1. JURISDICTION It is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decided a case.

2. Elements of a valid exercise of jurisdiction (1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case; (2) the parties; (3) the res if jurisdiction over the defendant cannot be acquired; (4) the issue of the case; and (5) Payment of docket fees 3. As to the parties The court acquires jurisdiction over the Plaintiff when he files his complaint i. Valid service of summons upon him, or ii. Voluntary appearance: The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. 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. (Rule 14, Sec. 20) 4. General Rule: It is determined by the material allegations of the initiatory pleading (e.g., the complaint), not the answer of the defendant. Once acquired, jurisdiction is not lost because of the defendants contrary allegation. Exception: In ejectment cases, where tenancy is averred by way of defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case should be dismissed for not being properly filed with the DARAB. mount substantiated and awarded. Example: If a complaint alleges a recoverable amount of P1M, RTC has jurisdiction even if evidence proves the only P300k may be recovered. 5. As to subject matter Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law 6. 7. Jurisdiction over the res refers to the courts jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by (1)Custodia legisplacing the property or thing under the courts custody (e.g., attachment) (2)Statutory authoritystatute conferring the court with power to deal with the property or thing within its territorial jurisdiction (3 )Summons by publication or other modes of extraterritorial service (Rule 14, Sec. 15) 8. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. Jurisdiction does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of Jurisdiction. ( Herrera vs Barreto) Page 10 transcript a. Errors of Jurisdiction happens when a court takes cognizance of a case that it has no jurisdiction over. Errors of judgment occurs when a court with competent jurisdiction commits errors in the in the exercise of such authority to hear the case; b. Errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari only while errors of judgment are reviewable by appeal; page 11

9. General Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear and determine all actions and suits, whether civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed. It is very broad- it includes hearing and trying all types of cases; 10. Special or Limited Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear and determine a PARTICULAR case only . Its power is limited; page13 11. Original Jurisdiction is the power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its inception or commencement. Appellate jurisdiction is the power vested in a superior court to review and revise the judicial action of a lower court. 12. Exclusive Jurisdiction is that possessed by a court to the exclusion of others. Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction is that possessed by the court together with another or other courts over the same subject matte, the court obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of the others, but the choive of court is lodged in those persons duly authorize to file action. 13. direct resort to this Court will not be entertained unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as in cases involving national interest and those of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction
Ouano v. PGTT Intl. Corp., 21 the policy was restated in this wise: We need to reiterate, for the guidance of petitioner, that this Courts original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA), as in the present case, and with the RTCs in proper cases within their respective regions. However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. The hierarchy of courts determines the appropriate forum for such petitions. Thus, petitions for the issuance of such extraordinary writs against the first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA. A direct invocation of this Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is the established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon this Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of its docket.

The general rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of another court with concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief, applies only when no third-party claimant is involved

(Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA 142). When a third-party, or a stranger to the action, asserts a claim over the property levied upon, the claimant may vindicate his claim by an independent action in the proper civil court which may stop the execution of the judgment on property not belonging to the judgment debtor

18. R-II Builders' motion is bereft of merit. The record shows that, with the raffle of R-II Builders complaint before Branch 24 of the Manila RTC and said courts grant of the application for temporary restraining order incorporated therein, HGC sought a preliminary hearing of its affirmative defenses which included, among other grounds, lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. It appears that, at said preliminary hearing, it was established that R-II Builders complaint did not involve an intra-corporate dispute and that, even if it is, venue was improperly laid since none of the parties maintained its principal office in Manila. While it is true, therefore, that R-II Builders had no hand in the raffling of the case, it cannot be gainsaid that Branch 24 of the RTC Manila had no jurisdiction over the case. Rather than ordering the dismissal of the complaint, however, said court issued the 2 January 2008 order erroneously ordering the re-raffle of the case. In Atwel v. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc.2 and Reyes v. Hon. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 1423 which involved SCCs trying and/or deciding cases which were found to be civil in nature, this Court significantly ordered the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction instead of simply directing the re-raffle of the case to another branch.

19. the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is pursuant to Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides: Sec. 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: xxxxxxxxx b.) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. As mentioned earlier, petitioner stated in her motion that respondents allegations in its complaint show that it is one for ejectment cognizable, not by the RTC but, by the MTC of Baguio City. In Herrera, et al. v. Bollos, et al.,1 we emphasized the basic rule that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.

20.