CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018,
Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
REMEDIAL LAW CONCEPT
What is Remedial law?
Remedial law is that branch of law which
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining
redress for their invasion. (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640).
It is also known as adjective law.
Bar 2006: What is the concept of remedial law?
The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core
of procedural due process, which means a law which
hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry
and renders judgment only after trial, and contemplates
an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.
Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the
method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
invasion (First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA, GR No.
110571, 03/10/1994; Albert vs. University Publishing, GR
No. L-19118, 01/30/1965).
Bar 2006: How are remedial laws implemented in
our system of government?
Remedial laws are implemented in our system of
government through the pillars of the judicial system,
including the prosecutor service, our courts of justice and
quasi-judicial agencies.
Bar 2006: Distinguish between substantive law
and remedial law?
Remedial law is not substantive law. Substantive law
creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties
concerning life, liberty or property (See Primicias v.
Ocampo, 93 Phil. 446, 452). Remedial law does not create
rights or obligations but lays down the methods by which
the rights and obligations arising from substantive law are
protected, enforced and given effect (See Bustos v.
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640, 653-654). In other words, remedial
law is, in essence, procedural.
What is a Procedural Law?
Procedural law refers to the adjective law which
prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that
courts may be able to administer justice. Procedural laws
do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive
law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation
of statutes—they may be given retroactive effect on
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage and this will not violate any right of a person who
may feel that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as there
are no vested rights in rules of procedure (Jose vs.
Javellana, GR No. 158239, 01/25/2012, citing De Los
Santos vs. Vda. de Mangubat).
Who promulgated the Rules of Court?
The Supreme Court promulgated the Rules of Court in
accordance with the mandate provided for in the
Constitution which provides:
“The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.” (Sec. 5[5], Article VIII, 1987
Constitution).
Are there limitations to the rule-making power of
the Supreme Court?
Yes, and these are:
1. the rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade;
2. they shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Do you consider the Rules of Court a law?
Yes, they have the force and effect of law. (Alvero v. De
la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428; Conlu v. CA, January 29, 1960).
May the Rules of Court apply to all cases?
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 1
Yes, as a rule. The Rules can apply to cases filed after the
effectivity of the same, or even to pending cases, except
if their applicability would not be feasible, as it may impair
vested rights.
Can the Rules of Court be applied retroactively?
Yes, as a general rule. But if the retroactive application
impairs vested rights, then, the Rules must not be given
retroactive effect. (Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 92326,
January 24, 1992).
The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal
laws and are not to be given retroactive effect (Bermejo
v. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764, 776).
The rules shall govern cases brought after they take
effect, and also to pending cases, except if, in the opinion
of the court, their application would not be feasible or
would work injustice, in which event, the former
procedure shall apply (See Rule 144, Rules of Court).
3. What is the doctrine of estoppel by laches?
The doctrine of estoppel by laches was initially
emphasized by the Court in the leading case of Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy (23 SCRA 29, 35). Here, the Supreme Court
barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised by
a party only when an adverse decision was rendered by the
lower court against it and because it raised the issue only
after almost 15 years and after seeking affirmative relief
from the court and actively participating in all stages of the
proceedings. The doctrine, as declared by the Supreme Court
in Tijam, is “based upon grounds of public policy x x x and is
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.”
JURISDICTION
What is jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is the inherent power of a court to
hear, try, and decide a case. (Zamora v. CA, 183 SCRA
279 [1990].)
Bar 1989: Distinguish between error of jurisdiction
versus error of judgment?
An error of jurisdiction is one which occurs when
the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by
law. It may also occur when the court or tribunal,
although vested with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction
(See GSIS v. Oliza, 304 SCRA 421, 426; For further
readings, see also Cabrera v. Lapid, 510 SCRA 55, 66).
As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction,
any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its
discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors
of judgment (Cabrera v. Lapid, 510 SCRA 55, 66; Heirs of
Maura So v. Obliosca, 542 SCRA 406, 417).
May a court act on a case pending before it to the
exclusion of other courts? Why?
Yes, because of the doctrine of judicial stability.
Should one branch be permitted to equally assert, assume
or retain jurisdiction over a case in controversy over which
another coordinate or co-equal branch has already
assumed jurisdiction, then, that would be sanctioning
undue interference by one branch over another. With
that, judicial stability would be a meaningless precept in
a well-ordered administration of justice. (Parcon v. Court
of Appeals, 111 SCRA 262).
Bar 2011; 2017: What is the Doctrine of hierarchy
of courts?
The principle provides that lower courts shall
initially decide a case before it is considered by a higher
court. A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it
unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts (Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R Nos. 99289-
90, January 27,1993).
The rule on hierarchy of courts determines the
venue of appeals. Such rule is necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Court's precious time and
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
attention which are better devoted to matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
overcrowding of the Court's docket (Ang v. Mejia, G.R No.
167533, July 27,2007).
Bar 2011: What are the instances when doctrine of
hierarchy of courts can be disregarded?
1. The Supreme Court, however, may disregard
the principle of hierarchy of courts if warranted by the
nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest
of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations
(Declarador v. Bansales, 499 SCRA 341, 348, citing
Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624).
2. In relation to cases filed with the Supreme
Court, a direct resort to it was allowed in certain cases,
like:
(a) when there are special and important reasons clearly
stated in the petition;
(b) when dictated by public welfare and the advancement
of public policy;
(c) when demanded by the broader interest of justice;
(d) when the challenged orders were patent nullities;
(e) when analogous exceptional and compelling
circumstances called for and justified the immediate and
direct handling by the Court (Republic v. Caguioa, 691
SCRA 306, 316-317, February 20, 2013) or
(f) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that
must be addressed at the most immediate time (The
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
205728, January 21, 2015).
Bar 2011: What is the Doctrine of non-
interference?
The doctrine of non-interference (doctrine of
judicial stability) holds that courts of equal and coordinate
jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders
(Lapu- Lapu Development and Housing Corporation v.
Group Management
Corporation, 388 SCRA 493, 508, citing People v.
Woolcock, 244 SCRA 235).
Hence, a Regional Trial Court has no power or authority
to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession
issued by another Regional Trial Court (Suico Industrial
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 212, 213).
The principle also bars a court from reviewing or
interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over
which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review
(Villamor v. Salas, 203 SCRA 540, 543).
In an adoption case, the wife alone filed the
petition without joining the husband. It was
granted, but that was under the Child and Youth
Welfare Code (P.D. No. 603). When the Family
Code took effect, they went to Court seeking for an
annulment of the decree of adoption on the ground
that under Article 185 of the Code, the husband
and wife must jointly adopt. They contended that
the law is a remedial statute and must be
retroactive. Decide.
The contention is not correct. The wife’s right to file the
petition by herself already vested upon her filing thereof
and cannot be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment
of a new law. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the
petition, jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force
at the time of the commencement of the action.
(.Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992).
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the
established rule is that the statute in force at the time of
the commencement of the action determines the
jurisdiction of the court (Barangay Mayamot v. Antipolo
City, G.R. No. 187349, August 17, 2016).
Bar 2009: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently
residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City
a complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land
against Brigido. a resident of Barangay San Miguel. Sto.
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 2
Tomas. Batangas. The subject property, located in
Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of
19,700. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s
verification and certification of non-forum shopping
executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph
Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New York.
Brigod filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
following grounds:
(a) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of
the Philippines;
The first ground raised lacks merit because jurisdiction
over the person of a plaintiff is acquired by the court upon
the filing of plaintiff’s complaint therewith. Residency or
citizenship is not a requirement for filing a complaint,
because plaintiff thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the
court.
(b) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action involving real
property with an assessed value of P19.700.00;
exclusive and original jurisdiction is with the
Municipal Trial Court where the defendant
resides?
The second ground raised is also without merit because
the subject of the litigation, Rescission of Contract, is
incapable of pecuniary estimation the exclusive original
jurisdiction to which is vested by law in the Regional Trial
Courts. The nature of the action renders the assessed
value of the land involved irrelevant.
Will the failure to exhaust administrative remedies
affect the jurisdiction of the court? Why?
No. The only effect of non-compliance with the principle
of exhaustion of administrative remedies is that it will
deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a
ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the
proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court
can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Soto u.
Jareno, 144 SCRA 116; Hon. Carale, et al. v. Hon.
Abarintos, et al., 80 SCAD 116, G.R. No. 120704, March
3, 1997).
MTC Civil Jurisdiction
Over what civil actions do the Municipal Trial
Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction?
Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction
over the following:
a) civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies
in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
P300,000 (or P400,000 in Metro Manila), exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and cost, the amount of which shall
be specifically alleged;
b) Cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer;
and (Bar 2009; 2014)
c) All civil actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
P20,000 (or P50.000 in Metro Manila). (Bar 2008)
Section 5 of R.A. 7691 (which took effect on April 15,
1994) provides: “After five (5) years from the effectivity
of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in
Section 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be
adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall
be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of
Metro Manila, the above-mentioned jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted after five years from the
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00).”
Bar 2009: On August 13. 2008. A, as shipper and
consignee. loaded on the M/V Atlantis in Legaspi City
100.000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in
Manila totally damaged on August 14. 2008. A filed before
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint
against B Super Lines. Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/V
Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to P167.899.
He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading.
(a) B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the
ground that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive
original jurisdiction over "all actions in admiralty
and maritime" claims. In his Reply, A contended
that while the action is indeed "admiralty and
maritime" in nature, it is the amount of the claim,
not the nature of the action, that governs
jurisdiction. Pass on the Motion to Dismiss?
(a) The Motion to Dismiss is without merit and therefore
should be denied. Courts of the first level have jurisdiction
over civil actions where the demand is for sum of money
not exceeding P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila,
P400,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs: this jurisdiction
includes admiralty and marine cases. And where the main
cause of action is the claim for damages, the amount
thereof shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction
of the court (Adm. Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994).
(b) The MeTC denied the Motion in question A. B
Lines thus filed an Answer raising the defense that
under the Bill of Lading it issued to A. its liability
was limited to P10.000.
At the pre-trial conference, B Lines defined as one
of the issues whether the stipulation limiting its
liability to PI0,000 binds A. A countered that this
was no longer in issue as B Lines had failed to deny
under oath the Bill of Lading. Which of the parties
is correct? Explain.
(b) The contention of B is correct: A’s contention is
wrong. It was A who pleaded the Bill of Lading as an
actionable document where the stipulation limits B’s
liability to A to P10,000.00 only. The issue raised by B
does not go against or impugn the genuineness and due
execution of the Bill of Lading as an actionable document
pleaded by A, but invokes the binding effect of said
stipulation. The oath is not required of B, because the
issue raised by the latter does not impugn the
genuineness and due execution of the Bill of Lading.
P files an action against D to foreclose a chattel
mortgage over a motor vehicle. In the same action,
P applies for the issuance of a writ of replevin for
the seizure of the motor
vehicle. As alleged in the complaint, P’s main claim
against D is the collection of a sum of P190,000.
The value of the motor vehicle is P500,000. What
court has jurisdiction over this case?
The MTC has jurisdiction because plaintiffs claim does not
exceed P300,000 (or P400,000 in Metro Manila). What
determines the jurisdiction of the court is the amount of
plaintiffs claim, not the value of the motor vehicle sought
to be seized by replevin. (Fernandez v. International
Corporate Bank, et al., G.R. No. 131283, Oct. 1, 1999
[316 SCRA 326].)
The complaint involves title to, or possession of,
real property. However, they failed to allege
therein the assessed value of the subject property.
Instead, what they stated was the market value of
the land at P15,000.00. Does the court have
jurisdiction over the subject matter? Explain.
No. The Rule requires that “the assessed value of the
property or if there is none, the estimated value thereof,
shall be alleged by the claimant.” (Serrano v. Delica, G.R.
No. 136325, July 29, 2005). What determines jurisdiction
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 3
is the allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed
for. The complaint is for reconveyance of a parcel of land.
Considering that their action involves the title to or
interest in real property, they should have alleged therein
its assessed value, otherwise, the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter. (Pascual v. Pascual, G.R. No.
1. Zacarias v. Anacay G.R. No. 202354 September 24, 2014
The present controversy stemmed from a complaint for
Ejectment with Damages/Unlawful Detainer filed on
December 24, 2008 by petitioner Amada Zacarias thru her
son and attorney-in-fact, Cesar C. Zacarias, against the
above-named respondents, Victoria Anacay and members
of her household. Said respondents are the occupants of a
parcel of land with an area of seven hundred sixty-nine
(769) square meters, situated at Barangay Lalaan 1st,
Silang, Cavite.
The CA held that the MCTC clearly had no jurisdiction over
the case as the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional
requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer. Since
the prescriptive period for filing an action for forcible entry
has lapsed, petitioner could not convert her action into one
for unlawful detainer, reckoning the one-year period to file
her action from the time of her demand for respondents to
vacate the property.
157830, November 17, 2005; San Pedro, et al. v. Hon.
Asdala, et al., G.R. No. 164560, July 22, 2009).
Can MCTC acquire jurisdiction without satisfying
the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for
unlawful detainer?
The allegations in the complaint do not contain any
averment of fact that would substantiate petitioners’
claim that they permitted or tolerated the occupation of
the property by respondents. The complaint contains
only bare allegations that "respondents without any
color of title whatsoever occupies the land in question by
building their house in the said land thereby depriving
petitioners the possession thereof." Nothing has been
said on how respondents’ entry was effected or how and
when dispossession started. Admittedly, no express
contract existed between the parties. This failure of
petitioners to allege the key jurisdictional facts
constitutive of unlawful detainer is fatal. Since the
complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement
of a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the municipal trial
court had no jurisdiction over the case.It is in this light
that this Court finds that the Court of Appeals correctly
found that the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction
over the complaint.
Bar 2009: What is the mode of appeal from
decision of the MTC in cadastral and land
registration cases?
The decision of the MTC shall be appealable in the same
manner as the decision of the Regional Trial Court (Sec.
34, B.P. 129, as amended; Sec. 4, R.A. 7691). Hence, the
MTC, acting under its delegated jurisdiction, may be
deemed to be acting as a Regional Trial Court. The
decision of the MTC in cadastral and land registration
cases, therefore, shall be appealable to the Court of
Appeals following the procedure in Rule 41.
1. P sues D for the payment of P150,000 based on
a promissory note. P also wants D to pay him
P500,000 as moral damages, P500,000 as
exemplary damages, and P50,000 as attorney’s
fees. In what court should P file his complaint?
P should file his complaint in the Municipal Trial Court
because his demand, being only P150,000, does not
exceed P300,000 (or P400,000 in Metro Manila). P’s
action is a personal action. In determining what court will
have jurisdiction in personal actions, damages of
whatever kind (as well as interest, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs) shall be excluded if they
are merely incidental to, or a consequence of, the main
cause of action. In the problem presented, P’s claims for
moral damages and exemplary damages are merely
incidental to, or a consequence of, his main cause of
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
action which is for collection of the sum of P150,000.
(Adm. Circ. 09-94, dated June 14, 1994.)
In cases where the claim for damages is the main cause
of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.
Actions for damages based on quasi-delict are primarily
and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money
for damages for the tortious acts. (Mendoza v. Soriano,
etal., G.R. No. 164012, June 8, 2007.)
Bar 2012: What is the special jurisdiction of MTC?
The MTC has also been conferred by law a special
jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus in the absence of all the Regional Trial
Court judges in the province or city (Sec. 35, B.P. 129, as
amended).
The special jurisdiction includes the authority to hear and
decide applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional Trial Court
judges sit (Sec. 35, B.P. 129, as amended).
RTC Civil Jurisdiction
Over what civil actions do Regional Trial Courts
have exclusive original jurisdiction?
Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction
over the following:
a) civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
b) civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds P20,000 (or P50,000 in Metro Manila), except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings;
c) actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 (or
P400,000 in Metro Manila);
d) matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 (or
P400,000 in Metro Manila);
e) actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
f) cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
g) civil actions and special proceedings that used
to fall within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations;
and
h) all other cases in which the demand, exclusive
of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property
in controversy exceeds P300.000 (or P400.000 in Metro
Manila).
Some branches of the Regional Trial Courts in
certain cities and provinces have been designated by the
Supreme Court as Family Courts. These Family Courts
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the following
cases:
a) criminal cases where one or more of the
accused is below 18 years of age but not less than nine
years of age, or where one or more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense;
b) petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
c) petitions for adoption of children and the
revocation thereof;
d) complaints for annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to
marital status and property relations of husband and wife
or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal
partnership of gains;
e) petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 4
f) summary judicial proceedings brought under
the provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines;
g) petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent, or neglected children; petitions
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental
authority; and other cases cognizable under P.D. 603,
E.0.56, and other related laws;
h) petitions for the constitution of the family
home;
i) cases against minors cognizable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
j) violations of R.A. 7610 (otherwise known as
Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act), as amended; and
k) cases of domestic violence against: (1) women
— which are acts of gender based violence that result or
are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological
harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical
abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which
violate a woman’s personhood, integrity and freedom of
movement; and (2) children — which include the
commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other
conditions prejudicial to their development. (RA 8369,
Sec. 5.)
Regional Trial Courts shall also exercise original
jurisdiction:
a) In the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions; and
b) In actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls. (B.P. 129, Sec. 21.)
Angelina sued Armando before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila to recover the ownership and possession
of two parcels of land: one situated in Pampanga, and
the other in Bulacan.
Bar 2008: Fe filed a suit for collection of P387.000
against Ramon in the RTC of Davao City. Aside from
alleging payment as a defense. Ramon in his answer set
up counterclaims for P100.000 as damages and 30,000 as
attorney's fees as a result of the baseless filing of the
complaint, as well as for P250.000 as the balance of the
purchase price of the 30 units of air conditioners he sold
to Fe.
(a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over Ramon's
counterclaim, and if so, does he have to pay docket
fees therefor?
Yes, applying the totality rule which sums up the total
amount of claims of the parties, the RTC has jurisdiction
over the counter claims. Unlike in the case of compulsory
counterclaims, a defendant who raises a permissive
counterclaim must first pay docket fees before the court
can validly acquire jurisdiction. One compelling test of
compulsoriness is the logical relation between the claim
alleged in the complaint and the counterclaim (Bayer Phil,
Inc. vs. C.A., G.R. No. 109269, 15 September 2000).
Ramon does not have to pay docket fees for his
compulsory counterclaims. Ramon is liable for docket fees
only on his permissive counterclaim for the balance of the
purchase price of 30 units of air conditioners in the sum
of P250,000, as it neither arises out of nor is it connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting Fe’s claim
(Sec. 19 [8] and 33 [1], B.P. 129; AO 04-94, implementing
R.A. 7691, approved March 25, 1994, the jurisdictional
amount for MTC Davao being P300,000 at this time; Alday
vs. FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 138822, 23
January 2001).
(b) Suppose Ramon’s counterclaim for the unpaid
balance is P310, 000, what will happen to his
counterclaims if the court dismisses the complaint
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
after holding a preliminary hearing on Ramon’s
affirmative defenses?
The dismissal of the complaint shall be without prejudice
to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a
counterclaim pleaded in the answer (Sec. 3, Rule 17;
Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago, G.R. No. 170354,
June 30, 2006).
(c) Under the same premise as paragraph (b)
above, suppose that instead of alleging payment
as a defense in his answer. Ramon filed a motion
to dismiss on that ground, at the same time setting
up his counterclaims, and the court grants his
motion. What will happen to his counterclaims?
His counterclaims can continue to be prosecuted or may
be pursued separately at his option (Sec. 6, Rule 16;
Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago, G.R. No. 170354,
June 30, 2006).
Bar 2009: Angelina sued Armando before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila to recover the ownership and
possession of two parcels of land: one situated in
Pampanga, and the other in Bulacan.
(a) May the action prosper? Explain.
No, the action may not prosper, because under R.A. No.
7691, exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of real property or any
interest therein is determined on the basis of the assessed
value of the land involved, whether it should be P20,000
in the rest of the Philippines, outside of the Manila with
the courts of the first level or with the Regional Trial
Court. The assessed value of the parcel of land in
Pampanga is different from the assessed value of the land
in Bulacan. What is involved is not merely a matter of
venue, which is waivable, but of a matter of jurisdiction.
However, the action may prosper if jurisdiction is not in
issue, because venue can be waived.
(b) Will your answer be the same if the action was
for foreclosure of the mortgage over the two
parcels of land? Why or why not?
NO, the answer would not be the same. The foreclosure
action should be brought in the proper court of the
province where the land or any part thereof is situated,
either in Pampanga or in Bulacan. Only one foreclosure
action need be filed unless each parcel of land is covered
by distinct mortgage contract.
In foreclosure suit, the cause of action is for the violation
of the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract;
hence, one foreclosure suit per mortgage contract
violated is necessary.
A final judgment was rendered by the RTC at a
time that it still had jurisdiction. Thereafter, on
March 11, 1973, P.D. No. 902-A took effect,
transferring the jurisdiction of corporate
controversies to the SEC. Can the judgment be still
executed?
Yes. Because once jurisdiction is acquired or attached to
a court over a case, it continues until the end of the case.
However, under the circumstances, the execution of the
RTC judgment should now be placed under the
supervision and control of the SEC, even if the RTC
judgment is already final and can no longer be modified
or altered. (Aranas v. CA, G.R. No. 95607, July 23, 1992).
Bar 2010: What court has jurisdiction in accion
publiciana?
Action publiciana is a plenary action for recovery of
possession in an ordinary civil proceeding, in order to
determine the better and legal right to possess,
independently of title. The objective of the plaintiffs in
action publiciana is to recover possession only, not
ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of
ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to
determine who between the parties has the right to
possess the property. This adjudication, however, is not
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 5
a final and binding determination of the issue on
ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue
of possession where the issue on ownership is inseparably
linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the
issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an
action between the same parties involving title to the
property (Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses, 641 SCRA 350,
359-360).
The determining jurisdictional element for action
reinvindicatoria is the assessed value of the property in
question. For properties outside Metro Manila, the RTC
has jurisdiction if the assessed value exceeds P20,000,
and the MTC, if the assessed value is P20,000 or below.
An assessed value can have reference only to the tax rolls
in the municipality where the property is located, and is
contained in the tax declaration. It is elementary that the
tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the
property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has
been issued by the proper government agency (See
Hilario v. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815, 827).
May a case already filed with the Regional Trial
Court be transferred to the Municipal Court?
Yes, cases filed before the RTC which now fall
within the jurisdiction of the MTC by virtue of R.A. 7691
may be transferred to the MTC. But this applies only to
civil cases, not to criminal cases. Otherwise jurisdiction
would remain with the RTC.
May the Municipal Trial Court trying an ejectment
suit be restrained by the RTC from trying the case
just because of the pendency of an annulment
case? Why?
No. The filing of an action for reconveyance of
title over the same property or for the annulment of the
deed of sale over the land does not divest the MTC of its
jurisdiction to try the forcible entry or unlawful detainer
case before it. (De la Cruz v. CA, 133 SCRA 520 [1984];
Drilon u. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 342 [1987]; Cing v. Malaya,
153 SCRA 412 [1987]; Ang Ping v. RTC Manila, Br. 40,
154 SCRA 77 [1987]).
This is because, while there may be identity of
parties and subject matter in the forcible entry case and
the suit for annulment of title and/or reconveyance, the
rights asserted and the relief prayed for are not the same.
(Drilon v. Gaurana, supra). The respondents in ejectment
proceedings cannot defeat the summary nature of the
action against them by simply filing an action questioning
the ownership of the person who is trying to eject them
from the premises. (Palomar v. Sison, G.R. No. 82761,
June 29, 1989).
A filed a complaint for the recovery of the land as
well as the building constructed thereon from B. It
was filed with the MTC. It was contended that the
RTC has jurisdiction, not the MTC. Decide.
The RTC has jurisdiction. In Chua Peng Hiau v. CA, 133
SCRA 572, it was held that where the issues raised before
the inferior court do not only involve possession of the lot
but also the rights of the parties to the building
constructed thereon, the RTC and not the municipal court
has jurisdiction over the case. (Citing Ortigas & Co. v. CA,
106 SCRA 121). Moreover, the action was for specific
performance of the stipulations of the contract of lease.
It was not capable of pecuniary estimation. (Citing De
Jesus v. Garcia, 125 Phil. 955; Lapitan v. Scandia, 24
SCRA 479).
What court has jurisdiction over action for
reconveyance of real property?
The ultimate objective of the complaint must be
inquired into. For instance, an action for reconveyance of
real property will not be deemed one incapable of
pecuniary estimation where the ultimate objective is to
obtain title to the property.
The Court, thus, held: “Where the ultimate objective of
the plaintiffs, x x x is to obtain title to real property, it
should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
the assessed value of the property subject thereof’
(Barangay Piapi v. Talip, 469 SCRA 409, 413).
Actions Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
What are the tests to be followed in determining
whether the subject matter of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation?
In determining whether the subject of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought must first be
determined. If it is primarily for recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and jurisdiction would depend on the amount
of the claim. But where the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the
money claim is incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief being sought, the subject of litigation is
deemed incapable of pecuniary estimation in terms of
money, and is cognizable exclusively by the RTC. (Singson
v. Isabela Sawmill, G.R. No. L-27343, Feb. 28, 1979 [88
SCRA 623].)
Thus, an action for specific performance is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, although it also prays
for damages (because the claim for damages is merely
incidental to the principal relief being sought). But, where
there is an alternative prayer for the payment of a sum of
money in lieu of specific performance, jurisdiction should
be based on the sum of money alternatively prayed for.
(Cruz v. Tan, 87 Phil. 627 [1950].)
Bar 1997: What court has jurisdiction over an
action for specific performance?
An action for specific performance is one
generally considered incapable of pecuniary estimation
(Russel v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738, 745).
The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition
to the prayer for specific performance is not determinative
of jurisdiction. Thus, an action for specific performance
and damages of P200.000 is cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court even if the amount of damages sought to be
recovered is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court.
Where, however, the demand is in the
alternative, as in an action to compel the defendant to
deliver the house by completing its construction or to pay
a certain sum, the action is one that is capable of
pecuniary estimation (Cruz v. Tan, 87 Phil. 627, 629).
Thus, an action for specific performance, or, in the
alternative, for damages, in the amount of P180,000 is
one capable of pecuniary estimation because of the
alternative prayer which is for a sum of money. Here, the
amount of damages is determinative of jurisdiction.
Bar 1997; 2009: What court has jurisdiction over
an action for a writ of injunction?
If, as gleaned from the complaint, the principal
relief sought is for the court to issue an injunction against
the adverse party and his representatives to permanently
enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject
land, the complaint is not a possessory action but one for
injunction. As such, the subject matter of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable
exclusively by the Regional Trial Court under Sec. 19(1)
of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691 (Bokingo v. Court
of Appeals, 489 SCRA 521, 532-533; See also Republic v.
Principalia Management and Personnel Consultants, Inc.,
G.R. No. 198426, September 2, 2015).
An action for a writ of injunction is within the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court. It is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
The CBA between PAL and FASAP fixes the
compulsory retirement age for females at 55 years
and for males at 60 years. Several flight
attendants filed a special civil action for
declaratory relief against PAL with the RTC,
alleging that the said provision is discriminatory
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 6
against female flight attendants and in violation of
the Constitution, the Labor Code (on right to equal
work and employment opportunities) and the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ratified
by the Senate in 1981. The petitioners prayed that
the RTC declare said provision null and void.
Respondent PAL moved to dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the matter is
within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Voluntary Arbitrators Panel, which has jurisdiction
to hear and decide all unresolved grievances
arising from the interpretation and
implementation of the CBA. Upholding its
jurisdiction over the case, RTC issued an order
denying the motion to dismiss, is the RTC correct?
Yes. The allegations in the petition and the relief prayed
for show that the issue raised is whether the CBA
provision in question is constitutional. The said issue
cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor Code.
Rather, it requires the application of the Constitution,
labor laws, law on contracts and the CEDAW.
The subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation exclusively cognizable by the RTC. Being a civil
action, it is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals.
Here, the employer-employee relationship between the
parties is merely incidental. (Halaguena, etal. v. PAL, G.R.
No. 172013, Oct 2, 2009)
What court has jurisdiction over complaint for
enforcement of foreign judgment?
Complaint for enforcement of foreign judgment,
even if capable of pecuniary estimation, falls under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, provided that no
other court or office is vested with jurisdiction over such
complaint. (Mijares, etal. v. Ranada, etal., G.R. No.
139325. April 12, 2005)
Bar 1997: What court has jurisdiction over an
action for interpleader?
An action for interpleader is capable of pecuniary
estimation where the subject matter is either real or
personal property. If the subject of interpleader is real
property, then the jurisdictional amount is determined by
the assessed value of the land. If it be personal property,
then the value of the property.
However, if the subject matter of the case is the
performance of an obligation, the subject matter is one
incapable of pecuniary estimation and the MTC has no
jurisdiction (See Feria and Noehe, Provisional Remedies
and Special Civil Actions, 2007, p. 147). Hence, an action
for interpleader to determine who between the
defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000
from the plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
A, a resident of Manila filed a suit for sum of money
against B for P350,000.00. He also prayed for
P200,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00
as exemplary damages. The case was filed with the
RTC, Manila.
a. If you were the counsel for B, would you file a
motion to dismiss and on what ground? Explain.
a. If I were the counsel for B, I would file a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The amount
of the claim does not exceed P400,000.00 hence, I would
contend that the suit is within the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court. The claim for moral and
exemplary damages is immaterial as the same is only
incidental to the main action, hence, it should not be
included in the sum of money claim, hence, the totality
rule does not apply, and since it does not apply, the MTC,
not the RTC has jurisdiction.
b. If you were the counsel for A, what would be the
basis of your opposition to the motion to dismiss?
Explain.
b. If I were the counsel for A, I would contend that the
case is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
because the total amount of the claim exceeds
P400,000.00. Under the law, if the amount of the claim
exceeds P400,000.00 in Metro Manila, the case is within
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
c. If you were the judge, how would you rule on
the motion to dismiss? Explain.
c. If I were the judge, I would dismiss the action on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. The totality rule does not
apply as it applies only to purely money claims. The claim
for moral and exemplary damages does not partake of the
nature of a claim for sum of money. It is only
consequential to the main action. The law expressly says
that if the amount of the money claim does not exceed
P400j000.00, exclusive of damages, interest, attorney’s
fees, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Payment of Docket Fees
Suppose the plaintiff failed to pay the correct
amount of docket fee, may the trial court dismiss
the complaint?
No, the trial court may not dismiss the complaint.
Instead, the trial court should allow the plaintiff to pay
the correct amount of docket fee within a reasonable time
but before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to pay within the
period granted him by the trial court, then the defendant
must move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. The defendant who fails to timely raise the
issue of jurisdiction would be considered in estoppel.
(National Steel Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 123215, Feb.
2, 1999.)
As held in Monsanto v. Lim, G.R. No. 178911, Sept. 17,
2014, jurisdiction is acquired upon payment of the
prescribed docket fees.
If the filing and docket fees in a real action are
paid, but the fees for certain related damages are
not paid, does the court acquire jurisdiction over
the action?
Where the fees prescribed for the real action have been
paid but the fees for certain related damages are not, the
regional trial court, although it has jurisdiction over the
real action, may not have acquired jurisdiction over the
accompanying claim for damages. Accordingly, the court
may expunge those claims for damages, or allow, on
motion, a reasonable time for amendment of the
complaint so as to allege the precise amount of damages
and accept payment of the requisite legal fees. If there
are unspecified claims, the determination of which may
arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading,
the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on
the judgment award. The same rule applies to third-party
complaints and other similar pleadings. (Ballatan v. CA,
G.R. No. 125683, March 2, 1999.)
May a court acquire jurisdiction if there’s no
pleading filed and the docket fee was not paid in
full?
Pag-IBIG requested the intervention of the trial court
through a letter on the alleged anomalous auction sale
conducted. The Court ruled that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case since no proper
initiatory pleading was filed. Said letter could not in any
way be considered as a pleading. Also, no docket fees
were paid before the trial court. Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court mandates that ―upon the filing of the pleading or
other application which initiates an action or proceeding,
the fees prescribed shall be paid in full. (Monsanto v. Lim
and De Guzman, GR No. 178911, 09/17/2014)
What are the exceptions to the strict application of
the rules on payment of docket fees?
The following are the exceptions to the strict application
of the rules on payment of docket fees: "
(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 6
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure;
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default;
(4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(5) the merits of the case;
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the
rules;
(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory;
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
without appellant’s fault;
(10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant
to each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by
all the attendant circumstances." Villena v. Rupisan, 549
Phil. 146, 166-167 (2007). ALONZO GIPA vs. SOUTHERN
LUZON INSTITUTE, G.R. No.177425, June 18, 2014.
What should the court do if the action is not
accompanied by the payment of docket fee?
Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. (Sunlife Insurance Office, Ltd. v.
Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274).
The reason for the rule is that, at all events, while
a court may refuse to entertain a suit for non-payment of
docket fees, such failure does not preclude it, however,
from taking cognizance of the case as circumstances may
so warrant or when the ends of justice would be best
served if the case were to be given due course. Verily, the
payment of fees is by no means a mere technicality of law
or procedure. It is also an indispensable step in the
perfection of an appeal. While it is mandatory on the
litigant, the court, however, is not necessarily left without
any alternative but to dismiss the appeal for non-payment
of docket fees. Thus, the failure to pay the appeal
docketing fee confers a discretionary authority, not
mandatory charge, on the part of the court to dismiss an
appeal. This discretion must, of course, be exercised
soundly, wisely and prudently, and with great deal of
circumspection in accordance with the tenets of fair play,
never capriciously, and always with a view to substance.
(Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction and Development
Corp., G.R. No. 146594, June 10, 2002).
If a case was filed and the complaint was amended
without the proper docket fee having been paid,
do you think the court acquired jurisdiction over
the subject matter? Why?
Yes, especially so that the Manchester Dev. Corp.
v. CA, et al., 149 SCRA 562, rule has been relaxed. The
court may now allow the payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period. (Sun Insurance
Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13,
1989; Suson v. CA, et al., 86 SCAD 375, G.R. No. 126749,
August 21, 1997).
Aspects of Jurisdiction
2. What are the four aspects of jurisdiction?
The concept of jurisdiction has several aspects, namely:
(1) jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) jurisdiction over the parties;
(3) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and
(4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or
the thing which is the subject of the litigation. (Boston
Equity Resources v. CA G.R. No. 173946 June 19, 2013)
7
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
Bar 2014; 2015: How is jurisdiction over the
subject matter determined?
While jurisdiction is conferred by law, jurisdiction
is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well
as by the character of the relief sought (See Geronimo v.
Calderon, G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014; Cabling
v. Dangcalan, G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016).
The allegations of the complaint determine both the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court
(Balibago Faith Baptist Church, Inc. v. Faith in Christ Jesus
Baptist Church, Inc., G.R. No. 191527, August 22, 2016).
This is regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought
therein (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. Nos.
178382-83, September 23, 2015; See also Barangay
Mayamot v. Antipolo City, supra).
Bar 1992:What is the duty of the Court if the
question of jurisdiction over the subject matter
was not raised by either of the parties?
Even if the question of jurisdiction over the
subject matter was not raised by either of the parties, the
courts will have to first address such question before
delving into the procedural and substantive issues of the
case. Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their
authority and, even if such question is neither raised by
the pleadings or suggested by counsel, they may
recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly by
staying pleadings, dismissing the action, or otherwise
noticing the defect, at any stage of the proceedings
(Bureau of Customs v. Devanadera, G.R. No. 193253,
September 8, 2015).
How is jurisdiction over the subject matter
conferred?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
which may be either the Constitution or a statute (City of
Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, 656 SCRA 102,
119; Tagalog v. Lim Vda. de Gonzalez, G.R. No. 201286,
July 18, 2014; Cabling v. Dangcalan, G.R. No. 187696,
June 15, 2016). Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on
courts (BF Homes, Inc. v. Manila Electric Company, 636
SCRA 495, 510). Hence, if one wants to know the court
with jurisdiction over a complaint for forcible entry, accion
publiciana, or partition of real party, one must look into
the laws on jurisdiction, not the Rules of Court or any
procedural rule.
Bar 2004:What is the effect of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter?
The general rule is that proceedings conducted or
decisions made by a court are legally void where there is
an absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is
true even where the court in good faith believes that the
subject matter is within its jurisdiction. A court devoid of
jurisdiction over the case cannot make a decision in favor
of either party. It can only dismiss the case for want of
jurisdiction. A decision rendered by a court devoid of
jurisdiction may be the subject of a collateral attack, if
that jurisdictional defect appears on the face of the
record. And where lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter appears on the face of the record, an appellate
court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action (See
Am Jur 2d, §97, 1965 Ed.; Citations by Am Jur omitted;
See also Tagalog v. Lim Vda. de Gonzalez, G.R. No.
201286, July 18, 2014).
Bar 1992: Can jurisdiction over the subject matter
be waived?
Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver
(Cadimas v. Carrion, 567 SCRA 101,108). It cannot be
waived by the parties or cured by their silence,
acquiescence or even express consent (Peralta-Labrador
v. Bugarin, 468 SCRA 308, 313). Jurisdiction may not be
changed by the mere agreement of the parties (Atlas
Developer & Steel Industries, Inc. v. Sarmiento
Enterprises, Inc., 184 SCRA 153, 155). It cannot be the
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 8
subject matter of a contract (Luna v. Carandang, 26 SCRA
306, 309).
Bar 2015: Does the amount awarded determines
jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Since it is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the allegations in the
complaint (Gustilo v. Gustilo III, 659 SCRA 619, 622),
jurisdiction does not depend on the amount ultimately
substantiated and awarded by the trial court (Dionisio v.
Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471, 477).
Bar 2009: How does the court acquire jurisdiction
over the persons of the parties acquired?
The manner by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party
is the plaintiff or the defendant.
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired as soon
as he files his complaint or petition (De Pedro v. Romasan
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194751, November
26, 2014) because by the mere filing of the complaint,
the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself
to the jurisdiction of the court (Guy v. Gacott, supra; See
also Onstott v. Upper Tagpos Neighborhood Association,
Inc., G.R. No. 221047, September 14, 2016). Bar 1981;
1994; 2009
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in
civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance
in court and his submission to its authority or by service
of summons (Sec. 20, Rule 14, Rules of Court; Macasaet
v. Co, G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013; Guy v. Gacott,
supra; Onstott v. Upper Tagpos Neighborhood
Association, Inc., ibid.).
What is jurisdiction over the issues means?
Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try
and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties
(Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484, 487).
Bar 2004: Distinguish between question of law and
question of fact?
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference
arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts. There
is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises
as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts (Sps.
Santos v. Court of Appeals, 337 SCRA 67, 74).
For a question to be one of law, the same must not
involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact (Velayo-Fong
v. Spouses Velayo, 510 SCRA 320, 329-330; Alicando v.
People, G.R. No. 181119, July 31,2013; International
Hotel Corporation v. Joaquin, Jr., G.R. No. 158361, April
10, 2013).
In short, the test of whether a question is one of law or
of fact is whether the court can determine the issue raised
without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. If there is
no need for such evaluation, the issue is one of law;
otherwise, it is a question of fact (National Association of
Electricity Consumers for Reforms v. Manila Electric
Company, G.R. No. 191150, October 10, 2016).
Bar 2014: What is totality rule?
1. Under the totality rule, where there are several claims
or causes of actions between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of
the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions
(Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129, as amended).
2. The totality rule presupposes that the various claims of
the same or different parties are allowed to be embodied
in the same complaint, or that the different causes of
action, which are joined, accrue in favor of the same
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
plaintiff's and against the same defendant/s and that no
misjoinder of parties is involved. If so, then the total
amount of the claims shall be the basis of the court’s
jurisdiction and not the amount of the individual claims.
This rule is applied in relation to the rules on permissive
joinder of parties in Sec. 6 of Rule 3 and the rules on
joinder of causes of action under Sec. 5 of Rule 2 (Please
refer to discussions in the succeeding chapter; See also
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Buncan, 453 SCRA 482,
489).
Bar 2015: Lender extended to Borrower a P100.000.00
loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower
obtained another P100, 000.00 loan again covered by a
promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,
000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his
land valued at P500, 000.00. Borrower defaulted on his
payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to
pay the P500, 000.00 loan. Borrower refused to pay.
Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a
collection suit for P500.000.00. At the trial. Borrower's
lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully
elicited an admission from the latter that the two
promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's
lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground
that as proven only P300.000.00 was the amount due to
Lender and which claim is within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further
argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and
the rule on joinder of causes of action?
a.) YES. Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the
rule on joinder of causes of action. Under the rule on
joinder of causes of action, a party may in one pleading
assert as many causes of action as he may have against
an opposing party. Under the totality rule, where the
claims in all the causes of action are principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall
be the test of jurisdiction. Here the causes of action by
Lender are all against borrower and all the claims are
principally for recovery of money. Hence the aggregate
amount claimed, which is P500, 000 shall be the test of
jurisdiction and thus it is the RTC of Manila which has
jurisdiction. Although the rules on joinder of causes of
action state that the joinder shall not include special civil
actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to the third
loan was not foreclosure but collection. Hence joinder of
causes of action would still be proper.
b) Should the court dismiss the case?
b) NO. The Supreme Court has held that subject-matter
jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the claim
alleged in the complaint and not the amount
substantiated during the trial (Dionisio v. Sioson Puerto,
G.R. No. L-39452, October 31, 1974). Here the amount
claimed was P500, 000. Even if the claim substantiated
during the trial was only P300,000, that is not
determinative of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hence the
argument that lack of subject- matter jurisdiction can be
raised at any time is misplaced since in the first place the
RTC has jurisdiction.
State the rule if there are damages awarded in the
judgment but which were not specified in the
pleadings.
Damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar
pleadings as to which the additional filing fee should be
paid shall constitute a lien on the judgment. (Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, ibid.).
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 9
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
Do the Rules of Court have the force and effect of
law?
Rule 1 General Provision
Yes. In a series of cases, it has been said that the
Rules of Court have the force and effect of law. (Alvero u.
De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428 (Altavar and Cohler v. CA, 106
Phil. 940).
Sec. 2 To what courts are the Rules of Court
applicable?
The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts, except as
otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (Rule 1, Sec.
2). In view of the exception, the Supreme Court has
promulgated the Rules on Summary Procedure which are
applicable exclusively to the inferior courts.
Sec. 2 How are the provisions of the Rules of Court
interpreted?
The Rules of Court shall be liberally construed to
promote their object and assist the parties just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding. (Sec. 2, Rule 1). Procedural rules are not to
be belittled or simply disregard for these prescribed
procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration
of justice. (Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of
Land Problems, G.R. No. 168990, June 16, 2006, 491
SCRA 222; Saluacion v. SB, G.R. No. 175006, November
27, 2008).
Sec. 3 What does ordinary civil action means?
It is one in which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or
redress of a wrong [Sec. 3(a), Rule 1.
Sec. 3 To what cases are the Rules of Court
applicable?
The Rules of Court shall govern the procedure to be
observed in civil or criminal actions, and special
proceedings. (Sec. 3).
Sec. 3aa Define a civil action.
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. (Sec. 3[a], Rule 1).
Sec. 3aaWhat are the kinds of civil actions?
Civil actions may either be ordinary or special. (Sec. 3[a]).
Sec. 3baWhat is a criminal action?
A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a
person for an act or omission punishable by law. (Sec.
3[b]).
Sec. 3c What is a special proceeding?
A special proceeding is a rejnedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Sec.
3[c]; Hagas v. Wishizenus, 42 Phil. 880).
Sec. 3c: What is a special proceeding?
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Sec.
3[c]; Hagas v. Wishizenus, 42 Phil. 880).
Give some examples of special proceedings.
Some examples of special proceedings are adoption,
habeas corpus, judicial approval of voluntary recognition
of minor natural children, cancellation or correction of
entries in the Civil Registry, as well as probate of a will.
These proceedings establish facts, status or rights.
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2016 & Riano 2016
Bar 1999: What are the distinctions between civil
action and special proceedings?
The following are the distinctions:
a) a civil action is adversarial as it involves two
parties, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant; special
proceedings are not necessarily adversarial as it may
involve only one party who is the petitioner; and
b) a civil action is a formal demand of a right by
one against another; while special proceedings are but
petitions for a declaration of a status, a right, or a
particular fact.
Thus, where a party seeks to recover a property
from another, his remedy is to file an action. But, where
his purpose is to seek the appointment of a guardian for
an insane person, his remedy is a special proceeding to
establish the fact or status of insanity calling for
guardianship. So, also, a petition for liquidation of an
insolvent corporation is a special proceeding because
what the petition seeks is merely a declaration by the trial
court of the corporation’s insolvency so that its creditors
may be able to file their claims in the settlement of the
corporation’s debts and obligations. (Pacific Banking
Corporation Employees Organization, et al. v. CA, et al.,
G.R. No. 109373, March 20, 1995.)
Citing its earlier ruling in Espinoza v. United
Overseas Bank Phils, 616 SCRA 353, the Supreme Court
said that a petition for issuance of writ of possession is
not an ordinary suit filed in court by which one party sues
another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of
a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex
parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding
brought for the benefit of one party only and without
notice by the court to any person adverse of interest. It
is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving
the person against whom the relief is sought an
opportunity to be heard. By its very nature, an ex parte
petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-
litigious proceeding. It is a judicial proceeding for the
enforcement of one’s right of possession as purchaser in
a foreclosure sale. (LZK Holdings and Development
Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No.
187973, Jan. 20, 2014.)
Sec. 4 State some instances when liberal
interpretation of the rules may apply and why?
As a general rule it is not applicable in: (NICOLE)
1. Naturalization proceedings;
2. Insolvency proceedings;
3. Cadastral proceedings;
4. Other cases not provided in the Rules of Court;
5. Land registration proceedings; and
6. Election cases (Sec. 4, Rule 1)
Except when:
1. By analogy or in a suppletoiy character; and
2. Practicable and convenient (Sec. 4, Rule 1)
Court litigation is primarily a search for truth, and
a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties
are given fullest opportunity to adduce evidence is the
best way to ferret out the truth. (People v. Almendras, et
al., G.R. No. 145915, April 4, 2003).
Sec. 5 How is a civil action commenced?
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original
complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced
with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later
pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. (Rule 1,
Sec. 5.)
But as held in Dionisio v. Linsangan, G.R. No.
178159, March 2, 2011, an amended complaint that
changes the plaintiff’s cause of action is technically a new
complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on
the date of the filing of such amended complaint, not on
the date of the filing of its original version. Thus, the
statute of limitation resumes its run until it is arrested by
DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 10
the filing of the amended complaint. However, an
amendment which does not alter the cause of action but
merely
Sec. 6:How shall the Rules (of Court) be
construed?
The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. (Rule 1, Sec.
6.)
And, the Supreme Court has the power to suspend or set
aside its own rules in the higher interest of justice.
(Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998.)
Rule 2 Cause of Action
What is the basis of an ordinary civil action?
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of
action. (Rule 2. Sec. 1.)
What is a cause of action?
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. (Rule 2, Sec. 2)
It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates
the right or rights of the plaintiff. (Ma-aw Sugar Central
v. Barrios, 76 Phil. 666; Phil. Daily Inquirer, et al. v. Hon.
Almeda, et al., G.R. No. 160604, March 28, 2008).
What are the elements of a cause of action?
The elements of a cause of action are:
a. existence of a legal right of the plaintiff;
b. correlative duty of a defendant to respect one’s right;
and
c. act or omission of the defendant in violation of the
plaintiffs right (Rebolido v. CA, February 28, 1989) with
consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which
he may maintain an action for the recovery of damage's
or other appropriate relief. (Mathay v. Consolidated Bank,
58 SCRA 559; Multi-Realty Dev. Corp. v. Makati Tuscany
Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 146726, June 16, 2006, 491
SCRA 9; Subic Telecommunications Co., Inc. v. SBMA, et
al., G.R. No. 185159, October 12, 2009).
Bar 1988 Jurisdiction and cause of action
1. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court (Cuenca
v. PCGG, 535 SCRA 102, 114). It is the authority to hear
and determine a cause - the right to act in a case (Arranza
v. B.F. Homes, Inc., 333 SCRA 799, 812).
2. A cause of action does not refer to the authority of the
court. A cause of action is the act or omission of a person
violative of the rights of others. Under Sec. 2, Rule 2 of
the Rules of Court, a cause of action "is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another.”
What do you understand by splitting of causes of
action?
It is the practice of dividing one cause of action
into different parts and making each part the subject of a
separate complaint. (Bachrach v. Icaringal, 68 SCRA 287).
What is the effect of the practice of splitting a
single cause of action?
The filing of the first may be pleaded in
abatement of the other or others and a judgment upon
the merits in any one is available as a bar to the others.
(Sec. 4, Rule 2, Bacolod City v. San Miguel, Inc., L-25134,
October 30, 1969).
State the test in determining whether or not a
cause of action is single.
If there is only one delict or wrong, there is a
single cause of action, even if there are several rights
violated and all of those rights violated must be prayed
for in one complaint but the single delict or wrong must
be violative of one contract or transaction, for if there are
separate and distinct contracts or transactions between
the parties, violation of each contract or transaction would
constitute a separate cause of action. (Landahl, Inc. v.
Monroy, L-6991, November 29, 1957).
 In 1984, Pantranco bus hit a jeepney resulting in
damage to it amounting to P21,415.00. When it was
repaired, the owner paid the cost of repair and the
insurance company paid the amount of P8, 000.00.
Then, they filed a complaint for sum of money with
the RTC Manila but the defendant filed an answer
denying the allegations in the complaint and
contended that the RTC has no jurisdiction since
each cause of action of the plaintiffs did not arise out
of the same transaction and that there are no
common questions of fact and law to both parties. Is
the contention correct? Why?
No, because there is a single transaction
common to all, that is, Pantranco bus hitting the jeepney.
There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether
Pantranco and its employee are negligent. There being a
single transaction common to both, consequently, they
have the same cause of action against Pantranco and its
driver/employee. (Pantranco North Express, Inc., et al. v.
Standard Insurance Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 140746,
March 16, 2005, Gutierrez, J.)

There was foreclosure of a mortgage due to the

debtor’s failure to pay an obligation. The debtor
filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the
foreclosure proceeding. Then, there was a
complaint for damages arising out of the
foreclosure proceedings. It was contended that
there was splitting of causes of action resulting in
forum shopping. Is the contention correct? Why?
Yes, because of the filing of multiple cases based
on the same cause of action although with different
prayers.
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court proscribe
the splitting of a single cause of action as they provide
that a party may not institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted
on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one
or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as
a ground for the dismissal of the others.
Even if the two cases contain two separate remedies that
are both available to petitioners, these two remedies that
arose from one wrongful act cannot be pursued in two
different cases. The rule against splitting a cause of action
is intended to prevent repeated litigation between the
same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy,
to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation; and
to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous
suits. It comes from the old maxim nemo debet bis vexari,
pro una et eadem causa (no man shall be twice vexed for
one and the same cause). (.Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v.
Icarangal, 68 Phil. 287 [1939]; Chua, et al. v. Metrobank,
et al., G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009).

DISCLAIMER: The use and abuse of this review material shall be borne by the user. Prepared by JCS 2019 Page 10
CivPro Reviewer culled from the lecture of Judge Macaraeg & from the books of Dean RUA 2018, Albano 2010 & Riano 2016

jurisdiction over the case at the time of the application.

Rule 57 Preliminary attachment
What are the requirements for the discharge of
attachment?
The court shall, after due notice and hearing,
order the discharge of the attachment subject to the
condition that:
1) The movant makes a cash deposit, or files a
counter-bond executed to the attaching party with the
clerk of the court where the application is made, in an
amount equal to that fixed by the court in the order of
attachment, exclusive of costs;
2) If the attachment is sought to be discharged with
respect to a particular property, the counter-bond shall be
equal to the value of that property as determined by the
court;
3) In either case, the cash deposit or the
counterbond shall secure the payment of any judgment
that the attaching party may recover in the action. A
notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on the
attaching party.
What is the purpose of posting of the bond?
The Supreme Court held that under Sec. 12 of
Rule 59 (now Sec. 12, Rule 57), the bond filed for the
discharge of an attachment is “to secure the payment of
any judgment that the attaching creditor may recover in
the action,” and stands “in place of the property so
released.” Hence, although there was the parties
remained unsatisfied. (Anzures vs. Alto Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc., et al, G.R. No. L-5693, February 28,
1953)
(Advent Capital and Finance Corporation vs. Roland
Young, G.R. No. 183018, August 3, 2011)
May the court issue a preliminary injunction same
as the main of action?
No. Courts should avoid issuing injunction which
would dispose of the main action.
Reflecting the avowed roles of the remedy, Sec. 3, Rule
58 of the Rules of Court set the guidelines for when the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is justified,
namely: (a) when the applicant is entitled to the relief
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists
in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or
acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an
act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; or
(b) when the commission, continuance or
nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during
the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or (c) when a party, court, agency or a person
is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is
procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts
probably in violation of the rights of the applicant
respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and
tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

What if the last day of TRO falls on Sunday?

In computing the effectivity of a TRO, Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays are not excluded, except when the
last day of the period falls on such days. (Marcos-Manotoc
v. Judge Agcaoili, A.M. RTJ-98-1405, April 12, 2000; Bank
of the Philippine Islands, etc. v. CA, etal., G.R. No.
142731, June 8, 2006.)

What is the other remedy of the party against

whom attachment was issued?
The party whose property has been ordered
attached may file a motion with the court in which the
action is pending, before or after levy or even after the
release of the attached property, for an order to set aside
or discharge the attachment. (Rule 57 sec 13)

What are the grounds for the setting aside of the

writ of attachment?
The grounds for the setting aside attachment as
follows, to wit:
1) The same was improperly or irregularly issued or
enforced;
2) That the bond is insufficient;
3) If the attachment is excessive, the discharge shall be
limited to the excess;
4) Another ground would be, if the property attached is
exempt from attachment, (see Sec. 13, Rule 39)
Burden of proof lies with the creditor if motion to quash
is filed.

When to file a claim for damages on account of

improper, irregular or excessive attachment?
An application for damages on account of
improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed:
1) Before the trial;
2) Before appeal is perfected; or
3) Before the judgment becomes executory, with due
notice to the attaching obligee or his surety or sureties,
setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and
the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only
after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment
on the main case. (Rule 57 sec 20)
The above provision essentially allows the
application to be filed at any time before the judgment
becomes executory. It should be filed in the same case
that is the main action, and with the court having,