Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

JURISDICTION a.

Exclusive jurisdiction – confined to a particular court to the


 Jurisdiction – power and authority of the court to hear and exclusion of other courts.
decide a case involving controversies or conflicting rights of the b. Concurrent jurisdiction – possessed by the court together
parties and to carry its judgment into effect with another or other courts over the same subject matter
o Power to resolve & power to enforce  The court obtaining jurisdiction first retains it to the exclusion of the
o It is the court that is vested with jurisdiction. The judge others
merely presides over it. D. As to Situs
o It does not refer to the decision itself, rather, it is the a. Territorial jurisdiction – exercised within the limits of the place
authority to decide a case. where the court is located
o TEST: WON the law has given the court the authority to b. Extra-territorial jurisdiction – exercised beyond the confines
take cognizance of the particular case. of the territory where the court is located

 Judicial power – includes the duty of the courts of justice II. AS TO OBJECT
1. to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – power to hear and
demandable and enforceable (If there is no actual controversy, determine the general class to which the proceedings in question
not yet RIPE) belong and conferred by the Constitution or by law
2. Power of judicial review to determine WON there has been gross a) HOW IS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on CONFERRED:
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Govt 1. It is by law:
Note: A right even violated is not enforceable – Damnum absque injuria  Constitution
 Statute
CLASSES OF JURISDICTION  Not any procedural rule
I. AS TO NATURE 2. EFFECT:It cannot be
A. As to cases tried  Granted by the agreement fo the parties
a. General jurisdiction – exercised by courts with competence to  Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by
decide on their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all any act of omission of the parties
cases except those expressly withheld from them either by the  Conferred by the acquiescence of the Court
rules or by law  Conferred by the administrative policy of any
 These courts have competence to decide jurisdiction over cases court
not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or  Conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption
body exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions (e.g. RTC). of jurisdiction
b. Limited Jurisdiction – exercised by courts whose jurisdiction  Conferred by consent or waiver
extends only to particular or specified cases (e.g. Family  Cannot be waived by the parties
Courts, CTA)  Cured by their silence, acquiescence,
B. As to the nature of the cause or even express consent
a. Original jurisdiction – exercised by courts which under the  Cannot be changed by mere agreement of the
law have the power to take judicial cognizance of a case parties for jurisdiction may not be a subject
instituted for judicial action for the first time under the conditions matter of the contract
set by the law b) DUTY OF THE COURT: DISMISS an action whenever it
b. Appellate jurisdiction – exercised by courts which have the appears that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject
power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a lower matter
court 1. Upon filing of the action, Courts will resolve first what
C. As to nature and extent of exercise is the subject matter of the complaint and does it have
juris over the said subject matter
2. Even if the question of jurisdiction wasn’t raised by o Lack of juris over the subject matter
either of the parties, the Courts will still have to first o Litis pendencia
address such question before delving into the o Res Judicata
procedural and substantive matter of the case. o Prescription
c) ERROR IN JUDGEMENT
 Does not make the judgement void. b. Jurisdiction over the parties/person – power of the court to
 Here, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a
matter of the action, but there were mistakes particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the
committed in the appreciation of facts and evidence action.
d) ISSUE OF JURISDICTION  Over the Plaintiff –
1. GR: may be raised at any stage of the proceedings o by filing of the complaint or
even on appeal and is not lost be waiver or estoppel o petition or other initiatory pleading
2. XPN: Estoppel by laches (Tijam v Sibonghanoy)  Over the Defendant –
 A party who has invoked the jurisdiction of the o i. service of summons
court over a particular matter to secure o ii. Voluntary appearance (seeking affirmative relief)
affirmative relief cannot be permitted to
afterwards deny the same to escape liability c. Jurisdiction over the issues – power of the court to try and
 Tijam ruling still remains to be an XPN to the decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
GR  May also be determined by stipulation of parties (pre-trial) or by
e) HOW JURIS OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER IS waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a
DETERMINED: matter not raised in the pleadings
1. By the allegations of the complaint
 Determines the nature of the action and d. Jurisdiction over the Res – it refers to the court’s jurisdiction
 Jurisdiction of the court. over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action
 Juris depends on what the allegations  Necessary when the action is in rem or quasi in rem
in the initiatory pleading define and Acquired by:
describe. 1. Seizure of the property under legal process (e.g. attachment)
2. As a result of institution of legal proceedings, in which the
 Defenses in the answer are deemed
power of the court is recognized and made effective (e.g suits
irrelevant and immaterial. involving status of parties or property in the Philippines of NR
 Amount of award does not determine defendants)
juris.
o However, the amount in N.B. It is sometimes a substitute for jurisdiction over the person.
excess of the jurisdiction of the e.g When the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like
Court promulgating the when he is abroad but if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res,
the case may go on. The action is converted from one in personam to
judgement cannot be rendered
one in rem
for such excess is considered If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of
outside of its juris the defendant is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over
2. Character of the relief sought the res although summons must also be served upon the defendant
f) OMNIBUS MOTION RULE in order to satisfy the reqt of due process
 G.R.- Rule 15, sec. 8. If not invoked, considered waived.
Example of this is the motion to dismiss. JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
 EXC- Rule 9, sec. 1. Even though not invoked, not waived: I. SUPREME COURT
1. Original Jurisdiction(No. 1)
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Par. 1 Par. 2
On cases of Ambassadors, On Cases of certiorari, final
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, etc. judgements, and orders of
other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for lower courts
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas GR- cannot expand the
corpus. enumeration given.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, EXC- when Congress was
as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and given permission to expand
orders of lower courts in: the coverage.
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, Fabian v. Desierto
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question. FACTS
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged
thereto. in the construction business with a certain Nestor Agustin. Agustin was
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in the incumbent District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering
issue. District (FMED).
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher. Misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed between Fabian
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is and Agustin. Fabian tried to terminate their relationship, but Agustin
involved. refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of employing
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed
public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not an administrative case against Agustin which eventually led an appeal to
exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. the Ombudsman but the Ombudsman, Aniano Desierto, inhibited himself.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of But the case was later referred to the deputy Ombudsman, Jesus
justice. Guerrero.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and he said the decision is final and
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all executory. Fabian appealed the case to the Supreme Court. She averred
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall pertinently provides that:
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same In all administrative diciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for
Court. reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance
with the Civil Service Law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act is valid.

 SC exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction


HELD: No. It is invalid for it illegally expanded the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court. Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-
appeal to the SC from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission,
administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission
which increases the Appellate jurisdiction of the SC. No countervailing and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the
argument has been cogently presented to justify such disregard of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
constitutional prohibition. That constitutional provision was intended to Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
give the SC a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of
enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the SC. the fourth paragraph od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution is clear when it states that the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC contemplated therein is to be exercised The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct
over “final judgments and orders of lower courts,” that is, the courts hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to
composing the integrated judicial system. It does not include the quasi- resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and
judicial bodies or agencies. appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials
or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3)
But what is the proper remedy?
months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.
Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are
 CA exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction
now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition 1. Original (No. 1 and No. 2)
for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 of the
 Can issue whether or not in aid of legislation
Rules of Court which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide
for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.
2. Appellate( No. 3)
Cr: uberdigest. a. In cases of final decisions of the RTC
b. Quasi-judicial bodies
2. Appellate Jurisdiction (No.. 2)  The right to appeal is not a consti right. It can only be granted by law.
 Decisions MUST come from lower courts Due process requires that one may be heard only once, not twice.
 Constitutional bodies can only raise jurisdictional issues.
II. COURT OF APPEALS  Q: When can an administrative decision be appealed to CA?
o When such body exercises quasi-judicial powers.
B.P. 129  G.R.- Admin decisions are not appealable
 EXC- When there is grave abuse of discretion or a justifiable cause.
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise: 

LIMITATIONS ON CA’S APPELLATE JURISDICTION


1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs
1. Cases falling within SC’s appellate jurisdiction
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
2. When a case is given to another court
warranto,and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
3. Labor cases.
its appellate jurisdiction;
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOMES V. NLRC
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of G.R. No. 130866 September 16, 1998
judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
FACTS
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations
Manager of petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February 6,1995.
However, there was no contract of employment executed between him III. RTC (sec. 19-24 of B.P. 129)
and petitioner nor was his name included in thesemi-monthly payroll. On
January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment for allegedly Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
misappropriating P38,000.00.Petitioner on the other hand claims that exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
private respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita
Malabed, the
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
owner of petitioner St.Martin’s Funeral Home and in January 19
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
96, the mother of Amelita passed away, so the latter took overthe
management of the business.Amelita made some changes in the
business operation and private respondent and his wife were no longer (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
allowed to participatein the management thereof. As a consequence, the real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of
latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos
hisemployment. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the
petitioner declaring that no employer-employee relationshipexisted value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions
between the parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over the for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
case. original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
ISSUE: Courts;
WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he
RULING: demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim
NLRC to the SC were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
special civil action for certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for
judicial review of decisions of theNLRC. The use of the word appeal in (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the
relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
lapsus plumaebecause appeals by certiorari and the original action for (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
appellatecourts. The important distinction between them, however, and
with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that thespecial civil (5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
action for certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this relations;
Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas toindulge in the assumption that
appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not subserve, but (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
would subvert, the intentionof the Congress as expressed in the tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court,
sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.Therefore, all references in tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129 to supposed appeals from the functions;
NLRC to the Supreme Court areinterpreted and hereby declared to mean
and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
petitionsshould henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as theappropriate
Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now
forum for the relief desired.
provided by law; and
Cr: Scribd. Com.
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, performance of which being the more basic issue to be inquired into.
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, Although private respondent's complaint in the court a quo is
and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds designated as one for a sum of money and damages, an analysis of all
One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other the factual allegations of the complaint patently shows that what private
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos respondent seeks is the performance of petitioner's obligation under the
(200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*) written contract to make the refund of the rate of P10.00 per square
meter or in the total amount of P4,820.00, but only after proof of having
himself fulfilled the conditions that will give rise to petitioner's obligation, a
*NOTE: 100,000= 300,000. 200,000= 400,000.
matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation.

SOLVING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SEC. 19 (1), (2), AND (8) RAYMUNDO V. CA
 TEST: always look into the subject matter at hand. Private respondent's complaint is an action to compel the
petitioner to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at
INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION(Sec. 19 (1)) Unit AB-122 of the condominium which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
19(1) 19(8) Court under paragraph (1), Section 19 and paragraph (1), Section 21.
Incapable of pecuniary Capable "In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
estimation which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the
Claim for money is Claim for money is the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy
merely incidental main issue sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
 considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal courts [now municipal trial courts] or in the courts of first
ORTIGAS V. HERRERA instance [now regional trial courts] would depend on the amount of the
(NATURE OF THE QUESTION TEST)) claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right
to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental
ISSUE to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
WON the issue is one for specific performance. considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may
not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by
RATIO courts of first instance [now regional trial courts]."
YES. The action involved in this case is one for specific In the instant case. the claim of attorney's fees by the private
performance and not for a sum of money and wherefore incapable of respondent in the amount of P10,000.00 is only incidental to its principal
pecuniary estimation because what private respondent seeks is the cause of action which is for the removal of the illegal and unauthorized
performance of petitioner's obligation under a written contract to make a installation of the glasses made by the petitioner and therefore, said
refund but under certain specific conditions still to be proven or amount is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.
established. In a case for the recovery of a sum of money, as the
collection of a debt, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary LAPITAN V. SCANDIA
estimation (Lapitan vs. Scandia Inc., 24 SCRA 479) because the
obligation to pay the debt is not conditioned upon any specific fact or A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in
matter. But when a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter of certain conditions capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of
and only upon compliance therewith may what is legally due him under first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it
the written contract be demanded, the action is one not capable of is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
pecuniary estimation. The payment of a sum of money is only incidental capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
which can only be ordered after a determination of certain acts the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the
amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other Regional Trial Courts).
than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those
in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific for
performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment 1. specific performance,
or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as 2. support, or
cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of 3. foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment; 14 also a
money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance. The 4. ctions questioning the validity of a mortgage, 15
rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the 5. annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price
determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which paid 16 and
the law has deemed to be more within the competence of courts of first 6. for rescession, which is a counterpart of specific performance.
instance, which were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first
organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction (Act 136 The subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a
of the Philippine Commission of June 11, 1901). document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION."
Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null
pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance: De and void the document in which private respondents declared themselves
Jesus vs. Judge Garcia, L-26816, February 28, 1967; Manufacturers' as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria
Distributors, Inc. vs. Yu Siu Liong, L-21285, April 29, 1966. And no Tautho and divided his property among themselves to the exclusion of
cogent reason appears, and none is here advanced by the parties, why petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property.
an action for rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated, a While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just
rescission being a counterpart, so to speak, of "specific performance". In incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the
both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an investigation document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the
into facts that would justify one act or the other. subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,
PS.Wala to sa outline. irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
asserted therein.
RUSSEL V. VESTIL
The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one Radio Communication v. CA
incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of
said court. It is settled that a breach of contract is a cause of action either for specific
performance or rescission of contracts.11 In Manufacturer’s Distributors,
TEST: IN SINGSON vs SAWMILL: In determining whether an action is Inc. v. Siu Liong,12 the Court held that actions for specific performance
one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation are incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore fall under the
this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.13 Here, the averments in the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a complaint reveal that the suit filed by private respondent was primarily
sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, one for specific performance as it was aimed to enforce their three-year
and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first lease contract which would incidentally entitle him to monetary awards if
instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the the court should find that the subject contract of lease was breached. As
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, alleged therein, petitioner’s failure to pay rentals due for the period from
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the January to March 1997, constituted a violation of their contract which had
principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases the effect of accelerating the payment of monthly rentals for the years
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of 1997 and 1998. The same complaint likewise implied a premature and
money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now unilateral termination of the term of the lease with the closure of and
removal all communication equipment in the leased premises.14 Under o Expropriation
the circumstances, the court has to scrutinize the facts and the applicable  Real actions outside the jurisdiction of RTC:
laws in order to determine whether there was indeed a violation of their o forcible entry and
lease agreement that would justify the award of rentals and damages. o unlawful detainer of lands or buildings
The prayer, therefore, for the payment of unpaid rentals in the amount of o Juris within MTC
P84,000.00 plus damages consequent to the breach is merely incidental
to the main action for specific performance. COPIOSO V. COPIOSO

REAL ACTION (Sec. 19(2)) Clearly, this is a case of joinder of causes of action which
19(1) 19(2) comprehends more than the issue of title to, possession of, or any
 The controversy involves an  The controversy involves a real interest in the real property under contention but includes an action to
issue wherein the claim for property, wherein the issue is annul contracts, reconveyance or specific performance, and a claim
money is incidental to the main the title of ownership, for damages, which are incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus
issue. possession or any interest properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
 Jurisdiction is determined by thereof. As correctly opined by the appellate court, if the only issue involved
the allegations set forth in the  Jurisdiction is determined by herein is naked possession or bare ownership, then petitioner Lolita
pleading the real property’s assessed Copioso would not be amiss in her assertion that the instant complaint for
value reconveyance, considering the assessed value of the disputed property,
o For civil actions outside falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. But as herein before
Metro Manila exceeds stated, the issue of title, ownership and/or possession thereof is
(P20,000.00) or intertwined with the issue of annulment of sale and reconveyance hence
o For civil actions in within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the RTC. The assessed value of
Metro Manila, where the parcels of land thus becomes merely an incidental matter to be dealt
such the value exceeds with by the court, when necessary, in the resolution of the case but is not
Fifty thousand pesos determinative of its jurisdiction.
(50,000.00)

HUGUETE V. EMBUDO
Ouano v. PCGG (ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE TEST)
Jurisdiction is based on assessed value in an action for recovery OBTAIN TITLE REAL PROPERTY (SEC. 33(3))
of ownership and possession of real property with damages; Section
19(8) applies to other cases; Section 19(8) and 33(1) excludes damages In the case at bar, the principal purpose of petitioners in filing the
in determining jurisdiction when they are merely incidental. complaint was to secure title to the 50-square meter portion of the
The complaint seeks to recover from private respondent the property which they purchased from respondents. Petitioners’ cause of
ownership and possession of the lots in question and the payment of action is based on their right as purchaser of the 50-square meter portion
damages. Since the action involves ownership and possession of real of the land from respondents. They pray that they be declared owners of
property, the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim is the property sold. Thus, their complaint involved title to real property or
determined by the assessed value, not the market value, thereof, any interest therein. The alleged value of the land which they purchased
pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691. was P15,000.00, which was within the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial
Section 33 (paragraph 3) Court. The annulment of the deed of sale between Ma. Lourdes Villaber-
Padillo and respondents, as well as of TCT No. 99694, were prayed for in
 Instances considered as real actions: the complaint because they were necessary before the lot may be
o Partition partitioned and the 50-square meter portion subject thereof may be
o Foreclosure
conveyed to petitioners. insofar as his share is concemed." No matter how long the co-ownership
has lasted, a co-owner can always opt out of the co-ownership, and
Petitioners’ argument that the present action is one incapable of provided the defendant co-owners or co-heirs have theretofore expressly
pecuniary estimation considering that it is for annulment of deed of sale or impliedly recognized the co-ownership, they cannot set up as a
and partition is not well-taken. As stated above, the nature of an action is defense the prescription of the action for partition. But if the defendants
not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by show that they had previously asserted title in themselves adversely to
the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where, as in the plaintiff and for the requisite period of time, the plaintiffs right to
this case, the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real require recognition of his status as a co-owner will have been lost by
property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over prescription and the court cannot issue an order requiring partition.
the assessed value of the property subject thereof(MTC). An entirely different situation, however, obtains in the case at bar.
First of all, petitioner Concepcion Roque-the co-owner seeking partition
SEBE V. SEVILLA — has been and is presently in open and continuous possession of a
three-fourths (3/4) portion of the property owned in common. The Court
the ultimate issue is whether or not defendant Sevilla defrauded the notes in this respect the finding of the trial court that petitioner, following
Sebes of their property by making them sign documents of conveyance execution of the "Bilihan Lubos at Pattlluyan" on 27 November 1961, had
rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The been in "continuous occupancy of the 3/4 portion of the lot ... up to the
action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful present, and whereon plaintifrs house and that of her son are erected. "
owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the 14 Respondents do not dispute this finding of fact, although they would
assessed value of such lots. claim that petitioner's possession is merely tolerated by them. Second,
prior to filing in 1977 of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 5236-M, neither
of the parties involved had asserted or manifested a claim of absolute
Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of the suit and exclusive ownership over the whole of Lot No. 1549 adverse to that
is P9,910.00. Clearly, this amount does not exceed the jurisdictional of any of the other co-owners: in other words, co-ownership of the
threshold value of P20,000.00 fixed by law. The other damages that the
property had continued to be recognized by all the owners.
Sebes claim are merely incidental to their main action and, therefore, are Consequently, the action for partition could not have and, as a matter of
excluded in the computation of the jurisdictional amount.
fact, had not yet prescribed at the time of institution by Concepcion of the
action below.
NATURE OF ACTION OF PARTITION Vda de Daffon v. CA
Roque v. IAC
An action for partition-which is typically brought by a person claiming An action for partition is comprised of two phases: first, an order for
to be co-owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants partition which determines whether a co-ownership in fact exists, and
whom the plaintiff recognizes to be co-owners — may be seen to present whether partition is proper; and, second, a decision confirming the sketch
simultaneously two principal issues. First, there is the issue of whether or subdivision submitted by the parties or the commissioners appointed
the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned. by the court, as the case may be. The first phase of a partition and/or
Second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first issue, accounting suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co-
there is the secondary issue of how the property is to be divided between ownership in fact exists, (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may
plaintiff and defendant(s) — i.e., what portion should go to which co- be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the
owner. property. This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not
The question of prescription also needs to be addressed in this entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not exist,
connection. It is sometimes said that "the action for partition of the thing or partition is legally prohibited. It may end, upon the other hand, with an
owned in common (actio communi dividendo or actio familiae adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in
erciscundae) does not prescribe." 13 This statement bears some the premises and an accounting of rents and profits received by the
refinement. In the words of Article 494 of the Civil Code, "each co-owner defendant from the real estate in question is in order.In the latter case,
may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, the parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among
themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall a debt, and the2. prayer for damages is not one of the main
confirm the partition so agreed upon causes of action but merely a consequence thereto, it should not
be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court."
WHAT CONSTITUTES DEMAND (SEC. 19(8))
 This section covers claims which are: INIEGO V. PURGANAN
o purely money(demand) or
o property involved is personal property We cannot give credence to petitioner’s arguments. The distinction he
 The threshold is: made between damages arising directly from injuries in a quasi-delict and
o exceeds One hundred thousand pesos 300,000 or, those arising from a refusal to admit liability for a quasi-delict is more
o in such other abovementioned items Metro Manila exceeds apparent than real, as the damages sought by respondent originate from
Two hundred thousand pesos 400,000. the same cause of action: the quasi-delict. The fault or negligence of the
 G.R.- In computing the demand, one must exclude: employee and the juris tantum presumption of negligence of his employer
o interest, in his selection and supervision are the seeds of the damages claimed,
o damages of whatever kind, without distinction.
o attorney's fees,
o litigation expenses, and Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims for moral and
o costs exemplary damages arose from a cause of action other than the quasi-
SOLIVEN V. FASTFORMS delict, their inclusion in the computation of damages for jurisdictional
RATIO purposes is still proper. All claims for damages should be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court regardless of whether they arose
In Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated March 14, 1994, we specified from a single cause of action or several causes of action. Rule 2, Section
the guidelines in the implementation of R.A. 7691. Paragraph 2 of the 5, of the Rules of Court allows a party to assert as many causes of action
Circular provides: as he may have against the opposing party. Subsection (d) of said
section provides that where the claims in all such joined causes of action
"2. The exclusion of the term ‘damages of whatever kind’ in are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and be the test of jurisdiction.15
Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691,
applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a Hence, whether or not the different claims for damages are based on a
consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases single cause of action or different causes of action, it is the total amount
where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one thereof which shall govern. Jurisdiction in the case at bar remains with
of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be the RTC, considering that the total amount claimed, inclusive of the moral
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court." and exemplary damages claimed, isP490,000.00.
(underscoring ours)
In sum, actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that are
Here, the main cause of action is for the recovery of sum of money capable of pecuniary estimation. As such, they fall within the jurisdiction
amounting to only P195,155.00. The damages being claimed by of either the RTC or the municipal courts, depending on the amount of
petitioner are merely the consequences of this main cause of action. damages claimed. In this case, the amount of damages claimed is within
Hence, they are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. It is the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages
plain from R.A. 7691 and our Administrative Circular No. 09-94 that it is that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the
the Metropolitan Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the instant case. claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of
As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision: action.

"Conformably, since the 1. action is principally for the collection of  EXC- when the main action is claim for damages, do not exclude.
MENDOZA V. SORIANO to cause him to suffer moral damages (as determined by the Civil Code),
The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining has a cause of action for reinstatement and recovery of back wages and
the jurisdictional amount under Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of BP damages. When he institutes proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, he
Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691, applies to cases where the should make a claim for all said reliefs. He cannot, to be sure, be
damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of permitted to prosecute his claims piecemeal. He cannot institute
action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause proceedings separately and contemporaneously in a court of justice upon
of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall the same cause of action or a part thereof. He cannot and should not be
be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. (Underscoring allowed to sue in two forums: one, before the Labor Arbiter for
supplied.) reinstatement and recovery of back wages, or for separation pay, upon
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts, as in this case, are the theory that his dismissal was illegal; and two, before a court of justice
primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for for recovery of moral and other damages, upon the theory that the
the damages for tortious acts.13 In this case, respondents’ claim manner of his dismissal was unduly injurious, or tortious. This is what in
of P929,006 in damages and P25,000 attorney’s fees plus P500 per court procedural law is known as splitting causes of action, engendering
appearance represents the monetary equivalent for compensation of the multiplicity of actions. It is against such mischiefs that the Labor Code
alleged injury. These money claims are the principal reliefs sought by amendments just discussed are evidently directed, and it is such duplicity
respondents in their complaint for damages.14 Consequently then, we which the Rules of Court regard as ground for abatement or dismissal of
hold that the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City possessed and actions, constituting either litis pendentia (auter action pendant) or res
properly exercised jurisdiction over the case. adjudicata, as the case may be. 18 But this was precisely what Primero's
 IMPT.: Use 19(8) only when the claim is exclusive of section 19’s counsel did. He split Primero's cause of action; and he made one of the
number 1 to 7 because of the wording, “In all other cases.” split parts the subject of a cause of action before a court of justice.
Consequently, the judgment of the Labor Arbiter granting Primero
NLRC separation pay operated as a bar to his subsequent action for the
Primero v. IAC recovery of damages before the Court of First Instance under the
doctrine of res judicata, The rule is that the prior "judgment or order is,
It is clear that the question of the legality of the act of dismissal is with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that
intimately related to the issue of the legality ofthe manner by which that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the
act of dismissal was performed. But while the Labor Code treats of the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the
nature of, and the remedy available as regards the first — the employee's commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the
separation from employment — it does not at all deal with the second — same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.
the manner of that separation — which is governed exclusively by the
Civil Code. In addressing the first issue, the Labor Arbiter applies the Pepsi v. Gal-lang
Labor Code; in addressing the second, the Civil Code. And this appears
to be the plain and patent intendment of the law. For apart from the In sustaining its jurisdiction over the case at bar, the respondent court
reliefs expressly set out in the Labor Code flowing from illegal dismissal relied on Calderon vs. Court of Appeals, where We ruled that an
from employment, no other damages may be awarded to an illegally employee's action for unpaid salaries, alowances and other reimbursable
dismissed employee other than those specified by the Civil Code. Hence, expenses and damages was beyond the periphery of the jurisdictional
the fact that the issue-of whether or not moral or other damages were competence of the Labor Arbiters.
suffered by an employee and in the affirmative, the amount that should
properly be awarded to him in the circumstances-is determined under the HLURB
provisions of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code, obviously was not PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1344
meant to create a cause of action independent of that for illegal dismissal
and thus place the matter beyond the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction.
EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
Thus, an employee who has been illegally dismissed (i.e., discharged
WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION
without just cause or being accorded due process), in such a manner as
UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957 event the appeal is filed and the decision is not reversed and/or amended
within a period of thirty (30) days, the decision is deemed affirmed. Proof
WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing of the appeal of the decision must be furnished the National Housing
Authority is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction over the real estate Authority.
trade and business;
Section 3. As soon as the decision has become final and executory, the
WHEREAS, the Decree did not expressly provide the means to enforce National Housing Authority shall, on motion of the interested party issue a
its decision in favor of the prevailing party, thereby rendering such writ of execution enforceable in accordance with the provisions of the
decisions inutile; rules of Court of the Philippines.

WHEREAS, many subdivision lot buyers have been appalled by the Section 4. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
inability of the National Housing Authority to enforce decisions rendered
in their favor, thereby giving rise to disillusionment and skepticism about
the noble objectives of Presidential Decree No. 957; and

WHEREAS, it has become necessary to strengthen the powers of the


National Housing Authority to enable it to enforce and execute its Pilar Dev’t v. Villar
decisions. Here, it must be noted that the case was filed by the subdivision
owner and not the buyer of a subdivision lot, and the cause of action is
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the one for recovery of possession of the property on account of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do cancellation of the parties' contract to sell for nonpayment by the
hereby decree and order: respondent spouses of the monthly amortizations pursuant to the terms
and conditions stated in their written contract. The respondent spouses,
Section 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade as buyers of the subdivision lot in question, had no cause of action
and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential against petitioner PDC as subdivision owner, which may possibly give
Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive rise to or constitute any actionable act under the aforequoted paragraphs
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: (a), (b) and (c) of Section 1, P.D. No. 1344. No jurisdiction could,
therefore, be possibly vested upon the HLURB.
(a) Unsound real estate business practices; In fine, the RTC erred in applying to this case the ruling in Francel
Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,2where therein defendant buyers
(b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by of the subdivision lot had previously filed a case against therein plaintiff
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project subdivision owner for incomplete development of the subdivision,
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and which infraction on the part of therein plaintiff subdivision owner became
the basis of the buyers to discontinue their payment of the monthly
amortization. Reliance on Francel is, therefore, misplaced considering
(c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and
that the nonpayment by the spouses Villar as subdivision lot buyers of
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
the monthly amortization was not caused or preceded by any breach on
condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
the part of the herein petitioner as subdivision owner. Consequently,
salesman.
jurisdiction on the legal issue involving the right of possession over the
subject lot rightfully belongs to the regular courts, in this case the MeTC
Section 2. The decision of the National Housing Authority shall become of Las Piñas City.
final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its
receipt. It is appealable only to the President of the Philippines and in the
the MTC, the determination of the ground for ejectment requires a
Cadimas v. Carrion consideration of the rights of a buyer on installment basis of real
property. Indeed private respondent claims that he has a right under P.D.
We agree with the ruling of the RTC that it has jurisdiction over the No. 957, 23 to stop paying monthly amortizations after giving due notice
case based on the allegations of the complaint. Nothing in the complaint to the owner or developer of his decision to do so because of petitioners
or in the contract to sell suggests that petitioner is the proper party to alleged failure to develop the subdivision or condominium project
invoke the jurisdiction of the HLURB. There is nothing in the allegations according to the approved plans and within the time for complying with
in the complaint or in the terms and conditions of the contract to sell that the same. The case thus involves a determination of the rights and
would suggest that the nature of the controversy calls for the application obligations of parties in a sale of real estate under P.D. No. 957. Private
of either P.D. No. 957 or P.D. No. 1344 insofar as the extent of the respondent has in fact filed a complaint against petitioner for unsound
powers and duties of the HLURB is concerned. real estate business practice with the HLURB.
Note particularly paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1344 as
worded, where the HLURB’s jurisdiction concerns cases This is, therefore, not a simple case for unlawful detainer arising
commenced by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers. As to from the failure of the lessee to pay the rents, comply with the conditions
paragraph (a), concerning "unsound real estate practices," the logical of a lease agreement or vacate the premises after the expiration of the
complainants would be the buyers and customers against the sellers lease. Since the determinative question is exclusively cognizable by the
(subdivision owners and developers or condominium builders and HLURB, the question of the right of petitioner must be determined by the
realtors), and not vice versa.20 agency.
The complaint does not allege that petitioner is a subdivision lot buyer. Petitioners cause of action against private respondent should
The contract to sell does not contain clauses which would indicate that instead be filed as a counterclaim in HLURB Case No. REM-07-9004-80
petitioner has obligations in the capacity of a subdivision lot developer, in accordance with Rule 6, 6 of the Rules of Court which is of suppletory
owner or broker or salesman or a person engaged in real estate application to the 1987 HLURB Rules of Procedure per 3 of the same. In
business. From the face of the complaint and the contract to sell, the case of Estate Developers and Investors Corporation v. Antonio Sarte
petitioner is an ordinary seller of an interest in the subject property who is and Erlinda Sarte[6] the developer filed a complaint to collect the balance
seeking redress for the alleged violation of the terms of the contract to of the price of a lot bought on installment basis, but its complaint was
sell. Petitioner’s complaint alleged that a contract to sell over a dismissed by the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction. It appealed
townhouse was entered into by and between petitioner and respondent the order to this Court. In dismissing the appeal, we held:
Carrion and that the latter breached the contract when Carrion
transferred the same to respondent Hugo without petitioner’s The action here is not a simple action to collect on a promissory note; it is
consent.21 Thus, petitioner sought the cancellation of the contract and the a complaint to collect amortization payments arising from or in connection
recovery of possession and ownership of the town house. Clearly, the with a sale of a subdivision lot under PD. Nos. 957 and 1344, and
complaint is well within the jurisdiction of the RTC. accordingly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the HLURB to
regulate the real estate trade and industry, and to hear and decide cases
of unsound real estate business practices. Although the case involving
Francel Realty v. CA Antonio Sarte is still pending resolution before the HLURB Arbiter, and
It is important to first determine whether the MTC has jurisdiction there is as yet no order from the HLURB authorizing suspension of
over petitioners complaint. For if it has no jurisdiction, then the award of payments on account of the failure of plaintiff developer to make good its
damages made by it in its decision is indeed without any basis. It is only if warranties, there is no question to Our mind that the matter of collecting
the MTC has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action that it is amortizations for the sale of the subdivision lot is necessarily tied up to
necessary to determine the correctness of the award of damages, the complaint against the plaintiff and it affects the rights and correlative
including attorneys fees. duties of the buyer of a subdivision lot as regulated by NHA pursuant to
P.D. 957 as amended. It must accordingly fall within the exclusive original
Petitioners complaint is for unlawful detainer. While generally jurisdiction of the said Board, and We find that the motion to dismiss was
speaking such action falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of properly granted on the ground that the regular court has no jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the complaint. Phil. 651). As explained in Yu Lay v. Galmes— "Upon an appeal to a
court of first instance from the judgment of a justice of the peace, it is not
Accordingly, we hold that the MTC correctly held itself to be without possible, without changing the purpose of the appeal, to alter the nature
jurisdiction over petitioners complaint. But it was error for the MTC to of the question raised by the complaint and the answer in the original
grant private respondents counterclaim for damages for expenses action. There can be no doubt, therefore, of the scope of the doctrine laid
incurred and inconveniences allegedly suffered by him as a result of the down in the several decisions of the Court. Consequently, We hold that,
filing of the ejectment case.[7] upon an appeal to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff as well as the
defendant cannot file any pleading or allegation which raises a question
Pursuant to Rule 6, 8 a party may file a counterclaim only if the court essentially distinct from that raised and decided in the justice of the
has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Otherwise the counterclaim cannot peace court. "This rule was reiterated in cases from Ng Cho Cio v. Ng
be filed.[8] Diong (1 SCRA 275) to Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Even assuming that the MTC had jurisdiction, however the award of Appeals (116 SCRA 636).
damages to private respondent must be disallowed for the following Thus, the defendant-appellee's counterclaim beyond P10,000.00, the
reasons: jurisdictional amount of the city Court of Cebu, should be treated as
having been deemed waived. It is as though it has never been brought
(1) The MTC decision itself stated that the answer with its before trial court. It may not be entertained on appeal.
counterclaim was filed out of time or more than 10 days from private The amount of judgment, therefore, obtained by the defendant-appellee
respondents receipt of summons. In effect, therefore, private respondent on appeal, cannot exceed the jurisdiction of the court in which the action
did not make any counterclaim. began. Since the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant's counterclaim in excess of the jurisdictional amount, the
(2) Moreover, a reading of the MTC decision showed no justification
appellate court, likewise, acquired no jurisdiction over the same by its
for the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. As
decisions or otherwise. Appellate jurisdiction being not only a
held in Buan v. Camaganacan,[9] an award of attorneys fees without
continuation of the exercise of the same judicial power which has been
justification is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly
executed in the court of original jurisdiction, also presupposes that the
left to speculation and conjecture. It should accordingly be stricken out.
original and appellate courts are capable of participating in the exercise
With respect to the award of moral and exemplary damages, the record is
of the same judicial power (See 2 Am. Jur. 850; Stacey Cheese
bereft of any proof that petitioner acted maliciously or in bad faith in filing
Company v. R.E. Pipkin, Appt. 155 NC 394, 71 S.E. 442, 37 LRA 606) It
the present action which would warrant such an award.
is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and
corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not
create that cause

Maceda v. CA
JURISDICTION IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES Maceda's petition for review (G.R. No. 83545) has no merit. The Court
of Appeals correctly ruled that the municipal trial court did not have
Agustin v. Bacalan original jurisdiction over his counterclaim as it exceeds P20,000.
ISSUE Correspondingly, the regional trial court did not have appellate jurisdiction
May the Court of First Instance then, on appeal, award defendant- over the claim. The decision of the Municipal Trial Court of San Juan
appellee's counterclaim beyond that amount? awarding him P158,000 on his counterclaim, and that of the Regional
Trial Court raising the award to P182,200, were invalid for lack of
RATIO jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court in a civil action
NO. The rule is that a counterclaim not presented in the inferior court for sum of money (Maceda's counterclaim for the value of his
cannot be entertained in the Court of First Instance on appeal (Francisco, improvements is one such action) is limited to a demand that "does not
The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. III, p. 26, citing the exceed twenty thousand pesos exclusive of interest and costs but
cases of Bernardo v. Genato, 11 Phil. 603 and Yu Lay v. Galmes, 40 inclusive of damages of whatever kind." (Sec. 33, subpar. 1, B.P. Blg.
129.) A counterclaim in the municipal or city court beyond that jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not
jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by way of defense to weaken the be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position—that
plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief. the lower court had jurisdiction”

Vital-Gozon v. CA Figueroa v. People


An award of damages was and is also allowed in connection with the
auxiliary writ of preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction or A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in
receivership which the Court of Appeals has the power to issue in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the
common with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Courts, 43 subject-matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred
payable by the sureties of the bond given in support of the writ, upon by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court
seasonable application and summary hearing. Since it cannot but be may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This
assumed that in formulating, and incorporating in BP 129, the provision doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed
governing the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court principally from the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be
of Appeals, the Batasang Pambansa was fully cognizant of the relevant regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to
provisions of the Rules of Court just cited, as well as the rule against situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The
multiplicity of actions, it follows that in conferring on the Court of Appeals exceptional circumstance involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the
original jurisdiction over the special civil action ofmandamus, among departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to
others, as well as over the issuance of auxiliary writs or processes, the jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been
Batasang Pambansaclearly intended that said Court should exercise all repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not
the powers then possessed by it under the Rules of Court in relation to as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing
said action of mandamus and auxiliary writs, including the adjudication of altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not
damages to the petitioner in the action in appropriate cases. lost by waiver or by estoppel Indeed, the general rule remains: a court’s
lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL on appeal. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of
 G.R.- The issue of lack of Court’s jurisdiction may be raised anytime it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to
even for the first time on appeal render judgment on the action. Moreover, jurisdiction is determined by
 EXC- Tijam v. Sibonghanoy where petitioner raised the question of the averments of the complaint, not by the defenses contained in the
lack of jurisdiction after 15 years. Thus, the Court adjudged their answer.
claim as estoppel by “laches” or an unreasonable or unexplained
negligence to assert a right within a reasonable length of time.
o NOTE: Apply the exception only within the same facts and
circumstances of the Tijam case.

Metromedia v. Pastorin

"The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction


seemingly depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction
or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided
upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred,
on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same 'must exist
as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel' (5 C.J.S., 861-863). However, if the lower
court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a
given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no