Judicial Power

1.

The powers of government are generally considered divided into three branches: the
Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one is supreme within its own
sphere and independent of the others. Because of that supremacy power to
determine whether a given law is valid or not is vested in courts of justice courts of
justice determine the limits of powers of the agencies and offices of the government
as well as those of its officers. The judiciary is the final arbiter on the question
whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a
judicial power but also a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature
The courts power of judicial review, like almost all powers conferred by the
Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely: (1) an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the
act must have standing to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result
of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota
(cause or motivation of legal action) of the case. (Francisco vs House of Rep)
Under the judicial power vested by the Constitution, the "Supreme Court and ... such
inferior courts as may be established by law," may settle or decide with finality, not
only justiciable controversies between private individuals or entities, but, also,
disputes or conflicts between a private individual or entity, on the one hand, and an
officer or branch of the government, on the other, or between two (2) officers or
branches of service, when the latter officer or branch is charged with acting without
jurisdiction or in excess thereof or in violation of law. And so, when a power vested in
said officer or branch of the government is absolute or unqualified, the acts in the
exercise of such power are said to be political in nature, and, consequently, nonjusticiable or beyond judicial review. Javellana vs Exec Sec.
The court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of
the present controversy for the purpose of determining the character, scope and
extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly." (Sec 4 Art. VI 1935 Constitution). (Angara vs Electoral Comm.)
Justiciable controversy - is a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal
relations of parties having adverse legal interests, which may be resolved by a court
of law through the application of a law.
The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable political question
lies in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionally imposed limits
on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts
are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government
properly acted within such limits.
Generally, if the case is not justiciable, even if the court has the power and authority
to hear and decide the case, the court will refuse to decide or exercise its jurisdiction.
To be the subject of control of the court, 3 elements must be present:
Actual controversy

2.

A case must be ripe for adjudication;

3.

Parties to the case must have legal standing

Political question

In Taada v. Cuenco, we held that political questions refer "to those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It
is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure."
To the mind of the Court, procedural matters in the present controversy may be
dispensed with, stressing that the instant case is a political question, a question
which the court cannot, in any manner, take judicial cognizance. Courts will not
interfere with purely political questions because of the principle of separation of
powers (Taada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051)
Certain types of cases often have been found to present political questions. One
such category involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-established that The
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution
to the executive and legislative--'the political'--departments of the government, and
the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject
to judicial inquiry or decision."
In other words, the putting up of the New Cagayan Town Center by the province over
the land fully owned by it and the concomitant contracts entered into by the same is
within the bounds of its corporate power, an undertaking which falls within the ambit
of its discretion and therefore a purely political issue which is beyond the province of
the court x x x. [Consequently, the court cannot,] in any manner, take judicial
cognizance over it. The act of the provincial government was in pursuance of the
mandate of the Local Government Code of 1991. (Mamba v Lara)
The constitutional validity of the Presidents proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of
Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court. (Fortun v
Arroyo)

Court of Law vs Court of Equity

The prohibition against an alien from owning lands of the public domain is absolute
and not even an implied trust can be permitted to arise on equity considerations.
It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be
done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly... (Ting Ho v
Teng Gui)

He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with
clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the
principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a
litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has
been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
controversy in issue. (Muller v Muller)

Laches

Laches has been defined as the 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, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined to assert it.30 It has been repeatedly31 held by the Court that:
Laches is a doctrine in equity while prescription is based on law. Our courts are basically
courts of law not courts of equity. Thus, laches cannot be invoked to resist the enforcement
of an existing legal right. x x x Courts exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by rules of law
and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard them.

As for equity which has been aptly described as a "justice outside legality," this is
applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case,
judicial rules of procedure. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The pertinent
positive rules being present here, they should preempt and prevail over all abstract
arguments based only on equity. (Phl Carpet Mfg. Cort. vs Tagayamon)

Court of Justice vs Quasi-Judicial bodies

Quasi-judicial power has been defined as the power of the administrative agency to
adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial
power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an
executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or
administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the
administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them
as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature
It has been said that "Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine
questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering
the same law."58 In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of
these quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must
be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case of administrative agencies.
(Biraogo vs Truth Comm)
Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a
court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving
evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial
function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at
factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of
applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such
appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. (Pichay vs Exec Secretary)

Jurisdiction vs Exercise of Jurisdiction

"lack of jurisdiction" as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of

jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the
claim. It does not contemplate "grave abuse of discretion" considering that
"jurisdiction" is different from the exercise thereof. As ruled in Tolentino v. Judge
Leviste:32

Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise
of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered
therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on
all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors
which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment
which are the proper subject of an appeal. (Antonino vs Reg of Deeds)
Essence of Adjudicatory Powers

The essence of the Courts adjudicatory function is to apply the law to facts, as
supported by the evidence and the records. (Heirs of Sps. Ferrer v CA)

Adherence to Jurisdiction: exception

This Court is not unmindful nor unaware of the doctrine on the adherence of
jurisdiction. However, the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has
exceptions. One of the exceptions is that when the change in jurisdiction is curative
in character.
For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) is curative in character when
it declared that the liquidation court shall have jurisdiction in the same proceedings
to assist in the adjudication of the disputed claims against the Bank.

Contradistinguished from venue

None is more well-settled than the rule that jurisdiction, which is the power and
authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, is conferred by law.16 It may
either be over the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over the person of
the defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings.17 By virtue of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over
special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC.
Particularly, Section 21(1) thereof provides that the RTCs shall exercise original
jurisdiction

in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions. (Emphasis
ours)
A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 was issued pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg.
129, which gave the Court authority to define the territory over which a branch of the RTC
shall exercise its authority. These administrative orders and circulars issued by the Court
merely provide for the venue where an action may be filed. The Court does not have the
power to confer jurisdiction on any court or tribunal as the allocation of jurisdiction is lodged
solely in Congress. It also cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the
Government. Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, in fact, explicitly states that the territory thus
defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of
determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions.

Venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or
proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is
intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not
restrict their access to the courts. (Dolot v Paje)

It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for the
convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the
principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a plaintiffs caprice; the
matter is regulated by the Rules of Court

If the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed
in the court of the place where the defendant resides.

The Makati RTC had the erroneous impression that the Manila RTC did not have
jurisdiction over the complaint of petitioners because the property involved was
situated within the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. Thereby, the Makati RTC confused
venue of a real action with jurisdiction.

To be clear, venue related only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an
action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court.
It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and
does not restrict their access to the courts.45 In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the power to
hear and determine a cause,46 and is conferred by law and not by the parties. (Spouses
Mendiola vs CA)

All members of the civil service are under the jurisdiction of the CSC, unless
otherwise provided by law. Being a non-career civil servant does not remove
respondent from the ambit of the CSC. Career or non-career, a civil service official or
employee is within the jurisdiction of the CSC. (Civil svc Comm v Sojor)
It has been repeatedly held by this court that a writ of certiorari will not be issued
unless it clearly appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction. It will not be issued to cure errors in the proceedings or to
correct erroneous conclusions of law or of fact. If the court has jurisdiction of the
subject-matter and of the person, decisions upon all question pertaining to the cause
are decisions within its jurisdiction and, however irregular or erroneous they may be,
cannot be corrected by certiorari.

Venue and jurisdiction in criminal actions

The general rule on venue of criminal cases which is the place where the crime or
any of its essential elements were committed. Venue, said the RTC, is jurisdictional in
penal laws and, allowing the filing of criminal actions at the place of residence of the
offended parties violates their right to due process. Section 9 provides:

SEC. 9. Venue. A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined herein shall be
filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the offense was committed or
where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, That the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to
the exclusion of other courts: Provided, however, That the aforestated provisions shall also
apply to those criminal actions that have already been filed in court at the time of the
effectivity of this Act. (Sto. Tomas v Salac)

Indeed it is fundamental that the place where the crime was committed determines
not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.[29] In
order for the courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced during the trial
shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
action for want of jurisdiction. (Evangelista vs People)

Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction - Venue is an essential element of

jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal
action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear
the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is
limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases
involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.[12] Second, laying the
venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an
accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities
for his defense are available.

the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article
183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or
her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
executed. When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the
testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony
made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is
submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted
or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both
material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, determination of venue
shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime
committed. (Union Bank vs RTC)
Agbayani supplies a comprehensive restatement of the rules of venue in actions for
criminal libel, following the amendment by Rep. Act No. 4363 of the Revised Penal
Code:

Article 360 in its original form provided that the venue of the criminal and civil
actions for written defamations is the province wherein the libel was published,
displayed or exhibited, regardless of the place where the same was written, printed
or composed. Article 360 originally did not specify the public officers and the courts
that may conduct the preliminary investigation of complaints for libel.
The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to
only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article
was printed and first published.
Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass
the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a
remote or distant place. (Bonifacio vs RTC)
Classification of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a
case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law
while jurisdiction over the person is acquired by his/her voluntary submission to the
authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction
over the res is obtained by actual or constructive seizure placing the property under
the orders of the court.

Exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would evidently extend not only to
the principal causes of action, that is, recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, but also to all
incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases, including a dispute over the
sale of the shares, the propriety of the issuance of ancillary writs of relative provisional
remedies, and the sequestration of the shares, which may not be made the subject of
separate actions or proceedings in another forum. Indeed, the issue of the ownership of the
sequestered companies, UHC and PNCC, as well as IRCs ownership of them, is undeniably
related to the recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth and can be squarely addressed via
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Cuenca v PCGG)
Jurisdiction conferred by law not by the parties not by their agreement or consent

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or

government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed
for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such
reliefs. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the
Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the
court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the
action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the
parties. (Heirs of Santiago Nisperas vs Nisperas-Ducusin)
E.O. No. 14 conferred on the Sandiganbayan exclusive and original jurisdiction over
ill-gotten wealth cases, with the proviso that "technical rules of procedure and
evidence shall not be applied strictly" to the civil cases filed under the EO. (Cojuanco
Jr. v Republic)

How Jurisdiction is determined

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

The BCDAs complaints did not contain any allegation that would, even in the
slightest, imply that the issue to be resolved in this case involved an agrarian
dispute. In the action filed by the BCDA, the issue to be resolved was who between
the BCDA and the private respondents and their purported predecessors-in-interest,
have a valid title over the subject properties in light of the relevant facts and
applicable laws. The case thus involves a controversy relating to the ownership of
the subject properties, which is beyond the scope of the phrase agrarian dispute.
This case properly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. (Bases conversion devt. v
Provincial Agrarian Reform officer of Pampanga)
It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction
over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint,
the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief
sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims
averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant
in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.

In the present case, the material averments, as well as the character of the relief prayed for
by petitioners in the complaint before the RTC, show that their action is one for cancellation
of titles and reversion, not for annulment of judgment of the RTC. The complaint alleged that
Lot Nos. 43 to 50, the parcels of land subject matter of the action, were not the subject of
the CFIs judgment in the relevant prior land registration case. Hence, petitioners pray that
the certificates of title of RCAM be cancelled which will not necessitate the annulment of said
judgment. Clearly, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court on annulment of judgment finds no
application in the instant case. The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion suits
which do not call for an annulment of judgment of the RTC22 acting as a Land Registration
Court. Actions for cancellation of title and reversion, like the present case, belong to the
class of cases that involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein23 and where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, 24 fall under
the jurisdiction of the RTC

Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any
act or omission of the parties. The active participation of the parties in the
proceedings before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as
jurisdiction is conferred only by law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the
rule of non-waiver of jurisdiction. Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer
jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. The failure of the
parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent this Court from
addressing the issue, as the DARABs lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of
the complaint. Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.

In a long line of decisions, this Court has consistently held that an order or decision
rendered by a tribunal or agency without jurisdiction is a total nullity. (Heirs of Candido del
Rosario v del Rosario)

Broadly speaking, jurisdiction is the legal power or authority to hear and determine a
cause. In the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, it refers to the authority of a
court to hear and decide a case.81 In the context of these petitions, we hark back to
the basic principles governing the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined only by the Constitution and by law.
As a matter of substantive law, procedural rules alone can confer no jurisdiction to courts or
administrative agencies. In fact, an administrative agency, acting in its quasi-judicial
capacity, is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and, as such, could wield only such powers that
are specifically granted to it by the enabling statutes. In contrast, an RTC is a court of
general jurisdiction, i.e., it has jurisdiction over cases whose subject matter does not fall
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.
Second, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined not by the pleas set up by the
defendant in his answer85 but by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether
the plaintiff is entitled to favorable judgment on the basis of his assertions. The reason is
that the complaint is supposed to contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.
Third, jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint.

the grant of quasi-judicial authority to the BSP cannot possibly extend to situations which do
not call for the exercise by the BSP of its supervisory or regulatory functions over entities
within its jurisdiction.
"unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi- judicial powers.
The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the provisions of the
statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon themselves. Such jurisdiction is
essential to give validity to their determinations." (Bank of commerce v Planters Devt. Bank)
Allocation of powers / jurisdiction

The Power of the Legislature

vis a vis the Power of the Supreme Court
to Enact Judicial Rules

Our holding above suffices to dispose of this petition. However, the Court En Banc has
recently ruled in Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service
Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fees12 on the issue of legislative exemptions from
court fees. We take the opportunity to reiterate our En Banc ruling in GSIS.
Until the 1987 Constitution took effect, our two previous constitutions textualized a power
sharing scheme between the legislature and this Court in the enactment of judicial rules.
Thus, both the 193513 and the 197314Constitutions vested on the Supreme Court the
"power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and
the admission to the practice of law." However, these constitutions also granted to the
legislature the concurrent power to "repeal, alter or supplement" such rules.15
The 1987 Constitution textually altered the power-sharing scheme under the previous
charters by deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress subsidiary and corrective
power.16 This glaring and fundamental omission led the Court to observe in Echegaray v.
Secretary of Justice17 that this Courts power to promulgate judicial rules "is no longer
shared by this Court with CongressThe 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more
independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this Court
[under] Section 5(5), Article VIII18 x x x .
The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This Court for the first time was given
the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987
Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so
with the Executive. ". (Baguio Market vendors v Cabato-Cortes)

The allocation of jurisdiction is vested in Congress, and cannot be delegated to

another office or agency of the Government.

The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. In promulgating
the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properly denominated as
the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts;9 consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the means, ways or manner in
which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.

The Rules of Court yields to the substantive law in determining jurisdiction. (Gomez-Castillo
v Comelec)

It is Congress by law, not the courts by discretion, which defines the courts
jurisdiction not otherwise conferred by the Constitution. Through the same medium,
Congress also draws the parameters in the exercise of the functions of administrative
agencies. Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 could not be any clearer when it mandates
the manner of protesting the decision of bids and awards committees. Similarly,
there can be no quibbling that, under Section 58 of the same law, courts do not have
jurisdiction over decisions of the BACs unless the appropriate protest has been made
and completed. (DBM Procurement v Kolonwell Trading)

It bears emphasis that Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe and
apportion the jurisdictions of various courts. Hence, it may, by law, provide that a
certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and determined by a specific
court. Section 268 of Omnibus Election Code is one such and must thus be construed
as an exception to BP Blg. 129, the general law on jurisdiction of courts.

In fine, while BP Blg. 129 lodges in municipal trial courts, metropolitan trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts jurisdiction over criminal cases carrying a penalty of
imprisonment of less than one year but not exceeding six years, following Section 268 of the
Omnibus Election Code, any criminal action or proceeding which bears the same penalty,
"except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.", falls within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of regional trial courts. (Comelec v Aguirre)

When act is done without jurisdiction

An act is done without jurisdiction if the public respondent does not have the legal
power to act or where the respondent, being clothed with the power to act, oversteps
its authority as determined by law,29 or acts outside the contemplation of law.
(People vs Sandiganbayan)

It is settled that the proceedings before a court or tribunal without jurisdiction,

including its decision, are null and void. Considering that the MCTC has no
jurisdiction, all the proceedings conducted therein, including petitioner's arraignment,
are null and void. (Taglay v Daray)

Jurisdiction as determined by the presence of essential elements

Jurisdiction over the person / Jurisdiction in Personam
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff/petitioner

Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam the power of the court to
render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the
judgment and other rulings rendered in the action is an element of due process that
is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in
rem. Jurisdiction over the defendantin an action in rem or quasi in rem is not
required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over an actionas long as it acquires
jurisdiction over the resthat is thesubject matter of the action. The purpose of
summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but
mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.12

The distinctions that need to be perceived between an action in personam, on the one hand,
and an action inrem or quasi in rem, on the other hand, are aptly delineated in Domagas v.
Jensen,13 thusly:
The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a
proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined by its
nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam 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. Of this
character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to
fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its
object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the
property to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding
to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as
suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in
personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal
rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights
and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real
property are in personam. As the initiating party, the plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by the act of filing the initiatory pleading. As
to the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person either by the proper service
of the summons, or by a voluntary appearance in the action. When jurisdiction in personam
is not acquired in a civil action through the proper service of the summons or upon a valid
waiver of such proper service, the ensuing trial and judgment are void. If the defendant
knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction
as to him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is deemed to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court. (Macasaet v Co Jr.)
Complaint not filed by plaintiff/petitioner personally or without authority deemed
as if NOT filed

What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority
to represent a plaintiff in filing an action? 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,8 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]." (Palminiano-Salvador v Angeles)
Jurisdiction over the defendant/respondent
In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by
service of summons or by the defendants voluntary appearance in court and submission to
its authority.
Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive
power of legal processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a
general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that
the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration
of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is
considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by
the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to
challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to
have submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary
appearance;
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant
must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court,
especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and
submitted to the court for resolution. (Optima Realty Corp. v Hertz Phil)

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid
service of summons or the defendants voluntary appearance in court. When the
defendant does not voluntarily submit to the courts jurisdiction or when there is no
valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is null and void. The purpose of summons is not only to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to give notice to the
defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to afford it an
opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the rule on
summons must be strictly followed, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant.

Section 13, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rule on service of
summons upon a private domestic corporation then, provides:
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. If the defendant is a
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered,
service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its
directors.

The purpose is to render it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and
proper notice in an action against it or to insure that the summons be served on a
representative so integrated with the corporation that such person will know what to do with
the legal papers served on him. (Elice Agro-Industrial v Young)

An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in personam
because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation on the defendant for the
latter to vacate the property subject of the action, restore physical possession thereof
to the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by way of reasonable compensation for his
use or occupation of the property. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case.
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or
the defendants voluntary appearance in court. If the defendant does not voluntarily
appear in court, jurisdiction can be acquired by personal or substituted service of
summons. (Afdal v Carlos)

The filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for
reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction. This,
however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party
who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the courts jurisdiction
over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary
appearance;
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court,
especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed
and submitted to the court for resolution.
If there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant by virtue of the latters voluntary appearance. Thus Section 20 of
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 20. 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 shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
(Rapid City Realty v Sps Villa)
How jurisdiction over a defendant outside of the Philippines is acquired

As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not
reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court; but when the case
is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they

have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident
defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial service of summons
can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not
for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant
will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that
property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be
subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to
protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the defendant in an
action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts
cannot try the case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction
over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. (Macasaet vs Co jr.)
Jurisdiction over defendant acquired by summons and filing of responsive
pleading NOT by mere knowledge or information acquired by defendant or
respondent of the case

Jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be
acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him
unless he was validly served with summons. Such is the important role a valid service
of summons plays in court actions. (Elice Agro-Industrial v Young)

Defendants / Respondents active participation in the case may be deemed as

estoppel

"While jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a partys active participation in the
proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing
the lack of it." It is an undesirable practice of a party to participate in the
proceedings, submit his case for decision and then accept the judgment, if favorable,
but attack it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.

If Maxicare was of the position that there was no employer-employee relationship existing
between Maxicare and Dr. Contreras, it should have questioned the jurisdiction of the LA
right away. Surprisingly, it never did. Instead, it actively participated in the LA proceedings
without bringing to the LAs attention the issue of employer-employee relationship.
On appeal before the NLRC, the subject issue was never raised either. Maxicare only raised
the subject issue for the first time when it filed a petition in the CA challenging the adverse
decision of the NLRC. It is, therefore, estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the LA and
the NLRC.
It is true that questions of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage. It is also true, however,
that in the interest of fairness, questions challenging the jurisdiction of courts will not be
tolerated if the party questioning such jurisdiction actively participates in the court
proceedings and allows the court to pass judgment on the case, and then questions the
propriety of said judgment after getting an unfavorable decision. (Maxicare PCIB Cigna v
Contreras)

Participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its
authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by
estoppel from challenging the courts jurisdiction. The Court has consistently upheld
the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigant who
participated in the court proceedings by filing pleadings and presenting his evidence

cannot later on question the trial courts jurisdiction when judgement unfavorable to
him is rendered. (Heirs of Jose Fernando v De Belen)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter JURISDICTION IN REM

Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or
government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed
for irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such
reliefs."

Clearly, not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARABs exercise of its
jurisdiction. The law is specific that the property must be shown to be under the coverage of
agrarian reform laws. As the CA correctly ruled:
It is easily discernable that the cause of action of the DAR sufficiently established a suit for
the declaration of the sale of the subject landholdings null and void. Obviously, it does not
involve an agrarian suit, hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. (DAR v
Paramount Holdings)

The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and subject matter of an action
is conferred by law. The court or tribunal must look at the material allegations in the
complaint, the issues or questions that are the subject of the controversy, and the
character of the relief prayed for in order to determine whether the nature and
subject matter of the complaint is within its jurisdiction. If the issues between the
parties are intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction
of a court or tribunal, the dispute must be addressed and resolved by the said court
or tribunal. (Valcurza v Tamparong)

Well-settled is the rule that the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may, at
any time, be raised by the parties or considered by the Court motu proprio. (Applied
food ingredients vs CIR)

Pursuant to its rule-making authority conferred by the 1987 Constitution27 and

existing laws, the COA promulgated the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Audit. Rule II, Section 1 specifically enumerated those matters falling
under COAs exclusive jurisdiction, which include "money claims due from or owing to
any government agency." Rule VIII, Section 1 further provides:

Section 1. Original Jurisdiction - The Commission Proper shall have original jurisdiction over:
a) money claim against the Government; b) request for concurrence in the hiring of legal
retainers by government agency; c) write off of unliquidated cash advances and dormant
accounts receivable in amounts exceeding one million pesos (P1,000,000.00); d) request for
relief from accountability for loses due to acts of man, i.e. theft, robbery, arson, etc, in

amounts in excess of Five Million pesos (P5,000,000.00). (Province of Aklan v Jody King
Construction)

Jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and (4) in
cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing which is the subject of
the litigation.

The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by
laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus, in Tijam, the case relied upon by
petitioner, the issue involved was the authority of the then Court of First Instance to hear a
case for the collection of a sum of money in the amount of P1,908.00 which amount was, at
that time, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal courts.
In subsequent cases citing the ruling of the Court in Tijam, what was likewise at issue was
the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the case. Accordingly, in Spouses
Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, the issue for consideration was the authority of the regional
trial court to hear and decide an action for reformation of contract and damages involving a
subdivision lot, it being argued therein that jurisdiction is vested in the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers
Protective Decree). In Lee v. Presiding Judge, MTC, Legaspi City,33 petitioners argued that
the respondent municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment
because the issue of ownership was raised in the pleadings. Finally, in People v. Casuga,34
accused-appellant claimed that the crime of grave slander, of which she was charged, falls
within the concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts or city courts and the then courts of
first instance, and that the judgment of the court of first instance, to which she had
appealed the municipal court's conviction, should be deemed null and void for want of
jurisdiction as her appeal should have been filed with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court.

In all of these cases, the Supreme Court barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the
respective courts concerned over the subject matter of the case based on estoppel by
laches, declaring that parties cannot be allowed to belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture
by attacking the jurisdiction of a court to which they submitted their cause voluntarily.
(Boston Equity Resources Inc. V CA)

Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise
a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.
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. The averments in the complaint and the character of the
relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the
complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested 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.

Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be
filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject
thereof.23 Since the amount alleged in the Complaint by respondents for the disputed lot is
only P4,000.00, the MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action. Therefore, all
proceedings in the RTC are null and void. (Padlan v Sps Dinglasan)

It is of course well-settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an actionin

this case the crime of rapeis and may be conferred only by law, and that
jurisdiction over a given crime not vested by law upon a particular court, may not be
conferred thereon by the parties involved in the offense. But the aforementioned
provision of Art. 344 does not determine the jurisdiction of our courts over the
offenses therein enumerated. It could not affect said jurisdiction, because the same
with respect to the instant crime is governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by the
Revised Penal Code, which deals primarily with the definition of crimes and the
factors pertinent to the punishment of the culprits. The complaint required in said Art.
344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the
power to prosecute the guilty parties. And such condition has been imposed out of
consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the
outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. (People v
Estrebella)

To determine whether or not the principle of res judicata applies, the following
requisites must concur: (1) the presence of a final former judgment; (2) the former
judgment must have been rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (4)
there is, between the first and the second action Identity of parties, subject matter,
and cause of action.

The second requisite is likewise attendant. The Court, which rendered the judgment in Civil
Case No. M-87, had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties. A civil action
for recovery of possession, annulment of partition. accounting and damages was properly
within the jurisdiction of the then Court of First Instance of Capiz (Lloraa v Leonidas)

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. If it did not acquire jurisdiction
over the private respondents as parties to Civil Case No. 116028, it cannot render
any binding decision, favorable or adverse to them, or dismiss the case with
prejudice which, in effect, is an adjudication on the merits. 7 The controverted orders
in Civil Case No. 116028 disregarded the fundamental principles of remedial law and
the meaning and the effect of jurisdiction. A judgment, to be considered res judicata,
must be binding, and must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the judgment is a nullity. (Republic Planters Bank v Molina)

The courts of law have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents
arising therefrom. That is basic and elementary. Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate
such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor officials of the Department of
Labor.

The fact that the poultry and piggery maintained by the private respondent required close
care and attention does not warrant the respondent judge's assumption of jurisdiction. It did
not confer on him the competence he did not have. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by
the demands of emergency. This is not, of course, to say that the strike in question was,
ergo, legal. As we said, concerted acts of labor are the do of the labor officials, not the
judiciary. Assuming, then, that the private respondent had cause for complaint and that the
strike was illegal or had become illegal as a result of the strikers' resort to illegal acts the
courts are not the proper forum for it. (Associated Labor Union v Borromeo)
Jurisdiction neither affected nor altered by any theory or defence of the
defendant

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by
the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would
become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.

Petitioner, however, moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
alleging that since the complaint was against the owner/developer of a condominium whose
condominium project was registered with and licensed by the HLURB, the latter has the
exclusive jurisdiction. In sustaining the denial of the motion to dismiss, the Court held that
the dispute as to the validity of the assessments is purely an intra-corporate matter between
petitioner and respondent and is thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a
special commercial court. More so in this case as respondent repeatedly questioned his
characterization as a delinquent member and, consequently, petitioners decision to bar him
from exercising his rights to vote and be voted for. These issues are clearly corporate and
the demand for damages is just incidental. Being corporate in nature, the issues should be
threshed out before the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. The issues on damages
can still be resolved in the same special commercial court just like a regular RTC which is still
competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before it.
Clearly, condominium corporations are not covered by the amendment. Thus, the intracorporate dispute between petitioner and respondent is still within the jurisdiction of the RTC
sitting as a special commercial court and not the HLURB. (Medical Plaza Makati
Condominium v Cullen)
Jurisdictional amount
In its October 22, 2003 Order, the RTC declared that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case based on the supposition that the same is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Under the present state of the law, in cases involving title to real property, original and
exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC or the MTC, depending on the assessed value
of the subject property.28 Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129, as amended
by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691, provides:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where the assessed value
of the property exceeds Fifty thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry
into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(Maslag v Monzon)