D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.

A: Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try and decide the issues raised by the pleadings of the parties. (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484) Q: What are pleadings? A: They are governed by ule !. Rule 6, Section 1 !le"din#s "re the $ritten "lle#"tion o% the &"rties o% their res&ective cl"i's "nd de%enses su('itted to the court %or tri"l "nd )ud#'ent. "n a civil case# the parties before the trial file in court pleadings. That is $here you state your position. %&A'()%: *rancis +(aloy, A-pig $ill sue you to collect a loan. .o (aloy $ill file a co-plaint in court. That is a pleading. Then you have to ans$er (aloy/s co-plaint in court. 0ou say that you do not o$e hi- anything because you already paid hi-. .o you prepare your ans$er in $riting in court and that is also called a pleading. 1ased on $hat (aloy said in his co-plaint and your ans$er# $e $ill no$ 2no$ $hat they are 3uarreling about. *or e4a-ple: (aloy says you borro$ed -oney# you never paid hi-. 5o$ according to your ans$er# No, I already paid him. Q: 5o$ $hat is the issue? A: The issue is# $hether the obligation still e4ists or has it been e4tinguished by pay-ent. .o that is the issue666that is $here $e $ill 2no$ $hat $e $ill try to resolve in this case. Q: .uppose after the trial# the court said that the obligation has been e4tinguished by condonation. 5o$ $here did the court get that? 0our defense is pay-ent# and the decision no$ is that it $as e4tinguished by condonation. "s the decision correct? A: The decision is W 758 because the parties did not raise condonation as the issue. The case $as decided on an issue that $as not even raised by the parties. .o the court never ac3uired jurisdiction over the issue. "n other $ords# the court should only rule on $hat the parties raised in their pleadings. That is $hat $e call jurisdiction over the issue. The court should only rule on $hat the parties clai-ed. .o# the court is supposed to rule on the issue raised and not those not raised by the parties. Ta2e note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is ac3uired after defendant has filed an ans$er. "n cri-inal cases# jurisdiction over the issues is ac3uired upon filing of a co-plaint. *or a decision to be effective# the court -ust ac3uire the jurisdiction over the subject -atter# the person# the res in case the defendant is not around# and last is jurisdiction over the issue. Q: Distinguish )urisdiction over the su()ect '"tter and )urisdiction over the issues. A: The follo$ing are the distinctions: 9.) Jurisdiction over the su()ect '"tter is the po$er to hear and try a particular case# while Jurisdiction over the issues is the po$er of the court to resolve legal 3uestions involved in the case: ;.) Jurisdiction over the su()ect '"tter is ac3uired upon filing of the co-plaint# while Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is ac3uired upon filing of the ans$er $hich joins the issues involved in the case. %&A'()%: " $ere the plaintiff# " $ill file a case in court to collect an unpaid loan. *ro- the -o-ent " file the case# the court has ac3uired jurisdiction over the subject -atter. 5o$# you are su--oned. *ile 2a na-an ng sagot -o# +Wala ako ! "#a !, $ayad a., Then the court has no$ ac3uired jurisdiction over the issue. 7ne is ac3uired upon filing of the co-plaint and the other one is ac3uired after the filing of the ans$er by the defendant. *+, vs. CHU+ 8. . 5o. 9<9;=! 'arch 9=# ;>>? *A@T.:The only ground alleged in the petition for declaration of nullity of -arriage filed by Adriana $ith the (asay T@ is the psychological incapacity of Aose $ithout any prayer for the support of her child. T@ declared the -arriage bet$een petitioner

Adriana @hua and respondent Aose )a- null and void for being biga-ous by nature and a$arded support. B%)D: A court cannot set itself in -otion# nor has it po$er to decide 3uestions e4cept as presented by the parties in their pleadings. Anything that is decided beyond the- is %oram o &'"di%e and void. Therefore $here a court enters a judg-ent or a$ards relief beyond the prayer of the co-plaint or the scope of its allegations the e4cessive relief is not -erely irregular but is void for $ant of jurisdiction# and is open to collateral attac2."t is a serious error for the trial court to have rendered judg-ent on issues not presented in the pleadings as it $as beyond its jurisdiction to do so.

(I)R*R+(, -. /() +-0R/1 "n the 9CC! 1A : 7ne of the 3uestions in the (hilippines. e-edial )a$ $as: .tate the hierarchy of the @ourts in

a.) egular courts ,eTC ,TC 6 such as Digos# ,TCC cities ,CTC6 circuitiDed ,etro&olit"n Tri"l Court- "n 'anila ,unici&"l Tri"l Court- -unicipalities (anabo ,unici&"l Tri"l Court in Citiesoutside 'anila li2e @ebu# Davao ,unici&"l Circuit Tri"l Courtareas because it is i-practical and

e4pensive to -aintain one 'T@ in every -unicipalities. b). .pecial courts There are also .pecial @ourts $hich are also considered part of the judiciary. These are: 9. @ourt of Ta4 Appeals ( A 99;E) ;. .andiganbayan ((D 9?=! as a-ended) <. .haria District @ourts and the .haria @ircuit @ourts ((D 9>=< # also 2no$n as the @ode of 'usli- (ersonal )a$): ?. *a-ily @ourts 6 We are concerned only of the jurisdiction of the %8F)A @7F T.. 7ther 'eaning: The @ourt/s original jurisdiction to issue $rits of certiorari# prohibition# -anda-us# 3uo $arranto# habeas corpus and injunction is not e4clusive. "t is shared by this court $ith the T@ and @A. .uch concurrence of jurisdiction does not give the petitioners unbridled freedo- of choice of court foru-. A direct recourse of the .upre-e @ourt/s original jurisdiction to issue these $rits should be allo$ed only $hen there are special and i-portant reasons therefore# clearly and specifically set out in the petitions. G'anghas v. (aredes# E9E .@ A H>C (;>>H)I Doctrine o% !ri'"r. Jurisdiction /+VIER+ vs. !+0*IN+1+N E9E .@ A 9H9 (;>>H) HE*D2 +@ourts $ill not deter-ine a controversy involving a 3uestion $ithin the jurisdiction of

the ad-inistrative tribunal# $hen the 3uestion de-ands the e4ercise of sound ad-inistrative discretion re3uiring specialiDed 2no$ledge and e4pertise of said ad-inistrative tribunal to deter-ine technical and intricate -atters of fact.,