JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF
The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2
Latin words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO – to
speak, or to say. So, in effect, when you say
jurisdiction, literally translated, it means, “I
speak by the law.” It means that you are saying “I
speak with authority” because when you invoke
the law, then your act is authorized. Even in old
times when the representatives of the king or the
sovereign will try to arrest somebody or will try
to enter your house, they open up in the name of
the law. They will always invoke “in the name
of the law.”
So when you say, “I speak by the law” I will
do it in the name of the law. It connotes
authority or power. You cannot be wrong. How
can you be wrong if you are doing it in the name
of the law? So more or less jurisdiction simply
means authority or power. So more or less that
is the whole concept of jurisdiction. It simply
means authority or power. That is precisely
what jurisdiction is all about.
JURISDICTION simply means the power of
the court to hear try and decide a case. In its
complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only
the powers to hear and decide a case, but also
the power to enforce the judgment. (14 Am. Jur.
363-364)
Q: What is the effect if the court has no
jurisdiction?
A: If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no
power or authority to try a case and that is a
concept you already know in Criminal
Procedure. Without jurisdiction, the trial is null
and void as well as the judgment.
Let’s go to a criminal case. Can you file an
information for murder before the MTC? Or can
you file an information for slight physical
injuries before the RTC? There is something
wrong there. If a slight physical injury case is
filed against you in the RTC, what will you do?
If I’m the lawyer of the accused why will I allow
my client to be arraigned and to be tried when
everything is null and void. Kapoy-kapoy lang
ako. So I’ll file a motion to quash under Rule
117. That’s the same thing in civil cases. If you
file a civil case before a court that has no
jurisdiction, then it can be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION
Now, let us not confuse jurisdiction with
certain terms related to it.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of
jurisdiction.
A: The authority to decide a case, not the
decision rendered, is what makes up
jurisdiction. It does not depend upon the
regularity of the exercise of that power or upon
the rightfulness of the decision made. Where
there is jurisdiction over of the person and
subject matter, the resolution of all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)
In other words, JURISDICTION is the
authority. If I have no authority, I cannot act.
And if I have authority, I can act. Now, if the
court has authority, it will try the case and
render judgment.
Now, what the court will do later, like try
the case and render judgment is merely an
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION. So the trial
and judgment are all products of the exercise of
jurisdiction. You cannot talk of exercise without
having first the authority. It is a useless
procedure when you say “I will exercise
something which I do not have.”
Q: Why is it important to distinguish
jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction?
A: Definitely, a court acting as such may
commit errors or mistakes. That is why the
action of the court can be questioned later in a
higher court. A court can commit an error which
is either an error of jurisdiction or an error of
judgment.
EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in
the MTC. The accused, Ken Sur, files a motion to
quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over
cases of murder. Eh, ‘yong judge iba man ‘yong
libro niya, “No, I have jurisdiction.” So the court
denied the motion to quash. Meaning, the judge
has decided to assume jurisdiction. So, meaning
from the very start mali na. Now what do you
call that? When the court without authority
assumes authority over the case that is called
ERROR OF JURISDICTION – the court
committed an error of jurisdiction.
7

EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is
filed in the RTC where the court has jurisdiction.
So walang mali, everything is correct. But in the
course of the trial, you cannot avoid mistakes
being committed like for example, the court
misinterpreting the provision of the RPC saying
that this is a requirement, this is not a
requirement for the crime. Meaning
misapplication or misinterpretation of the RPC
as well as misinterpretation of the rules of
evidence – wrong interpretation of the law. And
the accused was convicted but actually tingin
mo mali man ito, di ba! Under the law, this
elements was not considered or this element
was considered as present. Do you say the
decision of the judge is null and void? NO, the
judgment is valid kaya lang mali. So, you do not
say the court committed an error in the exercise
of jurisdiction, and that is called an ERROR OF
JUDGMENT. And that was also asked in the
bar.
ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR
OF JUDGMENT
BAR QUESTION: Distinguish ERRORS OF
JURISDICTION from ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) When a court acquires jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the
decision or order on all other
questions arising in the case is
but an exercise of jurisdiction;
Errors which the court may
commit in the exercise of such
jurisdiction are merely ERRORS
OF JUDGMENT; whereas,
When a court takes cognizance of a
case over the subject matter of
which it has no jurisdiction, the
court commits an ERROR OF
JURISDICTION.
2.) ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are
reviewable by certiorari;
whereas,
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are
reviewable by appeal.
Meaning, when a court has no jurisdiction
but insists in handling the case, that is a mistake
by the trial court. It is called an error of
jurisdiction.
Now, suppose a court has jurisdiction over
the case but the decision is wrong – it applied
the wrong provision of the law, or interpretation
of evidence. This is not an error of jurisdiction
because the court has authority. But in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, it committed several
errors. This is now what you call an error of
judgment.
Q: What is the use of distinguishing error of
jurisdiction from error of judgment?
A: The difference is in the remedy taken.
Actually, it is still an error. If it is an error, it can
be corrected by a higher court. The importance,
however, as we will see later, is that there is a
definite procedure for correcting a mistake and
other procedures which we will know later
where the court commits an error of judgment
and an error of jurisdiction.
In error of judgment, if the judgment is
wrong, it is a valid judgment. Your remedy is to
APPEAL the wrong judgment to a higher court.
But when a court commits an error of
jurisdiction, where it insists on handling a case
when it has no authority, I can question its
actuation not necessarily by appeal, but by
resorting to “extraordinary remedies,” which
refer to the remedy of CERTIORARI or
PROHIBITION. (Araneta vs. Commonwealth
Ins. Co., L-11584, April 28, 1958; Nocon vs.
Geronimo, 101 Phil. 735)
The principle came out in the bar. This error
should have been raised on ordinary appeal, not
by certiorari because certiorari is only confined
to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion. The governing rule is that
the remedy of certiorari is not available when
the remedy of appeal is available. And when the
remedy of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by
resorting to certiorari because certiorari is not a
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
So, the remedies given by the law are
different. These are basic terms which you
should remember.
Q: In whom is jurisdiction is vested?
A: Jurisdiction is vested with the court, not
in the judge. A court may have several branches,
and each is not a court distinct and separate
from the others. So, when a case is filed before a
8
branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may
continue before another branch or judge.
(Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May 29, 1959)
EXAMPLE: The RTC of Davao is composed
of several branches – eleven to twelve judges.
But technically, there is only one court – the RTC
of Davao. We do not consider branches as
separate courts.
Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to
Branch 8, can that case later be transferred and
continued in Branch 9?
A: Ah YES, because you never leave the
same court. You are still in the same court. This
is because jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is
with the court itself.
TYPES OF JURISDICTION:
Types of jurisdiction:
1.) General Jurisdiction and Special or
Limited Jurisdiction;
2.) Original Jurisdiction and Appellate
Jurisdiction; and
3.) Exclusive Jurisdiction and
Concurrent or Coordinate
Jurisdiction;
1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL
OR LIMITED JURISDICTION
a.) GENERAL JURISDICTION is the
authority of the court to hear and
determine all actions and suits,
whether civil, criminal,
administrative, real, personal or
mixed. It is very broad – to hear and
try practically all types of cases. (14
Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal.
391)
b.) SPECIAL or LIMITED
JURISDICTION is the authority of
the court to hear and determine
particular cases only. Its power is
limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs.
Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
So, the court is authorized
to hear and try certain
specified cases. Limitado pa
ang power niya. And when
you go over the Judiciary Act,
studying the jurisdiction of
the different courts, in civil
cases you will see that the
jurisdiction of some courts
like the RTC, masyadong far
ranging. It covers many
things whereas the
jurisdiction of the MTC,
makipot. Very narrow bah
because it is a court of limited
or special jurisdiction.
2. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
a.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the
power of the court to take
cognizance of a case at its inception
or commencement. (Ballentine’s
Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917)
One can file the case there for the
first time.
b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the
power vested in a superior court to
review and revise the judicial action
of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law
Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one
court has the power to correct the
decision of a lower court, the power
of this court is appellate. This is
because it commenced somewhere
else and it is just reviewing the
decision of the said lower court.
EXAMPLE: Maya Quitain
will file a civil case in the RTC
and that court will take
cognizance and try it. You are
invoking the original
jurisdiction of the RTC. After
trial, Maya lost the case, so
Maya decided to appeal the
decision of the RTC to the CA.
The case is now there. It is
now in the CA and you are
now invoking its appellate
jurisdiction.
3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and
CONCURRENT OR COORDINATE
JURISDICTION
9
a.) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that
possessed by a court to the
exclusion of all others.
Q: Sugar JJ filed a
collection case against John
Vera, for an unpaid loan of
P5,000. The judiciary law says,
if you file a civil case to collect
an unpaid loan below
P200,000, you should file it
with the MTC. Can Sugar JJ
file it in the RTC?
A: NO. Therefore the
jurisdiction of the MTC is
EXCLUSIVE. It does not share
its power with other courts.
b.) CONCURRENT or COORDINATE
JURISDICTION is that possessed by
the court together with another or
other courts over the same subject
matter, the court obtaining
jurisdiction first retaining it to the
exclusion of the others, but the
choice of court is lodged in those
persons duly authorized to file the
action. (Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G.
1318, Feb. 12, 1962)
Example: Thaddeus
Tangkad wants to file a case
or petition in court. Then, he
looks at the law and the law
says that you can file it in this
court or, kung ayaw mo
diyan, puwede din dito, diyan
or doon – Thaddeus Tangkad
can file it in this court or in
other courts. Therefore, he has
the right to choose where to
file. So if Thaddeus files it in
court #2, and it assumes now
jurisdiction, out na ang court
#1 and court #3. If he files it
in court #3, out na yong #1
and #2. Now this is what you
call CONCURRENT
jurisdiction because you can
file the case in two courts or
more at your choice.
Now, last time we were
classifying courts and you
learned that the SC is meron
palang original jurisdiction.
Ito palang CA also has
original jurisdiction. Ang RTC
obviously is more of an
original court than an
appellate court.
Q: Are there certain types
of cases or petitions where I
can file it directly with the SC
or file with the CA or file it
with the RTC?
A: YES and the best
example is a petition for
HABEAS CORPUS. The SC,
CA and RTC share concurrent
jurisdiction to entertain
petitions for habeas corpus.
Makapili ka. I-file mo SC,
puwede. Kung gusto mo sa
CA, puwede din. Kung i–file
mo sa RTC, puwede. In effect,
these are the instances when
the SC, CA and RTC exercise
concurrent jurisdiction.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL
CASES
In your study of criminal procedure where
you also studied the law on jurisdiction, there
are also some elements of jurisdiction in
criminal cases. Otherwise, the proceeding will
be illegal. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
the third is territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case
should be filed in the place where the crime was
committed. In civil cases meron din iyong
counterpart.
Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in
civil cases?
A: The following:
a.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;
b.) Jurisdiction over the person of the
parties to the case;
c.) Jurisdiction over the res; and
d.) Jurisdiction over the issues.
Q: Now, what happens if in a particular case
one of these is missing?
10
 A: The proceedings become questionable.
The proceedings become void. The judgment is
not binding. That is the effect of lack of
jurisdiction. The proceedings are tainted with
illegality and irregularity. Alright, let’s go over
them one by one.
A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER
Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
power of the court to hear and determine cases
of the general class to which the proceedings in
question belongs. (Banco Español-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the
nature of the action. Now, you know already the
various types of civil cases such as actions for
nullity of marriage, action publiciana, action
reivindicatoria, etc. This is what we call the
NATURE OF THE ACTION.
Now, if the nature of the subject matter of
the action, e.g. annulment of marriage, where
will you file it? It should not be filed in the
wrong court or else it will be dismissed. The
counterpart of that in Criminal law is e.g.
offenses punishable by death penalty cannot be
tried with the MTC. Annulment cases should
be filed in the RTC otherwise it will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject
matter acquired or conferred?
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and is never acquired by
consent or submission of the parties or by their
laches. This is a matter of legislative enactment
which none but the legislature can change.
(MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar vs.
Vinson, L-18023, May 30, 1962) It cannot be
acquired by an agreement between the parties,
waiver, failure to object (silence).
Q: Now, suppose I want to file a case against
you and under the law that should be filed in
the RTC. But both of us believe that the judges
of the MTC like Judge Cañete knows more, he is
more competent than the other judge there.
“Maganda siguro dito na lang tayo sa MTC.” “O
sige, we sign an agreement, magpirmahan tayo
that we will file the case by agreement in the
MTC.” By agreement, doon sa MTC natin i-file.
Did the MTC acquire jurisdiction over the case
because the parties agreed?
A: NO, agreements between parties cannot
change the law. Jurisdiction is conferred by law,
not by agreements of the parties. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter cannot be agreed upon.
It is acquired by or conferred to the court by law
– either the Constitution or the Judiciary Law.
The parties cannot agree to have the case
submitted to another court.
Q: Now, suppose I will file a case against
you in a wrong court. Ikaw naman hindi ka
kumibo. Actually what you should do there is
file a motion to dismiss (or in criminal cases a
motion to quash.) But hindi ka nagkibo “Sige
lang. I will not complain.” So is it okey? Since you
did not object, you did not file a motion to
dismiss, you did not file a motion to quash, did
the ‘wrong’ court acquired jurisdiction over the
case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by
silence of the parties or by waiver. Estoppel or
waiver or silence or failure to object cannot vest
jurisdiction in the wrong court because
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
by law. And when the court has no jurisdiction,
the court by itself has the power to dismiss,
“Why will I burden myself for trying a case,
when I have no jurisdiction?”
The ONLY exception is when there is
estoppel by laches, as laid down in tile TIJAM
vs. SIBONGHANOY (April 15, 1968). The issue
of jurisdiction was not questioned for an
unreasonable length of time. BUT the rule is, it
can be raised at any stage of the proceeding
even for the first time on appeal. And even the
parties may not raise it, the court motu propio has
the authority to dismiss it.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject
matter determined?
A: It is determined by the allegations of the
complaint. It does not depend upon the pleas or
defenses of the defendant in his answer or
motion to dismiss. (Cardenas vs. Camus, L-
19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J. Nell Co. vs.
Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965; Serrano vs.
Muñoz Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27, 1967)
B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
11
 Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.
A: Jurisdiction over the person is the power
to render a personal judgment through the
service of process or by voluntary appearance of
a party during the progress of a cause. (Banco
Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
Q: In criminal cases, how does the court
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; (2) by service
of the warrant of arrest; or (3) by his voluntary
surrender.
Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court
try an accused without the accused being
arrested?
A: Of course not, because the court has not
acquired jurisdiction over his person. Arestuhin
mo muna. Then puwede siyang mag-bail kung
gusto niya. After na-arrest, naglayas, nagsibat?
Bahala ka i-try in absentia. There will be a valid
decision because the court has already acquired
jurisdiction. Of course we cannot enforce the
decision until we caught him. Pero pagnahuli,
ka diretso ka na sa prisuhan. You say, “I was not
able to give my side. I was not able to confront and
cross-examine the witness against me.” Eh, bakit ka
naglayas? Pasensiya ka! That’s the concept of
trial in absentia. But for trial in absentia to
proceed in criminal cases, you must first arrest
him. You cannot try him without being arrested.
You must arrest him and arraign him first. The
same thing in civil cases. It must be that the
court must acquire jurisdiction over this person.
Normally, when we say jurisdiction over the
parties, we are referring to the PLAINTIFF – the
one suing, and the DEFENDAN'T – the one
being sued. For the decision to be valid, the
court must obtain jurisdiction over the person of
the plaintiff and the defendant. Otherwise, the
decision will not bind the parties over whom the
court has not acquired jurisdiction.
That is why jurisdiction over the parties is
the power of the court to render a personal
judgment which will bind the parties to the case.
What is the use of rendering a decision if the
parties are not bound? It must have effect.
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction
over the plaintiff?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the
plaintiff is acquired from the moment he files his
complaint. Upon filing his complaint in court, he
is automatically within the jurisdiction of the
court. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction
over the defendant?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is acquired:
1.) upon service on him of coercive
process in the manner provided by
law; or
2.) by his voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. (MRR Co.
vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF
COERCIVE PROCESS
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW
The first instance when a court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
through a service upon him of the appropriate
court process which in civil law is called service
of summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of
arrest in criminal procedure.
So if the defendant was never served with
summons, any judgment rendered by the court
will not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the
case, judgment cannot be enforced because the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over his
person.
The same principle holds true in criminal
cases. A court cannot try and convict an accused
over whose person the court never acquired
jurisdiction. In criminal cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person through the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The warrant
cannot have its effect even if it was issued, if the
same had not been served, i.e. by effecting the
arrest of the accused by virtue of a warrant.
Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant of
arrest be effected?
A: Once an information has been filed in
court, the court issues a warrant. Then, the
arresting officer will arrest the accused. The
court acquires jurisdiction by ENFORCEMENT
OF SERVICE for effective arrest of the accused
pursuant to the warrant of arrest.
Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY
SUBMISSION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
12

Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the accused even if the accused is not
arrested is through VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER. Since there is no more need for
the warrant, the court will recall the same. In
civil cases, it is the voluntary submission of the
defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.
Q: Defendant was served with summons
improperly or irregularly therefore, he could
question the jurisdiction of the court over his
person. But instead, he did not question the
jurisdiction of the court despite the defective
service of court process. Did the court acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
A: YES, because jurisdiction over the person
can be acquired by:
a.) waiver;
b.) consent; or
c.) lack of objection by the defendant.
(MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil.
523)
This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject
matter wherein the case could be dismissed
upon filing in the wrong court. The SC said that
when you remained silent despite the defects,
your silence has cured the defect. Meaning, the
jurisdiction over your person was acquired by
waiver, or consent, or lack of objection.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject
matter from jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant may be cured by waiver, consent,
silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction
over the subject matter cannot be cured by
failure to object or by silence, waiver or consent.
(MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
RES is the Latin word for “thing.”
Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.
A: Jurisdiction over the res is that acquired
by the court over the property or the thing in
contest, and is obtained by seizure under legal
process of the court whereby it is held to abide
such order as the court may make. (Banco
Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
Q: A and B quarreled over a piece of land.
What is the res of the case?
A: The piece of land is the res of the case.
Q: However, res may not be tangible. For
example, Weng Kolotski is an illegitimate child.
She wants to be acknowledged by her father.
Thus, she filed a case against her father for
compulsory recognition. What is the res?
A: The res is the status of the child because it
is the object of the litigation.
Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res
important?
A: Sometimes it is a substitute for
jurisdiction over the person. There are instances
when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
the defendant like when he is abroad. But if the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case
may go on. Even if the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
jurisdiction over the res becomes a substitute
over the person.
EXAMPLE: Even if the defendant is a non-
resident who is out of the country and the object
of litigation is here in the Philippines, then
acquisition of jurisdiction over the res confers
jurisdiction to the court even if the defendant is
abroad. The res here is where the judgement can
be enforced.
That is why in Rule 14, there is an
extra-territorial service of summons. But based
on a SC ruling, the extra-territorial service of
summons is not for the purpose of acquiring
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but
is merely how to comply with the due process
clause.
D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.
A: Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority
to try and decide the issues raised by the
pleadings of the parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73
Phil. 484)
Q: What are pleadings?
A: They are governed by Rule 6.
Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings
are the written allegation of the
parties of their respective claims
13
 and defenses submitted to the
court for trial and judgment.
In a civil case, the parties before the trial file
in court pleadings. That is where you state your
position.
EXAMPLE: Francis “Paloy” Ampig will sue
you to collect a loan. So Paloy will file a
complaint in court. That is a pleading. Then
you have to answer Paloy’s complaint in court.
You say that you do not owe him anything
because you already paid him. So you prepare
your answer in writing in court and that is also
called a pleading. Based on what Paloy said in
his complaint and your answer, we will now
know what they are quarreling about.
For example: Paloy says you
borrowed money, you never paid him.
Now according to your answer, “No. I
already paid him.”
Q: Now what is the issue?
A: The issue is, whether the obligation still
existing or is it already extinguished by
payment. So that is the issue. So that is where
we will know what we will try in this case.
Q: Suppose after the trial, the court said that
the obligation has been extinguished by
condonation. Now where did the court get that?
Your defense is payment, and the decision now
it was extinguished by condonation. Is the
decision correct?
A: The decision is WRONG because the
parties did not raise condonation as the issue.
The case was decided on an issue that was not
even raised by the parties. So the court never
acquired jurisdiction over the issue. In other
words, the court should only rule on what the
parties raised in their pleadings. That is what
we call jurisdiction over the issue. The court
should only rule on what the parties claim.
So, the court is supposed to rule on the issue
raised and not those not raised by the parties.
Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in
civil cases is acquired after defendant has filed
an answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over
the issues is acquired upon filing of a complaint.
For a decision to be effective, the court must
acquire the jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the person, the res in case the defendant is not
around, and the last is jurisdiction over the
issue.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject
matter and jurisdiction over the issues.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
is the power to hear and try a
particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the
power of the court to resolve
legal questions involved in the
case;
2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
is acquired upon filing of the
complaint, while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the
case is acquired upon filing of
the answer which joins the
issues involve in the case.
EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff, I
will file a case in court to collect an
unpaid loan. From the moment I
file the case, the court has acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Now, you are summoned. File ka
naman ng sagot mo, “Wala akong
utang, bayad na.” Then the court
has now acquired jurisdiction over
the issue. One is acquired upon
filing of the complaint and the other
one is acquired after the filing of the
answer by the defendant.
HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS
In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in
Remedial Law was: State the hierarchy of the
Courts in the Philippines.
a.) Regular courts
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC
Note:
14
 MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu,
Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Digos, Panabo
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is
impractical and expensive to maintain one MTC
in every municipalities.

b.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also

considered part of the judiciary. These are:
1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as
amended)
3. Sharia District Courts and the
Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 ,
also known as the Code of
Muslim Personal Law);
4. Family Courts

We are concerned only of the jurisdiction of

the REGULAR COURTS.

published by:

15