I.

BASIC CONCEPTS IN REMEDIAL LAW

1. DEFINITION OF REMEDIAL LAW

2. SOURCES OF REMEDIAL LAW

3. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN REMEDIAL LAW AND SUBSTANTIVE LAW

SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL LAW
Definition Creates, defines, and regulates  Branch of law that prescribes the
rights and duties concerning life, methods of enforcing those rights and
liberty or property and the obligations created by substantive law
violation of which gives rise to a by providing a procedural system for
cause of action. obtaining redress for the invasion of
rights and violations of duties and by
laying out rules as to how suits are filed,
tried and decided upon by the courts.
 Adjective law. Process or procedure
where the court attempts to restore the
rights and remedy the wrong.
 Includes every step which may be taken
from the beginning until the termination
of the proceedings.
 Provides the procedure or remedy for
enforcement of rights and obligations
through the courts of justice.
 Means and methods whereby causes of
action may be effectuated, wrongs
redressed and relief obtained.
As to waiver Cannot be waived. Can be waived – Insofar as civil procedures
are concerned –
- Hence the parties may agree to the venue
of the action (unlike in criminal procedural –
venue is jurisdictional)
As to Has retroactive effect. Not all the time.
retroactivity  RPC  FRESH PERIOD RULE (Discussed below)
Where can they  Rules of Court
be found?  Various circulars implemented and
issued by the SC.

CASE: Panay Railways, Inc. vs. Heva Manage and Development, et al, G.R. No. 154061
4. FRESH PERIOD RULE
CASE: Priscilla Alma vs. Ramon Javellana, et al, GR No. 158239, January 25, 2012.
5. RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
CASE: Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998
CASE: Apo Fruits Corp. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, GR No. 164195, October 12, 2010
6. LEGAL JURISDICTION VERSUS EQUITABLE JURISDCITION
7. CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER (ART. 8, SEC. 5, PAR. 2 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION)
8. EXPANDED JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS (ART. 8, SEC. 1, 1987 CONSTITUTION)
9. CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT VS. STATUTORY COURT
B. REGULAR , SPECIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL

II. APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT

1. COURTS COVERED BY THE RULES OF COURT
2. CASES COVERED BY THE RULES OF COURT
3. CIVIL ACTION, CRIMINAL ACTION AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 1

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 4. CASES NOT COVERED BY THE RULES OF COURT
5. SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT

III. JURISDICTION
1. DEFINITION OF JURISDICTION

2. SEC. 3, R.A. NO. 11576

3. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ASSSESS THE ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY

CASE: Glynna Foronda-Crystal v. Aniana Lawas Son, G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 2017

4. CLASSIFICATIONS OF JURISDICTIONS:

A. GENERAL JURISDICTION

B. SPECIAL JURISDICTION
1. RTC
2. METC/MTC

C. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1. SUPREME COURT
2. COURT OF APPEALS
3. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 11576)
4. MTC, METC, MTCC, MCTC (AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 11576)

D. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION

E. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

1. SUPREME COURT
CASE: Salvador vs. Mapa, G.R. No. 135080, November 28, 2007

2. COURT OF APPEALS
CASE: St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 13086, Sept.16, 1998
CASE: Miguel Dela Peña Barairo vs Office of the President and MST Marine Services,
Inc., G.R. No. 189314)

3. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

III.1INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

CASE: Leticia P. Ligon Vs.Court Of Appeals, Judge Celia Lipana-Reyes, Presiding

Judge, Branch 81, Regional Trial Court Of Quezon City, Iglesia Ni Kristo And
The Register Of Deeds Of Quezon City, G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995
CASE: Ligaya Orbeta vs. Ruben Orbeta, et. al., G.R. No. 166837
CASE: Douglas Anama v Citibank, N.A., G.R. No. 192048, December 13, 2017
(read in relation to A.M. No. 09-8-7, March 1, 2022, Rules on Expedited
Procedure in the First level Courts)

3.2 JURISDCITIONAL AMOUNTS - It must be the gross value of the estate of the
decedent which must be the basis

3.3 GENERAL JURISDICTION – RTC is a court of general jurisdiction in case the rule
or the law does not provide as to what court will a case fall into

CASE: BOUNDARTY DISPUTE (Municipality of Kananga v. Medrona, G.R. No.

141375, April 30, 2003) The RTC as a Special Commercial Court has jurisdiction
over intra-corporate disputes.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 2

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 3.4 SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT

3.5 OTHER CASES

4. METC, MTC, MCTC, MTCC

4.1 CASES UNDER THE RULES OF SUMMARY PROCEDURE
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
A.M. NO. 09-8-7, MARCH 1, 2022, RULES ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURE IN THE
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
4.2 SMALL CLAIMS CASES
4.3 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
4.4 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

ROLDAN V. BARRIOS :

Under Rule 68, Judicial Foreclosure is capable of pecuniary estimation.

F. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1. DEFINITION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The power and authority conferred upon a superior court to rehear and determine
causes which have been tried in lower courts; the cognizance which a superior court
takes of a case removed to it, by appeal or writ of error, from the decision of a lower
court, or the review by a superior court of the final judgment or order of some lower
courts.

2. SUPREME COURT – May review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or

certiorari, final judgments and orders of the lower courts, enumerated as follows:
1) Over all cases decided by the lower courts in the following instances:
a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher
e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved
2) Over judgment, final orders and resolutions of the:

 Procedural basis of the power of the Supreme Court to review decision of

the lower courts:
RULE 45, SECTION 1. Petition for Review on Certiorari on the ground of pure
questions of law. The appeal must involve only questions of law, not of fact.

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to

appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the
Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other
courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a
verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth

 Jurisprudence on the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court:

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 3

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 Ortigas and Co., Ltd. Vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 112564, March 4, 1996

 Referral of case from Division to the Court En banc

 EN BANC CASES
The Supreme Court may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in divisions of three,
five, or seven members. The cases required to be heard en banc include,
among other instances:

(1) matters involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or

executive agreement, or law;
(2) controversies involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
ordinances, and other regulations;
(3) cases heard by a division of the Court when the required majority in
the division is not obtained;
(4) instances when the Supreme Court would modify or reverse a
doctrine or principle of law previously laid down either en banc or in
division;
(5) administrative cases where the vote is for dismissal of a judge of a
lower court; and
(6) election contests involving the Offices of the President and the Vice-
President.

3. COURT OF APPEALS

 Substantive Basis which confers appellate jurisdiction to the Court of

Appeals:
Section 9 (3), B.P 129, as amended confers power to the Court of Appeals to
do the following
- Review the decision of the lower courts or tribunals/ try cases and
conduct hearings;
- Receive evidence
- Perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.

 Cases falling under the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:

Over all final judgements, resolutions, final orders or awards of the:
1) Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under Rule
41, Section 2;
2) Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under
Rule 42, Section 1;
3) First level courts (METC, MTC, MCTC in delegated jurisdiction over land
registration and cadastral cases;
4) Shari’ah District Courts in the absence of the station of the Shari’ah
Appellate Courts
5) Regional Trial Court in cases of violation of Intellectual Property Code
through a petition for review under Rule 43
6) Awards, judgments, final orders or resolution of Quasi-judicial agencies,
bodies or commissions through a petition for review under Rule 43 such
as:
a) Civil Service Commission
b) Securities and Exchange Commission
c) Office of the President
d) Land Registration Authority
e) Social Security Commission

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 4

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 f) Civil Aeronautics Board
g) Bureau of Patents Trademarks and Technology Transfer
h) National Electrification Administration
i) Energy Regulatory Board
j) National Telecommunications Commission
k) Department of Agrarian Reform
l) Government Service Insurance System
m) Employees Compensation Commission
n) Agricultural Inventions Board
o) Insurance Commission
p) Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
q) Board of Investments
r) Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
s) Voluntary Arbitration
t) Ombudsman in administrative cases

 Nature of Trial and Hearing in the Court of Appeals:

Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and completed
within three (3) months unless extended by the Chief of Justice.

4. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT – Sec. 2 B.P. 129, as amended confers appellate

jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court to review decision of the 1 st level courts.

5. SANDIGANBAYAN – Sec. 4 of R.A. 1606 otherwise known as an Act

Strengthening Further the Functional and Structural Organization of the
Sandiganbayan, confers power to the Sandiganbayan to exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions and order of the RTC
whether in the exercise of their own original or appellate jurisdiction herein
provided.

6. COURT OF TAX APPEALS – Sec. 7 OF R.A. 9282 confers power to the Court of
Tax Appeals to review the decision of the lower courts.
Over all decisions, resolutions and final orders of the:
1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue
2) Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases whether in the exercise of their
original or appellate jurisdiction
3) Commissioner of Customs
4) Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction
5) Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated from the
Commissioner of Customs
6) Secretary of Trade and Industry
7) Secretary of Agriculture

G. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
1. DEFINITION OF CONCURRENT JURISDCITION
The power and authority conferred upon different courts, whether of the same or
different ranks, to take cognizance of a case at the same stage in the same or
different judicial territories.

2. COURTS EXERCISING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

 Concurrent Jurisdiction with the RTC ‣ Cases affecting ambassadors
 Concurrent Jurisdiction with the RTC and CA ‣ To issues writs of Habeas
corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus,

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 5

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 prohibition vs lower courts Concurrent Jurisdiction with the RTC and CA ‣
Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the NLRC, CSC, RTC
 Concurrent Jurisdiction with the RTC and CA ‣ Actions against members of
the Bar

3. DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

Under the principle of the hierarchy of courts, decisions, final orders or resolutions of
an MTC should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the
former.

On the other hand, RTC judgments, final orders or resolutions are appealable to the
CA through either of the following: an ordinary appeal if the case was originally
decided by the RTC; or a petition for review under Rule 42, if the case was decided
under the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a direct recourse to this Court can
be taken for a review of the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the RTC, but only
on questions of law.
 Disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants the outright
dismissal of the petition.

 There is no violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts where a

decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is appealed to the Supreme
Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising only
questions of law.

 The hierarchy of courts is determinative of the venue of appeals, and

also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for
petitions for the extraordinary writs.

CASE: Constancio Mendoza vs. Sangguniang Barangay of Balatasan, Bulalacao,

Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. 187256

CASE: United Claimants Association of NEA vs. NEA, G.R. No. 187107

H. DELEGATED JURISDICTION
1. DEFINITION OF DELEGATED JURISDICTION
The grant of authority to inferior courts to hear and determine cadastral and land
registration cases.

2. REMEDY IN CASE OF ADVERSE JUDGMENT - Ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals

Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or
by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real property.

Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions
of the Regional Trial Courts. (As amended by R.A. No. 7691)

I. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
The power and authority to exercise its power within its territorial jurisdiction like the RTC
exercising its power within its territorial region.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 6

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 Refers to the “area” where

J. ANCILLARY JURISDICTION
Power of court to adjudicate and determine matters incidental to the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction of an action
CASE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CHARLIE MINTAS FELIX, A.K.A SHIRLEY MINTAS
FELIX, G.R. NO. 203371: It is settled that jurisdiction over the main case embraces all
incidental matters arising therefrom and connected therewith under the doctrine of
ancillary jurisdiction.

IV. VENUE
1. DEFINITION OF VENUE
Venue is defined as the place where the case is to be instituted, heard and tried.

2. VENUE VERSUS JURISDICTION

VENUE JURISDICTION
It is the place where the case is to be It is the authority of the court to hear and
instituted, heard or tried. decide cases.
It is a matter of procedural law. It is a matter of substantive law.
It establishes the relation between plaintiff It establishes a relation between the court
and defendant/ petitioner or respondent and the subject matter of the action.
It may be conferred by the act or agreement It is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by
of the parties the agreement of the parties.
There can be no motu proprio dismissal of There can be motu prorprio dismissal of the
the action based on improper venue except action based on the lack of jurisdiction.
under the rules on summary procedure and
small claims cases.

3. CONCEPT OF VENUE IN CIVIL CASES VIS A VIS CRIMINAL CASES

 Venue is procedural and not substantive. It is waivable for failure to make a timely
objection in the answer as an affirmative defense. It can also be subject to stipulation
of the parties.
 In civil cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction . Venue becomes jurisdictional only
in a criminal case. Hence, because it is merely procedural, the parties can waive the
venue of a case.
 Choosing the venue of an action is not left entirely to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is
regulated by the ROC.
 Improper venue can be raised in the answer as an affirmative defense.

4. TEST
In order to know the venue of a particular action, the basic and initial step is to determine if
the action is personal or real. If it is personal, the venue is deemed transitory and thus,
generally depends upon the residences of the parties. If it is real, the venue is local and thus,
generally, the venue is the place where the property or where any portion of the same is
situated.

PROCEEDINGS OR REMEDIES BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF A CIVIL ACTION

1. Referral of the case to the Barangay for Conciliation and Mediation
2. Affidavit of Adverse Claim
3. Voluntary Arbitration or Alternative Dispute Resolution
4. DNA testing

V. KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW

 PURPOSE OF THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW:

 To reduce the number of court litigations and

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 7

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
  To prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been
brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in courts.

 ACTUAL RESIDENCY VESTS THE LUPON WITH JURISDICTION: Actual residency is

necessary in order for the lupon to acquire jurisdiction.
 Barangay conciliation is not applicable in case the respondent is a non-
resident.

 MANDATORY REFERRAL TO THE BARANGAY: A prior recourse thereto is a pre-

condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices (Sec. 412(a) of
the Local Government Code)
 In order to ensure the fulfillment of these objectives, parties are
required to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman
or the Pangkat ng Tagapagsundo as a precondition to filing a complaint
in court subject to certain exceptions which are inapplicable to this case.
 Section 412 mandates that the cases must be referred to the barangay
before going to court.
o *Art 151 of Family Code-earnest efforts must be made to settle
the disputes among family members
 Dismissal of the case for non-referral to barangay is without prejudice to
the refilling of the same, subject to the prior compliance of the referral
to the barangay.

1. CASES COVERED AND EXCLUDED

Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon
of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in
the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality;

(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine
exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or
municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities
or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the
interest of Justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

RULE: The Court may motu pro prio refer the case to the Lupon for amicable
settlement. Sec. 408 provides that the court in which non-criminal cases not
falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any
time before trial motu propio refer the case to the lupon concerned for
amicable settlement.

2. PERSONS COVERED: Only Natural Persons are allowed in Barangay Proceedings. Juridical
persons like estate of the deceased/testate or intestate estate, corporation, partnership or
corporation sole are exempted from referral to the barangay.

 Who may initiate? Complainant or someone who has a cause of action against
another individual involving matters with the authority of the Lupon.

 Instances where the party my directly file the case to the Court.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 8

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
  Sec. 412 (b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The parties may go
directly to court in the following instances:
(1) Where the accused is under detention;
(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling
for habeas corpus proceedings;
(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente
lite; Note: Provisional remedies are beyond the ambit of KPs. It cannot
provide for the immediate relief of provisional remedies like courts.
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.
(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. - The
customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in
settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.

 Adm. Circ. No. 14-93

(1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality
(2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;
(3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
(4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities,
since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);
(5) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different
cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other
and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
(6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of
imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00);
(7) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from
being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention
(see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);
b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting
in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations
(Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended,
which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and
mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the
Department of Labor and Employment);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly
in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

3. VENUE

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 9

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
  Section 409 (LGC). Venue. -
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought
for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or
municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the
respondents actually resides, at the election of the complaint.

(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the
barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated.

(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at
the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the
barangay where such workplace or institution is located.

Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong
barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which
may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred to
may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly designated representative,
whose ruling thereon shall be binding.

4. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF PRIOR BARANGAY REFERRAL : GROUND = FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION PRECEDENT
 EFFECT OF LACK OF CONCILIATION PROCESS: The precise technical effect of failure to
comply with the requirement of Sec. 412 of the LGC on Barangay Conciliation is much
the same effect produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
 The complaint shall be deemed premature and vulnerable for dismissal
(Motion to Dismiss)
 The controversy alleged therein shall not be ripe for judicial
determination.

 DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES: Courts must allow

administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. Reasons
of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for
determination by administrative agencies.

 CONCILIATION IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT: The conciliation process is

not a jurisdictional requirement; non-compliance therewith cannot affect the
jurisdiction upon which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or
over the person of the defendant.
 But the defendant may raise it as one of the affirmative defenses in
his/her complaint. The conciliation process is not a jurisdictional
requirement. As long as the court already acquired jurisdiction over the
subject matter or over the person of the defendant, that will not
remove the authority of the court to hear and decide the case. If the
defendant allowed the case to proceed and there was failure on his part
to raise the issue of lack of conciliation, that is already considered as
waiver on the part of the defendant and he can no longer raise it even
on appeal if he failed to raise it as an affirmative defense in his answer.
 Dismissal of the case for non-referral to barangay is without prejudice to
the refilling of the same, subject to the prior compliance of the referral
to the barangay.

5. Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. -

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 10

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 (a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any
individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon
chairman of the barangay.

(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman
shall within the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice to the
complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of
their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from
the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the
constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action
under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing the complaint with the punong
barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the
complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued
by the lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall not
exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.

(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification - The pangkat shall
convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by
the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and
explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may issue
summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event
that a party moves to disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of relationship,
bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the
pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of the
pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the
resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein provided for.

(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or

resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance
with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be extendible for
another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious
cases.

 CERTIFICATE TO FILE AN ACTION: It must issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested
by the Lupon Chairman.
 PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES: The parties must personally appear without
the assistance of a counsel or representative, except for minors or incompetents, who
shall be assisted by next – of – kin.

6. EFFECT OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AT THE BARANGAY LEVEL

Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement
and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the
expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has
been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or
municipal court.

However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last
paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the compromise or the pangkat chairman
shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a
judgment of said court.

 Section 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from
the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a
statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud,

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 11

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of
the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.
 Failure to repudiate the settlement within the 10-day period shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to challenge the settlement.
 Grounds for Repudiation of Amicable Settement: Fraud, Violence, Intimidation or
Vitiation of Consent.

7. ENFORCEMENT OF BARANGAY AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

A. SECTION 417, LGC
Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced
by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the
lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or
municipal court.

If within 6 months-it may be enforced by the barangay lupon

-If beyond 6 months- file an action in court to enforce the settlement

B. A.M. NO. 08-8-7 SC, MARCH 1, 2022: The rule increased the threshold amount of small
claims cases to P1Million, and no longer makes a distinction whether the claim is filed
before the first level courts within or outside Metro Manila.

VI. COMMENCEMENT OF A CIVIL ACTION

SECTION 5. Commencement of action. - 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.

1. ART. 1155, NCC

The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a
written extrajudicial demand by the creditors and when there is any written acknowledgment
of the debt by the debtor. (Civil Code).

2. ACTION, CAUSE OF ACTION AND RIGHT OF ACTION

ACTION CAUSE OF ACTION RIGHT OF ACTION
Definition It is one in which a It is the act or omission by The remedial right
party sues another which a party violates a to relief granted by
for the enforcement right of another. (Sec. 2, law to a party to
or protection of a Rule 2) institute an action
right or the against a person
prevention or who has committed
redress of a wrong. a delict or wrong
against him.
Requisites 1. Legal right — A right in
favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and
under whatever law it
arises or is created;

2. Legal obligation — An
obligation on the part of
the named defendant to
respect or not to violate
such right;

3. Breach — Act or
omission on the part of
such defendant in
violation of the right of

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 12

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of
the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may
maintain an action for
recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief
Nature It is commenced by It is predicated upon It is procedural in
the filing of the substantive law on quasi- character and is the
original complaint in delicts under the NCC. consequence of the
court. (Sec. 5, Rule 1) violation of the right
It can be instituted of the plaintiff.
by filing the
complaint by
personal service, by
registered mail, by
accredited courier,
by electronic mail or
other electronic
means as may be
authorized by the
Court.
Basis Based on the allegations Basis is the plaintiff’s
of the plaintiff in the cause of action.
complaint. There is no right of
action where there
is no cause of action
Effect Of Not affected by
Affirmative affirmative defenses
Defense

3. REAL ACTION, PERSONAL ACTION AND MIXED ACTION

REAL ACTION PERSONAL ACTION MIXED ACTION

Scope When it affects title Recovery of personal It involves a personal
to or possession of property, the and real action, one
real property, or enforcement of a contract of the causes of
interest therein. or the recovery of action is only
(Sec. 1, Rule 4) damages. incidental
Basis When it is founded Founded on privity of EXAMPLE: Recovery
upon the privity of a contract such as damages, Of Possession Of
real estate. The claims of money, etc Realty Plus
realty or interest Damages
therein is the subject
matter of the action. HERE, THE
DAMAGES IS ONLY
NOTE: It is important INCIDENTAL.
that the matter in
litigation must also
involve any of the
following issues:
1. Title
2. Ownership
3. Possession
4. Partition
5. Condemnation
6. Foreclosure of

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 13

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 mortgage
7. Any interest in
real property
Venue A real action is ‘local’ Venue of action is
– i.e., its venue transitory – i.e., the place
depends upon the where the plaintiff or any
location of the of the principal plaintiffs
property involved in resides, or where the
the litigation. Venue defendant or any of the
of action shall be principal defendants
commenced and resides, or in the case of a
tried in the proper non-resident defendant
court which has where he may be found,
jurisdiction over the at the election of the
area wherein the plaintiff. (Sec. 2, Rule 4)
real property
involved, or a
portion thereof is
situated. (Sec. 1,
Rule 4
Note: The distinction between a real action and a personal action is important for the
purpose of determining the venue of action
A: In a real action, the complaint must be filed in the court that has jurisdiction
over the territory where such property is situated
A: In a personal action, the complaint must be filed where the plaintiff resides

4. CIVIL ACTION, CRIMINAL ACTION AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL ACTION CRIMINAL ACTIONS SPECIAL

PROCEEDINGS
Definition A civil action is one A criminal action is one by
by which a party which the State A special proceeding
sues another for the prosecutes a person for is a remedy by which
enforcement or an act or omission a party seeks to
protection of a right, punishable by law. (n) establish a status, a
or the prevention or right, or a particular
redress of a wrong. fact. (2a, R2)
(1a, R2) A civil action
may either be
ordinary or special.
Governing Law Both are governed Governed by the Rules on Governed by the
by the rules for Criminal Procedure Rules on Special
ordinary civil actions, Proceedings
subject to the BUT — The rules of
specific rules ordinary civil actions
prescribed for a have suppletory
special civil action application in special
proceedings. It is
provided that: “In
the absence of
special provisions,
the rules provided
for in ordinary
actions shall be, as
far as practicable,
applicable in special
proceedings” (Rule
72, Sec. 2)

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 14

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 Kinds of Civil Actions
— a. Ordinary Civil
Actions — governed
by the Rules of Civil
Procedure

b. Special Civil
Actions — primarily
governed by its own
specific rules, but
the Rules of Civil
Procedure apply
suppletory.

Cases not SECTION 4. In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not apply to
governed by election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
the Rules of proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy
Court or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
(R143a)

5. IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIONS

The following matters are dependent on the nature of the action:
 The law on jurisdiction;
 The rules on venue and prescription;
 Defenses against the action;
 Payment of docket fee; and
 Service of summons

6. ACTION IN PERSONAM, ACTION IN REM AND ACTION QUASI IN REM

ACTION IN REM ACTION IN PERSONAM ACTION QUASI IN

Collection of Sum of REM
Money Examples: Recovery
or Real property

Nature A proceeding to A proceeding to enforce A proceeding to

determine title, personal rights and subject the property
status, or condition of obligations brought against of the named
property within its the person. defendant or his
borders. interests
Purpose A proceeding to bar To impose through the Deals with the
indifferently all who judgment of the court, status, ownership or
might be minded to some responsibility or liability of a
make any objection liability directly upon the particular property
against the right person of the defendant. but which are
sought to be intended to operate
enforced, hence the on these questions
judgment therein is only as between the
binding theoretically particular parties to
upon the whole the proceedings and
world. not to ascertain or
cut-off the rights or
interests of all
possible claimants.
Scope Directed against the Directed against a Directed against
thing itself instead particular persons. particular persons
against the person. with respect to the

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 15

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 ACTION IN REM ACTION IN PERSONAM ACTION QUASI IN
Collection of Sum of REM
Money Examples: Recovery
or Real property
rest.
Required Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction is acquired Jurisdiction over the
Jurisdiction res is acquired either through service of res is acquired
(a) by the seizure of summons as provided in either (a) by the
the property under the Rule 14 or voluntary seizure of the
legal process, appearance. property under legal
whereby it is brought process, whereby it
into actual custody of is brought into
the law, or (b) as a actual custody of
result of the the law, or (b) as a
institution of legal result of the
proceedings, in which institution of legal
the power of the proceedings, in
court is recognized which the power of
and made effective. the court is
recognized and
made effective.
Effect of The decision is Any judgment therein is Judgments therein
Judgment binding as against the binding only upon the are binding only
whole world parties properly impleaded upon the parties
who joined in the
action
Examples Petition for adoption, Action for a sum of money; Attachment,
annulment of action for damages foreclosure of
marriage, or mortgage, action for
correction of entries partition and action
in the birth certificate for accounting

 Importance of distinguishing Actions in personam, (2) in rem, or (3) quasi in rem:

 The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant is required and consequently to determine the type of summons to
be employed.
O In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
O In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
 Summons is one of the ways of how the court acquires jurisdiction. In all kinds of
actions, summons is needed, but for different purposes.
O Actions in Personam — for purposes of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
O Actions in Rem or Quasi in Rem — for purposes only to satisfy due process ‣
NOTE — An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of actions
according to the object of the action. A personal and real action is a
classification according to foundation. It is in rem when directed against the
whole world and in personam when directed to a particular person ‣ When
an action is real because it affects title to or possession of land, it does not
automatically follow that the action is already in rem. It can be both a
personal action and an action in rem

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 16

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 7. WHAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION?
A. ENERIO VS. ALAMPAY, G.R. No. L-40010, May 26, 1975, TEEHANKEE, J.

DOCTRINE: It is well settled and beyond question that the jurisdiction of a court over a
case is determined by the allegations of the complaint. The totality of the demand in suits
for recovery of sums of money between the same parties, i.e., the total or aggregate
amount demanded in the complaint constitutes the basis of jurisdiction and determines
the jurisdictional amount in civil cases. In assessing whether a claim for damages falls
within jurisdiction of a court of first instance or a municipal court the total demand,
including the claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, should be
included.

FACTS: Petitioners as plaintiffs filed with respondent court presided by J. Alampay a

complaint for the recovery of actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
and costs of litigation totaling close to P30,000 against private respondents as a result of
the physical injuries caused petitioner-minor, Russel Enerio, eight years of age (herein
represented by his parents, the co-petitioners) when bumped on the road by a passenger
bus of respondents driven allegedly "in a very reckless, negligent and imprudent manner"
by respondent Villegas. After the pre-trial conference, respondent court motu propio
dismissed the complaint on the ground that "without the claims and exemplary damages,
this case will not fall within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance." Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari of the dismissal order.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent court has jurisdiction over the claim for damages

RULING: The SC ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE. It is well settled and beyond question that the
jurisdiction of a court over a case, is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and
since petitioners’ complaint asserted a total demand, exclusive of interest of over
P10,000.00 (and sought recovery of damages of close to P30,000.00) the case clearly falls
within the original jurisdiction of respondent court of first instance as provided by section
44 of the Judiciary Act, Republic Act 296 as amended.

The totality of the demand in suits for recovery of sums of money between the same
parties, i.e. the total or aggregate amount demanded in the complaint constitutes the
basis of jurisdiction and for determining the jurisdictional amount in civil cases. Here
petitioners’ total claim of P978.00 for actual damages, P10,000.-moral damages, P15,000.-
exemplary damages and P3,000.-attorney’s fees, etc., was clearly in excess of P10,000.00
and therefore properly fell within the jurisdiction of respondent court of first instance.
Respondent court could not arbitrarily isolate petitioners’ lesser claim for actual damages
and without hearing and proofs rule out petitioners’ other claims for moral and exemplary
damages as "bloated" and summarily dismiss motu proprio the case as not falling within
its jurisdiction contrary to the very allegations on the face of the complaint. There appears
no valid justification in the record for respondent court’s bare conclusion that petitioners’
claim for damages were "bloated" in order to shift jurisdiction to it rather than to the
inferior courts and that the filing of the case with it amounted to an "imposition of this
case on this court.”

NOTE: Trial court may narrow down issue of amount of recoverable damages at the pre-
trial if it believes that plaintiffs claim for damages had been exaggerated. But it has to
assume jurisdiction over the case and render judgment instead of dismissing the same
and shifting jurisdiction to the municipal court.

B. FLORES VS. MALLARE-PHILLIPS, G.R. No. L-66620, September 24, 1986, FERIA, J. PLS READ
SABI NI ATTY.

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

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 17

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 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.

DOCTRINE: Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or
more plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single
complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or
more defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the causes of action in favor of the
two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common question of law or fact,
as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3. Where a plaintiff sues a defendant, the total demand
furnishes the jurisdictional test irrespective of whether the several causes of action arose
out of different transactions, although their joinder would be merely permissive, not
mandatory.

Where two or more plaintiffs sue one defendant in a single complaint or one plaintiff sues
several defendants in a single complaint, based on several causes of action for or against
each, respectively, the totality rule applies only where (a) the causes of action arose from
the same series of transactions; and (b) there is a common question of fact or law among
them.

FACTS: Petitioner appealed by certiorari the order of Judge Heilia S. Mallare-Phillipps of the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province which dismissed his complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. The order appealed from states that the first cause of action alleged in
the complaint was against respondent Ignacion Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of
P11,643.00 representing the cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petition
on various occasions; and the second cause of action was against respondent Fernando
Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the amount of P10,212.00 representing the cost of truck
tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on various occasions. The counsel for
respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since
the amount of the demand against said respondent is less than P20,000.00 which is the
jurisdictional amount in order for RTC to exercise original jurisdiction of the case under
section 19(8) of BP 129. It was further averred in said motion that although another person,
Calion, was allegedly indebted to petitioner in the amount of P10,212.00, his obligation was
separate and distinct from that of the other respondent. At the hearing, counsel for
respondent Calion joined in moving for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounf of lack
of jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Hence, the
instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the regional trial court has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING: NEGATIVE. The regional trial court has no jurisdiction over the case The Court rules
that the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on
joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court and that, after a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that here is a misjoinder
of parties for the reason that the claims against the respondents Binongcal and Calion are
separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction. The application of the
totality rule under Section 33(i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 11 of the Interim
Rules is subject to the requirements for the permissive joinder of parties under Section 6 of
Rule 3. The Court held that there is no difference between Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of
1948 (former rule), and Section 33(i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 11 of the
Interim Rules (present rule) in cases where a plaintiff sues a defendant on two or more
separate causes of action. In such cases, 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. Needless to state, if the causes of action are separate
and independent, their joinder in one complaint is permissive and not mandatory, and any
cause of action where the amount of the demand is equal to or less than the jurisdictional
amount may be the subject of a separate complaint filed with a metropolitan or municipal
trial court. Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or
more plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 18

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or
more defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the causes of action in favor of the
two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common question of law or fact,
as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3. In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as
plaintiffs or as defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, the total of all the claims shall now
furnish the jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead of joining or being joined in
one complaint separate actions are filed by or against the parties, the amount demanded in
each complaint shall furnish the jurisdictional test.

TOTALITY OR AGGREGATE RULE

Where there are several claims or causes of actions, principally for recovery of money,
between the same or different parties embodied in one complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes of action irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different transaction. (Sec. 5[d], Rule 2)

NOTE: Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or more
plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as
well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more
defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the causes of action in favor of the two or
more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common question of law or fact,
as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of parties). The totality rule is not applicable
if the claims are separate and distinct from each other and did not arise from the same
transaction. If there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against
respondents are separate and distinct, then neither falls within the RTC’s jurisdiction. (Flores
v. Judge Mallare-Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620, September 24, 1986)

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 19

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

If the main action is for the recovery of sum of money and the damages being claimed are
merely the consequences of the main cause of action, the same are not included in
determining the jurisdictional amount. However, in cases where the claim for damages is
the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. (Albano, 2010)

8. RESIDUAL JURISDICTION
Q: What is the Doctrine of Residual Power/Jurisdiction of the Court?
A: The ROC provides that once the appeal has been perfected, the court of origin will lose
jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction will now vest with the CA. However, it does not mean
that the court of origin is left totally without any power or authority. We have what we call
the residual power/jurisdiction of the court wherein prior to the transmittal of the original
records of the case to the CA, the RTC may issue orders for the protection of and preservation
of the rights of the prevailing party.

Q: What are these orders that the court may issue in relation to this residual
power/jurisdiction?
A: To issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not
involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with Sec. 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original
record or the record on appeal.

It refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for the protection and preservation
of the rights of the parties. The concept of residual jurisdiction is available at a stage in which
the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter
involved in the appeal. There is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal or
petition has even been filed

9. ERROR OF JURISDICTION VS ERROR OF JUDGMENT

O Error of jurisdiction — One where the act complained of was issued by the court
without or in excess of jurisdiction (Cabrera v. Lapid). Errors of jurisdiction occur when
the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law. It may also occur when
the court or tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
O Error of judgment — It presupposes that the court is vested with jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action but in the process of exercising that jurisdiction it
committed mistakes in the appreciation of the facts and the evidence leading to an
erroneous judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in
the court’s findings. Jurisprudence considers an error of judgment as one which the
court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 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.

O NOTE — While an erroneous judgment is NOT a void judgment, a judgment tainted

with an error of jurisdiction either because of a toted absence of jurisdiction to take
cognizance of an action OR because of a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction is VOID.

‣ Where a court has jurisdiction, an erroneous decision cannot be deemed void. It

has been ruled in a very early case, that if the court has jurisdiction, it is altogether
immaterial how grossly irregular or manifestly erroneous its proceedings may have
been. The judgment cannot be considered a nullity, and cannot therefore, be
collaterally impeached. Such a judgment is binding on the parties unless it is reversed
or annulled in a direct proceeding (Herrera v. Barretto).

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 20

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 ‣ In contrast, if there is a total want of jurisdiction in a court, its proceedings are an
absolute nullity, confer no right and afford no protection but will be pronounced void
when collaterally attacked

10. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first
be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the
matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.

‣ It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever
enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme,
have been placed within the special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case,
the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process
pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would
not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

‣ SEE — Heirs of Nisperos v. Nisperos-Ducusin, G.R. No. 189570, July 31, 2013

‣ The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence. To assume the power is to short-circuit the
administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course.

‣ The proper administrative agency must be given a chance to correct its administrative and
procedural lapses. Moreover, it is in a better position to resolve the particular issue at hand,
being the agency possessing the required expertise on the matter and authority to hear the
same.

‣ In this case, considering that the allegations in the complaint negate the existence of an
agrarian dispute among the parties, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the same as it is the DAR Secretary who has authority to resolve the dispute raised by
petitioners. The DAR must be given a chance to correct its administrative and procedural
lapses in the issuance of the CLOA. Moreover, it is in a better position to resolve the particular
issue at hand, being the agency possessing the required expertise on the matter and authority
to hear the same.

‣ NOTE — The SC set aside the resolutions of the CA here but did not dismiss the case, it
ordered it to refer to the DA

If the issue of

11. LACK AND EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.

O Lack of jurisdiction — this is when the court or tribunal is not vested by law with
authority or power to take cognizance of a case
O Excess of jurisdiction — presupposes the existence of an authority for the court to
assume jurisdiction over a case but in the process of the exercise of that authority, it
acts beyond the power conferred upon it.
 A court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to
determine the case; where the respondent, being clothed with the power to
determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law, it is performing a
function in excess of its jurisdiction. (Vette Industrial Sales Company, Inc. v. Cheng)

12. DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE/JUDICIAL STABILITY

This principle states that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with
each other’s orders. Therefore, a Regional Trial Court has no power or authority to nullify or

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 21

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court. (Suico
Industrial Corp v. Court of Appeals)

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. The doctrine of judicial
stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an
elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere by injunction
with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power
to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for
its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. (G.R. No. 194767, October 14,
2015)

CASE: Santos v. Bayhon, G.R. No. 88643, July 23, 1991,

CASE: TRB vs. IAC, 133 SCRA, 259

13. DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY

Courts are "supreme" over the other two branches of government and the Constitution, and
that courts have the authority to tell the president and Congress what they may or may not
do.

According to our Supreme Court, judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in
actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one
branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all
authority.

14. DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION/CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION

-If a court already acquired jurisdiction over a subject matter, that jurisdiction will
remain with that court until the termination of the proceedings before that court.
-Applies to both criminal and civil cases.

-Once jurisdiction attaches, it cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent

events although that subsequent event has the character which would help
preventing jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.

Ex. Complaint for sum of money amounting to P500k (Jurisdiction belongs to RTC). RTC will not
lose jurisdiction of the case even though the evidence will show that the liability of the
defendant is only 100K. What is important is in the complaint, what is claimed is P500k. RTC
has to render judgment because what matters is the allegation in the complaint itself.

If during the pendency of an action, a new law is passed changing the jurisdictional
amount of the courts, the change in the law does not affect the pending cases unless the new
law expressly provides that the change will also apply to pending cases.

Exceptions:

a. If there are curative statute that was passed

b. When there is deprivation of constitutional right
c. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or
has been declared void
d. When there is a subsequently law that expressly prohibits the continued exercise of
jurisdiction
e. When there is a subsequently law passed that is made to apply to pending cases

15. JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 22

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 CASE: Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21540

DOCTRINE:
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question by laches, which is failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Here, the Surety could
have raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court, but it only did so after
receiving the appellate court's adverse decision. Hence, it is barred by laches.

FACTS:
On July 19, 1948 — barely one month after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 296
known as the Judiciary Act of 1948 — the spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog
commenced a case in the Court of First Instance (CFI) against the spouses Magdaleno
Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio to recover from them the sum of P1,908.00, with legal
interest thereon. As prayed for in the complaint, a writ of attachment was issued by the
court against defendants' properties, but the same was soon dissolved upon the filing of
a counter-bond by defendants and the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. hereinafter
referred to as the Surety, on the 31st of the same month.

After trial upon the issues thus joined, the CFI rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and, after the same had become final and executory, upon motion of the latter,
the CFI issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ having been returned
unsatisfied; the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the
Surety's bond against which the Surety filed a written opposition. The CFI denied this
motion on the ground solely that no previous demand had been made on the Surety for
the satisfaction of the judgment. Thereafter, the necessary demand was made, and
upon failure of the Surety to satisfy the judgment, the plaintiffs filed a second motion
for execution against the counter-bond. Upon the Surety’s failure to file an answer to
the motion, the CFI granted the motion for execution and the corresponding writ was
issued.
Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was
issued without the required summary hearing provided for in Section 17 of Rule 59 of
the Rules of Court. As the CFI denied the motion, the Surety appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA) from such order of denial and from the one denying its motion for
reconsideration. Not one of the assignment of errors raises the question of lack of
jurisdiction, neither directly nor indirectly.

The CA decided the case affirming the orders appealed from. After the Surety received
notice of the decision, it filed a pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS, alleging
substantially that appellees'action was filed in the CFI of Cebu on July 19, 1948 for the
recovery of the sum of P1,908.00 only; that a month before that date Republic Act No.
296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, had already become effective,
Section 88 of which placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all
civil actions where the value of the subject matter or the amount of the demand does
not exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; that the CFI therefore had no
jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Surety is barred from raising the jurisdictional issue by laches

RULING:
The SC ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE. A party may be estopped or barred from raising a
question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus, we speak of estoppel in pais,
of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. Laches, in a general sense,
is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 23

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July
31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI of Cebu
to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which,
according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of
inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the
court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain
affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only
after an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it finally woke up to raise the
question of jurisdiction. If such conduct is to be sanctioned, the SC would in effect be
declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced
on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more.

16. PAYMENT OF FILING FEES

RULE — PAYMENT IN FULL OF THE PROPER DOCKET FEES IS MANDATORY AND
JURISDICTIONAL
 Docket Fees is Jurisdictional. Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee;
 Payment of docket fees is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is not simply
the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the
prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter
or nature of the action. (Ruby Shelters vs Fomaran 2009)

 Without the payment of the correct docket or filing fees, jurisdiction over the subject-
mater or nature of the action will not vest in the trial court. (Rizal vs Laredo 2012)

 Any defect in the original pleading resulting in underpayment of the docket fee
cannot be cured by amendment, such as by the reduction of the claim as, for all legal
purposes, since there is no original complaint over which the court has acquired
jurisdiction.

 The requirement of the filing fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure and
should not be undermined except for the most persuasive of reasons.

 In appeals. the non-payment of filing fees would be tantamount to no appeal being

filed thereby rendering the challenged decision, resolution or order final and
executory ‣ RATIONALE — The important of filing fees cannot be overemphasized for
they are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of
costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and
others. (Home Guaranty Corp vs R-II Builders, 2011)
CHALLENGING NON-PAYMENT OF FEES
Q: How can the non-payment of filing fees by a party be challenged?
A: Jurisprudence has recognized that it can be assailed by the adverse party through a
motion to dismiss or in the answer based on the ground of “lack of jurisdiction over the
subject-matter”.

FAILURE TO OBJECT NON-PAYMENT OF FILING FEES

Q: What if the adverse party fails to object to the non-payment of filing fees, is it
deemed waived?
A: NO. The ground of “lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter” is non-waivable and
may even be raised by the court motu proprio. (Rule 9, Sec. 1)
SEE — Do-All Metals Industries, Inc. v. Security Bank Corporation, et al., G.R.
No. 176339, January 10, 2011

In this case, the Defendant Bank itself raised the issue of non-payment of
additional filing fees only after the RTC had rendered its decision in the case.
The implication is that the Bank should be deemed to have waived its
objection to such omission. But it is not for a party to the case or even for the
trial court to waive the payment of the additional filing fees due on the

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 24

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 supplemental complaint. Only the Supreme Court can grant exemptions to
the payment of the fees due the courts and these exemptions are embodied
in its rules.

CASE: Manchester Development Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 75919, May 7, 1987.
CASE: Sun Insurance Office Ltd., vs. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, Feb. 13, 1989
CASE: Tacay vs. RTC of Tagum, G.R. Nos. 88075-77, Dec, 20, 1989
CASE: Do-All Metal Industries Inc., et. al. vs. Security Bank Corporation, et.al. G.R. No.
176339
CASE: Ng Soon vs. Alday, 178 SCRA 21
CASE: David Lu v Paterno Lu Ym, Sr., G.R. No. 153690, August 4, 2009
17. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER, OVER THE PARTIES, OVER THE ISSUES, OVER THE
CASE AND OVER THE RES

In order for a judgment to be valid, the court must acquire or the court rendering judgment
must acquire:

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

2. Jurisdiction over the parties;
3. Jurisdiction over the issues;
4. Jurisdiction over the case; and
5. Jurisdiction over the Res/Thing

Jurisdiction over: SUBJECT MATTER PARTIES ISSUES CASE RES

Jurisdiction over Refers to the Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction
the subject matter power of the the issue is the the case is over the res
is referred to as the court to make power of the acquired by the refers to the
power of a decisions that are court to try and court by the act court’s
particular court to binding on decide issues of the plaintiff jurisdiction
DEFINITION hear the type of persons. raised in the in filing the over the thing
case that is then pleadings of the complaint or the
before it. parties. before the said property
court. which is the
subject of the
action.

ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is referred to as the power of a particular court to hear the type of
case that is then before it.

It is the power or authority to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in
question belongs. Following this definition, ‘real’ actions, ‘personal’ actions or actions “incapable of
pecuniary estimation” are to be considered as subject matters.

 How conferred:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, either by Constitution or a
statute.

Note:
It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by the Constitution or the law and rules of procedure yield to substantive law.
Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.

 Consequences of rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law

It cannot be:

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 25

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 a. Conferred by voluntary act or agreement of the parties;
b. Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties, or
c. Conferred by the acquiescence of the courts, [De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No. 133882 (2006)]
d. Conferred by administrative policy of any court, or;
e. Conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction. [Tolentino v. Social Security
Commission]

 How 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.

• The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined
based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Note:
• The allegations in the body of the complaint define the cause of action. The caption or title of
the cause of action is not controlling.

• The amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction: Jurisdiction does not depend on the
amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court. Thus, where the complaint
seeking for the payment of 1 Million is filed with the RTC, but after considering the evidence
presented, the court rendered a judgment for 300,000, an amount within the jurisdiction of
the MTC if originally filed, the RTC did not lose jurisdiction over the action. It, therefore, has
the authority to render judgment of 300,000.

• The defenses and the evidence do not determine jurisdiction: The court’s jurisdiction cannot
be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. Jurisdiction
is based on the initiatory pleading and the defenses in the answer are deemed irrelevant
and immaterial in its determination.

Exception: “that while the allegations in the complaint make out a case for forcible entry, where
tenancy is averred by way of defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the case should properly be filed with the then Court of
Agrarian Relations”.

Note: While the Municipal Trial Court does not automatically lose its jurisdiction over ejectment
cases by the mere allegation of the defense of tenancy relationship between the parties. There
must first be a reception of evidence and, if after hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to be
the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the rule still is that
jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations of the complaint.

 Law which Governs Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established general rule is that the statute in
force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.

 Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

General Rule:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the
first time on appeal.

Note: The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion
to dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer because lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss.

Reason: Jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the
court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 26

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 27
JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 CASE (Republic vs. Bantigue)

Petitioner is not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court, even if the former raised
the jurisdictional question only on appeal. The rule is settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. It is conferred only by the Constitution or the law.
It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court. Consequently, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for
the first time on appeal.

The CA’s ruling with regards to questioning jurisdiction upon active participation of the ROP is based on
the doctrine of estoppel by laches. The MTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the case. In assailing the
jurisdiction of the lower courts, petitioner Republic raised two points of contention: (a) the period for
setting the date and hour of the initial hearing; and (b) the value of the land to be registered.

Exception:
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction: While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since it is conferred by law, it is nevertheless settled that
a party may be barred from raising it on the ground of estoppel.

DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL

It precludes a person from denying or to negate anything to the contrary of that which has been
constituted as truth, either by his own actions, by his deeds or by his representations or by the acts of
judicial or legislative officers.

Three Kinds of Estoppel

1. Estoppel by Pais
Applies wherein one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to
speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist
and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is
permitted to deny the existence of such facts.

2. Estoppel by Deed or Record

A legal principle that prevents a person from asserting or denying the truth of anything that he or she
stated in a deed, especially regarding who has valid ownership of property.

3. Estoppel by Laches
There is laches when a party was negligent or has failed "to assert a right within a reasonable time," thus
giving rise to the presumption that he or she has abandoned it. Laches has set in when it is already
inequitable or unfair to allow the party to assert the right.

Elements: There is laches when: (1) the conduct of the defendant or one under whom he claims,
gave rise to the situation complained of; (2) there was delay in asserting a right after knowledge of the
defendant's conduct and after an opportunity to sue; (3) defendant had no knowledge or notice that the
complainant would assert his right; (4) there is injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
accorded to the complainant.

Note: The defense of laches is based on equity. It is not based on the title of the party invoking
it, but on the right holder's "long inaction or inexcusable neglect" to assert his claim.

CASE (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy)

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons.
Thus, we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. Laches,
in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 28

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could
have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI of Cebu to take cognizance of the present
action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the
proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain
affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an
adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. If
such conduct is to be sanctioned, the SC would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had
in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go
up their Calvary once more.

Note:
Even if Sec. 12(b), Rule 8 of the Amended Rules provides that the failure to raise an affirmative defense
at the earliest opportunity constitutes a waiver thereof, the failure to raise lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter as an affirmative defense in the answer does not waive such defense. The retention of
Sec. 1, Rule 9 maintains the status of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter as a non-waivable
defense. As such, the proper action if one failed to raise the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter in the answer would be to file a motion to dismiss, which can be filed at any point during the
proceedings, subject to the doctrine in Tijam.

B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES: Refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on
persons.

Jurisdiction in personam is the power which a court has over the defendant’s person and which is
required before a court can enter a personal or an in personam judgment.

How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired:

Courts acquire jurisdiction over a party plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint (and payment of
docket fees). By the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Payment of Docket Fees and Acquisition of Jurisdiction

General Rule: The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee.

Exceptions:
While the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees,
its non-payment at the time of the filing of the complaint does not automatically cause the dismissal of
the complaint provided that (a) the fees are paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period; and (b) there is no intent to defraud the government by the failure to pay the correct amount
of filing.

Effect of Failure to Pay Docket Fee on Supplemental Complaint

The trial court acquired jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they filed their original
complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiffs’ nonpayment
of the additional filing fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it
already had over the case.

Payment of Docket Fees for Cases on Appeal

Payment of the docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.
Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 29

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executor. Hence, nonpayment is
a valid ground for the dismissal of an appeal. However, delay in the payment of the docket fees confers
upon the court a discretionary, not a mandatory power to dismiss an appeal.

Perfection of An Appeal
In order to perfect an appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the following requirements must be complied with. First, within 15 days, a notice of appeal
must be filed with the court that rendered the judgment or final order sought to be appealed; second,
such notice must be served on the adverse party; and third, within the same 15-day period, the full
amount of appellate court docket and other legal fees must be paid to the clerk of the court that
rendered the judgment or final order.

How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired:

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired:

1. By his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority; or

2. By service of summons

Note: A person not within the jurisdiction of the court is not bound by the judgment of the court.

Voluntary Appearance

The court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant without service of summons or
despite a defective service of summons. Jurisdiction is acquired when the defendant voluntarily appears
in the action. “The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons” (Sec. 20, Rule 14, Rules of Court).

To constitute voluntary appearance, it must be the kind that amounts to a voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. Submission to the court’s jurisdiction takes the form of an appearance that
seeks affirmative relief except when the relief sought is for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction
of the court over the person of the
defendant.

Effect of Pleading Additional Defenses Aside from Lack of Jurisdiction over the Person of the
Defendant

Under the old rule, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. However, under the
new rule, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Sec 23, Rule 14 of the ROC)

When Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defendant is Required?:

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam. Jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem.

Distinguish: In Personam and In Rem Actions

Action in Personam Action in Rem Action Quasi in Rem

It is an action which is directed One which is not directed only One which is directed against
against a particular persons on against particular persons but particular persons but the
the basis of seeking personal against the thing itself and the purpose of which is to bar and
liability to establish a claim object of which is to bar bind not only said persons but
against them and the judgment indifferently all who might be any other persons who claims
therein is binding upon the minded to make any objection any interest in the property or
parties impleaded or their against the rights sought to be right subject of the suit. e.g.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 30

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 successors in interest. e.g. enforced , hence the judgment Action Reinvindicatoria
Action for Sum of Money therein is binding theoretically • Jurisdiction over the person
• Jurisdiction over person of upon the whole world. e.g. of the defendant is not
defendant is required. Action Publican with a claim for required as long as
Damages jurisdiction over the res is
• Jurisdiction over person of acquired.
defendant is not required.

• In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide the case.

• On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res. However, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose
of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.

Objections to Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defendant

• An objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be raised as a ground for a
motion to dismiss (Sec. l[a], Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no motion to dismiss has been filed, the
objection may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16, Rules of Court).

• If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is deemed waived.

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Jurisdiction over the issue is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the pleadings of
the parties.

Meaning of Issue
An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several
allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision

How Conferred and Determined:

Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by:

a. The pleadings of the parties, which present the issues to be tried and determine whether or not the
issues are of fact or law [Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L48754 (1941)]
b. Stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts or enter
into agreement simplifying the issues of the case [Sec. 2(c), Rule 18]
c. Waiver or failure to object to evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here the parties try
with their express or implied consent on issues not raised by the pleadings. [Sec. 5, Rule 10]

Distinguished: Jurisdiction over the Issue and Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

• Jurisdiction over the issue “should be distinguished from jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
latter being conferred by law and the former, by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike
jurisdiction over the subject matter, may be conferred by consent either of the parties, either express
or implied, x x x Although an issue is not duly pleaded, it may be validly tried and decided if no timely
objection is made thereto by the parties. This cannot be done when jurisdiction over the subject
matter is involved .

When an Issue Arises even if not Raised in the Pleading

General Rule: While it is a rule that an issue arises from the pleadings of the parties.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 31

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
Exception: Under Sec. 5 of Rule 10, when issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the
pleadings.

Note:
Under Sec. 5 of Rule 10, upon motion of any party, the pleadings may be amended to conform to the
evidence but the failure to so amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues because it is
submitted, the pleadings are deemed impliedly amended to embody the issues tried with the consent of
the parties.

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE

Jurisdiction over the case is acquired by the court by the act of the plaintiff in filing the complaint before
the said court.

Distinguished: Jurisdiction over the Case and Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law while jurisdiction over the case is invested by
the act of plaintiff and attaches upon the filing of the complaint or information.

CASE (Enerio vs. Alampay)

It is well settled and beyond question that the jurisdiction of a court over a case is determined by the
allegations of the complaint. Since petitioners' complaint asserted a total demand, exclusive of interest
of over P10.000 (and sought recovery of damages of close to P30,000) the case clearly falls within the
original jurisdiction of respondent court of first instance as provided by section 44 of the Judiciary Act,
Republic Act 296 as amended.

The totality of the demand in suits for recovery of sums of money between the same parties, i.e. the
total or aggregate amount demanded in the complaint constitutes the basis of jurisdiction and
determines the jurisdictional amount in civil cases. Here petitioners' total claim of P978 for actual
damages, P10,000 moral damages, P15,000 exemplary damages and P3,000 attorney's fees, etc., was
clearly in excess of P10,000 and therefore properly fell within the jurisdiction of respondent court of first
instance.

E. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the
subject of the action.

• This type of jurisdiction is necessary when the action is an action in rem or quasi in rem. When the
action is one in personam, jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient to authorize the court to render a
judgment against the defendant. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required.

• Actions in personam are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments. On the other
hand, actions in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the thing or property or status of a person
and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. However, in actions in rem or
quasi in rem, summons must also be served to defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due
process.

How Acquired:

a. By seizure of the thing under legal process whereby, it is brought into actual custody of the law
(custodia legis); or

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 32

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
b. From the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the
court over the property is recognized and made effective (potential jurisdiction over the res)

Note:
• In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should
take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient.

• Jurisprudence holds that if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over the res, although summons must also
be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process. [Gomez vs CA,
G.R. No. 127692 (2004)]

Extent of Relief when Jurisdiction is only over the Res

Any relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court cannot
lawfully render a judgment against the defendant.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 33

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 RULES OF COURT

I. RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. Applicability of the Rules of Court (Rule 1, Sec. 2)

The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court.

B. Actions or Proceedings Governed by the Rules of Court (Rule 1, Sec. 3)

I. 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, (1a, R2)
II. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules
for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action. (n)
III. A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law. Governed by the Rules on Criminal Procedure
IV. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact.

C. Actions or Proceedings Not Governed by the Rules of Court (Rule 1, Sec. 4)

1. Election cases
2. Land registration cases
3. Cadastral cases
4. Naturalization cases
5. Insolvency proceedings

NOTE: However, the Rules may still apply to the cases above by analogy or in suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.

D. Overview of Actions
I. What is an “action”?
An action is the legal and formal demand of one’s right from another person
made and insisted upon in a court of justice

II. What are the kinds of actions?

1. Civil action — one by which a party sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong”

2. Criminal action — one by which the State prosecutes a person for an

act or omission punishable by law.

Proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is

primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily
compensatory or remedial.

III. What are the kinds of civil actions?

- Ordinary Civil Actions — governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure
- Special Civil Actions — primarily governed by its own specific rules,
but the Rules of Civil Procedure apply suppletorily. These are
A. Interpleader (Rule 62)
B. Declaratory relief and similar remedies (Rule 63)
C. Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit (Rule 64)
D. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (Rule 65) v. Quo warranto
(Rule 66)
E. Expropriation (Rule 67)
F. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage (Rule 68)

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 34

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 G. Partition (Rule 69)
H. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (Rule 70)
I. Contempt (Rule 71)

IV. Is an “action” different from a “special proceeding”? YES. The purposes are
different
- Civil action — the purpose is either to protect a right or prevent or
redress a wrong
- Criminal action — the purpose is to prosecute a person for an act or
an omission punishable by law
- Special Proceeding — the purpose is to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact

V. What are the kinds of actions for purposes of venue (under Rule 4)?
- Real action — An action is ‘real’ when it affects title to or possession
of real property, or an interest therein
- Personal action — All other actions which are not real are personal
actions
NOTE — This is also significant for determining jurisdiction

VI. What are the kinds of actions for purposes of the effect of judgment (in
relation to Jurisdiction over the Person or the Res and Service of Summons
under Rule 14)?
- Action in Personam — An action against a person on the basis of his
personal liability.
- It is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations
brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of
the person, although it may involve his right to, or the
exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel
him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the
mandate of the court.

- The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose

through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or
liability directly upon the person of the defendant

- No one other than the defendant is sought to be held liable,

not the whole world. Judgment will be binding against the
parties only

- Such as
O Action for damages
O Action to recover possession of real property
O Action for ejectment (Forcible entry or unlawful
detainer)

- Action in Rem — An action against the thing itself, instead of against

the person.
- It is binding against the whole world.
- The phrase, "against the thing," to describe in rem actions is a
metaphor. It is not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem
action; only legal or natural persons may be parties even in in
rem actions.
- "Against the thing" means that resolution of the case affects
interests of others whether direct or indirect. It also assumes
that the interests — in the form of rights or duties — attach to
the thing which is the subject matter of litigation.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 35

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 - In actions in rem, our procedure assumes an active vinculum
over those with interests to the thing subject of litigation. (De
Pedro vs Romasan Dev’t Corp. 2014)
- Such as:
O Declaration of nullity of marriage (Note it is a personal
action because it is not founded on real property; but
it is also an in rem action because the issue of the
status of a person is one directed against the whole
world. One’s status is a matter that can be set up
against anyone in the world.)
O Land registration proceeding
O Probate of a will

- Action Quasi in Rem — One wherein an individual is named as

defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest
therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
- It deals with the status, ownership or liability of a particular
property but which are intended to operate on these
questions only as between the particular parties to the
proceedings and not to ascertain or cut-off the rights or
interests of all possible claimants.
- Such as
O Action to recover title and ownership of real property
O Action for partition
O Action for accounting
O Attachment
O Foreclosure of mortgage ‣

b. Why is it important to distinguish whether an action is (1) in personam, (2) in rem,

or (3) quasi in rem? The distinction is important to determine whether or not
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required and consequently to
determine the type of summons to be employed. In an action in personam,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try
and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem. jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.

C. Summons is one of the ways of how the court acquires jurisdiction. In all kinds of
actions summons is needed, but for different purposes.
- Actions in Personam — for purposes of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
- Actions in Rem or Quasi in Rem — for purposes only to satisfy
due process

NOTE
o An in personam or an in rem action is a classification
of actions according to the object of the action. A
personal and real action is a classification according to
foundation. It is in rem when directed against the
whole world and in personam when directed to a
particular person.
O When an action is real because it affects title to or
possession of land, it does not automatically follow
that the action is already in rem. It can be both a
personal action and an action in rem.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 36

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 E. Commencement of Civil Action (Rule 1, Sec. 5)
SECTION 5. Commencement of action. - 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.

I. RULE — CIVIL ACTIONS COMMENCE UPON FILING OF THE ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT IN THE COURT
BUT — 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

- This is the date of the filing of the amended complaint joining the
additional defendant
- You only file a motion for the admission of such amended complaint
when then here has been an answer served on the plaintiff.
- In cases where the amended complaint is attached to the motion for
its admission, the date of filing thereof is the date of the
commencement of the action with regard to the additional defendant,
irrespective of the action of the court on the motion.

II. What is the effect of the commencement of an action? In civil cases, the
commencement of an action interrupts the period of prescription as to all the
parties to the action

III. Does the filing of the complaint alone vest the court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter? ‣ NO. One must also pay the docket fees.

NOTE: It is important to remember that it is not simply the filing of the

complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but also the payment of the
prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action. Without the payment of the docket fees, no
original complaint or pleading is considered. ‣ If the complete amount of the
docket fee is not paid, the prescriptive period continues to run as the complaint
is deemed not filed.

IV. Manchester Doctrine: A court acquires jurisdiction over any case by the filing of
initiatory pleading and payment of the prescribed docket fee.

- If the amount paid turns out to be deficient, the trial court acquires
jurisdiction over the case, subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the
deficiency assessment.

- Importance if payment of the prescribed docket fees: It is hornbook law

that courts acquire jurisdiction over a case only upon payment of the
prescribed docket fee. Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a
total nullity.

- Payment: The court may allow payment of fee within a reasonable time
but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.

V. Basis for the computation of docket fees in a real action

- The fair market value of the real property in litigation stated in the
current Tax Declaration or current zonal valuation of the BIR, whichever
is higher.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 37

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 - If there is none, the stated value of the property in litigation/the
purchased value as indicated in the complaint.

F. Construction of Rules (Rule 1, Sec. 6)

The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote a just, speedy, and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

NOTE:
A strict and rigid application of the rules of procedure, especially on technical matters,
which tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.
[Tiorosio Espinosa v. Hofileña-Europa, G.R. No. 185746 (2016)]

However, compliance with the procedural rules is still the general rule, and
abandonment thereof should only be done in the most exceptional circumstances.
[Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones, 514 SCRA 197 (2007)

G. ART. 1155 OF THE NCC

ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court,
when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors and when there is any written
acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. (Civil Code).

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF CIVIL ACTIONS

ACTIONS PERIOD RECKONING PERIOD
1. Recovery of movable property 8 yrs. From the time the possession is
(Art .1140) lost
2. Real actions over immovable 30 Without prejudice to Art. 1137 –
(Art. 1141) acquisitive prescription through
adverse possession (30 yrs. GF/BF)
3. Mortgage (Art. 1142) 10
4. Demand of right of way (Art. Imprescriptible
1143)
5. Abatement of nuisance (public Imprescriptible
or private) (id.)
6. Written contract (Art. 1144) 10 From the time the right of action
accrues
7. Obligation created by law 10 From the time the right of action
(obligation created by accrues
constructive trust; tax) (Art.
1144)
8. Judgment (Art. 1144) 10 From the time the right of action
accrues
9. Oral contract (Art. 1145) 6
10. Quasi-contract (Art. 1145) 6
11. Injury to the rights of the plaintiff 4
(Art. 1146)
12. Quasi-delict (Art. 1146) 4
13. Accion interdictal (FE & UD) (Art. 1 From the time of dispossession
1147) (unlawful deprivation/withholding
of possession)
14. Defamation (Art. 1147) 1
15. All other civil actions (Art. 1149) 5 From the time the right of action
accrues

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 38

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 II. RULE 2: CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Basis of Civil Action = Cause of Action (Rule 2, Sec. 1)

Every civil action must be based on a cause of action.

B. Cause of Action (Rule 2, Sec. 2)

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another.

I. Nature and Elements of a Cause of Action

- It is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of
the other.
- It is based on the number of breaches, for every breach (act or omission in
violation of the rights of the plaintiff) there is one cause of action

II. Elements of a Cause of Action

a. Legal right — A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created;
b. Legal obligation — An obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right;
c. Breach — Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the
right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief
NOTE — Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only
upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to
maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
(Turner vs Lorenzo Shipping 2010)
Atty. Deray: There are some authors who claim a fourth element which is the
compliance to conditions precedent. But not all causes of action will require
the performance of a condition precedent.

Although admittedly, there are causes of action which can only be commenced
in Court once you have complied for Condition Precedent like:
1. Prior referral of a case to the Barangay
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
3. Earnest Efforts in case of disputes among family
members.

But these are not necessarily elements of a cause of action for these condition
precedents are not present in all actions that will commence in Court
CASE: PDI vs. Hon. Emo Alameda, et al, G.R. No. 160604, March 28, 2006

III. When must the cause of action exist?

RULE — THE CAUSE OF ACTION MUST EXIST AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT IS FILED
What if the cause of action has NOT yet accrued when the complaint was filed, but
arose after such filing, was the defect cured? ‣ NO. This defect cannot be cured,
even by amendment or supplemental pleading. (SEE — Philip Turner, et al. v.
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 157479, November 24, 2010)
- An action prematurely brought is a groundless suit. Unless the plaintiff has a valid
and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect
cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is
pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such after-
accrued cause of action is NOT permissible.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 39

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 - Subject to certain qualification, and except as otherwise provided by law, an action
commenced before the cause of action has accrued is prematurely brought and is
subject to dismissal.

- The fact that the cause of action accrues after the action is commenced and while
the case is pending is of no moment. It is a rule of law to which there is, perhaps no
exception, either in law or in equity, that to recover at all there must be some cause
of action at the commencement of the suit.

- Thus, a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an
amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of
action during the pendency of the action. For, only when there is an invasion of
primary rights, not before, does the adjective or remedial law become operative.

IV. Test of sufficiency of a cause of action

- The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a
cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could
render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

- It is well-settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the

allegations or averments in the complaint.

- There’s a cause of action when based on the allegations of the plaintiff, the relief
being asked for by the plaintiff in his prayer, can be granted by the Court.
- Whether such acts give him a right of action is determined by substantive law.
- Jurisprudence holds that for a complaint to be procedurally acceptable, it must
clearly state the cause of action. Meaning, all the cause of action required by the
substantive law must appear from a reading of the complaint.

Note: The designation of or caption is not controlling for it is not even an

indispensable part of the complaint.

V. Failure to assert or state a cause of action

What is the effect of the failure to “assert” or “state” a Cause of Action in the
complaint?
- The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to
prosper.
- Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant,
the complaint may be dismissed if the complaint or the pleading asserting
the claim “states no cause of action” (Rule 16, Sec. 1[g]).
- This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated or alleged
in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by
substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading of the
complaint.
- Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the cause of
action, a complaint may be dismissed not because of an absence or a lack of
a cause of action but because the complaint “states no cause of action”

VI. Failure to state a cause of action vs Lack of cause of action

- Note the difference between “absence or lack of cause of action” with
“complaint states no cause of action”.
- The ground for dismissal based on the fact that the pleading asserting the
claim states no cause of action is different from the ground that the case of
the claimant should be dismissed for lack of a cause of action.
O Pleading containing the claim states no cause of action — refers to
the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under
Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 40

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 O Lack of a cause of action — refers to a situation where the evidence
does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading

Failure to State a Cause of Lack of Cause of Action

Action
Definition Insufficiency of allegation in Where the evidence does not
the pleading. sustain the cause of action.
As a ground for dismissal Raised in the motion to Raised in a demurrer to
dismiss under Rule 16 before evidence under Rule 33 after
a responsive pleading is filed. the plaintiff has rested his
case.
Determination Determined only from the Resolved only on the basis of
allegation of the pleading and evidence presented in
not from evidentiary matters. support of his claim.
When made Can be made at the the Made after the questions of
earliest stages of an action. fact have been resolved on
the basis of stipulations,
admissions, or evidence
presented.
Effect of Dismissal Dismissal is without Dismissal constitutes res
prejudice to the refiling of an judicata on the issue and will
amended complaint bar future suits based on the
same cause of action.

VII. Cause of Action v. Right of Action

Cause of Action Right of Action

Definition It is the act or omission by which Right of a plaintiff to bring an

a party violates the right of action and to prosecute the
another (Sec. 2, Rule 2) action until final judgment

Requisites 1. A legal right in favor of the 1. There must be a good cause

plaintiff; (existence of cause of
2. An obligation on the part of action);
the defendant to respect or 2. A compliance with all the
not to violate such right; and condition precedent to the
3. Act or omission on the part bringing of action; and
of such defendant in 3. Right to bring and maintain
violation of the right of the the action must be in the
plaintiff or constituting a person instituting it.
breach of the obligation of
the defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may
maintain an action for
recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.

Nature It is actually predicated upon It is procedural in character and is

substantive law on quasi-delicts the consequence of the violation
under the NCC of right of the plaintiff.

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 41

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 Cause of Action Right of Action

Basis Based on the allegations of the Basis is the plaintiff’s cause of

plaintiff in the complaint. action. There is no right of action
when there is no cause of action.

Effect of Not effected by affirmative May be taken away by the

Affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, running of the statute of
Defences estoppel, etc) limitation, estoppel or other
circumstances which do not at all
affect the cause of action

VIII. KINDS OF CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Cause of action as applied to administrative cases
- While the concept of a cause of action is one that is essential to the
existence of a civil action, in administrative cases however, the issue is
not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the
respondent, but whether the respondent has breached the norms and
standards of the office.
2. Cause of action based on contracts
- A cause of action based on breach of contract merely requires the
following elements: (a) the existence of a contract, and (b) the breach of
the contract.
3. Cause of action for unlawful detainer
- In an unlawful detainer case, the cause of action does not accrue unless
there is a demand to vacate and is not complied with. If however, the suit
is based on expiration of the lease, notice and demand are not required.
If the unlawful detainer case is anchored upon the failure of the
defendant to comply with the conditions of the lease, the demand must
not be “to comply... or vacate” but should be “to comply. . . and vacate.”
The first type of demand is not one for unlawful detainer but one for
specific performance.
- Elements:
(1) the fact of lease by virtue of a contract express or implied;
(2) the expiration or termination of the possessor’s right to hold
possession;
(3) withholding by the lessee of the possession of the land or building
after expiration or termination of the right to possession;
(4) demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the
lease and vacate the premises; and
(5) the action must be filed within one (1) year from date of last demand
received by the defendant.

4. Cause of action for forcible entry

• First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the land or building.
Second, he must also assert that he was deprived of possession of the property
either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Third, the action must be
filed within one (1) year from the time he learned of his deprivation of physical
possession of the property.
5. Cause of Action in environmental cases
• In environmental cases, the complaint shall state that it is an environmental case,
and the law involved.

IX. Cause of Action in Various Cases

CASE CAUSE OF ACTION

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 42

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 1. Forcible Entry In an action for forcible entry, three requisites must be
clearly alleged in the complaint for the Municipal Trial
Court to acquire jurisdiction.

First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession

of the property. Second, he must assert that he was
deprived of the possession of the property either by Force,
Intimidation, Threat, Stealth or Strategy (FITSS). Lastly, he
must file the action one year from the time the owners or
legal possessors learned of his deprivation of physical
possession of the land or building.

2. Unlawful Detainer In an action for unlawful detainer, four requisites must be

clearly alleged in the complaint

First, the defendant’s initial possession was lawful. Second,

such possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice
to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of
possession. Third, the defendant remained in possession
and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment of the
property. Lastly, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment within one year from the last demand to vacate
the property.

3. Breach of Contract A breach of contract requires an allegation that a contract

exists and that there was a breach thereof.
4. Collection of a sum A collection of a sum of money requires an allegation that
of money a debt exists and that such debt is due and demandable.
5. Malicious For a complaint for malicious prosecution to prosper, the
Prosecution following must be alleged:

a. Prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself

the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement;
b. The criminal action finally ended with an acquittal;
c. In bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without
probable cause; and
d. The prosecution was impelled by legal malice – that is,
an improper or sinister motive.
6. Environmental a. Statement that it is an environmental case; and
cases b. The law involved.

C. SPLITTING OF CAUSE OF ACTION

I. Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits for the
same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2, Rules of Court).

o Splitting a single cause of action is not allowed by the Rules of Court.

“A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action” (Sec. 3, Rule 2, Rules of Court). It also applies to
counterclaims and crossclaims.
o In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of
action, claim or demand into two or more parts and brings a suit for
each part.
II. Reason for prohibition: The practice of splitting a single cause of action is
discouraged due to:
1. Breeds multiplicity of Suits,
2. Court Clogging,
3. Leads to Vexatious Litigations,

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 43

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 4. Operates as an instrument of Harassment
5. Unnecessary expenses
Note: This prohibition is applicable to counter-affidavits and counter claims.

Example:
Recovery of Land and Damages are inseparable. Otherwise you will be guilty of
splitting of a cause of action.

III. Tests to determine a “single” cause of action

The tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of
action are:

(a) Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both causes of action
would have been sufficient (Same Evidence Test);

(b) Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in
the other; and
(c) Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of
the first complaint.
IV. Effect of Splitting a Cause of Action
o If two or more suits are instituted for a single cause of action, “the
filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as
a ground for dismissal of the others” (Sec. 4, Rule 2, Rules of Court).
The remedy then of the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss.

V. CASE EXAMPLES(Riano, 2019):

1. In an action for unlawful detainer on the ground of non-payment of rentals,

the complaint must include the recovery of rentals in arrears, such recovery
being an integral part of the cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Note: The recoverable damages are reckoned from the time the possession of
the property became unlawful. Prior to the lapse of the period to vacate the
property, the damages sustained by the plaintiff bear no direct relation to the
lessee’s refusal to vacate the property. Such damages must be claimed in an
ordinary action.

2. In an action for the recovery of taxes, the complaint should also include the
demand for surcharges resulting from the delinquency in the payment of said
taxes. The non-payment of taxes gives rise to two reliefs. (A) The recovery fo
unpaid taxes (B) The recovery of the surcharges resulting from non-payment of
the taxes. These two reliefs gives rise to one single cause of action which should
be pursued in a single complaint. (Read: City of Bacolod v. San Brewery, Inc.)

3. In an action for forcible entry, the single act of dispossession gives rise to two
reliefs: (A) Recovery of possession (B) Damages arising from the loss of
possession. These two reliefs result from a single wrong hence constituting but a
single cause of action. This rule presupposes however, that the damages
claimed arose directly from the act of dispossession such as the deprivation of
the use of property and other consequential damages. (Read: Progressive
Development Corporation v CA)

Where the claim for damages arose out of separate acts committed by the
defendant after the occupancy of the premises subject of the action, such claim
constitutes a separate cause of action and not an integral part of a cause of
action based on forcible entry. (Read: CGR Corporation v. Treyes)

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 44

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 4. In a case where a tenant is illegally ejected from the land, the tenant is
entitled to two reliefs: (A) Reinstatement (B) Damages. Since both reliefs arose
from the same cause of action, they should be alleged in one single complaint.

1. A cause of action for the reconveyance of title over property does not include
a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

2. In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the creditor-mortgagee

has a single cause of action against the debtor-mortgagor with two
alternative remedies to recover the debt : (A)To file a personal action to
collect a sum of money or (B) To file a real action to foreclose on the
mortgage security. Thus, if the creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real
estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid debt,
except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain in the
outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor.

The availment of the remedy of foreclosure bars recourse to the subsequent

filing of a personal action for collection of the same debt. By failing to seek a
deficiency judgment after its case for recovery of possession was resolved,
petitioner is barred from instituting another action for such deficiency.
Pursuant to Section 47, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on the
effect of final judgments or final orders cited in the PCI Leasing Case, the
judgment is with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between
the petitioner and respondents. (Tan, 2020 & Riano,2019. Read; Marilag v
Martinez)

VI.
I. CASE: Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923 (installment payments)
ii. CASE: Progressive Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 301
SCRA 637
iii. CASE: Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191388,
March 9, 2011
iv. CASE: Juan Bayang vs. Court of Appeals, February 27, 1987, G.R. No. L-
53564
D. JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
E. IN RELATION TO RULE ON JOINDER OF PARTIES (SEC. 6, RULE 3)
F. TOTALITY RULE (SEC. 33, BP BLG. 29)

III. RULE 3
1. REAL PARTIES IN INTERESTS
A. CASE: Philippine Numismatic and Antiquarian Society vs. Genesis Aquino, et. al, GR
No. 206617, January 30, 2017

B. CASE: Vidal v. Escueta, G.R. No. 156225. Dec. 10, 2003

C.
D. LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE VS LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE
2. TYPES OF JOINDER OF PARTIES
A. CASE: Living @ Sense, Inc. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. G.R. No. 193753, Sept. 26,
2012
B. CASE: Arcelona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102900, Oct. 2, 1997
C. CASE: Ching vs. Subic Bay Golf and Country Club, G.R. No. 174353, September 10,
2014
3. ACTIONS THAT SURVIVE VS ACTIONS THAT DO NOT SURVIVE
A. CASE: THE HEIRS OF THE LATE FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER  vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. Nos. L-42699 to L-42709 May 26, 1981

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 45

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 B. CASE: FERRERIA V. VDA. DE GONZALES, GR NO. L-11567
C. CASE: ARCADIO and MARIA LUISA CARANDANG v. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE
GUZMAN, namely: MILAGROS DE GUZMAN, VICTOR DE GUZMAN, REYNALDO DE
GUZMAN, CYNTHIA G. RAGASA and QUIRINO DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 160347,
November 29, 2006
4. INDIGENT PARTY
A. SECTION 21, RULE 3 IN RELATION TO RULE 141, SEC. 19
CASE: Sps. Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita Algura, G.R. No. 150135, October 30,
2006
IV. RULE 4: VENUE OF ACTIONS
A. CASE: Sps. Ochoa vs. CBC, G.R. No. 192877, March 23, 2011
B. CASE: Polytrade Corporation vs. Blanco (30 SCRA 187)
C. CASE: Union Bank of the Phils. vs. Maunlad Homes, and all other persons or entities
claiming rights under, G.R.No. 190071, Aug. 15, 2012
D. CASE: DR. NIXON TREYES VS. ANTONIO LARLAR, ET. AL, G.R. NO. 232579, SEPTEMBER
8, 2020
V. RULE 6
A. CASE: D.M. Ferrer & Associated Corporation vs. UST, G.R. No. 189496, Feb. 1, 2012
B. NEGATIVE PREGNANT
CASE: RUBY RUTH S. SERRANO MAHILUM, vs. SPOUSES EDILBERTO ILANO and
LOURDES ILANO,  G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015
C. HYPOTHETICAL ADMISSION RULE
D. THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
CASE: Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Paras and Inland Trailways and CA, G.R.
No. 161909, April 25, 2012
CASE: Republic vs. Central Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-27802, Oct. 26, 1968
VI. RULE 7
1. CASE: Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, December 3, 2014
2. FORUM SHOPPING
CASE: Fernandez vs. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 02, 2014
VII. RULE 8
1. ULTIMATE FACTS VS. EVIDENTIARY FACTS
2. ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION
PRINCIPLE OF ELECTION OF REMEDIES
CASE: MELLON BANK. VS. CA, 190 SCRA 633, G.R. NO. 71479 OCTOBER 18, 1990
3. SPECIFIC DENIAL
NEGATIVE PREGNANT
4. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
A. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION PRECEDENT
- ART. 151 OF THE FAMILY CODE (in relation to Art. 2035 NCC)
- TENDER OF PAYMENT (ART. 1256 OF THE NCC)
- DEMAND TO VACATE (SEC. 2, RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF COURT)
VIII. RULE 9
1. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
2. DEFAULT
A. TWO STAGES OF DEFAULT
B. REMEDIES AVAILABLE
IX. RULE 10
1. AMENDED PLEADING VS. SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING
2. AMENDED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT VS. AMENDMENT WITH LEAVE OF COURT
CASE: Rosario vs. Carandang, G.R. No. L-7076, April 28, 1955
CASE: Superclean Services Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 107824, July 5, 1996
3. SEC. 5
X. RULE 11 – WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
XI. RULE 12 – BILL OF PARTICULARS
1. DISTINGUISH BILL OF PARTICULARS IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
2. AS A PROHIBITED PLEADING
XII. RULE 13 – FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
1. SERVICE VS. FILING

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 46

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 2. MODES OF FILING OF PLEADINGS, ETC.
3. MODES OF SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, ETC.
4. A.O. No. 242-A-2020, Guidelines on the Accreditation of Courier Service Providers dated
September 1, 2020
5. SUBSTTITUTED SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
6. RULE ON PRESUMPTIVE SERVICE
7. PRINCIPLE OF COMPLETENESS OF SERVICE (SEC. 15)
8. NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
XIII. RULE 14 – SUMMONS
1. ORIGINAL SUMMONS VS. ALIAS SUMMONS
2. MODES OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
3. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS
4. A.M. No. 11-3-6, March 15, 2011 or the New Rules on Service of Summons on Foreign
Juridical Entities
5. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Hague Service Convention
Administrative Order 251-2020: Guidelines in the Implementation in the Philippines of
the Hague Service Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial Documents in Civil and
Commercial Matters; dated September 11, 2020
6. DEFENDANT’S VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE (SEC. 23)
XIV. RULE 15 – MOTIONS
1. LITGIOUS VS. NON-LITIGIOUS MOTIONS
A. ACTION OF THE COURT
2. OMNIBUS MOTION RULE
3. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE VS DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
XV. RULE 17 – DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
XVI. RULE 18 – PRE-TRIAL
1. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PRE-TRIAL IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES
2. COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION & JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
3. 2020 Guidelines for the Conduct of CAM and JDR in Civil Cases dated February 9, 2021
(effective March 1, 2021)
4. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
a. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
b. CASE: LINDA M. CHAN KENT, represented by ROSITA MANALANG versus MICAREZ,
et.al., G.R. No. 185758, March 9, 2011
c. REMEDIES
5. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
6. PRE-TRIAL ORDER
7. JUDGMENT AFTER PRE-TRIAL (IN RELATION TO RULE 34 AND 35)
8. A.M. NO. 03-1-09-SC (GUIDELINES FOR PRE-TRIAL)
9. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
- RELATE WITH THE “RULES ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST LEVEL
COURTS EFFECTIVE APRIL 11, 2022”
XVII. RULE 19 – INTERVENTION
1. CASE: Metro Bank vs. RTC-Manila Br. 39, Raycor Aircontrol System G.R. No. 89909,
September 21, 1990
XVIII. RULE 21 – SUBPOENA
1. KINDS OF SUBPOENA
2. QUASHAL OF SUBPOENA
3. SUBPOENA IN DISCOVERY PROCEDURE (SEC. 5)
4. COMPELLING ATTENDANCE; EXCEPTIONS
5. VIATORY RIGHT OF A WITNESS
XIX. COMPUTATION OF TIME
1. A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC, Feb. 29, 2000
XX. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES (RULES 23-29)
1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
2. DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
A. USES OF DEPOSITION

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 47

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 B. CASE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION),
JOSE L. AFRICA (substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., FERDINAND E.
MARCOS (substituted by his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS,
JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by his heirs)
G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011
C. SECTION 4, RULE 23 IN RELATION TO SEC. 49, RULE 130
D. COMMISSION VS. LETTERS ROGATORY
E. PROTECTIVE MEASURES
F. DEPOSITION UPON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
3. DEPOSITION BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL
4. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
A. DISTINGUISH WITH WRITTEN IMNTERROGATORIES UNDER RULE 23
5. ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
6. PRODCUTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OPR THINGS
7. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
8. REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
CASE: FORTUNE CORPORATION VS. CA, G.R. No.108119, June 19, 1994
XXI. RULE 30 – TRIAL
1. INSTANCES WHERE TRIAL IS NOT REQUIRED
2. ORAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS
3. JUDGE TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE; EXCEPTIONS
XXII. RULE 31 - CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
1. CONSOLIDATION VS. JOINT HEARING/TRIAL
2. THREE WAYS OF CONSOLIDATING CASES
3. SEPARATE TRIAL
XXIII. RULE 32- TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
1. REFERENCE BY CONSENT
2. REFERENCE ON MOTION
XXIV. RULE 33 – DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
1. DISTIMNGUISH WITH RULE 119, SECTION 23
XXV. RULE 34 – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

CASE: FERNANDO MEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY PHILIPPINES,

INC., JANUARY 20, 2016, G.R. NO. 207970
XXVI. RULE 35 – SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
XXVII. RULE 36 – JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF
1. RENDITION OF JUDGMENT
2. PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
3. SIN PERJUICIO JUDGMENTS
4. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
5. RATIO DECIDENDI VS OBITER DICTUM
6. KINDS OF JUDGMENT
ALTERNATIVE JUDGMENT
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
XXVIII. RULE 37 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
1. MNT VERSUS MOTION TO RE-OPEN
2. EXTRINSIC FRAUD VS. INTRINSIC FRAUD
3. BERRY RULE
4. REMEDY FROM DENIAL OF MR AND MNT
XXIX. RULE 38 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
1. CASE: R.D. vs. Mega Pacific Solutions, Inc. – G.R. No. 1846666, January 11, 2016
2. REMEDY IN CASE OF DENIAL
XXX. RULE 39 – EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
1. EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
A. SLIP RULE
2. DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
A. JUDGMENTS NOT STAYED BY APPEAL

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 48

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER
 B. CASE: RCPI V. LANTIN, 134 SCRA 395, JANUARY 31, 1985, INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
VS CA, 309 SCRA 474
3. EXECUTION BY MOTION OR BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
CASE: EDUARDO JALANDONI (Deceased), Substituted by ROGELIA R. JALANDONI,
BRENDA R. TAYAG, ARTHUR JALANDONI, DEANNA J. FELICIANO and SUSAN R.
JALANDONI vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Silay City Branch I., G.R. No. L-47579 October 9, 1981
4. EXECUTION IN CASE OF DEATH OF PARTY
5. QUASHAL OF WRIT OF EXECUTION
6. THREE WAYS OF ENFORCING JUDGMENT FOR MONEY (SEC. 9)EXECUTION OF
JUDGMENTS FOR SPECIFIC ACTS (SEC. 10)
7. EXECUTION OF SPECIAL JUDGMENTS (SEC. 11)
8. PROPERTY EXEMPOT FROM EXECUTION (SEC. 13)
CASE: ALBINO JOSEF VS. OTELIO SANTOS, G.R. NO. 165060, NOVEMBER 27, 2008
9. TERCERIA
10. RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
11. EFFECTS OF LOCAL JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDERS (SEC. 47)
12. EFFECTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS (SEC. 48)
13. LORD COKE’S DOCTRINE
CASE: BPI SECURITIES CORPORATION VS. EDGARDO GUEVARRA, G.R. NO. 167052,
MARCH 11, 2015

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

LEWY KATRIN CORTEZ Page | 49

JD4 - CSU COLLEGE OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER