Principle Flashcards
concept of Rules of Court
- The Rules of Court, as a whole, has reference to the body of rules governing pleading, practice and procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making powers under the Constitution. Since such rules do not originate from the legislature, they cannot be called laws in the strict sense of the word. However, since they are promulgated by authority of law, they have the force and effect of law if not in conflict with positive law.
2.
- The Rules of Court are subordinate to statute, and in case of conflict, the statute will prevail.
3.The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal laws and are not to be given retroactive effect.
3.The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal laws and are not to be given retroactive effect.
4.
4.The rules shall govern cases brought after they take effect, and also to pending cases, except if, in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event, the former procedure shall apply.
5
5.Rules of procedure, may be made applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The rules are retroactive only in this sense.
It need be mentioned that Rule 114 expressly makes the rules under the Rules of Court applicable also to “further proceedings in cases then pending” when the Rules of Court took effect.
6
6.Being procedural in nature, Neypes is deemed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its effectivity and is thus, retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
7
- The Neypes Rule is generally prospective in application, being a rule of procedure.j
8
8.The use of the Rules of Court is not totally prohibited in the cases enumerated hereunder.The Rules may apply to the above cases by (a) analogy, or (b) in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient
1) election cases;
2) land registration cases;
3) cadastral cases;
4) naturalization cases; and
5) insolvency proceedings.
9
9.It has also been held that rules of procedure imposed in judicial proceedings are unavailing in cases before administrative bodies. Accordingly, administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law.
Even the COMELEC, a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentationof evidence
10.
10.Jurisprudence has actually long affirmed the principle that the judicial rules of procedure do not apply to non-judicial proceedings,among others, labor disputes.
11
11.The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that “While administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, are not bound by the technical rules of procedure, this rule cannot be taken as a license to disregard fundamental evidentiary rules; the decision of the administrative agencies and the evidence it relies upon must, at the very least be substantial”
12
12.The rule-making power of the Court has expanded. The Court for the first time, was given the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
But most important, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
13
13.In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by the Court with Congress, more so with the executive.
14
14.The authority of a court to issue injunctive writs is embodied in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and is part of its inherent power to issue all auxiliary writs and other means necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect under Sec. 6 of Rule 135 of the same Rules.
15
15.Under the Constitution, “No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.”
16
16.The petition for certiorari under Rule 45 applies only to a review of “judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals, the Sándiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law.” This remedy does not apply to a review of judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the remedy being a Rule 43 appeal to the Court of Appeals.
17
17.The Court ruled that the Cooperative Code cannot provide for rules on summons and service of processes which are contrary to those provided in the Rules of Court. Service ofsummons in civil, criminal, or special proceedings is a matter of procedure which cannot be replaced by the Cooperative Code.
18
18.The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case from operation when compelling reasons so warrantor when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts
19
19.Thus, it is within the power of the Supreme Court to make exceptions to the Rules of Court. It may permit the full and exhaustive ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite the supposed technical infirmities of a petition or its alleged procedural flaws
20
20.The power to suspend technical rules is observed to be broader and more pervasive when exercised by the Supreme Court. From the point of view of the Court, “The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which the Court itself had already declared to be final.
21
21.The Court could take cognizance of a petition despite its procedural infirmities, as when the petitioner has no legal standing to file the same. Being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion given the transcendental importance of the constitutional issues it raises as when the petition challenges the constitutionality of the manner by which the President of the Philippines makes appointments to the judiciary.
- Pro hac vice rule
22.Pro hac vice rule
When the Court, in certain exceptional circumstances, suspends a procedural rule in a particular case, the decision therein cannot be relied on as a precedent since the ruling is for that particular case only or pro hac vice. Jurisprudence has described pro hac vice as a Latin term meaning “for this one only.” When the ruling is qualified as such, the same cannot be used as a precedent to govern other cases.
23
23.It is vital to remember that judicial review does not only extend to matters that require the duty to settle actual controversies. It also includes the duty to determine whether or not any branch or instrumentality of the government has committed acts constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
24
24.The government instrumentality subject to judicial review may be one exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, executive or legislative powers. The nature of the functions of the branch or instrumentality of the government, committing acts constituting grave abuse of discretion, is irrelevant .
25
25.The rule is that concurrence in jurisdiction does not give a litigant an unbridled freedom of choice of forum. The doctrine of hierarchy of court governs.
26
26.A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts may result in the denial of a petition.
27
27.The policy on the hierarchy of courts is not to be regarded as an ironclad rule. There were instances when its application has not been absolute and direct resort to a higher court was allowed. The policy may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations.
28
28.Civil courts are those which determine controversies between private persons. Criminal courts are those which adjudicate offenses alleged to have been committed against the State.
29
29.Philippine courts exercise both civil and criminal jurisdictions because of the principle in Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
30
30.The rules of civil procedure in the Rules of Court are not self-executing.It is the act of filing the initiatory pleading called a complaint, that triggers both the practical application of procedural rules and the laws on jurisdiction.
Even a court, vested by law with jurisdiction over certain subject matters, cannot, on its own initiative, take cognizance of a case and try to settle conflicting claims between and among individuals. Without someone going to court to invoke the rules and the jurisdiction of the court, such rules would be nothing but mere dark letters written on a white background.
31
31.The complaint is the first document, technically called a pleading, which is filed in court by a party called the plaintiff.
32
32.It is the filing of this complaint in court which signifies the commencement of a civil action.
33
33.It is the filing of the complaint which enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. This jurisdiction is implied from the fact that by seeking affirmative relief from the court, he recognizes the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, by the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
34
34.The litigation process involves much more than the mere mechanical act of drafting the complaint and filing the same with the court. The filing of a complaint requires a prior determination whether or not the plaintiff possesses a legal right to file the desired complaint. This, in turn, requires knowing whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action enforceable against the defendant.
35
35.A cause of action arises when someone violates the rights of another. This cause of action has its origins in substantive law.An inquiry into substantive law is imperative because, as it has been previously said, such law is the very foundation of procedural law.
36
36.Hence, every cause of action must be predicated upon a provision of substantive law.
37
37.The causes of action in civil proceedings actually arise from the traditional sources of a civil obligation, like law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts.
38
38.A person victimized by robbery may have a cause of action against the perpetrator of the crime based on the principle that a person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
- !
39.There is no right of action where there is no cause of action.
A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another. Without a violation of this right, there can be no cause of action and, without this cause of action, there would be no right to invoke the rules of procedure and file a suit against the defendant. This right to file a suit is called a right of action. The right of action, which is procedural in character, is the consequence of the violation of the right of the plaintiff. Hence, the rule: There is no right of action where there is no cause of action.
40
40.It is not enough that a party has a cause of action. The rules require the plaintiff to sufficiently allege those ultimate facts which, taken together, constitute one’s cause of action. In other words, the plaintiff, in his complaint, should state a cause of action against the defendant.
41.Accordingly, the test of the sufficiency of the averments in the pleading is whether the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer in the complaint, assuming that the facts, as alleged, are true.
42.For a complaint to state a cause of action, the rules emphasize, not the truth of the material allegations of the complaint, but the sufficiency of such allegations. The truth, of the allegations of the complaint, will be tested and determined in the trial and not at the time of the filing of the complaint.
43.The failure of the complaint to state the elements of his cause of action supplies a ground for the dismissal of the complaint, even if the actual truth discloses that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
44.While a plaintiff may have a legitimate cause of action, as a result of a violation of his rights, he is precluded by the Rules from instituting more than one suit for a single cause of action. He cannot, in other words, split a single cause of action into several parts and make each part the subject of a separate complaint.
He cannot, for instance, sue for a sum of money in one complaint and sue separately for recovery of interest arising from the same cause of action that gave rise to the collection suit. The reason for the rule is the judicial policy of preventing the clogging of the court dockets which normally arises from the filing of multiple of suits based on the same cause of action.
45.Following general procedural principles, if a debtor owes à creditor the unpaid amounts of P350,000 and P300,000 under separate promissory notes, the creditor has two causes of action against the debtor. Hence, he may file two separate actions against the debtor to collect the sums owed in his favor.
However, based on the same judicial policy of easing the court dockets, a plaintiff, under certain circumstances, is allowed to assert in one complaint as many causes of action he may have against the same opposing party. Thus, if he so desires, he may join the collection of the amounts of P350,000 and P300,000 in a single complaint. The joining of two causes of action in one complaint is, in procedural jargon, termed” joinder of causes of action.”
46!
46.Filing the complaint with the wrong court is a ground for dismissal of the complaint either upon proper motion by the adverse party or upon the court’s own motion (motu proprio). The dismissal is inevitable because any judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter is a nullity.
47.The rules on jurisdiction over the subject matter are not found in the Rules of Court, the principles therein being merely procedural. Jurisdiction of this type is a matter of substantive law, not of mere procedure.
A reading of substantive law will also reveal that jurisdiction, likewise, speaks of delegated jurisdiction and special jurisdiction and that there are actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, i.e., where the demand is one other than for a sum of money.
- A complaint filed, even in the court with the appropriate jurisdiction, runs the risk of being dismissed, on motion, if commenced in the wrong place.
49.However, unlike the laws on jurisdiction which authorize a dismissal by the court on its own motion, the rules on venue preclude a court from dismissing a complaint motu proprio, except when so authorized by a special rule like the one provided for under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Under the rules governing cases subject to summary procedure, the court may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action.
50.Under the rules governing cases subject to summary procedure, the court may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action.
51.If the action is real (one that affects title to, possession of, or any interest in real property), the action shall be commenced and tried in the place where the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated.
If the action is personal, the action may be commenced and tried in the place where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides, or in the case of a non resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
53.If the parties have agreed in writing on the exclusive venue prior to the filing of the action, then the place stipulated is the only venue. This restrictive type of stipulation precludes the filing of the action in some other place.
54.Where, however, the parties stipulated on a place not intended to be the exclusive venue for the action, such stipulation is deemed merely permissive.A permissive stipulation operates to provide an additional venue for the action in addition to those set by the rules.
55.Not anyone could be a plaintiff. To be a plaintiff, one should be a real party in interest.
56.A plaintiff, who claims to be a real party in interest, must sufficiently allege ownership of a right violated by the adverse party. In the words of the Rules, he must be one who “stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.”
57.As a rule, a suit can be commenced only against one averred to have violated the plaintiff’s rights.
58.Where the party is indispensable, his joinder is compulsory. Without an indispensable party, no final determination of an action could be had.
59.On the contrary, the non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding with the action although, without such party, no complete relief may be accorded as to those already parties.
60.If the action is already barred by the statute of limitations, then, the right of action has ceased.It has ceased because it has prescribed.
61.Prescription is one of the well-recognized grounds for the dismissal of the complaint, the same being a mode of extinguishment of a legal obligation.
62.When it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the actionhas prescribed, the court is mandated by the Rules to dismiss the claim.
63.When dismissed on the ground of prescription, the refiling of the same action or claim is barred.
64.There are actions which require the performance of conditions precedent. Compliance with such conditions is - imperative and cannot be conveniently ignored.
65.Compliance with conditions precedent is not, however, sufficient. Compliance therewith must be alleged in the complaint for it to sufficientlystate a cause of action.
66.Actions between members of the same family must be preceded by attempts to have the controversy settled and compromised by virtue of Art. 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
The Family Code declares, in unequivocal language, that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper, unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, and that such efforts have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were made, the case, pursuant to Art. 151 of the Family Code, “must be dismissed.”
67.The complaint or any other pleading is not designed to be a narration and an exposition of evidentiary matters. Any pleading need only state the ultimate facts which constitute a party’s claim or defense. Such facts are to be alleged plainly, concisely, and directly in a methodical and logical form.
68.Because the rule requires alleging only the ultimate facts, statements of evidentiary facts are to be omitted. Also to be omitted are conclusions of law. Conclusions are to be made by the court while evidentiary matters are to be presented in the trial.
69.There are situations where the suit is predicated upon the alleged fraudulent acts of the defendant. If this be so, the rule requires that the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake be stated with particularity to enable the court to determine the type of fraud committed by the defendant and his subsequent liability, if there be any.
70.Under the Civil Code, depending on the kind of fraud committed, fraud may be a cause for the annulment or rescission of a contract. It may also be a ground for liability for damages alone. It may even be a cause for an action for the reformation of an instrument.
71.Thesame rule mandating a particular narration of circumstances of fraud applies to averments of mistake.
72.Averments of malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may, however, be averred generally.
73.An action filed may, sometimes, be based upon a document, as when a collection suit is based upon a promissory note executed by the defendant. Such document needs to be properly pleaded in the complaint by setting forth the substance of the instrument in the complaint and attaching the original or a copy thereof as an integral part of the complaint.
74.The defending party may opt to deny the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note. When he does so, the rule is established that a mere specific denial of such matters would not be a sufficient denial. The rule requires the denial to be under oath; otherwise, the defendant will be deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the note.
75.It is also possible that a complaint is filed to recover usurious interest. If the defending party desires to deny the usurious interest, he must do so under oath because a mere specific denial of such interest is not sufficient. The allegations of usury in the complaint are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
76.The complaint must specify the relief sought although the rule allows the addition of a general prayer for such other reliefs as the court may deem just or equitable.
77.Although part of the complaint, the relief or prayer is not largely determinative of the cause of action. The nature of the cause of action is primarily determined by the allegations in the body of the complaint and not by the prayer alone.
78.The complaint must be dated. It must, likewise, be signed by the party or by the counsel representing him.
78.The complaint must be dated. It must, likewise, be signed by the party or by the counsel representing him.
80.When it is the counsel who signs the pleading, his signature constitutes a certificate by him that he has read thepleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there are good grounds to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
81.The complaint must designate the address of the party or his counsel. This address should not be a post office box.
82.Should every complaint or any other pleading be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit? The general rule on the matter is that a pleading need not be verified, unless specifically mandated by law or a particular rule.
82.Should every complaint or any other pleading be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit? The general rule on the matter is that a pleading need not be verified, unless specifically mandated by law or a particular rule.
83.All pleadings under the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure have to be verified.
84.Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus must, likewise, be verified.
85.The complaint and other initiatory pleading must contain or be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping in which the plaintiff or principal party certifies, among others, that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues pending in, or already resolved, in any other tribunal.
86.Failure to comply with this (preceding number) requirement is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint upon motion and after hearing.
87.Provisional remedies are not permanent or final reliefs. They are, as the name indicates, merely temporary reliefs that may be availed of by a party in the meantime that the main action is being litigated and there is yet no final judgment in the case.
88.In an action for forcible entry, for instance, the plaintiff may ask for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in the possession of his land during the pendency of the main case.
89.In an action for collection of a sum of money the plaintiff may, at the commencement of the action, apply for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment of the defendant’s properties where it is shown that the defendant is about to depart from the Philippines with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff-creditor.
This attachment is obtained to secure the future execution of the judgment and avoid the sad spectacle of a winning party literally holding an empty bag because the sheriff cannot find properties of the losing party to satisfy the judgment.
90.In an action for support where the resolution thereof may possibly come only after a protracted litigation, the plaintiff may ask the court to order the defendant to give support to the plaintiff during the pendency of the action.
This remedy is known in the Rules as support pendente lite.
91.In an action for damages against an electric company which wrongly cut off the power supply to the plaintiff’s factory, the latter may ask the court to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore power in the meantime that litigation on the main action is in progress.
- The filing of the complaint is the act of presenting the same before the clerk of court.
93.The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed, the filing must be accompanied by the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees.
94.The fees must be paid because, as a rule, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon payment of the prescribed fees. Without payment, the general rule is that the complaint is not considered filed. Payment of the full amount of the docket fee is mandatory and jurisdictional.
95.This rule was, however, relaxed by the Supreme Court insome cases in which payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but not beyond the prescriptive period, was permitted. If the fees are not paid at the time of the filing, the court acquires jurisdiction only upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time, as the court may grant, barring prescription.
96.Even on appeal, the general rule is that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal although there were instances when the rule had been applied with liberality. It is well-established that, as a general rule, the payment of docket fees within the required period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.
97.When the complaint is filed and the prescribed fees are paid, the action is deemed commenced. The court, then, acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff and the running of the prescriptive period for the action is interrupted.
98.Dismissal of the complaint by the plaintiff - If the dismissal is made before the adverse party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, he may have his own complaint dismissed by the mere filing of a notice of dismissal. A motion to dismiss is not required.
99.Upon such notice, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal.
100.The dismissal by notice of dismissal is without prejudice to its being refiled later, unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or when the refiling is barred by, what jurisprudence calls, “the two-dismissal rule” because the action had already been previously dismissed twice by the plaintiff in a competent court in an action based on or including the same claim.
101.After service of the answer or a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff can no longer have his action dismissed by mere notice.
102.The plaintiff now has to file a motion to dismiss his complaint. The grant or denial of the motion to dismiss is now a matter addressed to sound judicial discretion because this type of dismissal is no longer a matter of right.
103.If the court allows the dismissal of the complaint, only the complaint is dismissed. A counterclaim, already pleaded priorto the service upon the defendant of the motion for dismissal, is not affected by the dismissal of the complaint and is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.
104.A dismissal, under this rule, is deemed a dismissal without prejudice to the refiling of the complaint, unless otherwise stated in the order dismissal.
105.Dismissal by the court — The court shall, on its own motion, dismiss the complaint if it appears from the complaint or the pleadings that the court has no jurisdiction over the a subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute limitations.
106.The court may, on its own motion, or upon motion of the adverse party, dismiss a complaint for causes due to the fault of the plaintiff. This happens when the plaintiff, without justifiable cause, fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief, to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with the Rules or any order of the court.
This dismissal will have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless the court declares otherwise. This means that, as a rule, the complaint can no longer be refiled if the dismissal is anchored on any of the grounds mentioned in this paragraph.
107.Amendment of the complaint - Instead of dismissing his complaint, as explained in the preceding number, it frequently happens that the plaintiff finds the need to amend his complaint. He may amend his complaint, for example, by correcting a mistaken or an inadequate allegation therein.
108.Amendment of the pleading is a matter of right as long as it is made before the other party has served a responsive pleading.
108.Amendment of the pleading is a matter of right as long as it is made before the other party has served a responsive pleading.
109.If the plaintiff desires to amend his complaint before the defendant serves his answer, the amendment may be done as a matter of right and the court has no discretion on the matter.
110.In such a case, the amendment has to be accepted by the court as a ministerial duty, the amendment being made as a matter of right.
111.Amendment may even be done to correctan error in jurisdiction or to effect a change in the cause of action provided the amendment is still a matter of right.
112.Note that an amendment made as a matter of right may, by the terms of the Rules, be availed of only once.
113.It has often been asked whether or not the plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of right even after a motion to dismiss has been served. The logical answer is that, he may do so and this is because a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Hence, his right to amend his complaint is not affected by the service of a motion to dismiss.
114.After a responsive pleading has been served, amendment must be with leave of court. This means that after an answer has been served, an amendment may be done only with the approval of the court. The amendment, in this case, is no longer a matter of right and becomes a matter of judicial discretion.
115.Although existing jurisprudence adopts a liberal policy on amendments, such amendment may be refused if it appears to the court that the amendment is intended for delay.
116.Under current rules, the fact that the amendment substantially alters the cause of action is not a ground for the court to refuse the amendment. It is an amendment with the intent to delay the proceedings which would justifies the court in refusing any motion for leave to amend the pleading.
117.Also, when the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint and the amendment is for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the court where the amendment is no longer a matter of right, the amendment shall not be allowed.
118.Common reason suggests that, in this case, since the court is without jurisdiction over the complaint, it has no jurisdiction to act on the motion for leave to amend.
119.An amendment may also arise by implication when matters not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, as when no objection is interjected on the evidence offered on a matter not in issue in the pleadings.
120.When this occurs, the issues tried with the consent of the parties shall be treated as if they had been raised in the pleadings. The pleadings may, then, be amendedto conform to the evidence, although an actual amendment need not be made because failure to do so will not affect the result of the trial on said issues.
121.For the defendant, the service of summons represents the usual beginning of civil procedure.
122.The summons orders the defendant to file an answer to the complaint and also reminds him that, unless he does so, the court may render a judgment against him by default and grant to the plaintiff the relief applied for.
123.Attached to the summons is a copy of the complaint.
124.The summons and copy of the complaint are to be served upon the defendant in person but, if he cannot be served despite diligent efforts, summons may be served by an alternative mode called substituted service.
125.Substituted service consists in serving the summons at the residence of the defendant or his regular place of business with a person qualified to so receive the summons in accordance with the Rules.
126.Subject to certain exceptions, the long-standing rule is that summons by publication is not a recognized mode of service for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
127.The filing of the complaint enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. This jurisdiction, however, does not extend to the person of the defendant.
128.Absent a voluntary appearance, it is the service of summons upon the defendant which enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person in those actions traditionally called actions in personam.
129.The summons is a coercive process which places the person, even of the unwilling defendant, under the jurisdiction of the court.
130.Service of summons, likewise, represents a compliance with the rule on notice - an essential element of constitutional due process.
131.When the defendant is a minor, insane or incompetent,service of summons shall be made upon him personally AND on his legal guardian if he has one, or, if none, upon his guardian ad litem, or, in the case of a minor, upon his father or mother.
132.If the defendant is a domestic corporation or partnership, service may be made on certain specific persons only like the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
133.When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him (the prisoner) by the officer having management of the jail or institution. Such manager is deemed deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose.
134.Service of summons is not the only way by which the court acquires the requisite jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in certain actions. Service of summons may be dispensed with if the defendant makes a a voluntary appearance.
135.Under the Rules, the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.
136.Also, in some special civil actions, an order to comment served upon the respondent would enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person.
137.Although the summons directs the defendant to file an answer to the complaint, he is procedurally under no obligation to outrightly file an answer since the rule allows him certain procedural options.
138.If after reading the complaint, the defendant finds that, because of the ambiguity in certain material allegations in the complaint, he cannot possibly serve an intelligent answer, he need not serve his answer unless and until the alleged ambiguities are clarified by the plaintiff.
139.These ambiguities may be sought to be clarified through a bill of particulars submitted by the plaintiff, upon order of the court and upon motion of the other party.
!
140.It must be clarified that a motion for bill of particulars is not solely directed to the complaint. Any other pleading may be the object of a motion for bill of particulars.
141.Upon being notified of the motion for bill of particulars by the clerk of court, the court may either deny or grant the motion outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be heard.
142.The court, therefore, is not obliged to conduct a hearing on the motion for bill of particulars.
143.If the order to submit a bill of particulars is not obeyed, or in case compliance is insufficient, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof or make such other order as it may deem just.
144.A motion for bill of particulars is not filed in order to discover the evidence of the other party.
For this purpose, the movant should avail of the various modes of discovery under the Rules of Court. The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars is plainly to enable the movant to properly prepare his responsive pleading.(#1743, interrogatories to parties)
After the plaintiff submits a bill of particulars which clarifies the ambiguities in the complaint, the defendant may now file his answer. If, however, from the reading of the complaint, a solid basis exists for the immediate dismissal of the action, the defendant, instead of filing his answer, may avail of another option, i.e., to file a motion to dismiss.
146.A motion to dismiss need not be preceded by a motion for bill of particulars because the defendant may, forthwith, file a motion to dismiss upon service of the summons upon him.
147.Normally, a court will wait for a party to file a motion to dismiss even if the ground for dismissal is known to it.
148.Forinstance, unless the case is covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, the court will, and ought to, refrain from dismissing a complaint on the ground of improper venue even if the venue is blatantly defective. Venue is a matter designed for the convenience of the parties and if no party complains about the venue, it is not for the court to take up the cudgels for any party.
There are, however, grounds for dismissal which the court will recognize on its own motion.
149.Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription are reasons for the court to effect a motu proprio dismissal of the complaint, whenever any of these grounds appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record.
150.The motion to dismiss is to be heard and after the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading. The court is without authority to defer the motion based on the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
151.A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion.
152.A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion since it attacks a pleading by seeking its dismissal. As such, when it is filed, it shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived, except certain defenses like lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription.
153.If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for the dismissal provided in the rules governing a motion to dismiss may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer, and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had on the defense relied upon as if a timely motion to dismiss had been filed.
154.The dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss does not necessarily preclude the refiling of the same.
For instance, where a complaint was dismissed on the ground of improper venue, the plaintiff may refile the complaint, thistime, in the proper venue.
Where the dismissal was ordered by the court for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the plaintiff may refile the same in the court with the proper jurisdiction.
155.There are, however, certain grounds for dismissal of the complaint which will bar the refiling of the same claim. These grounds are bar by a prior judgment, statute of limitations, the claim or demand has been extinguished, or the claim is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds.
156.If there exists no ground for a motion to dismiss or if the motion is rightfully denied, the defendant has to file his answer.
157.The answer is the responsive pleading to the complaint. The answer gives notice to the plaintiff as to which allegations in the complaint the defendant decides to contest and put in issue. The answer may invoke both negative and affirmative defenses.
158.A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant.
159.Not every denial qualifies as a correct denial. The denial is required to be a specific denial.
160.The answer must specifically deny the material averments in the other party’s pleading because material averments not specifically denied are deemed admitted.
161.If the answer, for example, admits all the material averments in the complaint, the answer is deemed to have failed to tender an issue. Since there is no triable issue, a trial is completely unnecessary. The claiming party may then file a motion for a judgment on the pleadings and the court may direct a judgment based on the pleadings already filed.
162.An affirmative defense essentially consists of a hypothetical admission of the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant but, nevertheless, prevents or bars recovery by him.
163.The filing of an answer is important. Failure of the defending party to file an answer entitles the claiming party to file a motion to declare him in default.
164.When he is declared in default, the defending party loses his standing in court and is not allowed to take part in the trial.
165.After issuing an order of default, the court may proceed to render judgment granting the claiming party such relief as his complaint may warrant unless, in its discretion, it requires the plaintiff to submit evidence on his claim.
An important principle in this regard is the rule that the court’s declaration of default should be preceded by a motion to declare the said party in default together with proof of such failure.
167.The rule, therefore, precludes the court from declaring the defending party in default on its own motion. (default)
168.Although barred from participating in the proceedings, he is, however, still entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings.
169.He is also accorded a relief from the order of default. He may, at any time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default. The motion must show that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense.
170.The order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.
171.It is, likewise, important to emphasize that a default order will not be issued in certain cases like in an action for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, or legal separation, even if the defendant fails to answer. Instead, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigatewhether or not collusion exists between the parties andprevent fabrication of evidence.
172.When the order of default ripens into a judgment by default, there is a limit imposed by the Rules on the extent of relief to be awarded in the judgment. A judgment rendered, against a party in default shall not exceed or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.
173.It happens frequently enough that the defendant has his own claim against the plaintiff. When the defendant files his answer to the complaint, said answer may be coupled with a counterclaim, which is a pleading in its own right.
174.A counterclaim is always directed against an opposing party, not against a co-party.
175.The counterclaim may be one that is compulsory or one that is permissive.
176.A permissive counterclaim does not have to be raised in the same proceedings because, by its nature, it could be invoked as an independent action.
177.It also happens that one defendant has a claim against his co-defendant, arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the complaint.
178.The claiming defendant may, then, in his answer, interpose a pleading against his co-defendant. This pleading is known as a cross-claim. This is a pleading containing the claim by one party against a co-party.
179.There are also cases when a defendant, named in the complaint, has a cause of action against one who is not a party to the action. This cause of action is a claim against a third person either for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief in respect of the plaintiff’s claim.
The defendant may bring in the third person into the suit and implead him as a party by filing, with leave of court, a third-party complaint against him, thus, making him a party to the action.
180.Upon receipt of the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may respond to the answer. This response is done through a pleading called a reply.
181.The purpose of a reply is to deny or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in the answer.
182.A reply is the plaintiff’s responsive pleading to the answer of the defendant. A reply, unlike the answer, is not a compulsory pleading.
183.While the failure to file an answer may lead to a declaration of default, the failure to file a reply does not have the same consequence.
184.The failure to file a reply will not, likewise, result in the implied admission of the material allegations in the answer because allegations of new matters in the answer, even if not replied to, are deemed controverted or denied.
185.After the last pleading has been served and filed, it is the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
186.A pre-trial is mandatory and failure to appear thereat by either party will result in adverse consequences for the absent party.
187.In a pre-trial, the parties shall, among others, consider the possibility of an amicable settlement or submission of the case to alternative modes of dispute resolution. A pre-trial has several purposes. Hence, the mere failure of the parties to effect a compromise is not a ground for the court to terminate the pre-trial.
188.During the pre-trial stage and, generally, at any time even before pre-trial or trial, the parties may obtain information from each other through the employment of devices, collectively known as discovery procedures.
189.The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party himself if such party has no counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying his client.
190.Appearance in the pre-trial is the duty of both the counsel and the parties.
191.The unjustified failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. The dismissal is with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court.
192.A similar failure of the defendant shall be a cause for the court to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte.The judgment of the court shall be based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff.
193.At least three days before the date of the pre-trial, the parties are required to file with the court and serve upon each other their respective pre-trial briefs. Failure to file the same shall be equivalent to failure to appear at the pre-trial.
194.After the pre-trial, the court shall issue a pre-trial order. The contents of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action, unless the same is modified for reasons of justice.
195.Should there be no amicable settlement or compromise forged between the parties, the case will be set for trial.
196.However, if the defendant believes that, upon the facts, and the law, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, he may, instead of presenting his own evidence, move for the dismissal of the case. He does so by way of a demurrer to evidence.
197.If the demurrer is denied, the defendant still has the right to present his evidence. If the demurrer is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, the defendant is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence.
198.A trial is not an indispensable stage of a civil action.
199.A judgment may be rendered even without a trial as when a case is permanently dismissed as a consequence of a motion to dismiss on certain grounds like prescription or bar by a prior judgment.
200.A judgment may also be rendered based on the pleadings. Here, no trial is required because the basis of the decision would merely be the pleadings of the parties.
201.A judgment upon a compromise may also be rendered even without a trial.
202.A judgment is rendered after the submission of the evidence of the parties has been concluded.
203.There is no oral judgment under the Rules.
204.It has to be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.
205.The date of entry of the judgment, under current procedure, is also the date of the finality of the judgment.
206.The date of entry of the judgment finds relevance when the judgment is to be executed by motion.
- A final and executory judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry.
208.The date of the entry of judgment is also relevant when a litigant files a petition for relief from judgment which is filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding, and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered.
208.The date of the entry of judgment is also relevant when a litigant files a petition for relief from judgment which is filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding, and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered.
209.The judgment is not the end for the losing party because he is afforded remedies against the adverse judgment.
210.If the motion for new trial or the motion for reconsideration is denied, the aggrieved party may appeal from the judgment within the period for appeal following the so-called “fresh period” rule,
211.After the judgment becomes final and executory, a party may no longer appeal because the period for appeal has already lapsed.
212.The judgment has become final and executory and the prevailing party may, at any time within five yearsfrom its date of entry, file a motion for the execution of the judgment rendered in his favor.
213.When all the remedies available to a party have been exhausted and the case is finally decided, the judgment of the court shall then be subject to execution. This is the remedy afforded by procedural rules for the enforcement of the judgment. It is the fruit, as well as the end of the action.
214.Jurisdiction has, traditionally, been referred to as the power and authority of the court to hear, try and determine a case.
This definition has, however, beenexpanded to include the authority of the court to execute its decisions.
215.It was held that the power to control the execution of the decision of the court is an essential aspect of jurisdiction and that the most important part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of decisions.
216.Quite recently, the Court explained that the execution of a judgment is incidental to the jurisdiction already acquired by the trial court
217.The power of a court to hear and decide a controversy includes the power to determine whether or not it has the authority to hear and determine the controversy presented, and the right to decide whether or not the statement of facts that confer jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that arise in the case legitimately before the court.
218.Jurisdiction imports the power and authority to declare the law, to expound or to apply the laws, to hear and determine issues of law and of fact, the power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before the court, and the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce the judgment
219.Note: Common usage tells us that, when a legal treatise makes reference to the term “jurisdiction,” without it specifying the type or aspect of jurisdiction, the same should be construed as referring to jurisdiction over the subject matter,
220.It is the court, not the judge, which by law, is vested with jurisdiction. The judge merely presides over the court. Thus, jurisprudence holds that jurisdiction is not the authority of the judge but of the court. Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court.
221.Hence, the continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it.
222.Jurisdiction does not refer to the decision itself
Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. The authority of the court to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction.
223.Jurisdiction over the subject matter is referred to as the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it. The term also refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs
- the court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs
- Following this definition, “real actions,” “personal actions” or “actions incapable of pecuniary estimation” are to be considered as subject matters.
225.That any act that the court performs without jurisdictionshall be null and void, and without any binding legal effect.
226.Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court hasno jurisdiction over the subject matter.
227.Even if the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter was not raised by either of the parties, the courts will have to first address such question before delving into the procedural and substantive issues of the case.
228.Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and, even if such question is neither raised by the pleadings or suggested by counsel, they may recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying pleadings, dismissing the action, or otherwise noticing the defect, at any stage of the proceedings
229.Effect of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
The general rule is that proceedings conducted or decisions made by a court are legally void where there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is true even where the court in good faith believes that the subject matter is within its jurisdiction.
230.A court devoid of jurisdiction over the case cannot make a decision in favor of either party. It can only dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
231.A decision rendered by a court devoid of jurisdiction may be the subject of a collateral attack, if that jurisdictional defect appears on the face of the record.
232.Where lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appears on the face of the record, an appellate court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action
233.A void judgment for lack of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right, nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void
234.Note: When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is performing the only authority that it has under the circumstances, i.e., to order such dismissal. It would be error for that court to refer or forward the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction.
235.Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or authority is called the exercise of jurisdiction and where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of thatjurisdiction.
236.Of course, implied from the above distinction is the rule that a valid exercise of jurisdiction presupposes that the court exercising jurisdiction has jurisdiction over the nature of the action.
237.An error of jurisdiction is one which occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law. It may also occur when the court or tribunal, although vested with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
238.Another instance when the court may be deemed to have acted without jurisdiction is when, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it acted beyond the power conferred upon it, i.e., it acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law
239.if during the course of the proceedings, the court with jurisdiction, issued orders clearly contrary to the facts and the law, and whimsically and capriciously refused to reconsider said orders despite having the opportunity of doing so, the court is deemed to have been deprived of the jurisdiction it originally had since its acts are deemed to be tainted with a grave abuse of discretion “amounting to lack of jurisdiction.”
240.An error of judgment is not to be equated with an error of jurisdiction.
241.An error of judgment presupposes that the court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action but, in the process of exercising that jurisdiction, it committed mistakes in the appreciation of the facts and the evidence leading to an erroneous judgment. These mistakes are mere errors of judgment and not errors of jurisdiction because the decision, although erroneous, was rendered by a court vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
242.As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretionwilI amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment
243.It must also be noted that mere fact that the court misapplied the facts and the evidence and made erroneous conclusions, does not necessarily give rise to errors of jurisdiction. Such errors are merely errors of judgment
244.Errors of jurisdiction are correctible bycertiorari while errors of judgment are correctible by by appeal
245.The test of jurisdiction is not whether or not the judgment of the court is legally correct. The test is whether or not, underthe law, it has the power or authority to take cognizance of a particular subject matter.
If the court has such authority, then the court has jurisdiction even if its conclusions turn out to be erroneous. The erroneous conclusion of the court would be merely an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction.
246.The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the court or tribunal had the power to enter on the inquiry, not whether or not its conclusions, in the course thereof, were correct, for the power to decide necessarily carries with it the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly.
247.That the decision is erroneous does not divest the court or tribunal that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case. Hence, if the court or tribunal has jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error may be attributed to it simply one of judgment, not of jurisdiction; appeal, not certiorari, lies to correct the error
!
248.An erroneous judgment is not void
Where a court has jurisdiction, an erroneous decision cannot be deemed void, although the error may be the subject of an appeal brought by the aggrieved party.
249.If the court has jurisdiction, it is altogether immaterial how grossly irregular or manifestly erroneous its proceedings may have been. The judgment cannot be considered a nullity, and cannot, therefore, be collaterally impeached. Such a judgment is binding on the parties unless it is reversed or annulled in a direct proceeding.
250.On the contrary, if there is a total want of jurisdiction in a court, its proceedings are an absolute nullity, confer no right and afford no protection but will be pronounced void when collaterally attacked. The judgment may be struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel .
!
251.How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The conferring law may be Constitution, or the statute organizing the court or tribunal, or the special or general statute defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal. That law must be that which is in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
252.Since jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law, its existence does not depend upon the regularity of its exercise by the court or tribunal . It is not dependent on the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or anyone of them.(Consequences of the rule that jurisdiction is conferred bylaw)
253.Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties
254.Because jurisdiction is conferred by law, it cannot be conferred by the administrative policy of any court.
255.Also, it cannot be conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction.
256.Jurisdiction may not be changed by the mere agreement of the parties. It cannot be the subject matter of a contract
257.It cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties
258.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the court’s acquiescence
258.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the court’s acquiescence
259.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the waiver of objections
261.Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the silence of the parties
262.Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied, but must appear clearly from the law or it will not be held to exist, but it may be conferred on a court or tribunal by necessary implication as well as by express terms.
!
263.The law applicable to the case
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.
!
264.How jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
While jurisdiction is conferred by law, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief sought.
265.The allegations in the complaint determine both the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court
266.For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the trial court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments or allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint regardless of whether ornot the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the the claims or reliefs soughttherein.
266.For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the trial court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the averments or allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint regardless of whether ornot the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the the claims or reliefs soughttherein.
267.It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over said action are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
267.It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over said action are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
268.In determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the complaint before it, the court should not inquire into the truth of such allegations. What the court should do is to consider the material allegations in the complaint in relation to the relief sought. The truth shall, later on, be determined during the trial.
268.In determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the complaint before it, the court should not inquire into the truth of such allegations. What the court should do is to consider the material allegations in the complaint in relation to the relief sought. The truth shall, later on, be determined during the trial.
269.Caption of the case is not controlling
The cause of action in a complaint is not what the title or designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe. The designation or caption is not controlling for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint .
270.Jurisdiction does not depend on the complaint’s caption. Hence, a complaint merely bearing the caption, “recovery of possession,” is actually an unlawful detainer case if it contains the jurisdictional facts of said action
270.Jurisdiction does not depend on the complaint’s caption. Hence, a complaint merely bearing the caption, “recovery of possession,” is actually an unlawful detainer case if it contains the jurisdictional facts of said action
271.The defenses and the evidence do not determine jurisdiction
Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration
272.The settled rule is that jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the initiatory pleading and the defenses in the answer are deemed irrelevant and immaterial in its determination; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant
273.Because jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant in his motion to dismiss or answer, the Municipal Trial Court does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the mere allegation, that the defendant asserts ownership over the litigated property.
274.In the same vein, the MTC does not automatically lose its exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases by the mere allegations of a tenancy relationship.
275.However, while the Municipal Trial Court does not lose its jurisdiction over an eiectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties, yet if, after hearing, tenancy had in fact been proved to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
276.In ejectment cases, where tenancy was the defense, the court went beyond the allegations in the complaint in determining jurisdiction in resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and required the presentation of evidence to prove or disprove the defense of tenancy. After finding the real issue to be tenancy, the cases were dismissed for lack jurisdiction.
277.It must be borne in mind, however, that the Municipal Trial Court does not automatically lose its jurisdiction over ejectment cases by the mere allegation of thedefense of tenancy relationship between the parties. The court continues to have authority to hear and evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, and ifafter hearing, tenancy isshown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The rule, still, is that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
278.The amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction (Bar 2015)
Since it is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction does not depend on the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court
279.It is submitted, however, where a complaint for the recovery of a loan of P300,000 is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, but after consideration of the evidence, it is shown that the amount recoverable is P1 million, an amount within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court if originally filed, the Municipal Trial Court cannot render judgment for P1 million for lack of jurisdiction.
!
280.Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (primary administrative jurisdiction)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that thecourts cannot, and will not, resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact .
280.Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (primary administrative jurisdiction)
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that thecourts cannot, and will not, resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact .
281.The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto himself the authority to resolve as controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
282.The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court
283.The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be considered corollary to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or vice versa. It would be more accurate to state that the doctrines complement each other. The distinction lies on what the doctrines give more emphasis.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction emphasizes the initial conferment of jurisdiction over a particular matter to an administrative body before a court could exercise jurisdiction over the same.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, although may also involve administrative jurisdiction over a specific matter, gives emphasis to procedural requirements which a party should follow before seeking judicial relief.
284.The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions.
!
285.Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (continuity of jurisdiction)
The doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case
286.Otherwise stated, once jurisdiction attaches, it shall not be removed from the court until the termination of the case .
287.Because of the doctrine, if, in an action for ejectment, the defendant voluntarily surrenders the premises subject of the action to the plaintiff, the surrender of the property does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
288.Also, if the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve the motion continues until the matter is resolved and is not lost by the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal.See queries 105 for explanation
289.It was ruled that the jurisdiction which the court had at the time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case.
290.It was held that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case involving a public officialby the mere fact that said official ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case
- Likewise, the fact that the complainant resigned after the filing of the administrative complaint did not affect the case because jurisdiction had already been acquired over the case upon the filing of the complaint. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by the resignation of the complaining party; it continues until the case is terminated
292.Also, the retirement from the service of a public official during the pendency of an administrative case against him, does not render the case moot and academic. Once jurisdiction attaches, “it cannot be defeated by the acts of the respondent, save only when death intervenes and the action does not survive
!
293.Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify, or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it
294.Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any subsequent events such as a new legislation placing such proceedingsunder the jurisdiction of another tribunal.
The onlyexception the rule arise when:
(1) there is express provision in the statute, or
(2) the statute isclearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.
!
295.Doctrine of ancillary (incidental) jurisdiction
This power refers to the authority of an office or tribunal to do all things necessary for the administrationof justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgment and mandate.
In other words, ancillary jurisdiction refers to the power of every court to adopt such means and perform such acts necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
296.Corollary to the above provision is Sec. 5 of Rule 135 which enumerates the inherent powers of a court, among which are: To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes and to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice”
!
297.Doctrine of judicial stability
The doctrine of judicial stability is one which precludes a court from interfering by injunction with the regular orders of a co-equal court.
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with that judgment
298.If a court violates the law or the rules on the issuance of a writ, the appropriate action is to assail the writ before the issuing court. Upon failure to seek redress from the said court, the remedy is not to resort to a co-equal body but to a higher court with authority to nullify the action of the issuing court.
299.Thus, under the doctrine, a Regional Trial Court is precluded from issuing an injunction against a writ issued by another Regional Trial Court. The remedy is to go to a higher court to enjoin the acts of the court if the latter refuses to correct its error and denies any motion assailing the writ it issued.
300.The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before the filing of the answer because lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss
301.Jurisprudence explains that the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
302.Even if the parties did not raise the issue ofjurisdiction the reviewing court, on appeal, is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case
- Hence, the issue may even be tackled motu propio for the first time on appeal
304.Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment.
305.The reason for the above rule is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and render judgment on the action .Jurisdiction over the subject matter, being conferred by law, is not for the courts or the parties to conveniently set aside
!
306.Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdictions
While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since it is conferred by law, it is, nevertheless, settled that a party may be barred from raising it on the ground of estoppel
307.In Tijam u. Sibonghanoy, the Supreme Court barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised by a party only when an adverse decision was rendered by the lower court against it and because it raised the issue only after almost 15 years and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and actively participating in all stages of the proceedings.
The doctrine, is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
308.The Court, however, cautioned that estoppel by laches may only be invoked to bar the defense of lack of jurisdiction if the factual milieu is analogous to Tijam u. Sibonghanoy
The contention that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel through active participation in the trial is not the general rule, but an exception, best characterized by the circumstances in Tijamv. Sibonghanoy
Where the factual settings attendant in Tijam V. Sibonghanoy are not present, the application of estoppel by laches would not be justified
309.The Court invoked estoppel to prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction, where the party actively participated in all stages of a case. This participation includes invoking the authority of the court in seeking affirmative relief, and questioning the court’s jurisdiction only after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case, for the purpose of annulling everything done in the trial in which he has actively participated.
310.After voluntarily submitting a case and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse
311.It is settled that the active participation of a party before court is tantamount to recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the court’s resolution
312.A motion to to dismiss is an omnibus motion under Sec. 8 of Rule 15.A motion to dismiss, by seeking for the dismissal of a claimdefinitely attacks a pleading.
313.The same rule requires an omnibus motion to include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.
314.Hence, pursuant to the omnibus motion rule, when a motion to dismiss is filed, all the objections or defenses available to the movant, at the time of the filing of the same, shall be invoked. Those not invoked despite their unavailability (?), shall be deemed waived.
315.Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, available defenses not invoked are considered waived.
316.The omnibus motion rule, however, is, by the terms of Sec. 8 of Rule 15, “Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9.”
There are certain defenses which are not waived even if not invoked in the motion to dismiss. Such non-waivable defenses, stated in their simplest terms, are:
- lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
- litis pendencia;
- res judicata; and
- prescription.
317.Hence, if a motion to dismiss was filed and the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter was not raised therein, a party may, when he files an answer, still raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is not barred by the omnibus motion rule.
318.Jurisdiction over the person or jurisdiction in personam is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil or criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem”
319.Jurisdiction over the person of a litigant is vital for the enforcement of an order or judgment of the court against such person. A person not within the jurisdiction of the court is not bound by the judgment of that court.
320.Anexecution to satisfy a judgment can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court.
321.The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.
322.Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired as soon as he files his complaint or petition because by the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court
323.Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons
324.The court may acquire jurisdiction over the of the defendant without service of summons or despite a defective service of summons. This aspect of jurisdiction may be acquired when the defendant voluntarily participates in an action.
!
325.The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons
326.To constitute voluntary appearance, it must bethe kind that amounts to a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Submission to the court’s jurisdiction takes the form of an appearance that seeks affirmative relief except when the relief sought is for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant.
327.Generally, a person voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction when he or she participates in the trial despite improper service of summons
- As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court like the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file an answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment or to lift the order of default.
329.This rule, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.
330.The objection, however, must be explicitly made or made in an unequivocal manner, Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution
331.If a plaintiff may assert two or more causes of actions, a defendant should also be allowed, under the Rules of Court, to put up his own defenses alternatively or hypothetically. The Court stressed that it should not be the invocation of available additional defenses that should be construed as a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but the failure to raise the defense.
332.The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
333.The rule, as it now stands, allows the raising of defenses in addition to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, without creating an inference of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court
!
334.When jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required
Jurisprudence suggests that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required in an action in personam.
335.Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem.
- In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the partiesis required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.
337.Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis in in rem and quasi in rem actions. Actions in rem or quasi in rem are not directed against the person based on his or her personal liability
338.In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res.
- Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either
- by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
- as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
340.Jurisdiction over the person or jurisdiction in personamis an element of due process that is essential in all actions, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem in.
Hence, a judgment should be executed only against the persons who were parties to the case and not against one not a party and who did not have his day in court. The duty of the sheriff is to levy the property of the judgment debtor, not that of a third person
341.An action in personam is an action against a personon the basis of his personal liability.
341.An action in personam is an action against a personon the basis of his personal liability.
342.An action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person.
343.An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is namedas defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
344.Petitions directed against the “thing” itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, are actions in rem.
- A petition for adoption is an action in rem
346.A petition for annulment of marriage is an action in rem
347.A petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate is an action in rem
- Forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem.
These proceedings do not terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely in the forfeiture of the properties either acquired illegally or related to unlawful activities in favor of the State. As an action in rem, it is a proceeding against the thing itself instead of against the person. For this purpose, service may be made by publication as such mode of service is allowed in actions in rem and quasi in rem.
349.In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. However, summons must be served upon the defendant, not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but merely for satisfying the due process requirements
350.The fact that the action is one in rem or quasi in rem does not mean that the persons interested in the subject matter of the action need not be summoned. In order tosatisfy the requirements of due process, summons upon persons is required regardless of the nature of the action.
351.The summons in actions in rem or quasi is not for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over such persons but to serve the ends of due process.
If, however, they appear in the action, as when the proper pleadings is served and filed, it is as if the action is one in personam. Such appearance enables the court to acquire personal jurisdiction over them.
352.An action for annulment of certificate of title is quasi in rem. It is not an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, but an action that subjects a person’s interest over a property to a burden.
353.The action for annulment of a certificate of title threatens petitioner’s interest in the property. Petitioner is entitled to due process with respect to that interest. The court does not have competence or authority to proceed with an action for annulment of certificate of title without giving the person, in whose name the certificate was issued, all the opportunities to be heard.
354.Hence, regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is imperative. A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a defect in jurisdiction,
Respondent’s institution of a proceeding for annulment of petitioner’s certificate of title is sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res, but it is not sufficient for the court to proceed with the case with authority and competence.
355.Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons. Thus, as a rule, summons must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be tendered to him or her.
356.Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
356.Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
357.An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision . Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
357.An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision . Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
!
358.Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue
359.How jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and determined
1.Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties. !
The pleadings present the issues to be tried and determine whether or not the issues are of fact or of law.
- Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts and documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the issues of the case.
- Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here, the parties try, with their express or implied consent, issues not raised in the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
360.An issue arises because a material allegation of a claiming party is specifically denied by the defending party. The denial to be specific, must conform to any of the denials prescribed in Sec. 10 of Rule 8.
361.A denial, made not in accordance with said rule, is to be construed as an admission, a circumstance which does not give rise to an issue. Thus, where the defendant admits all the material allegations of fact of the claiming party, there is no controverted issue between the parties.
362.Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, a judgmenton the pleadings may be rendered by the court upon a motion properly filed.
363.The issue in a case may be either one of law or of fact.
364.For a question to be one of law,the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.
365.Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact
- In short, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is whether the court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating evidence. If there is no need for such evaluation the issue is one of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact
367.Thus, where the question disputed by parties is whether or not the debtor has paid the debt, the issue is one of fact. Where the question is whether or not the manner of payment is of the type which produces the legal effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issuebecomes one of law.
368.Also, when under a given set of facts, the issue is whether or not the law on double sales applies, there is a question of law. When in a case, the issue is the genuineness or due execution of a document, the question is one of fact.
369.When in a case, the issue is the genuineness or due execution of a document, the question is one of fact.
- Where the threshold issue is whether certain paragraphs in an agreement are void for being contrary to law or public policy, it is obvious that the issue is a question of law
371.While it is a rule that an issue arises from the pleadings of the parties, an issue may arise in the case without it having been raised in the pleadings. This occurs when the parties try an issue with their consent.
Under Sec. 5 of Rule 10, when issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings
372.Upon motion of any party, the pleadings may be amended to conform to the evidence but the failure to so amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues because the pleadings are deemed impliedly or constructively amended to embody the issues tried with the consent of the parties.
373.The consent of the parties may be inferred from failure to interpose an objection to the presentation of evidence on a matter not alleged in the pleadings. (consent to try a case not raised in the pleadings)
374.Where the issue, as determined in the complaint and answer, is one of mere possession of property, any evidence showing ownership must be objected to, ownership not being an issue raised in the pleadings. However, if the evidence is not objected seasonably, the matter of ownership will be deemed to have been raised by the parties in their pleadings and the evidence becomes admissible.
375.If the complaint did not allege a claim for salary differential, but no objection was interposed on the evidence presented to prove the claim for salary differential, the Labor Arbiter correctly considered the evidence
376.If, in a complaint for a sum of money filed before the Regional Trial Court, the plaintiff did not allege the making of a demand for payment before commencing suit but, during the trial, plaintiff duly offered in evidence a letter of demand to prove the making of an extrajudicial demand on the defendant, and the letter was admitted in evidence without objection of the defendant, it is as if the matter of demand was raised in the pleadings. The court committed no procedural error in admitting the letter of demand in evidence.
377.The term, res, includes an object, subject-matter or status. Jurisdiction over the res
378.When action is one in personam, jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient to authorize the court to render a judgment against the defendant. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over defendant is required for the court to validly try and decide the case. This is because the action is one brought on the basis of the personal liability of the defendant
379.Thus jurisprudence holds that if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required for the court to proceed with the action. What is required is jurisdiction over the res although summons must also be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process
380.An action for a sum of money is an action in personam
In an action for a sum of money, an action in personam, in order for the court to be vested with the authority to order the defendant to pay the sum demanded by the plaintiff, it imperative for the court to have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. This is achieved by a valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary appearance in the action.Without such authority, the court is devoid of any power to command the defendant to pay.
382.When the action is either in rem or quasi in rem, the action is directed against a specific property or “res not against a particular person. Hence, jurisdiction over “res” is sufficient as long as summons is properly served the defendant or persons who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment.
383.Where the proceedings is quasi in rem like an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage against a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines, the jurisdiction of the court over the res which is the property mortgaged, is sufficient for the court to order the foreclosure of the mortgage. Summons must be served, however, uponthe mortgagor to comply with the demands of due process. If the mortgagor does not appear in the action, the jurisdiction and the subsequent judgment of the court, in this case, will be limited to the foreclosed property or its value since its jurisdiction extends only to the property foreclosed,
384.Where the proceeding is the allowance or probate of a will, an in rem proceeding, jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the will and the estate mentioned therein, is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes. Personal jurisdiction over the persons of those interested in the will is not necessary because the proceeding is not intended to impose a personal liability against them. However, the court is mandated to notify the heirs, legatees, devisees of the time and place for proving the will to comply with the requirements of due process.
- How jurisdiction over the res is acquired
- Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court by placing the property or thing under its custody (custodia legis) or constructive seizure.
Example: Attachment of property in which property is placed in the actual custody of the court.
2.It may also be acquired by the court through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with property or thing.
Example: Suits involving the status of parties; suits involving the property in the Philippines of non-resident defendants.
386.Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective.
In the latter case, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may never be taken into actual custody atall. An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment proceedings, where the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or some subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide with the final event of the litigation.
An illustration of what the Court terms potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under the system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical control over the property assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world
387.A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction over the res, in this case, cannot be acquired, unless there is a constructive seizure of the land through publication and service of notice. The seizure in this case, is not an actual seizure of the land.
388.Extent of relief when jurisdiction is only over the res
The court exercising an in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction has limited powers. Its jurisdiction extends only to the value of the property over which its jurisdiction is based. If the proven claim exceeds the value of the property, the court has no authority to render a deficiency judgement.
389.Stated in another way, any relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res and the court cannot lawfully render a judgment against the defendant where jurisdiction has not been acquired by the court over the person of the defendant.
Thus, if an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage,where the jurisdiction acquired by the court is only over the res and not over the person of the defendant (because the debtor-mortgagor is a non-resident who is also outside of the Philippines), the relief of the creditor extends only to the property foreclosed or to its value. If in the foreclosure sale, there arises a deficiency, a deficiency judgment, authorizedby Sec. 6 of Rule 68 against the debtor-mortgagor would not be feasible. This is because the collection of the deficiency is a proceeding in personam which require jurisdiction over the person of the debtor-mortgagor. There being no personal jurisdiction over his person, a deficiency judgment cannot be rendered against him.
390.Remember, that summons to the defendant is required whatever be the nature of the action. The defendant who learns of the attachment of his property is now confronted with two choices – let his property answer for his alleged obligation or personally appear and put up a full-blown defense. If he unequivocally appears in the action or performs acts constituting voluntary appearance in the action, like filing an answer to the complaint, the court will now acquire jurisdiction over his person. In such a case, the action is deemed to reacquire the status of an action in personam. Under the facts, the court has also acquired jurisdiction to render judgment ordering the defendant to pay the difference because it has acquired jurisdiction over the person of said defendant.
391.The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law are generallyreviewed by the Court. Questions of fact are not entertained
392.It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze and weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below since such matters are issues of fact.
393.The appreciation and resolution of factual issues are the functions of the lower courts, whose resulting findings are received with respect and binding on the Supreme Court, especially when such findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court as long as such findings are supported by the records, or are based on substantial evidence.
394.Also, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by the Court.
!
395.Hence, if an appeal by certiorari is taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court raising or submitting issues of fact, such appeal may be referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The Supreme Court does not have to dismiss an improper appeal.
396.A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.
397.A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises asto the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses,the existence or relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to whole, and the probability of the the situation
398.Where the issue brought is whether or not a lower court has the power or authority to hear and determine a cause of action or where the issue concerns the correct interpretation or application of relevant laws and rules, the question posed is one of law, hence, cognizable by the Supreme Court.
399.Jurisprudence, however, has carved out some recognized exceptions to the above rule. For example, when the findings of facts of the trial court and the reviewing court are conflicting, factual issues may be resolved by the Court, as when the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are frontally inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals.
Another exception, among others, is when the findings of the court below are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures.
400.As a rule, cases are not filed originally with the Supreme Court. The rule is, however, subject to certain exceptions. see jurisdiction: original cases congnizable by the SC
401.An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Sec. 3, Rule 56, Rules of Court).
402.The mode of appeal to the Supreme Court referred to under Sec. 3 of Rule 56 is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 (also called petition for review on certiorari).
!
403.The appeal is made by filing with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari raising only questions of law. Again, it needs to be remembered that, as a rule, questions of fact are not to be raised in an appeal by way of Rule 45.
404.All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law should be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc
405.all cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations should be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc
406.Contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President should be heard by the Supreme Court En Banc
407.Procedure when the opinion of the Supreme Court En Banc is equally divided
Where the opinion of the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on. If after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. On all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied
408.Unlike the Supreme Court which could sit En Banc in order to resolve cases, the Court of Appeals may sit En Banc only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions
409.The Court of Appeals shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of Regional Trial Courts
410.Following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,the petition for certiorari against the NLRC must first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
411.Note: Under the law, the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes may be exercised whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Previously, the Court of Appeals could issue these writs only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
412.The decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
413.Note that under R.A. 9282, thejudgment and final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals are no longer appealable by way of petition for review to the Courtof Appeals. Judgmentof he Court of Tax Appeals rendered en banc are appealable to the Supreme Court by way of Rule 45
414.The Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction because decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in these cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of Regional Trial Courts.
415.Power of the Court of Appeals to try and conduct hearings like a trial court
Even if the Court of Appeals is not basically a trial court, unlike the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court, which are actually trial courts, under the law, it has the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence, and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases falling not only within its original jurisdiction but also in cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction. This authority includes the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings .
416.It has been held that the Court of Appeals may pass upon the evidence to factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it. The court may even act like a trial court in resolving motions for new trial, petitions for writ of amparo, habeas data, habeas corpus or, in actions to annul the judgment of the RTC over which the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction.
- The authority granted by law to the Court of Appeals to conduct trials or hearings is subject to the following limitations:
- trials or hearings must be continuous;
- trials and hearings must be completed within three months, except when extended by the Chief Justice.
418.The basic barometer of the jurisdiction of the MTC is the jurisdictional amount. The jurisdictional amount referred to is the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand involved in the civil action or proceedings
419.The MTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed P300,000 outside Metro Manila, or not more than P400,000 within Metro Manila
Where the demand exceeds the amounts mentioned, the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (Sec. 19[8], B.P. 129, as amended).
Note: The amount of P300,000 is the result of adjustments authorized under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7691 as previously discussed.
It was in 2004 when the maximum jurisdictional amount of P300,000 was applied to the MTC outside Metro Manila.
- The jurisdictional amount does not include the following:
- interest;
- damages of whatever kind;
- attorney’s fees;
- litigation expenses; and
- costs
Although excluded in determining the jurisdiction of the court, the above items, however, shall be included in determining the filing fees
421.The exclusion of the term ‘damages of whatever kind’ in determining the jurisdictional amount, 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.”
422.An action for damages with a prayer for moral damages in the amount of P300.000; P50,000 as exemplary damages; P50,000 as attorney’s fees; P20,000 as litigation expenses and costs of suits, falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC (more than 400,000)
The Court held that basedon the allegations of the complaint, it was clear that the action was for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and costs, were not merely incidental to or consequences of the main action constituted the primary relief prayed for. Since the total amount claimed was P420,000, the RTC has jurisdiction.
423.Since the interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto and already determinable at thetime of the filing of the Complaint, it must be included in the determination of which court has jurisdiction over petitioner’s case. This from a case: an action for sum of money (loan with interest)
!
424.Totality Rule
Under the totality rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions or whether they arose from a single cause of action or several causes of action.
425.The totality rule presupposes that the various claims of the same or different parties are allowed to be embodied in the same complaint, or that the different causes of action, which are joined, accrue in favor of the same plaintiff’s and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. If so, then the total amount of the claims shall be the basis of the court’s jurisdiction and not the amount of the individual claims.
426.This totality is applied in relation to the rules on permissive joinder of parties and the rules on joinder of causes of action.
427.The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to grant provisional remedies in proper cases. This rule presupposes that the MTC has jurisdiction over the principal action. The power to grant provisional remedies depends upon which court has jurisdiction over the principal action.
- The MTC also exercises delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases covering lots wherethere is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, as may be delegated by the Supreme Court . A delegation of the cases to the MTC need be made by SC.
429.The decision of the MTC shall be appealable in the same manner as the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence, the MTC, acting under its delegated jurisdiction, may be deemed to be acting as a Regional Trial Court. The decision of the MTC in cadastral and land registration cases, therefore, shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals following the procedure in Rule 41.
430.The jurisdiction of the MTC in cadastral and land registration is only a delegated one because it is the Regional Trial Court which normally has jurisdiction over cadastral and land registration cases. Without such delegation made by the Supreme Court, the MTC cannot exercise jurisdiction over cadastral and land registration cases.
431.Presently, jurisdiction over an application for land registration remains with the RTC where the land is situated, except when such jurisdiction is delegated by the Supreme Court to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Courts under certain circumstances.
432.The MTC has also been conferred by law a specialjurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeascorpus in the absence of all the Regional Trial Court judges in the province or city .
433.The special jurisdiction of the MTC includes the authority to hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases inthe province or city where the absent Regional Trial Court sit
434.The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over cases falling under the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure and the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
435.The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases . These are both ejectment cases, otherwise known as accion interdictal.
436.The issue in unlawful detainer and forcible entry is possession, not ownership of real property.
437.The court, however, may resolve an issue of ownership in either action when the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the issue of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership. The court may resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.
438.In other words, when the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, the court may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property.
439.This means that when the court can resolve the issue of possession without dealing with the issue of ownership, the court will refrain from resolving the issue of ownership.
440.The Court explains that any issue on ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining the principal issue of possession. In other words, the adjudication of the issue of ownership is not final and binding. The same is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of ownership.
441.Otherwise stated, the adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
442.An action for unlawful detainer is one the purpose of which is to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
443.In forcible entry, the purpose is recover any land or building by a possessor deprived of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. The possession by the defendant in forcible entry is illegal from its inception.
- “Title” is different from a “certificate of title”.
“Certificate of title” is the document of ownership under the Torrens System of registration issued by the government through the Registerof Deeds. While title is the claim,right or interest in real property, a certificate of title is the evidence of such claim.
445.Another way of looking at it is that, while “title” gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a “certificate of title,” the holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title to the real property.
446.The issuance of a certificate of title does not give the owner any better title than what he actually has in law. Thus, a plaintiff’s action for cancellation or nullification of a certificate of title may only be a necessary consequence of the defendant’s lack of title to real property.
447.Although the certificate of title may have been lost, burned, or destroyed and later on reconstituted, title subsists and remains unaffected unless it is transferred or conveyed to another or subjected to a lien or encumbrance.
448.As it stands, under the amendments, jurisdiction over real actions is now shared between the MTC and the RTC depending on the assessed value of the property.
449.The RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction 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 thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
450.In a number of cases, the Court has 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 classification of cases that involve ‘title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein
451.An action for quieting of title over real property, like, an action for reconveyance of or cancellation of title to real property, falls under the classification of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein.
452.The mortgage of a property to a Bank, annotated on the TCT, constitutes a cloud on the owner’s title to the subject property which may call for (justify/exact) an action for quieting of title, a real action, the jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of the property. (j)
453.In a case involving friar lands, the Court clearly instructed that the original and exclusive jurisdiction over a complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance belongs to either the RTC or the MTC using the assessed value as basis
454.An action for declaratory relief falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC\
455.An action for declaratory relief result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect
456.It is important to note that Section 1. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word may (which means) that an action for quieting of title may be brought under the Rule on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief may bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court. The use of the word may in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, uses the word shall and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00
457.The basis of jurisdiction in real actions is the assessed value as alleged in the complaint
458.It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the complaint based on the allegation that ‘the present estimated value of the land is P50,000’ The estimated value, commonly referred to as the fair market value is entirely different from the assessed value of the property
459.Whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a particular action, is determined by the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.
460.When parties disagree on the correct boundary of adjacent lots, the controversy must be treated as one for ownership, not mere possession.
461.A boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the property claimed formed part of the plaintiff’s property
462.A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry.
463.Accion reivindicatoria Is an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership. The basic question in such an action is whether the plaintiff, has presented sufficient evidence to prove his ownership of the property in question.
464.In real actions,a complaint must allege the assessed value of the property to determine which court has jurisdiction over the same to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.This is because the nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and 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. (actions involving “TPI”)
465.If the assessed value is not alleged in the complaint, the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is not afforded the means of determining from the allegations of the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court. After all. courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands.
466.Note: In cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of the property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lot
467.Note, however, that the non-inclusion of the assessed value on the face of the complaint is not fatal if attached to the complaint is a tax declaration showing the assessed value of the property.
468.Annexes to the complaint have been held to be part of, and should be considered together with the complaint in determining the jurisdiction of the court. The ruling that the court cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value of the land does not apply to a case in which attached to complaint is a tax declaration or some other document showing the assessed value of said land
469.Allegation of assessed value is immaterial on appeal
The amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction. Cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved.
Sec. 22 of B.P. 129 as amended vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
470.It is true that under the prevailing law, in actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein, there is a need to allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the action, or interest therein, for purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction over the action. However, it must be clarified that this requirement applies only if these courts are in the exercise of their original jurisdiction.The assessed value of the disputed lot is immaterial for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction
471.Allegation of assessed value is immaterial on appeal
The amount involved is immaterial for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction. Cases decided by the MTC generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. Sec. 22 of B.P. 129 as amended vests upon the RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decide the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
472.Hence, it was held that where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed with the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.
473.A complaint brought primarily to enforce a contractual right to repurchase a real property previously sold to the buyer, is an action for specific performance and thus, must be filed with the Regional Trial Court.
474.The Court ruled that a complaint denominated as one for “Breach of Contract & Damages” is neither an action for specific performance nor a complaint for rescission of a contract where the complaint primarily prays for the payment of damages as a means of enforcing the penal clause embodied in the contract between the parties
475.Breach of contract may give rise to an action for specific performance or rescission of contract. It may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages filed pursuant to Art. 1170 of the Civil Code. In the specific performance and rescission of contract cases, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction belongs to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In the case for damages, however, the court that has jurisdiction depends upon the total amount of the damages claimed.
476.There is no such thing as an “action for breach of contract.” Rather, “breach of contract” is a cause of action, but not the action or relief itself.
477.A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation contained in the penal clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation.
- Under the Civil Code the amount the parties stipulated to pay in case of breach are liquidated damages. It is attached to an obligation in order to ensure performance and has a double function:
(1) to provide for liquidated damages, and
(2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.
479.True, breach of contract may give rise to a complaint for specific performance or rescission of contract. In which case, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, jurisdiction is lodged with the RTC. However, breach of contract may also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages. Thus, it is not correct to immediately conclude, that since the cause of action is breach of contract, the case would only either be specific performance or rescission of contract because it may happen, that the complaint is one for damages.
480.In an action for damages, the court which has jurisdiction is determined by the total amount of damages claimed.
481.where the complaint primarily seeks to recover damages, all claims for damages should be considered in determining which court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case regardless of whether they arose from a single cause of action or several causes of action.
482.In a case, although the action was denominated as one for cancellation of deeds of sale, transfer certificates of title and of the joint venture agreement, since the complaint, based on the allegations therein, actually sought for the recovery of real properties, the complaint, held the Court, involved a real action and, thus, the assessed value should be considered in computing the fees
483.In a case, a complaint for rescission or annulment of a contract was held to be one not susceptible of pecuniary estimation even if it may eventually result in the recovery of real property, taking into consideration the allegations and the nature of the relief sought. (this is a complaint for annulment or rescission of the contract of sale of land. Hence, recovery.j)
- Actions for support are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC
485.Actions for annulment of a judgment are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC
486.Actions to foreclose a mortgage are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC
- Actions that seek for the recovery of real properties are cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC (.j)
488.In one case, a complaint was filed with the MTC for reconveyance of real property (with an assessed value of P12,400) with declaration of nullity of original certificate of title (OCT), having been allegedly obtained by fraud. On issue of whether or not the case should have been filed with the RTC because it involved a subject matter incapable pecuniary estimation, the Court held that the same was a real action because the primary relief was to recover ownership of real property. Considering its assessed value, the MTO had properly exercised jurisdiction over the action.
489.Accion publiciana is a plenary action for recovery of possession in an ordinary civil proceeding, in order to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of title.
490.The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property.
This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination of the issue on ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession where the issue on ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession.
The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
491.Accion publiciana is also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant’s possession had become illegal, the action will be an accion publiciana
492.An accion reinvindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and possession based on said ownership.
493.Accion reivindicatoria
The determining jurisdictional element for accion reinvindicatoria is the assessed value of the property in question.
For properties outside Metro Manila, the RTC has jurisdiction if the assessed value exceeds P20,000, and the MTC, if the assessed value is P20,000 or below.
- An assessed value can have reference only to the tax rolls in the municipality where the property is located, and is contained in the tax declaration. It is elementary that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency.
495.It must be emphasized that the jurisdiction of the court, under R.A. 7691, over an action involving title to possession of land is not determined by the market value the property but by the assessed value thereof.
496.The assessed value of real property is the fair market value of the real property multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. The fair market value is the price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy
497.The law should now be clear at this point. The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila or P50,000 in Metro Manila. The amounts mentioned are exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs. In cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
The above rule excludes the real actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer which are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, regardless of the assessed value of the property involved.
498.Real actions (actions involving title to, possession of, or any interest in real property) are also incapable of pecuniary estimation
One must be reminded that jurisprudence does not deny that actions like reconveyance of real property, quieting of title to real property, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, foreclosure of real estate mortgage, partition of real property and similar actions, are also actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. They are, however, also real actions. (hence, the assessed value.j)
499.Actions involving title to, possession of or any interest in real property in Sec. 33[3] of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation. However, because of the new law,the assessed value of the property should now be considered in determining jurisdiction if actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are also real actions.
500.Thus, it may be gleaned from jurisprudence that if the action is real, based on the allegations in the complaint, even if the same be one incapable of pecuniary estimation, the assessed value of the property becomes determinative of jurisdiction.
501.that while civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the court’s jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved.
502.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
503.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
Note: This jurisdiction is deemed modified by Sec. 5 of R.A. 8369, the law which established the Family Courts. However, under Sec. 17 of RA 8369, in areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases referred to in Sec. 5 of the law shall be adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court.
504.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
Note: This jurisdiction is often described as the ‘general jurisdiction of the RTC making it a court of ‘general jurisdiction.’
505.The Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
Note: The jurisdiction of the RTC over cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is subject to R.A. 8369, the law establishing Family Courts.
506.The decisions of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals. The appeal shall be given due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that would warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
507.In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the RTC does not have the authority of the Court of Appeals in Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 as amended, to try cases, conduct hearings or new trials, receive evidence and such other acts to resolve factual issues.
The basis of the decision of the Regional Trial Court in a case appealed to it shall be (1) the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin, and (2) such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the court.
508.Special jurisdiction of the RTC to try special cases
Certain branches of the Regional Trial Court may be designated by the Supreme Court to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
509.Upon the enactment of R.A. 8799. jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes, including derivative suits, is now vested in the RTC’s designated as special commercial courts by the Supreme Court
The jurisdiction of the SEC over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise known as), the proper Regional Trial Courts
510.In determining whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy, the Court uses two tests, namely, the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test.
511.It is an intracorporate case when the case principally dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by A against B as well as the validity of A’s act in preventing B from participating in the election of the corporation’s Board of Directors. B contested the alleged unpaid dues and assessments demanded by A.
512.The nature of an action involving any dispute as to the validity of the assessment of association dues is purely an intracorporate matter and is, thus, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court.
513.Under the relationship test, where the controversy involves shareholders of record of the corporation, even where the ownership of shares by one of them is questioned, the matter is an intra-corporate controversy.
514.Under the nature of controversy test, where the purpose of the litigation is to prevent a stockholder from inspecting the corporate books on the ground that he is not the true owner of his alleged his alleged shares, the controversy is intra-corporate.
515.There are no intra-corporate relations between the parties where the plaintiff petitioner is neither a stockholder, partner, member or officer of the defendant corporation. Moreover, the questions involved neither pertain to the parties’ rights and obligations under the Corporation Code, if any, nor to matters directly relating to the regulation of the corporation.
The action for a sum of money, specific performance and damages springs from the parties relationship as an investor and a securities broker. The case is not an intra-corporate dispute and, instead, is a mere ordinary civil action.
516.Effect on jurisdiction when an intra-corporate case is erroneously assigned by raffle to a regular branch of the Regional Trial Court
The Court ruled that the erroneous raffling of the case to a regular branch was only a matter of procedure. Having filed the intra-corporate case with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is also the official station of the special commercial court, the court had acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action upon the filing of the complaint.
The Court further explained that the objective behind the designation of special commercial courts is promote expediency and efficiency in the exercise of the RTC’s jurisdiction over the cases enumerated under Sec. 5 of PD 902-A. Such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of jurisdiction because the power to define, prescribe and apportion jurisdiction is, as a general rule, a matter of legislative prerogative.
- Where the case was erroneously raffled to a regular court, the proper course of action, ruled the Court, was not for the commercial case to be dismissed but to refer the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case and assigning the same to the designated special commercial court. Docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, refunded.
518.RTC is a court of general jurisdiction
Sec. 19[6] of B.P. 129, as amended, includes as part of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, cases “not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.”
519.On the basis of the above provision, jurisprudence declares that unlike the Municipal Trial Court, which is a court of limited jurisdiction because it can only take cognizance of cases expressly provided by law, the Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction because all cases, the jurisdiction of which is not specifically provided by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court falls within the jurisdiction the Regional Trial Court
520.The designation of certain courts as commercial courts is only to streamline the workloads of Regional Trial Courts. Such courts designated as commercial courts are still considered courts of general jurisdiction, The designation does not, in any way, limit their jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of all nature whether civil, criminal or special proceedings. Such courts still have the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of specific performance
This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the administration of all courts and the personnel thereof. (jurisdiction is conferred by law)
521.Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the designation of Special Commercial Courts is merely an incident related to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction, which is distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC’s general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is, therefore, not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
522.Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute.
523.The RTC’s general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is, therefore, not abdicated by an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
524.The designation of a branch of the RTC as a special commercial court does not diminish its power as a court of general jurisdiction. It could still take cognizance of a petition for injunction.
525.It was held that the fact than an action for injunction was raffled to, and heard by, an RTC sitting as a commercial court is more an issue of procedure than one of jurisdiction. Where a party has submitted to the authority of the RTC without objecting procedural impropriety, an objection to the same is deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
- Where a party has submitted to the authority of the RTC without objecting procedural impropriety, an objection to the same is deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
527.That the nature of the action is not determined by what is stated in the caption but by the allegations in the complaint and the relief prayed for. The ultimate objective of the complaint must be inquired into.
528.an action for reconveyance of real property will not be deemed one incapable of pecuniary estimation where the ultimate objective is to obtain title to the property.
529.Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs, is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof
530.“Although appellant’s complaint is entitled to be one for specific performance, yet the fact that he asked that a deed of sale of a parcel of land situated in Quezon City be issued in his favor and that a transfer certificate of title covering said land be issued to him shows that the primary objective and nature of the action is to recover the parcel of land itself because to execute in favor of appellant the conveyance requested there is need to make a finding that he is the owner of the land which in the last analysis resolves itself into an issue of ownership”
- In other words, in order to determine if an action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of the principal remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction over the action would then depend upon the amount of the claim. Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or the money claim is merely incidental to the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
532.Where the main purpose of filing the action is to collect the commission allegedly promised by the defendant should the plaintiffs be able to sell a particular lot, and also for recovery of compensation for services rendered, the action is principally for the collection of a sum of money and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation
533.“The Court found that the principal relief sought was the nullification of the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale, a relief that is one other than the recovery of a sum of money hence, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction over which is lodged in the Regional Trial Court”
534.An action for declaration of nullity of contracts and documents is incapable of pecuniary estimation”
535.A complaint for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of money. Rather it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private property for public use. The subject of the expropriation suit is the government’s exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
536.An action seeking to annul a resolution of a government-owned and controlled corporation is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
537.An action for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real property with an assessed value of P50,000 located in Laguna is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
538.An action for specific performance is one generally considered incapable of pecuniary estimation.
539.The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to the prayer for specific performance is not determinative of jurisdiction, Thus, an action for specific performance and damages of P200,000 is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court even if the amount of damages sought to be recovered is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
540.Where however, the demand is in the alternative, as in an action to compel the defendant to deliver the house by completing its construction or to pay a certain sum, the action is one that is capable of pecuniary estimation. Thus, an action for specific performance, or, in the alternative, for damages, in the amount of P18,000 is one capable of pecuniary estimation because of the alternative prayer which is for a sum of money. Here; the amount damages is determinative of jurisdiction.
541.If, as gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought is for the court to issue an injunction against the adverse party and his representatives to permanently enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land, the complaint is not a possessory action but one for injunction. As such, the subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by the Regional Trial Court
542.An action for a writ of injunction is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. It is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
543.An action for the replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150,000 is capable of pecuniary estimation. The basis of jurisdiction is the value of the personal property sought to be recovered. The stated value is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
544.An action for interpleader is capable of pecuniary estimation where the subject matter is either real or personal, property. If the subject of interpleader is real property, then the jurisdictional amount is determined by the assessed value of the land. If it be personal property, then value the property.
545.In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is imperative to ascertain “the nature of the principal action or remedy sought.”
546.In a case, although the end result of the plaintiff’s claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name the suit was still essentially for specific performance, a personal action, because it sought from the defendant the execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which they had previously made. Here, the action is primarily to enforce the contract to execute a deed of sale.
In a case, although the end result of the plaintiff’s claim was the transfer of the subject property to his name the suit was still essentially for specific performance, a personal action, because it sought from the defendant the execution of a deed of absolute sale based on a contract which they had previously made. Here, the action is primarily to enforce the contract to execute a deed of sale.
547.An action for specific performance to enforce a right to repurchase lots previously sold to the buyer in accordance with the Public Land Act is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
548.Not all actions involving real property are real actions. Where the main objective of the suit, as gleaned from the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, is to compel the adverse party to perform a specific act, like the execution of written instruments pursuant to a previous agreement, the action is one for specific performance.
549.An action for specific performance to compel the defendant to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land with an assessed value of P19,000 is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court because the main issue is whether or not the to compel specific performance
550.Settled jurisprudence considers some civil actions as incapable of pecuniary estimation, namely:
- action for specific performance;
- action for support which will require the determination of the civil status;
- right to support of the plaintiff;
- annulment of decisions of lower courts;
- rescission or reformation of contracts;
- interpretation of a contractual stipulation.
This ruling presupposes that the enumerated actions are the primary purposes of the complaints based on their material allegations.
551.A complaint for collection of an agent’s compensation and commission in the sale of a parcel of land is principally for the collection of a sum of money. It is neither an action incapable of pecuniary estimation or a real action. Jurisdiction should, hence, be based on the amount of the claim
552.”A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is incapable 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”
553.Action for partition of real property
The MTC has jurisdiction over an action for partition of real property with an assessed value of P8,080. A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation was correctly denied by the MTCC because contrary to the defendant’s contention, “the MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting title to real property, of for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on property.
554.Action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage
Foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a real action. Hence, it is the assessed value of the property which determines the court’s jurisdiction.
555.Action to enforce the payment of damages under a penal clause
A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation contained in the penal clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary estimation. The argument that the complaint is one incapable of pecuniary estimation cannot be sustained.
556.Extent of trial court’s jurisdiction when acting as a probate court
Jurisprudence teaches that the jurisdiction of the trial court as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. All that the court could do is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered.
557.For the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to a final determination in a separate action
558.However, if the interested parties are all heirs, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and third parties are not prejudiced or injured thereby, the probate court may decide questions on ownership.
559.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for guardianship,custody of children and habeas corpus involving children
560.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof
561.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over .Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to a status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreement and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains
562.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of E.O. No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”
563.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended
564.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Violations of R.A. 7610, otherwise the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, and Exploitation and Discrimination Act”
565.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
566.Under R.A. 8369, the Family Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under P.D. 603, E.0.56 (Series of 1986) and other related laws
567.The Shari’a courts were created under Art. 137 of PD 1083 dated February 4, 1977.
568.The creation of Shari’a courts is a recognition of the legal system of the Muslims in the Philippines as part of the law of the land and seeks to make Islamic institutions more effective
569.The Shari’a courts and the personnel thereof are subject to the a supervision of the Supreme Court.
570.The Shari’a District judges receive the same compensation and enjoy the same privileges as the Regional Trial Courts. Shari’a Circuit Court judges receive the same compensation same privileges as judges of Municipal Trial Court.
571.The Shari’a District court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall govern their relations
572.Finality of decisions of Shari’a District Courts
The decisions of the Shari’a District Courts, whether on appeal from the Shari’a Circuit Court or not, shall be final. Nothing herein contained shall affect the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution.
573.Venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding be brought. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties as it relates to the place of trial. It does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court
- Venue does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court
575.Venue is procedural and not substantive. In civil case, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction. In essence, venue concerns a rule of procedure.
576.Venue, however, is treated differently in a criminal case. Jurisprudence holds that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional.
- Because venue, in criminal cases, is an essential element of jurisdiction, where the information is filed in a place where the offense was not committed, the information may be quashed for “lack of jurisdiction” over the offense charged and not merely “improper venue.”
578.Also, because venue is jurisdictional in a criminal case, it cannot be waived by the parties. This is not so in a civil case where improper venue is not equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Because it is merely procedural, the parties to a civil case can waive the venue of a case.
579.In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
580.The Rules of Court expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. As it relates to the place of trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than to restrict their access to the courts. In other words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a court despite its being the improper venue.
- A wrong venue is a mere procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional defect
582.Venue in a civil case may be waived if not invoked either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
583.Venue in a civil case may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties
584.The court may dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but not for improper venue (in civil cases).
585.Subject to the omnibus motion rule, the objection to an improper venue must be raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer because, as a rule, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
586.Where the improper venue was already apparent at the time the motion to dismiss was filed, the objection to venue should be raised in the motion to dismiss pursuant to the omnibus motion rule; otherwise, such objection shall be deemed waived. The defense of improper venue is not one of those defenses which are not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss the answer.
587.The defense of improper venue is not one of those defenses which are not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss the answer.
588.The rules on venue do not give a plaintiff the freedom to bring suits wherever he chooses.
The venue of a case is circumscribed by specific and definite rules to ensure a fair procedure by preventing undue harassment of a defendant by the plaintiff. Such rules are neither circuitous nor complicated.
589.In order to know the venue of a particular action, the basic and initial step is to determine if the action is personal or real. If it is personal, the venue is deemed transitory and thus, generally depends upon the residences of the parties. If it is real, the venue is local and, thus, generally, the venue is the place where the property or any portion of the same is situated
590.A real action is one that affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein.In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions.
591.Personal actions may include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to person or property
592.The venue in personal actions is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
593.Personal actions are often referred to as transitory because its venue “moves” depending on the residences of the parties.
594.There are cases in which there are several parties and some of them are merely formal or nominal. The Rules instruct that when there is more than one plaintiff or defendant in a personal action, the residences of the principal parties would be the basis for determining the proper venue.
595.In personal actions, if the defendant is a non-resident, the venue is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the non-resident defendant may be found, at the election of the plaintiff
596.The term “resides” as employed in the rule on venue on personal actions means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or the defendant, as distinguished from “ domicile” which denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning
597.Mr. DD was born in Cebu City. It is in the same place where he raised a family. He applied for a job and was hired by a company in Manila where he lives in an apartment adjacent to his place of work. For purposes of venue, in an action for a sum of money, Manila is his residence.
598.The residence of a domestic corporation is the place, within the Philippines, where its principal office is located. (in re: venue)
599.Jurisprudence holds: “A corporation has no residence in the same sense in which this term is applied to a natural person. But for practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in the articles of incorporation.
600.The Corporation Code precisely requires each corporation to specify in its articles of incorporation the “place where the principal office of the corporation is to be located which must be within the Philippines”. The purpose of this requirement is to fix the residence of a corporation in a definite place, instead of allowing it to be ambulatory.
Thus, if the principal office of ABC Corporation is located in Makati City, but its branch offices are situated in Manila and Quezon City, the latter two places cannot be proper venues in a suit by or against the corporation. such places not being the locations of the principal office.
601.Actions for damages and actions to collect a sum of money must be filed in either the residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant, at the election of the plaintiff. Such actions are personal actions.
602.Assume that two cars, Car AA and Car BB, collided in a highway within the territorial jurisdiction of Mandaluyong City.The owner of Car AA, a resident of Makati City wants to file a complaint for damages against the owner of Car BB, a resident of Manila. The complaint may be filed either in Makati City or Manila at the election of the plaintiff. The action cannot be instituted in Mandaluyong City since it is not the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.
603.Venue in real actions
Actions affecting title to, or possession of , real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
604.If the action is real, the action is local, as opposed to transitory, and the venue is the place where the real property involved, or any portion thereof, is situated. In a real action, the residences of the parties are irrelevant to the choice of venue.
605.Actions to recover possession or ownership of real property are real actions and must be filed in the place where the real property is located.
606.Actions for unlawful detainer, forcible entry, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, and for reconveyance of real property, are real actions and must be filed in the place where the subject property is situated.
The same applies to partition of real property and judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
607.An action to recover possession of the leased real property and for the payment of accrued rentals must be filed in Davao, City where the property is located because the action is a real action. The primary purpose of the action is the recovery of possession of the real property and the payment on rentals is merely incidental to the main case. (ejectment case.j)
608.Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be con and tried in the municipal court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, os situated.
609.In determining venue, one must inquire into the primary purpose of the action, not the title or heading given to such action.
610.Thus, where the complaint was captioned as for the “declaration of the nullity” of a deed of absolute sale involving a real property located in Makati City, the venue for such action is unquestionably the proper court of Makati City if the action is instituted primarily for the recovery the subject property. ( MTC;RTC.j)
611.However, where the action for the nullification of a deed of sale is not intended for the recovery or reconveyance of real property, since title to the property has not passed to the respondent, but solely for the annulment of a contract, it is a personal action that may be filed in the court where the plaintiff or the defendant resides. (incapable of pecuniary estimation;RTC.j)
612.Where the action is for specific performance and does not involve recovery of real property, the action is a personal action. The action, therefore, may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff
613.Where, however, a complaint is denominated as one for specific performance but, nonetheless, prays for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of land, to enable the plaintiff to acquire ownership thereof, its primary objective and nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and, thus, is deemed a real action. The venue of the action, therefore, is the place where the real property involved is situated
614.An action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property mortgaged is a personal action,for it does not affect title to, possession of or any interest in real property. The action is for the recovery of money, hence, a personal action. The venue is the residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant at the election of the plaintiff.
615.In a case, the plaintiff sought the return of the portion of the subject property or its value on the basis of his co-ownership thereof. The Court held that while the complaint of the petitioner was denominated as one for recovery of the property or its value, the said complaint is actually anchored on his claim of ownership over a portion of the subject property. Hence, his alternative claim for the value of the property is still dependent on the determination of ownership, which is an action affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein. Clearly, petitioner’s claim is a real action which should be file in the court where the property lies, which in this case, is the RTC of Morong, Rizal.
616.In this jurisdiction, emphasized the Court, “we adhere to the principle that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the Complaint itself, rather than by its title or heading. It is also a settled rule that what determines the venue of a case is the primary objective for the filing of the case.
!
617.An action to annul a deed of real estate mortgage filed by the mortgagor is a personal action. Since the mortgagor is the owner of the property mortgaged, there is no claim of ownership involved. The venue of the action is the residence of the plaintiff or that of the defendant at the election of the plaintiff.
Where the property has already been sold on foreclosure and there has been a change in the ownership of the land, an action to annul the foreclosure sale is obviously to recover ownership of the property. Hence, the action becomes a real action. The venue to annul the foreclosure sale is the place where the real property is located.
- The rule on venue under Sec. 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court applies when;
- any of the defendants is a non-resident and at the same time, not found in the Philippines; and
- the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or
- The action affects any property of the non-resident defendant located in the Philippines.
619.The action in the above situations may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found
620.Under Sec. 3 of Rule 4, if an action for partition of real property is filed by the plaintiff, a resident of Manila, naming his co-owner brothers, all residents of Los Angeles, California, as defendants, and involving a property located in Makati City, the plaintiff may file the action in Makati City, the place where the property is situated. However, the tenor of the rule, as written, appears to give the plaintiff a choice of venue. This may be liberally interpreted to allow the plaintiff to commence and have the action tried either in Manila, the place where he resides, or in Makati City, the place where the property is situated.
Comment: Unless the Court declares otherwise, it is submitted that a liberal interpretation of Sec. 3 of Rule 4 - giving the plaintiff a choice of venue in actions affecting any property of a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines — would well serve the interest of a resident plaintiff. rather than of a possible absconding non-resident defendant.
621.When the rules on venue do not apply
The rules on venue are not applicable in any of the following cases:
- Where a specific rule or law provides otherwise
- where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof
622.A quo warranto proceeding commenced by the Solicitor General and filed, not with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, is to be filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This particular rule does not consider the residence of the respondent. (When the rules on venue do not apply)
623.A petition for a continuing writ of mandamus if filed with the Regional Trial Court, other than with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred (Sec. 2, Rule 8, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases). (When the rules on venue do not apply)
624.Stipulations on venue
The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides.
625.In real actions, like unlawful detainer, the parties may stipulate on a venue other than the place where the real property is situated.
626.In interpreting stipulations on venue, inquiry must be made as to whether or not the agreement is restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suits not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places fixed by the rules.
627.Where the venue stipulated upon is restrictive or mandatory, the complaint is to be filed only in the stipulated venue.
628.Where the stipulated venue is merely permissive the complaint may be filed in the place designated by the Rules or in the place stipulated. The latter place, thus, becomes a permissible venue in addition to those provided for by the Rules.
629.In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to a specified place.
630.“The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them”
631.It must be emphasized that the mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum not as limiting venue to the specified place.
632.Thus, if the plaintiff, in an action for damages, resides in Quezon City while the defendant resides in Makati City, and the agreed venue is Pasay City which, by the terms of the said agreement, is not exclusive, the venue may be Quezon City, Makati City or Pasay City, at the election of the plaintiff. Pasay City would simply be considered as an additional, not an exclusive, venue. (personal action.j)
633.A stipulation that “any suit arising from this contract shall be filed only in Quezon City,” is exclusive in character and clear enough as to preclude the filing of the action in any other place. In this case, the rule that the residences of the parties are to be considered in determining the venue of personal actions will not apply because of the restrictive tenor of the stipulated venue.
634.A stipulation that the “parties agree to sue and be sued in the courts of Manila”
This stipulation was held not to be restrictive or exclusive to prevent the filing of the suit in the places provided for by the rules, i.e., in the residence of the plaintiff or of the defendant.
According to the Court, it simply is permissive and the parties did not waive their right to pursue the remedy in the places specifically mentioned in the Rules of Court.
635.A stipulation stating that “all suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed within the proper Courts of Quezon City” is only permissive and does not limit the venue to the Quezon City courts.
636.The fact that in their agreement the parties specify only one of the venues mentioned in Rule 4, or fix a place for their actions different from those specified by said rule, does not, without more, suffice to characterize the agreement as a restrictive one. There must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them, regardless of the general precepts of Rule 4
637.The stipulation “The agreed venue for such action is Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines” was treated as merely permissive and did not limit the venue to the stipulated place:
638.The stipulation “In case of litigation hereunder, venue shall be in the City Court or Court of First Instance of Manila as the case may be for determination of any and all questions arising thereunder” was treated as merely permissive and did not limit the venue to the stipulated place
639.The stipulation “All court litigation procedures shall be conducted in the appropriate courts of Valenzuela City, Metro Manila” was treated as merely permissive and did not limit the venue to the stipulated place.
640.Examples of words with restrictive meanings are: “only,” “solely,” “exclusively in this court,” “in no other court save –,” “particularly,” “nowhere else but/except___,” or words of equal import.
641.Example of restrictive stipulation on venue:
“In the event of suits arising out of or in connection with this mortgage and/or the promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the parties hereto agree to bring their causes of action exclusively in the proper court of Makati, Metro Manila or at such other venue chosen by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor waiving for this purpose any other venue”
642.Where the venue stipulated in the deed of real estate mortgage provides for a venue different from a subsequent restructuring agreement of the loan subject of the mortgage, and the subsequent agreement was entered into to modify the entire loan obligation, including the mortgage, the restrictive venue in the restructuring agreement should prevail.
!
643.A restrictive stipulation on venue is not binding when the validity of the contract is assailed
644.The Court held that in cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue. However, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue.
645.Venue in a contract of adhesion
The Court had ruled that contracts of adhesion might be occasionally struck down only if there was a showing that the dominant bargaining party left the weaker party without any choice as to be “completely deprived of an opportunity to bargain effectively”
Venue stipulations in a contract of adhesion follow the above rule.
646.The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice.
647.Complementary-contracts-construed-together rule
The “complementary-contracts-construed-together” rule is one which mandates that the provisions of an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and together with the principal contract between the parties.
The basis of this rule is Art. 1374 of the Civil Code which provides that, “The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.”
648.The provisions of an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and together with the principal contract between the parties.
649.Dismissal based on improper venue
A motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue is plain error and patently incorrect.
Unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to be improperly laid because the venue, although technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue have been devised.
650.The trial court cannot preempt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.
651.Improper venue is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings
652.”The court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject “ litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription. Therefore, the trial court in this case erred when it dismissed the petition motu proprio. It should have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent, raising the objection or affirmative defense of improper venue, before dismissing the petition”
653.The court may make a motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue in an action covered by the rules on summary procedure
The court may, however, effect a motu proprio dismissal of the complaint based on improper venue in an action covered by the rules on summary procedure.
In an action covered by the rules on summary procedure , the court may motu proprio dismiss a case, from (a) an examination of the allegations in the complaint, and (b) such evidence as may be attached thereto, on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action.
The dismissal may be made outright, which means that the court may do so without need for waiting for the filing of a motion to dismiss.
654.The court may make a motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue in small claims cases
In small claims cases, after the court determines that the action falls under the rules for such cases, it may, from an examination of the allegations in the Statement of Claim and such evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of the case.
655.The court may make a motu proprio dismissal based on improper venue in actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
In actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the court may dismiss the case outright after examination of the complaint and such evidence attached thereto. The dismissal may be based on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action, A motion to dismiss is not required.
656.Denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue; no appeal
If a motion to dismiss based on improper venue is denied the defendant cannot appeal from the order of denial.
657.An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. It is not final. Only final orders or judgments may be appealed from. The normal remedy is to file an answer and interpose the ground as an affirmative defense, go to trial and appeal from the adverse judgment. However, if the denial is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the remedy is certiorari and prohibition.
658.Be reminded that if the facts of the problem show that the venue is improper, it would not be procedurally correct to file a motion to dismiss anchored on lack of jurisdiction because venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction in a civil case.
Jurisdiction over the territory is irrelevant in a civil case. Territorial jurisdiction applies only in criminal cases where venue is also jurisdictional. It is important to remember that, in a civil case, the concept of venue is entirely distinct from the concept of jurisdiction.
659.Authority of the Supreme Court in relation to venue of cases
To avoid a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court may order a change of venue. Since the constitutional provision does not distinguish, this rule could refer to both civil and criminal cases.
660.Importance of a cause of action
In ordinary civil actions, having a cause of action would be vital if one were to seek the aid of the courts. Without a cause of action, one cannot, as a rule, seek judicial relief for a violation of one’s rights. This is because Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court requires that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
- As applied to ordinary civil actions, the following are the elements of a cause of action:
- A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;
- A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights; and
- An act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant
Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The last element, as by jurisprudence, is the violation of the right of the plaintiff. Without such a violation, a cause of action in Sec. 1 of Rule 2 will not arise.
662.Without a violation of the right of the plaintiff, a cause of action will not arise
663.The need to state the cause of action
For a complaint to be procedurally acceptable, merely having a cause of action against the defendant is not sufficient. The complaint must also clearly state that cause of action. This means that all the elements of the cause of action required by substantive law must clearly appear from a reading of the complaint.
To avoid a possible early dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: “If you have a cause of action, then by all means, state it! State all the elements of your cause of action in your complaint!”
664.Jurisprudence holds that, “A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action”
665.For instance, if in an action for a sum of money arising from a loan,the complaint fails to allege that the debt is due and demandable there is a failure to state a cause of action. Even if it is so alleged that the debt has become due and demandable, if the complaint contains no allegation that there was a prior demand upon the debtor to pay and such demand went unheeded, there is also a failure to state a cause of action. This is so, even if the plain truth is that the debt is due, a demand to pay has been and was not heeded.
- In actions for forcible entry, for instance, three requisites have to be alleged for the complaint to state a cause and for the municipal trial court to acquire jurisdiction.
- First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property.
- Second, he must also assert that he was deprived of the possession of the property either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
- Third, he must file the action within one year from the deprivation of possession or from the time he learned of his deprivation of physical possession of the land or building
- A complaint for unlawful detainer, in order to sufficiently allege a cause of action, should recite the following in the complaint:
- the defendant’s initial possession of the property was lawful, either by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
- eventually, such possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
- thereafter, the defendant remained in possession and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment of the property; and
- the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment within one year from the last demand to vacate the property.
668.What determines whether the cause of action is one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, is the nature of defendant’s entry to the land. If the entry is illegal, then the cause of action is one for forcible entry, on the other hand, if the entry is legal, but thereafter possession becomes illegal, the cause of action is one for unlawful detainer
669.The actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry are governed by the rules on summary procedure. Their summary character is designed to quicken the determination of possession de facto. They are not proper to resolve ownership of the property and if an issue on ownership arises in such actions, any pronouncement made on ownership is provisional in nature and only provisionally to resolve the issue of possession.
670.If the unlawful detainer case is based on the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement or failure to pay the rentals, the demand should not be “to pay or vacate.” but should be to pay and vacate
The first type of demand does not give rise to an unlawful detainer case since it is, in essence, an action for a sum of money.
So if the amount of rentals to be collected is P900.000, the action should be filed with the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the amount demanded. On the other hand, if the demand is “to pay and vacate,” the cause of action is one for unlawful detainer and should be filed with the Municipal Trial Court. Thus, even if the complaint is captioned, “Collection of a Sum of Money with Damages,” the action is actually for unlawful detainer where the demand made by the complaint is for the defendant “to pay and vacate”
671.Similarly, if the unlawful detainer case is anchored upon the failure of the defendant to comply with the conditions of the lease, the demand must not be “to comply… or vacate,” but should be “to comply. . . and vacate.” The first type of demand is not one for unlawful detainer but one for specific performance.
672.Sec. 2 of Rule 70 (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) declares:
“SEC. 2. … Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease AND to vacate is made upon the lessee…”.
673.The test on whether or not the complaint states a cause of action
In determining whether an initiatory pleading states a cause of action, the test is as follows:
Admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer?” To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters aliunde are NOT considered
- In determining whether or not a cause of action is sufficiently stated in the complaint, the statements in the complaint are to be considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or to hold preliminary hearings to determine its existence.
675.The sufficiency of the statement of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations in the complaint, consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances not being allowed.
