Civil Procedure: Rule 1 Purpose of Rules

SEP 23
Posted by Magz

LETS START AT THE VERY BEGINNING

Angel of God, my Guardian dear
To Whom His Love entrusts Me here
Ever this day, be at my side
To Light and Guide, to Rule and Guard
Amen
DISCLAIMER: This is not authoritative since this is based solely on the lecture notes, hence the frequent WITs
(what is this?) NOTE: all WORD GAMES are not formal definitions but word for word transcriptions of Ls mind
maps. Hence, these are practical definitions just to juggle your memory according to SIrs mental outline.
GILLIAN, IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.
Jake: Rule Based on Principle Based Resolution. Apply the law, and make allowances for mistakes in the law.
Situation does not create the rule.
Amy: Relational / Consensual / Processional Based Resolution
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN V. GUERRA. Issue: Re: 1978 California legislation re:
State mandated employee benefits but not for other temporary disabilities. Single mother lost her job as a
receptionist after her maternity leave, and as a result of her unemployment, lost custody of her
daughter.
Mother filed case to enforce maternity benefits: employer challenged statute as inconsistent
with Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which treats pregnancy as similar with other temporary
disabilities for employment purposes.
ACLU BRIEF.
Elimination of pregnancy-based distinctions valid re: employment purposes since protectionist laws tend to
promote stereotype of female childbearers and caregivers, and deter employers from hiring them or putting them
in more responsible positions; they make women appear as more expensive, less reliable employees.
By making pregnancy comparable to other temporary physical conditions, Congress directs attention away from
debilitating stereotypes and focus attention on workers need for disability leave itself. Benefits should be
provided on a gender-neutral basis.
COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE EQUALITY BRIEF.
Though leave policies that are gender-neutral may affect the employment interests of both sexes, such policies
place an additional burden on females with the fundamental non-employment right of procreative choice.
The law in question reduces the discriminatory impact of inadequate leave policies on womens procreative
rights, while conferring no special benefit on any group of employees, and imposing no special burden on others.
There is no inconsistency between the federal laws goal of removing artificial barriers to equal employment
opportunity between the sexes, and the California statutes effect of equalizing male and female employees
ability to exercise procreative choice w/o jeopardizing their jobs.
MENKEL. PORTIA IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.
Re: Gillians observations about M/F differences in moral reasoning re: structure of legal system, practice of
law, creation of laws, legal reasoning and law as part of the decision-making process; 2 questions:

1. How has the exclusion, or at least the devaluation of womens voices affected the choices made in the values
underlying our current legal structures? (Value system).
2. Is there another set of values within existing legal structures?
Usually, tendency for one set of characteristics to mitigate the excesses of the other, therefore the harshness of
law produced the flexibility of equity, and the abuse of flexibility gave rise to rules of law to limit discretion.
Still, the tendency for male-dominated or male-created forms and values to control.

RULE 1
Purpose of Rules
Alonzo v. Villamor, 16 Phil 315, 321-322
Facts: Defendant members of the Municipal Board took over certain church & personal properties on the ground
that the buildings were erected on the land owned by the municipality & therefore the municipality can
administer & collect the revenues. The CFI granted recovery of the properties. One of the arguments posed by
the defendants was that Fr. Alonso, the parish priest, was not the real party-in-interest but rather the Bishop of
the diocese.
Held: The property in question at the time it was taken was Church property. It is undoubted that the Bishop is
the real party. But by Code of Civil Procedure 10, cts. are authorized & directed to allow a party to amend any
pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action, in furtherance of justice. 503 prohibits the reversal of any
judgment on merely formal or technical grounds or for such error as has not prejudiced the rights of the
excepting party, The error in CAB is purely technical. The plaintiff has asserted all throughout that he is
prosecuting the case not for himself but for the Bishop. Substantially, no one is deceived. Substitution is not
substantial but formal & mere defect in form cannot possibly prejudice so long as the substantial is clearly
evident.
ALONZO V VILLAMOR. misjoinder/non-joinder of parties not ground for dismissal. Must allege lack of cause of
action
Amendment allowed for matters of form; therefore, if parties acquiesce during trial, there may be no need for
formal lesson.
Lesson in ALONZO: If rules are clear, apply; if there is ambiguity, constr5uct so that there is justice for all
Jurisdiction
BP Blg. 128
RA No. 7691
RA No. 8369

Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992)

Facts: Javier filed a case vs. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. in RTC Makati to avail of death benefits when her husband
drowned off the coast of Spain. JMIs new counsel instead of continuing the trial filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD)
on the ground that it is the POEA that has jurisdiction. RTC denied. JMI failed to appear at the hearing & RTC
declared them as having waived right to cross-examine. Motion for Reconsideration was denied. JMI successfully
appealed to CA. Javiers MFR was denied.
Held: EO 247 3 (d) provides that the POEA shall have exclusive & original jurisdiction to hear & decide all claims
arising out of an EE-ER relation or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
employment. Javiers contention that JMI is estopped fr. assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC considering that the
latter had actively participated in the proceedings before said ct. is unavailing since JMI had raised the question
of jurisdiction in the RTC. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be properly invoked by Javier despite the participation
of JMI at the initial stages of the trial proceedings as the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any time & at any
stage of the action.

JAVIER V CA. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction: file original and exclusive jurisdiction of
administrative tribunal, even if possible to lead jurisdiction in both. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is to
give a chance for administrative functions to work.

Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)

Facts: Santos was bumped off his flight back to the USA despite confirmation. He sued in the Makati RTC for
damages. NWOA filed a MTD for on the ground of lack of jurisdiction citing the Warsaw Convention Art. 28(1) w/c
states that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before:
(1) the ct. of the domicile of the carrier; (2) the ct. of the principal place of business; (3) the ct. where it has a
place of business thru w/c the contract had been made; & (4) the ct. of the place of destination. The suit was
not filed in any of these places.
Held: The Warsaw Convention applies to all international transportation cases. A number of reasons tends to
support the characterization of Art. 28 (1) as a jurisdiction & not a venue provision. First, the wording of Art. 32,
w/c indicate the places where the actin for damages must be brought underscores the mandatory nature of Art.
28 (1). Second, this characterization is consistent wit one of the objectives of the Convention w/c is to regulate
in a uniform manner the condition of international transportation by air. Third, the Convention does not contain
any provision prescribing rules on jurisdiction other than Art. 28 (1) w/c means that the phrase rules of
jurisdiction used in Art. 32 must refer only to Art. 28 (1). In fact, the last sentence of Art. 32 specifically deals
w/ the exclusive enumeration in Art. 28 (1) as jurisdictions w/c as such cannot be left to the will of the parties
regardless of the time when the damage occurred. The Constitutional right on free access to cts. refers to cts. w/
jurisdiction over the suit. The place of destination as determined by the contract is the ultimate destination w/c
is San Francisco, not Manila. Domicile is where NWOA is incorporated. Important is the distinction between the
country where the principal place of business is located & the country in w/c it has a place of business thru w/c
the particular contract in question was made.

SANTOS V NORTHWEST.
Jurisdiction. 2 meanings: a) place of filing and b) level of court. Cant be changed, set by law.
Venue. Place of filing. Can be changed by consent of parties subject to pertinent rules.
In the case at bar, the source of law is treaty, not contract. Therefore, jurisdiction set by law.
Venue prescribed by process or Rules of Court (what does this mean?)
The difference between jurisdiction and venue. Look at a) consequence and b) source of law.

Lopez v. NW, 223 SCRA 469

Facts: Lopez was bumped off her flight to New York by Northwest. She filed a complaint for breach of contract of
carriage w/ damages, alleging bad faith on the part of the airline. NW filed MTD on the ground that the RTC had
no jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention. RTC & CA denied: Art. 28 (1) prescribes venue for actions under
Arts. 17-19 & does not cover carriers bad faith in absolutely refusing to comply w/ contract of carriage; offloading, & bumping off is not covered under the Warsaw Convention. Appeal in the SC failed. After trial on the
merits, RTC directed parties to submit their respective memoranda for decision 30 days & it expired Feb. 14,
1992. On July, NW filed MTD after SC ruling on Santos vs. NW. RTC granted.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the complaint contains the allegation w/c may fall w/in Art. 28
(1). What is clear is that NW did not object to RTCs order to submit evidence & declare case submitted for
decision pursuant to 1987 Consti, Art. 8, Sec. 15, Nos. 1 & 2. TC had 90 days fr. Feb. 15 to decide w/c was the
only thing left for it to do. BY virtue of the SCs resolution, RTC had prima facie jurisdiction. It was also not
established that the facts in Santos were substantially the same. Besides, posterior changes in SC doctrines
cannot be retroactively applied to nullify a prior SC ruling. Jurisdiction continues until termination. While
jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised at any time, party may be barred on ground of laches/estoppel.

Bulao v. CA, 218 SCRA 321 (1992)

Facts: Santiago Belleza sued Honorio Bulao for damages in MuTC for having built a dam on an irrigation canal,
causing the waterflow to divert to Bellezas land, resulting into crop damage. Bulao filed a MTD on the ground
that RTC had jurisdiction denied. He then argued that it was the National Water Resources Council that had
jurisdiction denied. MuTC declared Bulao in default & ruled for Belleza. Bulao appealed to the RTC -denied.
Held: MuTC had jurisdiction. But to resolve this, determine first the nature of the action. This can be
ascertained fr. the ultimate facts averred in the complaint constituting the COA. Allegations in the complaint
determine the nature of the action & consequently the jurisdiction of the cts.. It is clear fr. a reading of the
complaint that it is an action for damages predicated on quasi-delict Although the title of the complaint
(Damages) is not necessarily determinative of the nature of the action, it would nevertheless indicate that
what was contemplated was an action for damages. Allegations of the facts set forth in the complaint & not the
prayer for relief determine the nature of the action.
BULAO V CA. The wonderful thing about the servients estates complaint was the allegation that the dominant
estate maliciously put a dam and this phrase placed it within the courts jurisdiction. To place the case within
the National Water Resources Council (NWRC)s jurisdiction, allege that dominant estate set up dam without a
permit in violation of PD 1067 and took control of the water, in effect appropriated water illegally.
Name game: Jurisdiction is prescribed by law and acquired by court.

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA

Facts: The Tijams filed a civil case against the Sibonghanoys for recovery of P1,900 + interest. The Sibonghanoys
filed an answer w/ counterclaim, to w/c the Tijams filed a reply. The CFI Cebu ruled in the Tijams favor. A writ
of execution was returned unsatisfied so the Tijams filed a motion for execution against the Manila Surety &
Fidelity Co., w/c was denied due to lack of demand. A demand later made was unsatisfied, so the ct., upon
motion, issued a writ of execution. Appeal w/ the CA failed. MFR filed, alleging that the CFI had no jurisdiction
bec. 1 month before the case was filed, RA 926, or the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1948, took effect, Sec. 88
of w/c places original & exclusive jurisdiction in inferior cts. over all civil actions where the value of the subject
matter is P2T. CA set aside decision by certifying the case to the SC, w/c has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over all cases in w/c the jurisdiction of inferior cts. is at issue.
Held: Although objections to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, in the CAB, it took
almost 15 years before the Surety filed its MTD (1963), raising lack of jurisdiction for the first time. It is now
barred by laches. From the time it became a quasi-party upon filing of a counter bond in 1948, it could have
raised the objection. Instead, at several stages of the action, it invoked the jurisdiction of said cts. to obtain an
affirmative relief. It was only when the CA ruled adversely that it finally raised the question of jurisdiction. SC
frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision & then accepting the judgment
only if it is favorable & attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.
TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY. The trial court, after 15 years, can act motu proprio and dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction. Estoppel by laches does not apply to judge.

Abalos v. CA, 30 April 1991

Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name. The squatters,
against whom the action was filed, lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA on the ground that
the RTC erred in not dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the Katarungang Barangay conciliation
procedure. CA granted.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as their address. But
they were able to change it to Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents objecting. The requirement of
conciliation cannot be enforced since the property is in QC, where the respondents reside, while the Abalos
spouses live in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents effectively waived their right when they failed to object
to the correction of the Abalos residence fr. QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the merits. The fact that
they argued their case & adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this defense. Once a party submits to
the jurisdiction of the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable
judgment, take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD 1508 was not made.
ABALOS V CA. Ruling (acc. to L): Amendment already happens implicitly when parties acquiesce

Q:

Is failure to undergo Katarunggang Pambaranggay a ground for dismissal for failure to comply with condition

precedent?
L:

Abalos fails to clarify this. Formerly, grounds for MTD in ROC Rule 16 provided failure to state a cause of

action. Now clarified by Revised ROC Rule 16 (j) which now states failure to comply with condition precedent
NOTE:

In this class, L is synonymous with A in Q & A; but more often, he prefers to be Q. All Qs are Ls unless

otherwise indicated
Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627

LECTURE ON JURISDICTION
RA 8369: Changes jurisdiction for cases
Jurisdiction, remedy, relief, cause of action, subject matter (what is this?)
Place: Rules prescribing place to file may not necessarily refer to venue but to jurisdiction as well
P20T/P50T

subject matter

P100T/P200T

relief

If allegations not coMplete, vulnerable to MTD

Judicial power: sum total of all courts comprising the judiciary power of judicary of make decisions on actual
controversies.
Jurisdiction: a particular court exercising power over a specific controversy

Flores v. Mallare Philipps, 144 SCRA

Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name. The squatters,
against whom the action was filed, lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA on the ground that
the RTC erred in not dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the Katarungang Barangay conciliation
procedure. CA granted.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as their address. But
they were able to change it to Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents objecting. The requirement of
conciliation cannot be enforced since the property is in QC, where the respondents reside, while the Abalos
spouses live in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents effectively waived their right when they failed to object
to the correction of the Abalos residence fr. QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the merits. The fact that
they argued their case & adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this defense. Once a party submits to
the jurisdiction of the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable
judgment, take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD 1508 was not made.
FLORES V MALLARE-PHILIPPS: Example where it is possible to allege facts in pleading that gives rise to 2 causes
of action: misjoinder of parties
L: lack cause of action a separate case (WIT?)
Strategy: file answer for 1st cause of action; file MTD for 2nd cause of action
CALIMLIM V RAMIREZ. Res judicata: bar by prior judgment (diff. From estoppel)
L: General Rule: Jurisdiction is conferred by law and thus it can be raised at any point in the proceedings even
on appeal
TIJAM rule: Estoppel by laches occurs when 2 requisites concur
a. passage of an unreasonable length of time
a. party sleep on its rights to make other party believe that the former has abandoned his rights

Therefore, party cant raise question of jurisdiction if he is guilty of estoppel by laches

CALIMLIM rule: W/N party asked for affirmative relief irrelevant; what matters is whether party was led to
believe that the other party slept on his rights. A rule on equity.
General Rule: Court can dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction motu proprio

Ortigas & Co. v. CA 106 SCRA

Facts: Ortigas & Co. sold to Maximo Belmonte a piece of land. Terms: Belmonte would be considered a lessee
until full payment & in case of default he would be ejected as trespasser or unlawful detainer. Belmonte failed to
pay so an action for unlawful detainer was field in the San Juan MuTC, where Ortigas prayed that the residential
building constructed by Belmonte be forfeited in its favor. Belmonte lost so he appealed to the CFI Rizal by filing
an MTD under ROC 40 Sec. 11 w/c, if granted, would in effect dismiss the case & render judgment by MuTC
invalid for lack of jurisdiction. It was denied but an appeal to the CA set aside the MuTC & CFI rulings. On appeal,
the SC ruled that the issues were purely legal & should have been brought directly to the SC, but it proceeded to
adjudicate the case anyway as if brought for the first time.
Held: MuTC had jurisdiction according to the ruling in Fuentes & Goter vs. Muoz-Palma. An action for unlawful
detainer, w/c is a summary proceeding to wrest possession fr. one who has no right thereto, is applicable only
when the issue is that of possession. According to the Judiciary Act Sec. 44 (b), the CFI has original jurisdiction in
all civil actions w/c involve title to or possession of real property, except actions of forcible entry & detainer
over lands or buildings where original jurisdiction is conferred upon city or municipal cts.. This case involves not
merely right of possession but also rights of ownership over the improvements as indicated in the prayer. CFI
should have dismissed the case when its was brought on appeal bec. it could only have entertained the same if
the parties did not object to nor raised the question of jurisdiction.

Dy v. CA, 195 SCRA

Facts: Ramon Roxas filed an ejectment suit in the MeTC Makati vs. Andres & Gloria Dy where he won. Dys
appealed to the RTC, but failed. MeTC granted immediate execution, so the next day, the Sheriff & some
policemen ejected the Dys by throwing their belongings to the street. They filed a motion to quash/recall of the
writ of execution on the ground that they had not received a copy of the RTC decision. MeTC denied. CA appeal
failed.
Held: There must first be copy of the RTC decision served on the losing party before judgment is executed. Refer
to ROC 39 Sec. 1, Rules on Summary Procedure Sec. 12 & BP 129 Sec. 22. Proof of service of copy of judgment
determines whether or not the appeal period has lapsed. If no appeal was filed after the copy is served, then the
decision is immediately executory as a matter of right. A petition for review by CA of RTC judgment may be filed
only after notice of RTC judgment has been served on the losing party. If no notice was served, the losing party
has no legal remedy against an illegal judgment nor does the CA have the power to prevent the execution of an
illegal order. However, the Dys cannot have the relief prayed for since they failed to appeal after they were
served notice. Nothing is more settled than the rule that in every litigation, the parties thereto are entitled to
due process, & if there is a denial thereof, then the validity of the proceedings is open to question.

Manchester Dev. Co. v. CA, 149 SCRA

Facts: MDC filed a complaint for damages & specific performance against City Land to compel the latter to push
through w/ the sale of the land. The amount of damages was not specified in the prayer but was alleged in the
body of the complaint. Thus, a docket fee of only P410 was paid on the presumption that the amount involved
was not capable of pecuniary estimation, when in fact it was. MDCs second counsel deleted all mention of
damages. SC ordered the reassessment of docket fees. Reduced damages were still not specified in the prayer. CA
ruled that docket fees should be based on the orig. comp.
Held: A case is deemed filed only upon payment of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing in ct.. Thus,
the TC did not acquire jurisdiction w/ the payment of the P410 docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or
similar pleading will not vest jurisdiction, much less payment of the docket fee, based on the amount averred in
the amended pleading. The design to avoid payment is obvious since it misled the docket clerk. All complaints,

petitions, answers, & similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the
pleading but also in the prayer & said damages should be considered in the assessment of the filing of fees in any
case. Any pleading that fails to comply w/ this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, & shall be
expunged fr. the record.

Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA

Facts: Sun Insurance filed a complaint in the RTC for consignation of a premium fund on a private fire insurance
policy against Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Manuel filed for a refund of the premium but the amount of damages was not
specified in the prayer, although it could be inferred in the body. Thus, only P210 docket fee was paid. SC
ordered reassessment of the docket fees. The amended complaint stated a claim of not less than P10M in the
prayer but a second amendment raised the amount to P44M+ w/c was admitted in ct.. Sun questions this order.
Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. The contention that Manchester ruling cannot apply retroactively to
this case is untenable. Statutes regulating the procedure of the cts. will be construed to apply to actions pending
& undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense & to that extent. It
is not simply the filing of the complaint or pleading but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests the
trial ct. w/ jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the TC acquires jurisdiction over
a claim w/ the filing of the appropriate pleading & payment of the prescribed filing fee, but subsequently the an
award of an amount not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has been left for determination by
the ct., the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk
of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien & assess the additional fee.
Katarungang Pambarangay
See RA 7160 provisions

Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444

Facts: This was a case for the recovery of a sum of money plus damages = P49,400.00. AA MTD was filed bec. of
failure to undergo conciliation proceeding in the brgy. The MTD was opposed on the ground that the law on KP
covers only to those cases falling w/in the exclusive juris. of the MTCs.
Held: There is no distinction whatsoever w/ respect to the classes of civil dispute that should be compromised
at the brgy level as contradistinguished w/ that of the criminal cases.
Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470
Facts: This is an ejectment case again in the MTC. R, the lessee, participated in the trial & even cross-examined
the petitioner. R, then, filed a certiorari & prohibition w/ preliminary injunction when the decision was adverse
to him.
Held: Petition denied. A party who has affirmed & invoked the jurisdiction of a ct. in a particular matter to
secure an affirmative relief cannot, afterwards, deny the same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.

LECTURE ON KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

General Rule. All civil actions, regardless of amount of relief, between parties of the same baranggay, should
undergo Katarunggang Pambaranggay
Remedy: a) Dont arrive at a settlement
b) File case v. Lupon to compel them to dismiss objectinable Lupon member
(This case need not undergo KP re sec. 408 (b) and sec. 406 (a)) (WIT?)
MANCHESTER rule: full payment of docket fees necessary for court to acquire jurisdiction
All prayers must be in the complaint, not just in the body
Overruled LEGASPI re: installment payments no longer allowed

SUN INSURANCE: bar problem. If there is an honest difference of opinion as to amount of docket fees and P is in
good faith, court can grant period of time to allow payment. Qualifies MANCHESTER only to that extent
MANCHESTER: if award to judgment creditor is greater than the amount prayed form, difference in docket fees
constitutes first lien.
NOTE: but no payback of excess fees even if awarded less
L: Remember to bill your client for incidental or out of pocket costs for sheriffs transportation, food and
vitamins
JURISDICTION (power to hear, try and decide cases)
Conferred by law. Law can only be changed by passing through Congress. Party cant amend rules on jurisdiction
by agreement or voluntary act Jurisdiction can be raised at any time even on appeal, after termination of case
of decision becomes final and executory, subject to rules on prescription. Raise issues of jurisdiction via a MTD
(Rule 16) but court can act motu proprio. Rule on place not necessarily a rule on venue.
TIJAM. Bar problem. Qualifies who can raise matters of jurisdiction. If estopped by laches, cant file MTD in
equity
JURISDICTION. May be subject to nature of
1. Cause of action eg. Admiralty cases, domestic violence
1. Relief
1. Subject matter (thing over which the rights and duties occur eg. rights or title to real property > P50 T;
claims incapable of pecuniary estimation
1. Remedy eg. forcible entry and unlawful detainer, review by certiorari; BULAO v CA
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is never lost.
Exception: DY V CA. Court violates constitution; ousted from jurisdiction.
NOTE: judgment still valid, no jurisdiction only for purposes of issuing writ of execution due to lack of notice to
party
WORD GAME:
Conferment of Jurisdiction:

law prescribes jurisdiction

Acquisition of Jurisdiction: Rule 1 Section 5: Filing of complaint vests court with jurisdiction over res. Summons
vests court with jurisdiction over the corpus.
NOTE: filing of complaint happens upon full payment of docket fees
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
NOTE: Failure to undergo Katarunggang Pambarangay not issue of jurisdiction Sec. 412 Loc. Government Code;
neither a defect in jurisdiction but vulnerable to a MTD (Rule 16 sec. J) for failure to undergo condition
precedent.
Failure to undergo condition precedent can only be raised in a MTD or as an affirmative defense
Summary Procedure
Rules on Summary Procedure (Oct. 91)
Del Rosario v. CA, 241 SCRA 519 (95)
Held: The presence of an action for quieting of title does not divest the MeTC of original jurisdiction over the
ejectment case. An ejectment case (possession de facto) is independent of any claim of ownership (possession de
jure). Under the revised Summary Procedure (Nov. 15, 1991) all types of ejectment cases are now covered by it

regardless of whether or not the issue of ownership of subject property is pleaded by a party. No hearings are
required in this procedure. The adjudication of cases here are done on the basis of affidavits & position papers.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Remedy for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, < P10,000
Katarunggang Pambaranggay condition precedent before parties can obtain judicial relief
Not apply to ordinary civil actions in RTC
Summary Procedure
Ordinary Civil Action
Pleadings Allowed
Verified complaint
Compulsory counterclaim
Answer to complaint
Crossclaim v existing defendant
Complaint
Counterclaim
a. Compulsory(relates to transaction)
a. Permissive (not related)
Crossclaim
Third party claim
Intervention
Answer
Reply
Answer
File answer w/in 10 days of service of summons
File answer w/in 15 days of service of summons
Can court act motu proprio in dismissing the case?
YES. Court can act motu proprio and dismiss
NO. Court cannot dismiss action motu proprio but must wait for MTD
Effect of other partys failure to file an answer
Get judgment. No need for motion for default or order for default
File a motion to declare the other party in default
Preliminary Conference not later than 30 days
Effect of Ps failure to appear

Cause for dismissal

Counterclaim barred
Main Action dismissed but Compulsory Counterclaim not dismissed. D gets judgment
Cause for dismissal with prejudice
Main action dismissed and Compulsory counterclaim also dismissed
Process
Submit position papers and affidavits 10 days from receipt of pre-trail order
L: on those affidavits hinge your entire case so pray (Angel of God, hindi motion) that the court ask for
clarificatory affidavits (motu proprio)
Extension of time not allowed
You figure it out.
Contents of Affidavits
State facts
Show competence to testify
Show admissibility of witness
Absent these: affidavits excluded and lawyer may be subject to disciplinary action
Prohibited Motions
MTD on sec. 16 except lack of jurisdiction
Bill of particulars
New judgment
Periods
No time period from beginning to end but mandatory periods in between