CIVPRO CASES

First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 202836,
June 19, 2018
Capable of Pecuniary Estimation: If the primary relief is the recovery of money or property, the action
can be measured in terms of money.
Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation: If the main goal is something like enforcing a contract, stopping an
action, or getting a court order, the action is not about money or property, so it cannot be measured
financially even if money or property might be involved later.
FACTS: The case arose when the petitioner obtained from PBCOM a 40m pesos loan which was secured
by a real estate mortgage over 1,076 parcels of land. Loan increased to 51.200m up to 100m. First
Sarmiento filed a Petition for Review after the Regional Trial Court denied its motion for reconsideration,
arguing that its complaint for annulment of a real estate mortgage was incapable of pecuniary estimation.
It cited previous Supreme Court rulings supporting this claim. PBCOM, however, argued that the
complaint aimed to restore ownership of the mortgaged properties, making it a real action that required
filing fees based on the property value. The issue for the court to resolve is whether the Regional Trial
Court had jurisdiction over First Sarmiento’s complaint.
First Sarmiento's Argument: The complaint for annulment of mortgage was an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation, as it only challenged the validity of the loan contract on the property and not
recover ownership.
PBCOM's Argument: The case was a real action, as it aimed to recover ownership and possession of the
mortgaged properties, and thus required the appropriate filing fees based on the property’s value.
Rule 45 allows a party to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from a judgment or final order of the
Regional Trial Court if the appeal raises only questions of law. If both legal and factual issues are
involved, the appeal must go to the Court of Appeals. A question of law concerns the application or
interpretation of the law, while a question of fact involves the truth or falsity of the facts. In this case, the
issue of jurisdiction, which is a legal question, justifies the direct appeal to the Supreme Court, as it does
not involve disputed facts but rather the correct application of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC obtained jurisdiction over petitioner First Sarmiento Corporation's
Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage.
RULING: The action is thus not subject to pecuniary estimation and is properly within the jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court. Jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the case, and since the dispute
involves the validity of the mortgage and not a claim for monetary damages, the case falls under civil
actions that are incapable of pecuniary estimation. The petitioner also paid the required docket fees, and
even if there were a mistake in the fees, the case should not have been dismissed, but rather, additional
fees should have been added as a lien on the judgment.
In the case of Home Guaranty v. R-II Builders, the issue revolved around the classification of R-II
Builders' action as either a real action or one incapable of pecuniary estimation, which affected the
required docket fees. R-II Builders filed for the rescission of a Deed of Assignment but later amended its
complaint to seek the conveyance of property. The Regional Trial Court initially ruled the case involved a
real action, requiring higher docket fees, but R-II Builders withdrew its amended complaint and reverted
to the original claim for rescission. The Court of Appeals upheld this, but Home Guaranty reversed,
treating the case as a real action due to the property claims. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that
the nature of the case should be determined by the principal relief sought, not by incidental claims. It
emphasized that an action for rescission is not subject to pecuniary estimation, even if property is
involved. The Court ruled in favor of R-II Builders, stating that the proper fees had been paid and
remanded the case for continued trial, reinforcing that subject matter jurisdiction is based on the principal
relief, not secondary objectives.
RTC JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction
Description
Type

Cases involving amounts exceeding P400,000 (or P300,000 in Metro Manila)

Civil Cases > cases involving contracts, real property, damages, and family law (e.g.,
divorce, adoption, annulment of marriage).

> Serious criminal offenses punishable by RP/death (e.g., homicide, rape,

Criminal Cases
illegal drugs)

> Includes probate, land registration, annulment of marriage, and adoption and
Special Cases
WRITS

Family Law > Cases related to annulment of marriage, adoption, custody, support, and
Cases family disputes

> Acts as an appellate court for decisions made by lower courts (MTC, MCTC,
Appeals
METC)

> Exclusive jurisdiction over specific matters like eminent domain,

Exclusive
naturalization and maritime cases, violations of envi law
MORE EXAMPLES:
Example 1: Action for the Recovery of Money or Property (Pecuniary Estimation)
Case: Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 109953, February 27, 1997)
Scenario: The government filed a case to recover ill-gotten wealth from a former government official,
seeking the return of money and property.
 Principal relief sought: Recovery of money and property.
 Pecuniary estimation: Since the primary goal of the case is to recover specific amounts of
money or property, this action is measurable in financial terms (pecuniary estimation). The court
can assess the value of the money or property being recovered.

Example 2: Action for Specific Performance (Not Pecuniary Estimation)

Case: Evaristo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118126, July 15, 1999)
Scenario: The case involved a demand for specific performance – the petitioner wanted a contract to be
fulfilled, but not necessarily with a monetary value attached to it. In this case, the issue was the
enforcement of a contract (for example, to compel someone to deliver a piece of land).
 Principal relief sought: Specific performance (forcing the other party to comply with a contract).
 Pecuniary estimation: Even if the contract involves property, the main goal of the action is to
have the contract fulfilled, not to simply recover a sum of money or property. So, this type of
action isn't considered one that can be measured in money, even though property is involved.

Example 3: Action for Damages (Pecuniary Estimation)

Case: Tan v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118434, August 5, 1999)
Scenario: A person sued for damages after an accident caused by another party’s negligence. The relief
being sought was for the payment of damages to cover medical costs, lost income, and other financial
losses resulting from the incident.
 Principal relief sought: Payment of damages (money).
 Pecuniary estimation: Since the main goal is to recover a sum of money (damages), the case can
be measured in monetary terms, making it capable of pecuniary estimation.

Example 4: Action for Injunction (Not Pecuniary Estimation)

Case: Heirs of Quinto v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112206, June 30, 1998)
Scenario: The petitioners filed for an injunction to prevent a construction company from building on a
piece of land they claimed ownership of. The action was not directly for the recovery of money or
property, but rather to stop certain actions (injunction).
  Principal relief sought: An injunction to stop construction.
 Pecuniary estimation: Since the goal isn’t to recover money or property but to prevent certain
actions, the action is not considered capable of pecuniary estimation, even if it involves property
in some way.

Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. G.R. No. November 20, 2015

FACTS: This case is a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the RTC of Muntinlupa City’s
dismissal of Civil Case No. 11-077 due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales and
Francis Martin D. Gonzales filed the case in August 2011, seeking an injunction to prevent the sale of
shares in S.J. Land, Inc., claiming they had already fully paid for the shares. The case was initially filed in
Branch 276, which is not a Special Commercial Court. Respondents, after filing their answers, moved to
dismiss the case, arguing that it was an intra-corporate dispute that should be handled by a Special
Commercial Court.
In an April 17, 2012 Order, Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City granted a motion to dismiss,
ruling that the case was an intra-corporate dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs
designated as Special Commercial Courts, particularly Branch 256. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing the case was randomly assigned to Branch 276 and should be transferred to the
correct branch, especially since they had paid significant filing fees. However, in a July 9, 2012 Order,
Branch 276 denied the motion, stating it had no authority to transfer the case.
ISSUE: Whether Branch 276 erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING: The court ruled that Civil Case No. 11-077, an intra-corporate dispute regarding stockholder
rights, was correctly categorized as a commercial case under the Corporation Code and should be heard
by a Special Commercial Court. However, the case was improperly assigned to a regular branch instead
of the designated court. Jurisdiction over such cases was transferred from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) by RA 8799, and certain RTC branches were later
designated as Special Commercial Courts to handle these cases. The court emphasized that this
designation was for efficiency, not to alter the jurisdiction conferred by law, and clarified that the transfer
of cases to these specialized courts was an administrative decision to improve court processes, not a
change in jurisdictional authority.
Petitioners filed an intra-corporate dispute in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which was incorrectly assigned
to a regular branch instead of the designated Special Commercial Court (Branch 256). The court clarified
that this error was procedural and did not affect the RTC's jurisdiction over the case. The correct
procedure was for Branch 276 to refer the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing, after which it
should be assigned to Branch 256. The court emphasized the importance of correctly categorizing cases in
both the caption and body of the filing and provided guidelines for future misraffles, ensuring commercial
cases are properly directed to the designated special courts. The petition was granted, and the previous
orders were reversed, directing the case to be reassigned to the appropriate branch.
The basis of the ruling in this case is primarily centered on the proper categorization of the case and the
correct procedural handling of intra-corporate disputes. The court emphasized that Civil Case No. 11-077,
an intra-corporate dispute, was correctly categorized as a commercial case under the Corporation Code
and should have been heard by a Special Commercial Court. Although the case was mistakenly assigned
to a regular branch (Branch 276), this error was procedural and did not affect the Regional Trial Court's
(RTC) jurisdiction over the case. The court clarified that jurisdiction over such cases was transferred from
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to RTCs by RA 8799, with certain RTC branches
designated as Special Commercial Courts to handle these cases. The court ruled that the proper procedure
was for Branch 276 to refer the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing and then assign it to Branch
256, the designated Special Commercial Court. The ruling also emphasized the importance of correctly
categorizing cases in both the caption and body of the filing, providing guidelines for future mistakes.
Key point: Special Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural tool to expedite the
resolution of commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. Regional Trial Court
(RTC) still retains its general authority over other types of cases, such as ordinary civil cases. The internal
rules governing Special Commercial Courts are just a tool to make the process faster, not a shift in the
RTC’s fundamental jurisdiction over various case types.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
Applying the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test, the suit between the parties is clearly
rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship and pertains to the enforcement of their
correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate
regulatory rules of the corporation,24 hence, intra-corporate, which should be heard by the designated
Special Commercial Court as provided under A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC25 dated June 17, 2003 in relation to
Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
2 tests are being applied to determine whether the case falls under the category of an intra-corporate
dispute, which would make it the jurisdiction of a Special Commercial Court:
1. The relationship test: This test looks at whether the parties involved in the case have a specific
legal relationship defined by corporate law. In this case, the dispute is between individuals
involved in a corporation (MLCG, FMDG, and GJH Land, Inc.), indicating that they have a
corporate relationship governed by the corporation's internal rules and the Corporation Code.
2. The nature of the controversy test: This test examines the nature of the issue at hand. The
controversy here involves the enforcement of the rights and obligations of the parties as they
relate to the corporation, such as stockholder rights, subscriptions, and ownership. These types of
issues are considered intra-corporate because they deal with internal corporate matters, like
ownership, governance, or other related disputes within a corporation.
Therefore, since the dispute between the parties arises from their relationship as stockholders in the
corporation and concerns the enforcement of their rights under corporate law, the case qualifies as intra-
corporate in nature. According to the rules in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC and Section 5 of RA 8799, such
cases must be heard by a Special Commercial Court, which is specifically designated to handle disputes
like this one.
subject matter jurisdiction is the inherent legal power to hear certain types of cases, granted by law,
while the exercise of jurisdiction is about how a court applies that power, which is guided by procedural
rules and court orders.
FACTS: Renato M. David, a natural-born Filipino, migrated to Canada in 1974 and became a Canadian
citizen. In 2000, upon retirement, he returned to the Philippines and purchased a 600-square meter lot in
Gloria, Oriental Mindoro. It was later found that the land was public and part of the salvage zone. On
April 12, 2007, David filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) for the land with the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), declaring himself a Filipino citizen. Editha A. Agbay
opposed the MLA on grounds that David, being a Canadian citizen, was ineligible to own land in the
Philippines. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against him under
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (R.A. 9225) on October 11, 2007.
He defended that he intended to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship at the time of the MLA and was
advised by a CENRO officer that he could declare himself as Filipino. He also claimed to have been
misled by the Agbays into believing the land was titled.Filipino lawyers
The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause to indict David for falsification on January 8, 2008, and
recommended filing information in court. David’s petition for review to the DOJ was denied, further
solidifying probable cause. Consequently, information for falsification was filed in the MTC, and a
warrant for David’s arrest was issued.
David filed an urgent motion for re-determination of probable cause, which the MTC denied, citing that
R.A. 9225 makes a distinction between those who became foreign citizens before and after its effectivity.
The MTC added that David was still a Canadian citizen when he filed the MLA. David’s ensuing motion
for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the RTC,
alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MTC. The RTC denied the petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether David may be indicted for falsification when he declared himself a Filipino citizen
at the time of filing his MLA, given his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship
under R.A. 9225.
The Supreme Court held that the act of falsification was consummated when David declared himself a
Filipino citizen (at a time when he was still a Canadian citizen under the governing law Commonweath
Act No. 63). His subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not retroactively validate his
declaration in 2007, as R.A. 9225 does not apply retroactively in this context. Therefore, the elements of
falsification were present.
2. Whether the MTC properly denied David’s motion for re-determination of probable cause
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused can be waived when he seeks affirmative relief from the court.
By filing a motion for re-determination of probable cause, David effectively submitted to the court’s
jurisdiction. The MTC’s statement that it lacked jurisdiction over David’s person was erroneous; however,
no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTC in denying the motion based on its merits.
DOCTRINE:
R.A. 9225 differentiates between Filipinos who lost citizenship before its effectivity (requiring re-
acquisition) and those who retain citizenship upon acquiring foreign nationality after its effectivity. The
act of falsification is a consummated act at the time it occurs, irrespective of subsequent changes in
citizenship status.
Falsification (Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171, Revised Penal Code)
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer not taking advantage of official position.
2. Committed acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171.
3. Falsification done in a public, official, or commercial document.
Criminal Procedure Principles:**
– Jurisdiction over the person can be waived by seeking affirmative relief.
– Custody of the law is required only for bail, not for motions involving probable cause.
Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219, 3 September 2012
FACTS:
 Respondent-appellee ANGELES is the registered owner of a parcel of land at 1287 Castanos
Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
 The land was occupied by Jelly Galiga as a lessee from 1979 to 1993.
 Fe Salvador (petitioner-appellant) claimed to have bought the land from Galiga on September 7,
1993, and remained in possession of the property from November 1993 onward.
 On November 18, 1993, ANGELES sent a letter demanding Salvador vacate the property, but the
demand was ignored.
 ANGELES, through Rosauro Diaz Jr., filed an ejectment complaint with the MeTC of Manila on
October 12, 1994.
 The complaint was filed by Diaz, who claimed to be ANGELES’ attorney-in-fact, but no
supporting document was attached to prove Diaz’s authority.
 In response, Salvador raised the issue of Diaz’s authority in her Answer.
 On December 11, 1995, over a year after the complaint was filed, ANGELES attached a Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) allegedly executed on November 16, 1994, granting Diaz authority.
 The SPA was notarized in the U.S., but there was no certification from the Philippine Consulate to
validate the notary's authority.
 The MeTC ruled in favor of ANGELES.
ISSUE: Effect of Diaz’s failure to present proof of his authority to represent Angeles
RULING: In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically stated that “[i]f a complaint is filed
for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed
filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the
complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.” This ruling was
reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, where the Court went on to
say that “[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the
filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the court’s
jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of respondent [plaintiff before the lower court].” Pursuant to the foregoing
rulings, therefore, the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were
null and void. The courts could not have delved into the very merits of the case, because legally, there was
no complaint to speak of. The court’s jurisdiction cannot be deemed to have been invoked at all.
"[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the
complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction.
Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of respondent [plaintiff before the lower court]."
Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 March 2006
FACTS:
 On March 8, 1996, Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao were found dead in Purok Nibulan, Ramon,
Isabela; Virgilio Tuliao is Elizer's father.
 SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño and others were initially charged with the murder, convicted, but later
acquitted by the Supreme Court on reasonable doubt.
 During the appeal, SPO2 Maderal, previously at large, was arrested and implicated petitioners
Miranda, Ocon, and Dalmacio in a sworn confession.
 Based on Maderal’s confession, criminal complaints for murder were filed against the petitioners,
and arrest warrants were issued in June 2001.
 Petitioners sought to quash the warrants and requested reinvestigation, claiming the court lacked
jurisdiction over them.
 In August 2001, new presiding judge Anastacio Anghad reversed the previous orders, quashing
Miranda's arrest warrant and later extending this to Ocon and Dalmacio.
 State Prosecutor Reyes and Virgilio Tuliao filed for relief in the Supreme Court, which referred
the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
 Tuliao filed for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition with the Supreme Court; the CA issued a
temporary restraining order against Judge Anghad’s orders.
 Judge Anghad dismissed the murder charges against petitioners, leading Tuliao to seek contempt
charges.
 The Supreme Court referred the contempt charges to the CA, which ruled that Judge Anghad
acted with grave abuse of discretion, reinstated the charges, and ordered arrest warrants against
the petitioners and Maderal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing Judge Anghad’s Orders quashing the warrants of
arrest.
2. Whether the CA correctly directed the reinstatement of the criminal cases and the reissuing of warrants
of arrest.
3. Whether there was error in reinstating the criminal cases on the argument that the order of dismissal
had become final and executory.
RULING: The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision, with the modification to
transfer the criminal cases to the RTC of Manila. The Court stated that seeking an affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance and that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is not required for
the adjudication of motions to quash the warrant of arrest. Furthermore, it ruled that the pendency of a
petition for review of the prosecutor’s resolution or the political climate were not grounds to quash an
arrest warrant. Also, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of a criminal case on a decision of the
Court in a different case with different accused showed that Judge Anghad abused his discretion.
Additionally, it found that nullifying proceedings includes reinstating orders set aside by the nullified
proceeding and that there is no double jeopardy in the reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed before
arraignment.
Doctrine: An accused can invoke the jurisdiction of the court, without necessarily being in custody of the
law, by seeking affirmative relief. However, applying for bail requires the accused to be in custody.
Custody of the law is distinct from jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Class Notes:
– Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived when the accused files any pleading
seeking affirmative relief except when challenging jurisdiction over his person or quashing a warrant of
arrest.
– Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is not a requirement for adjudicating a motion to quash a
warrant of arrest.
– A criminal case can be reinstated even if previously dismissed if the dismissal is prior to
JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, 16 September 1942
FACTS: An action for partition of inheritance left by the deceased Victoriano Zafra was filed by the
living heirs of Apolonia (one of the children of Victoriano) when Dominga (also one of
the children of Victoriano) sold her share in the common property. On the other hand, Dominga
interposed in her answer a counter-claim for the payment of Apolonia’s debt.
The Trial Court rendered a decision awarding the 1/3rd of the common property of inheritance to the
plaintiff, with the order to pay the debt of their deceased mother (Apolonia) amounting to P350. The CA
submitted the case to SC for resolution, with the allegation from the appellees that the only issue raised in
the pleading was the partition of a certain estate and the defendant then did not claim any amount of
money in the pleading, thus the trial court acted without jurisdiction or competence.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court has jurisdiction to order the heirs to pay Apolonia’s debt?
RULING:YES. There can be absolutely no doubt that the trial had such jurisdiction not only because
there was a counterclaim wherein the amount adjudged was within the amount pleaded, but because the
proceeding was in the nature of one for liquidation and partition of inheritance wherein debts left by the
deceased ancestors may be determined and ordered paid if the creditors are parties, as was the case.
Furthermore, the question of jurisdiction attempted to be raised in this case is not the kind of question that
confers jurisdiction upon this Court. The jurisdiction involved is not one over the subject matter but at
most over the issue or over the persons of the parties. A Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the
case involving P200 or more, and therefore the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija had jurisdiction to
render judgment in the amount of P350. The question of whether or not there was a proper issue raised in
the pleading as to said amount, is not a question of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, but jurisdiction
over the issue.
The SC reiterate its discussion in Reyes vs Diaz, where it states that: But in some instances it is said
that the court should also have jurisdiction over the issue (15 C. J., 734; Hutts vs. Martin, 134 Ind.,
587;33 N. E., 676), meaning thereby that the issue being tried and decided by the court be within the
issues raised in the pleadings. But this kind of jurisdiction 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
express or implied of the parties. (Rule 17, sec. 4, Rules of Court.) Although an issue is not duly pleaded
it may validly be 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. In truth, jurisdiction over the
issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. Where,
for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the defendant cannot be said to have
been served with process as to that issue. (Cf. Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs. Domingo, 44 Phil.,680.) At
any rate, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires
nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such importance as to call for
the intervention of this court. It is hereby ordered that this case be returned to the Court of Appeals for
hearing and decision on the merits.
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby
it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in
which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. The service of summons or notice to
the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due
process requirements. (Alba v. Court of Appeals)
Due process dictates that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant can only be acquired by the courts
after a strict compliance with the rules on the proper service of summons
Personal service of summons is preferred to substitute service. Only if the former cannot be made
promptly can the process server resort to the latter. Moreover, the proof of service of summons must (a)
indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted
to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and
discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business, of
the defendant. It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the
proof of service or in the officer’s return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all the
foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective. 32 Indisputably,
the Sheriff did not comply with any of the foregoing requirements, thus, rendering his service of
summons on Dela Peña invalid.
quasi in rem proceedings, the court need not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, for as
long as it has acquired jurisdiction over the res.
De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, 31 January 2006
FACTS: Manuel Dy Awiten, the private complainant, filed a complaint against Mina Tan Hao, Victor
Ngo, and later included Chester De Joya, among others, alleging that he was induced to invest over a
hundred million pesos in State Resources Development Management Corporation (SRDMC). Awiten
claimed that the investment checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds or closed accounts. De Joya,
along with the others, was then implicated as an incorporator and director of SRDMC. Following the
investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao issued a
resolution finding probable cause to indict the accused for syndicated estafa, leading to the filing of
Criminal Case No. 03-219952. The respondent judge, Judge Placido C. Marquez, issued a warrant of
arrest against De Joya and his co-accused, which De Joya challenged before the Supreme Court through a
petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the respondent judge had erred in finding probable
cause.
ISSUE: The central legal issue raised in this Supreme Court decision is whether the trial judge
erred in finding the existence of probable cause warranting the issuance of a warrant of arrest
against Chester De Joya and his co-accused for the offense of syndicated estafa.
RULING: The Supreme Court dismissed De Joya’s petition. It held that the documents reviewed by the
respondent judge provided sufficient basis to establish probable cause for issuing the warrant of arrest
against the petitioner and his co-accused. The Court emphasized that probable cause for arrest is not the
same as the standard used to convict an accused; instead, it requires the showing of a prima facie case that
an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court underscored that jurisdiction over a defendant is typically acquired
either by voluntary appearance or by coercive process, and De Joya’s refusal to surrender precluded him
from seeking relief. The Court explained jurisdictional principles and reiterated that he who seeks
jurisdiction must submit to it.
Doctrine: The case reiterates the doctrine concerning the determination of probable cause for the issuance
of a warrant of arrest. Probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested. Additionally, the decision underscores the principle that one who invokes the jurisdiction of the
court must first submit to its jurisdiction.
Classes Notes:
– Probable Cause: A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime.
– Issuance of Warrant of Arrest: Judges evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence to
determine if there is sufficient ground to issue a warrant.
– Jurisdiction over a Defendant: Achieved through voluntary submission to the court or by coercive
process (e.g., service of summons).
– Jurisdiction over the Plaintiff: Acquired by filing the complaint or petition.
– Submitting to Jurisdiction: To obtain relief, a petitioner must first submit to the court’s
Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, 10 March 2004
FACTS:
 In 1975, Spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged two parcels of land to Dr. Clarence
Yujuico.
 The mortgage was foreclosed, and the properties were sold at auction on July 11, 1988.
 Before the redemption period expired, the Trocino spouses sold the properties to Fortunato and
Aurora Gomez (petitioners) on December 12, 1989, who redeemed them from Dr. Yujuico.
 The Trocino spouses refused to transfer ownership, prompting the Gomezes to file an action for
specific performance/rescission on December 16, 1991, in Cebu City’s RTC (Branch 10).
Summons were served to defendants, including Adolfo and Mariano Trocino, through Caridad
Trocino.
 Defendants filed an Answer on January 27, 1992, verified by Caridad Trocino.
  In March 1993, RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering the Trocino heirs to execute a Deed of
Sale or return the down payment with interest.
 Due to non-compliance, the RTC declared the titles null and void and ordered the issuance of new
titles to the petitioners on August 29, 1995.
Petition for Annulment at Court of Appeals:
 On March 13, 1996, Adolfo and Mariano Trocino filed for annulment at the CA, claiming
improper service of summons and lack of representation, as they were away during the service
period.
Court of Appeals Decision:
 On September 30, 1996, the CA nullified the RTC decision, citing lack of jurisdiction due to
improper service of summons.
ISSUES:
Validity of the Summons Service: Whether the summons were effectively served to confer jurisdiction
over Adolfo and Mariano Trocino.
Jurisdiction in Rem vs. Personam: Whether the action was in rem, requiring service related to the action
on property, or in personam, requiring personal service.
Scope of the Court of Appeals’ Annulment: Whether the CA’s nullification correctly included all
proceedings affecting Caridad Trocino and her individuals heirs.
RULING:
Validity of Summons:
– Improper service to Adolfo Trocino (non-resident in Ohio, USA) and Mariano Trocino (residing in
Bohol), was noted; personal or proper substituted service was essential but was not met.
– Return of service lacked detailed efforts to effectuate personal service, thus, did not satisfy due process
requirements.
2. Nature of Action (Personam vs. In Rem):
– The action for specific performance/rescission was classified as in personam affecting specific
individuals’ obligations, not an action in rem affecting the entire world.
– Thus, personal service was mandatory for jurisdiction.
3. Inapplicability to Caridad Trocino:
– Valid summons were served personally on Caridad Trocino, affirming the RTC’s decision over her but
only concerning her share in the Estate.
Doctrine:
– Nature of Action:An action in personam requires personal service of summons, and jurisdiction over the
defendant’s person cannot be had without it unless waived. In personam actions involve specific
individual obligations not applicable in rem.
– Jurisdiction Acquisition: Due process demands that jurisdiction be obtained through valid summons
service; without it, no personal judgment can bind the defendant.

– Personal Service Requirement: For actions in personam, actual personal service or valid substituted
service must be demonstrated.
– Distinction Between Actions: Real actions affecting title to real property might still require personal
service if they are in personam.
– Statutory Reference: Rule 14, Sections 6, 7, and 15 of the Rules of Court mandates personal service or
substituted service, detailing the procedure for extraterritorial jurisdiction cases.
JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY LAW
"Jurisdiction is conferred by law" means that a court’s authority to hear and decide a case is granted by
laws or statutes, not by the mere agreement of the parties involved or the decision of the court itself. In
the Philippine legal system, jurisdiction over a particular case is determined by the Constitution, laws, or
rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. Courts do not have the authority to hear cases beyond what the
law specifically grants them.
Example: An example of this principle in action is found in Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities
Regulation Code), which confers jurisdiction to the Special Commercial Courts to handle intra-
corporate disputes. If an intra-corporate dispute is filed in a regular regional trial court (RTC), that court
does not have jurisdiction unless the case is specifically assigned to it by the Supreme Court or as
designated by the law.
For instance, in the case of Manuel Luis C. Gonzales v. RTC Muntinlupa, the Regional Trial Court of
Muntinlupa dismissed a case due to lack of jurisdiction because it was an intra-corporate dispute, which
by law, should have been heard by a special commercial court, and not just any regular branch of the
RTC. The court’s jurisdiction over that matter was determined by RA 8799 and the Supreme Court’s
internal rules designating certain courts for specific types of cases.
Legal Basis:
 The Constitution of the Philippines (Article VIII, Section 5): This defines the general
jurisdiction of the courts, stating that lower courts may be created and their jurisdiction defined
by law.
 Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code): Specifically defines the jurisdiction of
Special Commercial Courts over certain types of business disputes.
 Rules of Court: These procedural rules also allocate jurisdiction among various levels of courts
in civil, criminal, and other cases.
Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers, consuls, and petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
Appellate Jurisdiction: It reviews, revises, reverses, modifies, or affirms final judgments or orders of
lower courts in specific cases, such as:
 Constitutional validity of laws, treaties, or regulations.
 Legality of taxes, assessments, or penalties related to them.
 Cases involving jurisdiction of lower courts.
 Criminal cases with penalties of reclusion perpetua or higher.
 Cases involving errors or questions of law.
Temporary Assignment of Judges: It may assign lower court judges to other stations temporarily (for up
to six months) as required by public interest, with the consent of the concerned judge.
Change of Venue: The Court may order a change of venue or trial location to prevent a miscarriage of
justice.
Rulemaking Authority: It promulgates rules concerning constitutional rights, court procedures, legal
practice, and the admission to the legal profession. These rules aim to simplify procedures and ensure fair
and speedy case disposition.
Appointments in Judiciary: It appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with
the Civil Service Law.
Distinction of subject matter jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
 Definition: Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to hear and decide cases of
a particular type or class. This jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the case and is
conferred by law (such as the Constitution, statutes, or court rules). It is not something that can
be waived or altered by the parties involved.
 Importance: If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case, it cannot hear the
case at all, no matter the circumstances. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at
any time, even on appeal.
Example:
 Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) have jurisdiction over civil cases involving amounts greater than
P400,000 (except those related to labor and family law). If a case involving a dispute over
P400,000 is filed in a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), which has no jurisdiction over such cases,
the court will have no authority to hear the case, regardless of any other factors.
2. Exercise of Jurisdiction
 Definition: The exercise of jurisdiction refers to a court’s actual action in hearing or ruling on a
case. Even if a court has subject matter jurisdiction, it might not exercise its jurisdiction due to
various reasons, such as procedural issues, improper venue, or lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the parties involved (personal jurisdiction).
  Importance: Courts may have subject matter jurisdiction, but they may choose not to exercise it
or be prevented from exercising it due to procedural irregularities or other legal constraints.
Example:
 If a case is properly filed in an RTC, but the party filing the case does not follow the correct
procedural steps (e.g., failing to submit necessary documents), the court may not exercise its
jurisdiction to proceed with the case, even though it has subject matter jurisdiction.

CLASSES OF JURISDICTION:

Class of Jurisdiction Concept Example Legal Basis

Article VIII,
Courts can hear
Regional Trial Courts Section 14 of the
and decide most
(RTCs) have general 1987
1.General Jurisdiction cases unless the
jurisdiction over civil Constitution
law specifies
and criminal cases. Batas Pambansa
otherwise.
Blg. 129

Republic Act No.

Family Courts (e.g., 8369 (Family
Courts are
family-related matters Courts Act of
authorized to hear
like child custody) and 1997)
2.Special or Limited Jurisdiction only specific types
Special Commercial RA 8799
of cases as defined
Courts (e.g., intra- (Securities
by law.
corporate disputes). Regulation
Code)

Supreme Court has

Courts have the Article VIII,
original jurisdiction
power to hear a Section 5 of the
3.Original Jurisdiction over petitions for
case for the first 1987
certiorari, mandamus,
time. Constitution
and quo warranto.

Article VIII,
Courts can review,
Court of Appeals (CA) Section 9 of the
modify, reverse, or
reviews decisions made 1987
4.Appellate Jurisdiction affirm the
by lower courts like Constitution
decisions of lower
RTCs. Batas Pambansa
courts.
Blg. 129

5.Exclusive Jurisdiction Only one court has Labor Arbiters have Republic Act No.
the authority to exclusive jurisdiction 6715 (Labor
hear a particular over labor disputes. Code)
type of case. RA 8799
(Securities
Class of Jurisdiction Concept Example Legal Basis

Regulation
Code)

Multiple courts
share jurisdiction MTCs and RTCs both Batas Pambansa
have jurisdiction over Blg. 129
Concurrence/Confluent/Coordinate over certain cases,
allowing a party to civil cases depending on Rule 2, Section 5
Jurisdiction
chsw2fl the amount in of the Rules of
controversy. Court