claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation if the action is primarily
for recovery of a sum of money.—

While a claim is, on the one hand, considered capable of pecuniary estimation if the action is
primarily for recovery of a sum of money, the action is considered incapable of pecuniary
estimation where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, the
money claim being only incidental to or merely a consequence of, the principal relief sought. To our
mind, the application of foregoing test does not, however, preclude the further classification of
actions into personal actions and real action, for which appropriate docket fees are prescribed.
Same; Same; Venue; The venue for real actions is the court of the place where the real property
is located.—

In contrast to personal actions where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages, real actions are those which affect title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein. While personal actions should be commenced and
tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found,
at the election of the plaintiff, the venue for real actions is the court of the place where the real
property is located.

Same; Courts; Docket Fees; The importance of filing fees cannot be over- emphasized for they
are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of
supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as
to man-hours used in the handling of each case.—

The importance of filing fees cannot be over-emphasized for they are intended to take care of court
expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe
benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of each case. The
payment of said fees, therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken without
entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.

Remedial Law; Actions; Jurisdiction; In Atwel v. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc., 551
SCRA 272 (2008), and Reyes v. Hon. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142, 561 SCRA 593
(2008), which involve SCCs trying and/or deciding cases which were found to be civil in nature,
this Court significantly ordered the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction instead of
simply directing the re-raffle of the case to another branch.—The record shows that, with the raffle
of R-II Builders’ complaint before Branch 24 of the Manila RTC and said court’s grant of the
application for temporary restraining order incorporated therein, HGC sought a preliminary
hearing of its affirmative defenses which included, among other grounds, lack of jurisdiction and
improper venue. It appears that, at said preliminary hearing, it was established that R-II Builders’
complaint did not involve an intra-corporate dispute and that, even if it is, venue was improperly
laid since none of the parties maintained its principal office in Manila. While it is true, therefore,
that R-II Builders had no hand in the raffling of the case, it cannot be gainsaid that Branch 24 of the
RTC Manila had no jurisdiction over the case. Rather than ordering the dismissal of the complaint,
however, said court issued the 2 January 2008 order erroneously ordering the re-raffle of the case.
InAtwel v. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc., 551 SCRA 272 (2008), and Reyes v. Hon. Regional
Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142, 561 SCRA 593 (2008), which involved SCCs trying and/or
deciding cases which were found to be civil in nature, this Court significantly ordered the dismissal
of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction instead of simply directing the re-raffle of the case to
another branch.

Same; Same; Same; While it is, consequently, true that jurisdiction, once required, cannot be easily
ousted, it is equally settled that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the
prescribed filing and docket fees.—Even then, the question of the Manila RTC’s jurisdiction over the
case is tied up with R-II Builder’s payment of the correct docket fees which should be paid in full
upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding. While it
is, consequently, true that jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be easily ousted, it is equally settled
that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and
docket fees. Already implicit from the filing of the complaint in the City of Manila where the realties
comprising the Asset Pool are located, the fact that the case is a real action is evident from the
allegations of R-II Builders’ original Complaint, Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Second
Amended Complaint which not only sought the nullification of the DAC in favor of HGC but, more
importantly, prayed for the transfer of possession of and/or control of the properties in the Asset
Pool. Its current protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, no less than R-II Builders in its
opposition to HGC’s motion to dismiss—admitted that the case is a real action as it affects title to or
possession of real property or an interest therein. Having only paid docket fees corresponding to an
action where the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, R-II Builders cannot
expediently claim that jurisdiction over the case had already attached.

Same; Same; Same; A case for rescission or annulment of contract is not susceptible of pecuniary
estimation although it may eventually result in the recovery of real property; In determining whether
an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought;
Determination must be done on a case-to-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of
each.— In De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 94 (1998), this Court had, of course, ruled that a
case for rescission or annulment of contract is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation although it
may eventually result in the recovery of real property. Taking into consideration the allegations and
the nature of the relief sought in the complaint in the subsequent case of Serrano v. Delica, 465
SCRA 82 (2005), however, this Court determined the existence of a real action and ordered the
payment of the appropriate docket fees for a complaint for cancellation of sale which prayed for
both permanent and preliminary injunction aimed at the restoration of possession of the land in
litigation is a real action. In discounting the apparent conflict in said rulings, the Court went on to
rule as follows inRuby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation v. Hon. Pablo C,
Formaran, 578 SCRA 283 (2009), to wit: The Court x x x does not perceive a contradiction between
Serranoand the Spouses De Leon. The Court calls attention to the following statement in Spouses De
Leon: “A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates 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 the principal action or remedy sought.” Necessarily, the
determination must be done on a case-to- case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of
each. What petitioner conveniently ignores is that in Spouses De Leon, the action therein that private
respondents instituted before the RTC was “solely for annulment or rescission” of the contract of
sale over a real property. There appeared to be no trans-

You might also like