JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

TYPES/CLASSES OF JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL CONCURRENT & ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE
CASE

CONCEPTS

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE v. YANAGISAWA

Under the Doctrine of Judicial Stability which provides that the

assumption by the RTC over the issue operates as an
insurmountable barrier to the subsequent assumption by the other
RTC. That by insisting on ruling on the same issue, the Paranaque
RTC effectively interfered with the MRTC and created the possibility
of conflicting decisions.
Moreover, it is settled that even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, it
is also axiomatic that the court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the
other courts.

CSC v. COURT OF APPEALS, GUEVARRA

original concurrent jurisdiction over the administrative

cases falling under the jurisdiction of the heads of
agencies

When a law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to

hear and decide case involving specific matters, it is to be
presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it is to be
proved that another body is likewise vested with the same
jurisdiction in which case, both bodies have concurrent
jurisdiction over the matter.
LASTIMOSO v. AGAYO

ALEJANDRO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FACT

original/concurrent jurisdiction of PNP under R.A. 6975

over citizens complaint

Once a complaint is filed with any of the disciplining authorities under

R.A. No. 6975, the latter shall acquire exclusive original jurisdiction
over the case although other disciplining authority has concurrent
jurisdiction over the case
In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

more disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed

first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent
jurisdiction.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION & ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

DEFINITION

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION general refer to jurisdiction in the first

instance; the jurisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
refer to the power vested in an appellate court to review and revise
the judicial action of an inferior court evidence by an appealable order
or judgment
- NOT on its initial stages; only after it has been finally decided by an
inferior court AND WHICH INVOLVE A REVIEW OF FACTS OR A
REVIEW OF FACTS AND LAW

MASLAG v. MONZON

WRIT OF CERTIORARI issued by a superior court to an inferior

court requiring the latter to produce a certified record of a particular
case tried therein for the purpose enabling the superior court to
inspect the proceedings and determine whether there has been any
irregularities
In cases involving real property, the ORIGINAL and EXCLUSIVE
jurisdiction belongs to the:
MTC if below 5,000
RTC if above 5,000.
TWO MODES OF APPEAL TO THE DECISION/RESOLUTION OF
THE RTC:
1. ORDINARY APPEAL under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court;
appealing RTCs decision in its ORIGINAL jurisdiction. Done
by filing of a NOTICE OF APPEAL.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
2. PETITION FOR REVIEW under Rule 42, appealing RTCs
decision exercised in its appellate jurisdiction. Done by filing a
PETITION FOR REVIEW with the COURT OF APPEALS.

MAGLALANG v. PAGCOR

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court,

he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the
means of administrative processes afforded him or her.
Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be made by giving the administrative
officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should
be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be
sought."

ERRORS OF JURISDICTION & ERRORS OF JUDGMENT

DIPAD v. OLIVAN

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. LUMBO

Errors of jurisdiction - occur when the court exercises

jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law. They may also occur
when the court or tribunal, although it has jurisdiction, acts in
excess of it or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.

Errors of judgment - those that the court may commit in the

exercise of its jurisdiction. They include errors of procedure or
mistakes in the courts findings based on a mistake of law or
of fact.

An error of judgment is reviewable only through an appeal

taken in due course.

An error of jurisdiction is correctible only by the extraordinary

writ of certiorari.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
LIGOT v. REPUBLIC

AGG TRUCKING v. YUAG

Errors of judgment of the trial court are to be resolved by the

appellate court in the appeal by and of error or via a petition
for review on certiorari in this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of
jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct errors of judgment.

An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in

the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible
only by an appeal.
Rule 65 provides that Petition for Certiorari to correct acts of
tribunals exercising judicial functions with grave abuse of
discretion.

Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction not

errors of judgment.

ERRORS OF JURISDICTION & ERRORS OF JUDGMENT // Jurisdiction IN CRIMINAL CASES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ASIS

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the remedy to

question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at
the appellate level.

Finality-of-acquittal doctrine
A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
EXCEPTION: One of which is in questioning the acquittal of
the accused in or the dismissals of criminal cases.
By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case
may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner that the
lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not
merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a
denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment
void.
The Court of Appeals, under Rule 42 and 44 of the Rules of

TAN y CHUA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
Civil Procedure, is authorized to determine "errors of fact, of
law, or both." These rules are expressly adopted to apply to
appeals in criminal cases and they do not thereby divest the
Supreme Court of its ultimate jurisdiction over such
questions.
POWER OF THE REVIEWING COURT
V.C. PONCE COMPANY, INC v. MUNICIPALITY OF PARANAQUE

A court with appellate jurisdiction can review both the facts

and the law, including questions of jurisdiction. It can set aside
an erroneous decision and even nullify the same, if warranted.

Appeal is a speedy remedy, as an adverse party can file its

appeal from a final decision or order immediately after
receiving it.

A party, who is alleging that an appeal will not promptly relieve

it of the injurious effects of the judgment, should establish
facts to show how the appeal is not speedy or adequate.
Clearly, petitioner resorted to certiorari as a substitute for its
lost appeal.
Doctrines involved affecting jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION in relation to DOCTIRNE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC v. PEREZ

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

.
A case that requires for its determination the expertise,
specialized skills, and knowledge of some administrative
board or commission because it involves technical matters or
intricate questions of fact, relief must first be obtained in an
appropriate administrative proceeding before a remedy will be
supplied by the courts although the matter comes within the
jurisdiction of the courts.

To accord with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

SAAVEDRA v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION

cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a

question within the competence of an administrative tribunal,
the controversy having been so placed within the special
competence of the administrative tribunal under a regulatory
scheme. In that instance, the judicial process
It is settled that the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the decision of that question by the
administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is
essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute
administered.

EXCEPTION to the DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

PROVINCE OF AKLAN v. JODY KING CONSTRUCTION

There are established exceptions to the doctrine of primary

jurisdiction, such as:

(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
doctrine;

(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,

amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will

irretrievably prejudice the complainant;

(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make

the rule impractical and oppressive;

(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately
have to be decided by the courts of justice;

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;

(h) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies

has been rendered moot; (j)

(i) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(j) when strong public interest is involved; and,
(k) in quo warranto proceedings. However, none of the foregoing
circumstances is applicable in the present case.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to
arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction
over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. All the proceedings of the court in violation of the
doctrine and all orders and decisions rendered thereby are null and
void.
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING JURISDICTION

GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon
the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.
In relation to the case: As settled in existing jurisprudence, where the
Court declared that an officer whose name was dropped from the roll
of officers cannot be considered to be outside the jurisdiction of
military authorities when military justice proceedings were initiated
against him before the termination of his service. Once jurisdiction
has been acquired over the officer, it continues until his case is
terminated.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS; application
KULAYAN v. TAN

As a general rule, the doctrine provides that where the

issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the
competence of the CA or the RTC, it is in either of these
courts and not in the Supreme Court, that the specific action
for the issuance of such writ must be sought unless special
and important laws are clearly and specifically set forth in the
petition. It cannot be burdened with deciding cases in the first
instance.

The principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to

cases involving factual questions. As it is not a trier of
facts, the Court cannot entertain cases involving factual
issues.
The instant case, however, raises constitutional questions of
transcendental importance to the public. The Court can
resolve this case without determining any factual issue related
to the case.

EXCEPTION; RELAXATION TO THE RULE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

UNITED CLAIMANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEA (UNICAN) v.
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ASSOCIATION (NEA)

TUNA PROCESSING, INC. v. PHILIPPINE KINGFORD, INC.,

An exception to this general rule, the principle of hierarchy of courts

may be set aside for special and important reasons. Such reason
exists in the instant case involving as it does the employment of the
entire plantilla of NEA, more than 700 employees all told, who were
effectively dismissed from employment in one swift stroke. This to the
mind of the Court entails its attention.
NO, it must be remembered that the principle of hierarchy of
courts generally applies to cases involving conflicting factual
allegations. Cases which depend on disputed facts for
decision cannot be brought immediately before the SC for
they are not triers of facts.

A strict application of this rule may be excused when the

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
reason behind the rule is not present in a case, as in the
present case, where the issues are not factual but purely
legal. In these types of questions, this Court has the ultimate
say so that we merely abbreviate the review process if we,
because of the unique circumstances of a case, choose to
hear and decide the legal issues outright.

TYPES OF ACTION
ACCION REINVINDICATORIA and ACCION PUBLICIANA distinguished

Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks
recovery of its full possession.

It is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without
claim of title.
SPS. ALDOVER v. COURT OF APPEALS

The buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner

of the property if it is not redeemed within one year from
registration of the sale and title is consolidated in his name.

In this case petitioners downplayed respondents documentary

evidence as unreliable for being nonnotarized and
unregistered compared to their TCT No. PT-122311 which was
duly issued after the Reyeses failed to redeem the property
and they (petitioners) consolidated their title thereto. However,
"between an unrecorded sale of a prior date and a recorded
mortgage of a later date the former is preferred to the latter for
the reason that if the original owner had parted with his
ownership of the thing sold then he no longer had the
ownership and free disposal of that thing so as to be able to
mortgage it again.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
GANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS

JOSE v. ALFUERTO

In this case for ejectment, private respondents allegations

sufficiently present a case of unlawful detainer.

The Complaints were also filed within one year from the date
of her demand. The cause of action for unlawful detainer
between the parties springs from the failure of petitioners to
vacate the lot upon lawful demand of the private respondent.
When they refused to vacate the lot after her demand,
petitioners continued possession became unlawful. Her
complaint for ejectment against respondent, to put it simply, is
not without sufficient basis.

What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from

a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a
reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first
is limited to the question of possession de facto.

An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with

forcible entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may
be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the
summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the
plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion
reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which
includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of
actions to judicially recover possession.
Forcible entry is distinct from accion publiciana.
First, forcible entry should be filed within one year from the
unlawful dispossession of the real property, while accion
publiciana is filed a year after the unlawful dispossession of
the real property.
Second, forcible entry is concerned with the issue of the right
to the physical possession of the real property; in accion
publiciana, what is subject of litigation is the better right to
possession over the real property.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

Third, an action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial

court and is a summary action, while accion publiciana is a
plenary action in the RTC.

OTHER CONCEPTS:
Lessors tolerance - defined as tolerance not merely as the silence
or inaction of a lawful possessor when another occupies his land;
tolerance entailed permission from the owner by reason of familiarity
or neighborliness.

The Court has consistently adopted this position: tolerance or

permission must have been present at the beginning of
possession; if the possession was unlawful from the start, an
action for unlawful detainer would not be the proper remedy
and should be dismissed.

Unlawful detainer - is a summary action for the recovery of

possession of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any
land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract,
express or implied.
The cause of action in ejectment is different from that in an
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
An ejectment suit is brought before the proper inferior court to
recover physical possession only or possession de facto, not
possession de jure.
Unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases are not processes
to determine actual title to property.
Any ruling by the MeTC on the issue of ownership is made

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

VDA. DE VIRAY v. SPOUSES USI

only to resolve the issue of possession, and is therefore

inconclusive. Because they only resolve issues of possession
de facto, ejectment actions are summary in nature;
while accion publiciana (for the recovery of possession) and
accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) are
plenary actions.
Petition is barred by res judicata defined as one that operates as
bar by prior judgement when there is a final judgement on merits
rendered by a court with jurisdiction and the first and second action
has identical parties, subject matter or cause of action.
The better right to possess and right of ownership cannot be
relitigated because of res judicata.

Action IN REM, QUASI IN REM and IN PERSONAM distinguished

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person.
An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest
therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

MACASAET v. CO, Jr.

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 defendant in an action in rem or quasi in

rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over an
action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res that is the
subject matter of the action.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

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.

A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons

seeking to subject the property of such persons to the
discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation
or loan burdening the property.

Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or

liability of a particular property but which are intended to
operate on these questions only as between the particular
parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the
rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments
therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in
the action.

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

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
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.

NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO MINING

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 defendant in an action in rem or quasi

in rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction
over an action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res
that is the subject 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.

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.

Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where

the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is
in personam.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

LUCAS v LUCAS

When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem,

Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that
the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Thus, in such
instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made
upon the defendant.

The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the

purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for 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 or respondent does

not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action
involved is in personam, Philippine courts cannot try any case
against him because of the impossibility of acquiring
jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court
Herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an
action in rem.

By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate

filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition, the
latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the case.

An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through

publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who
might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the right
sought to be established. Through publication, all interested
parties are deemed notified of the petition.

MA. TERESA CHAVES BIACO,

v.
PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK

A petition directed against the "thing" itself or the res,

which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for
adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries
in the birth certificate, is an action in rem.
In this case, Petitioner sought the annulment of the Regional Trial
Court decision contending, among others, that the trial court failed to
acquire jurisdiction because summons were served on her through
her husband without any explanation as to why personal service
could not be made. The CA affirmed RTC decision invoking that
judicial foreclosure proceedings are actions quasi in rem. As such,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential as long
as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner?
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that validly try and decide the case.
In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res.

Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either:

(1) by the seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by
respondent PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction
over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in
rem. As such, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is not required,
it being sufficient that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
Notes:

Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not

for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for
satisfying the due process requirements.

ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG
v.
SPOUSES RAYMOND and MARIA HEDY VELAYO,

A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court,

such as petitioner in this case, must be personally served with
summons as provided under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court. If she cannot be personally served with summons within a
reasonable time, substituted service may be effected (1) by
leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein,
or (2) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place
of business with some competent person in charge thereof in
accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
How may service of summons be effected on a non-resident?

Under Sec. 17, Rule 14, when the defendant is a

nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons
may be served extraterritorially. This kind of service of
summons applies only where the action is in rem
because in in rem and quasi in rem actions,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the
res.

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

Where the action is in personam and when the defendant is a

non-resident, personal service of summons within the state
is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person.
This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically
present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and
decide the case against him.

In the present case, Spouses Velayo's cause of action and their

prayer that actual and moral damages, plus attorney's fees, be
awarded in their favor affect the parties alone, not the whole
world. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded. Thus, it is an actionin personam. As such,
personal service of summons upon the defendants is essential in
order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons.

NOTES:
The party seeking to have the order of default lifted must first
show that her failure to file an answer or any other responsive
pleading was due to fraud accident, mistake, or excusable
neglect and then she must show that she has a valid and
meritorious defense.

When does a question of law arises?

When there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of

facts.
For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented
by the litigants or any of them.

When does a question of fact arises?

When the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

facts.
When the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact.

EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE when the defendant does not

reside and is not found in the Philippines (Section 17, Rule 14,
Rules of Court)
FOUR INSTANCES WHEN EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE
OF SUMMONS IS PROPER:
1 When the action
affects the
personal status of
the plaintiffs;
2 When the action
relates to, or the
subject of which
is property, within
the Philippines in
which the
defendant claims
a lien or interest;
3 When the relief
demanded in such
action consists,
wholly or partly,
in excluding the
defendant from
any property
located in the
Philippines; and,
4 When the

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
defendants
property has been
attached within
the Philippines.
CLASS SUIT
LEGASPI TOWERS v. MUER

The requisites for a derivative suit are as follows:

a) the party bringing suit should be a shareholder as of the time
of the act or transaction complained of, the number of his
shares not being material;
b) he has tried to exhaust intra-corporate remedies, i.e., has
made a demand on the board of directors for the appropriate
relief but the latter has failed or refused to heed his plea; and
c) the cause of action actually devolves on the corporation, the
wrongdoing or harm having been, or being caused to the
corporation and not to the particular stockholder bringing the
suit.

JUANA COMPLEX v. FIL-ESTATE LAND

Necessary for the maintenance of a class suit are:

1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons;
2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring
them all to court; and
3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or
representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all
concerned.

In this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters
and motorists who use La Paz Road. The individuals sought
to be represented by private respondents in the suit are so

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties and
be named individually as plaintiffs in the complaint.
OTHER CONCEPTS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE:

BANDA v. ERMITA

Whether or not the complaint states a cause of action?

The question of whether the complaint states a cause of

action is determined by its averments regarding the acts
committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a concise
statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action. The test of sufficiency of facts
alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is
whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could
render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of said
complaint. In the present case, the Court finds the allegations
in the complaint sufficient to establish a cause of action.

A writ of preliminary injunction is available to prevent a

threatened or continuous irremediable injury to parties before
their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. The
requisites for its issuance are: (1) the existence of a clear and
unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an urgent
and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. For the writ to issue, the right sought to be protected
must be a present right, a legal right which must be shown to
be clear and positive. This means that the persons applying
for the writ must show that they have an ostensible right to the
final relief prayed for in their complaint.

The Supreme Court held that an action does not become a

class suit merely because it is designated as such in the
pleadings.
Under Section 12, rule 13 of the rules of court, when the

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general

interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable
to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to full protect
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all.
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect
his individual interest. From the foregoing, the requisites of a
class suit are:
1. the subject matter of controversy is one of common or
general interest to many persons;
2. the parties affected are so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring them all to court; and
3. The parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently
numerous or representative of the class and can fully
protect the interests of all concerned.

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER, INC. v. ROXAS

Whether or not the taxpayers suit is a class suit and amounts as res
judicata to other case?
Yes.

A taxpayer's bill is essentially a class bill and can be filed

only in the common interest of all the taxpayers of the
municipality, to prevent the wrongful expenditure of the
money of the municipality or the wasting of its assets. A class
bill, as its name implies, is a bill by several members of a
class, on behalf of themselves and all others in the class,
and no relief can be granted upon it, except upon a ground
which is common to all the members of the class.
The general principle of class actions that a judgment in favor
of or against the parties representing the general class is,
under the doctrine of res judicata, in favor of or against all who

JURISDICTION REVIEWER (FINALS)

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
are thus represented applies to litigations instituted by
taxpayers. Accordingly, in a suit brought by citizens and
taxpayers to determine a public right or a matter of public
interest, all citizens and taxpayers are regarded as parties to
the proceedings by representation and are bound by the
judgment rendered therein.