CASEDAXTRI

NESREM REVI
EW JURI
SDI
CKTI
ON
NOCUM VSTAN
Itisset t
ledthatjuri
sdictioni sconf erredbyl awbasedont hef actsal legedinthecompl ai
nt
sincet hel att
ercompr isesa conci sest atementoft heul t
imat ef actsconstituti
ng the
plainti
ff
scausesofact ion. I tisset tl
edt hatjurisdicti
oni sconf erredbyl aw basedont he
factsallegedinthecompl aintsi ncethel att
ercompr isesaconci sest atementoft heultimate
factsconst i
tuti
ngt hepl ai ntiff
'scausesofact ion.I nt hecaseatbar ,afterexami ni
ngt he
originalcomplaint,wef indt hatt heRTCacqui r
edj uri
sdictionov erthecasewhent hecase
wasf il
ed beforei t.From t he allegati
onst hereof ,respondent scause ofact ion i
sf or
damagesar isi
ngf rom li
bel ,thej ur
isdictionofwhi chi sv estedwi t
ht heRTC.Ar ticle360of
theRev i
sedPenalCodepr ovidest hati tisaCour tofFi rstInstancet hatisspeci fi
call
y
designat edtotr
yal ibelcase.
Same; Same;Same; Venue;Jur isdi
cti
onandVenuedi st
ingui
shed. Pet
it
ionersareconfusing
j
urisdicti
onwi t
hv enue.A f ormercol league,t heHon.Fl orenzD.Regal ado,diff
erenti
ated
j
urisdicti
onandv enueasf oll
ows:( a)Jur i
sdict
ionistheaut horitytohearanddet erminea
case; venuei
st hepl acewher et hecasei st obehear dortri
ed; (b)Juri
sdicti
onisamat terof
substant i
vel
aw; venue, ofprocedur all
aw; (c)Juri
sdi
cti
onest ablishesarelati
onbetweent he
courtandt hesubj ectmat t
er;v enue,ar el
at ionbetweenplai
nt i
ffanddef endant,
orpet i
ti
oner
andr espondent;and,( d)Jurisdicti
onisf ixedbyl awandcannotbeconf err
edbyt heparti
es;
venuemaybeconf erredbyt heactoragr eementoft heparti
es.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thet er
m jur
isdict
ioni
nAr t
icl
e360oft heRev i
sedPenalCode
const
ruedasr eferr
ingtot heplacewher eacti
onsforl i
belshal
lbef il
edor venue.
In
Laqui
anv .Bal
tazar,
thisCourtconst
ruedt hetermj
uri
sdicti
oni
nAr t
icl
e360oft heRevised
PenalCodeasr ef
erri
ngtotheplacewhereact i
onsforl
ibelshal
lbefi
ledorvenue.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Rul esont hev enueoft hecr i
mi nalandci vilact i
onsi nwr i
tten
defamat ions.I nEscr ibanov .Av il
a,pur suantt oRepubl i
cActNo.4363,wel aiddownt he
fol
lowi ngr ulesont hev enueoft hecr imi nalandci vi
lact ionsi nwr i
ttendef amat ions.1.
Gener alr ule:Theact ionmaybef iledint heCour tofFirstI nstanceoft hepr ov i
nceorci t
y
wher et hel ibelousar t
icleispr int edandf i
rstpubl i
shedorwher eanyoft heof fendedpar ties
actuallyr esidesatt het imeoft hecommi ssi onoft heof fense.2.I ft heof fendedpar tyisa
publicof fi
cerwi thofficei nMani l
aatt het imet heof fensewascommi t
ted,t hev enuei s
Mani l
aort heci t
yorpr ov i
ncewher et hel ibelousar ti
cleispr i
ntedandf irstpubl ished.3.
Wher eanof fendedpar t
yi sapubl icof fi
cialwi thof f
iceout sideofMani la,thev enuei st he
provinceort heci tywher ehehel dof fi
ceatt hetimeoft hecommi ssionoft heof f
enseor
wher et hel ibelousar ticl
ei spr int edandf irstpubl i
shed.4.I fanof fendedpar t
yi sapr ivate
person,t hev enuei shi splaceofr esidenceatt het i
meoft hecommi ssionoft heof fenseor
wher et he l i
belous ar ti
clei s pr inted and f irstpubl i
shed.The common f eat ure oft he
foregoingr ulesi sthatwhet hert heof f
endedpar tyisapubl i
cof f i
cerorapr i
vateper son,he
hasal way st heopt i
ont ofil
et heact i
oni nt heCour tofFirstI nstanceoft hepr ov inceorci t
y
wher et hel i
bel ousar t
icleisprint edorf irstpubl i
shed.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Obj ectionst ovenueinCivilActi
onar i
singfrom li
belmaybe
waived si
nce theydo noti nvolve a questi
on ofjur
isdi
cti
on;In Cr i
minalActions,itis
fundamentalthatvenueisjuri
sdicti
onalitbeinganessenti
alelementofj uri
sdi
ction.
Itis
elementar
yt hatobject
ionstov enuei nCIVILACTIONSar i
singfrom libelmaybewai ved
sincetheydonotinv ol
veaquest i
onofj ur
isdi
cti
on.Thelayi
ngofv enueisproceduralrat
her
thansubstanti
ve,r
elati
ngasitdoest ojuri
sdi
cti
onofthecour tov
ert hepersonratherthan
thesubjectmat t
er.Venuerelatest otri
alandnott ojuri
sdiction.Itisapr ocedur
al,nota
j
urisdict
ional
,mat ter
.Itrel
atest ot heplaceoft r
ialorgeogr aphicallocat
ioninwhi chan
actionorproceedingshouldbebr oughtandnott othej ur
isdict
ionoft hecourt.I
tismeantt o
prov i
deconveniencetotheparti
es,r at
herthanr
estricttheiraccesst othecourtsasitrel
ates
tot heplaceoft r
ial
.Incontrast,i
nCRI MINALACTI ONS,i tisf undamentalthatvenuei s
j
urisdict
ionali
tbeinganessent i
alelementofjur
isdi
ct i
on.

Conchav
sLumocso
Jurisdict
ionoverthesubj
ectmat t
eristhepowertohearanddeter
minecasesofthegeneral
cl
asst owhichtheproceedingsinquestionbel
ong.I
tisconfer
redbylaw andanobjecti
on
basedont hi
sgr oundcannotbewai vedbyt hepar
ti
es.Todeterminewhetheracourthas
j
urisdicti
onoverthesubjectmatterofacase,iti
simportantt
odetermi
net henat
ureofthe
causeofact i
onandoft hereli
efsought.
Whi l
eitistruet hatt her ecov eryoft hev alueoft het reescutf rom thesubj ectpr oper t
iesmay
be included i nt he t erm anyi nterestt herein,the l aw is emphat i
c,howev er,t hati n
determiningwhi chcour thasj uri
sdi ction,itisonl ytheassessedv alueoft her eal tyinv ol v
ed
thatshoul dbecomput ed.Pet iti
oner scont entiont hatt hev alueoft het reescuti nt he
subjectproper ti
esconst itutes anyi nterestt her
ei n(i
nt hesubj ectproperties) thatshoul dbe
comput ed i n addi ti
on t ot he r espect ive assessed v alues oft he subj ectpr oper t
ies i s
unavail
ing.Sect ion19( 2)ofB. P.129,asamendedbyR. A.No.7691,i scl eart hatt heRTC
shallexercisejurisdiction inal lciv i
lact i
onswhi chinv olv ethet i
tl
et o,orpossessi onof ,real
property,oranyi nt erestt herein,wher et heassessedv al ueoft hepr opertyinv olv edexceeds
Twent ythousandpesos( P20, 000. 00)orf orcivilactionsi nMet r
oMani l
a,wher esuchv al
ue
exceedsFi ftythousandpesos( P50, 000.00) .
Iti struet hatt her ecoveryoft hev al ueoft he
treescutf rom t hesubj ectpr oper tiesmaybei ncludedi nthet erm anyi nterestt herein.
Howev er,thel awi semphat icthati ndet ermini
ngwhi chcour thasj uri
sdiction,i ti sonl yt he
assessedv alueoft her ealtyi nvol vedt hatshoul dbecomput ed.Int hiscase,t her ei sno
disputethatt heassessedv aluesoft hesubj ectpr oper ti
esasshownbyt heirt axdecl arat i
ons
arelesst hanP20, 000.00.Cl early,jurisdicti
onov erthei nst antcasesbel ongsnott ot heRTC
buttot heMTC.

SanPedr
ovsAsdal
a
Justt oputt hemat tert orest,theCour trei
teratestheruli
ngi nHeirsofVal erianoS.Concha,
Sr.v .SpousesLumocso, 540SCRA1( 2007) ,towit:I
nanumberofcases, wehav ehel dthat
actionsf orr econvey anceoforf orcancel l
ationoft i
tl
etoort oquiettit
leov errealpr oper ty
areact i
onst hatfallundert hecl assifi
cat i
onofcasest hati nvolveti
tl
et o,orpossessi onof ,
realpr operty,oranyi nter
estt her ei
n.xxxxxxxThus,undert heol dlaw,t herewasno
subst antialeffectonj uri
sdicti
onwhet heracasei sone,t hesubj ectmat terofwhi chwas
i
ncapabl eofpecuni aryest i
mat ion,underSect i
on19( 1)ofB. P.129,oronei nvolvi
ngt i
tleto
proper tyunderSect i
on19( 2).Thedi stincti
onbet weent het woclassesbecamecr ucialwi t
h
theamendmenti ntroducedbyR. A.No.7691i n1994,whi chexpandedt heexcl usiveor iginal
j
urisdi cti
onoft hef irstlevelcour t
st oi nclude al
lcivilact ionswhi chi nvolvetitlet o,or
possessi onof ,realpr opert
y ,
oranyi nteresttherei
nwher et heassessedv alueoft hepr oper ty
orint erestthereindoesnotexceedTwent ythousandpesos( P20,000.00)or ,incivilact i
ons
i
n Met r
o Mani l
a,wher e such assessed v alue does notexceed Fi ft
yt housand pesos
(P50, 000.00)excl usiveofi nterest,damagesofwhat ev erki nd,attorneysf ees,lit
igat i
on
expensesandcost s.
Thus,undert hepr esentl aw,or i
ginaljur
isdi
cti
onov ercasest he
subjectmatt erofwhi chinv olv
es t
it
leto,possessionof ,
realpropertyoranyinter
esttherei
n
underSection19( 2)ofB. P.129i sdiv
idedbetweent hefi
rstandsecondl evelcourt
s,withthe
assessedv al ueoft her ealpr opert
yi nvol
vedast hebenchmar k.Thisamendmentwas
i
ntroducedt o unclogt heov er
loadeddocketsoft heRTCswhi chwoul dresul
tinthespeedier
admi ni
str
ationofj ustice.

Qui
nagor
anv
sCA
Thedoct ri
net hatal lcasesofr ecov eryofpossessi onoracci onpubl i
cianal i
eswi ththe
regionaltrialcourtsregar dlessoft hev alueoft hepr opertynol ongerhol dst rueast hi
ngs
now st and,adi sti
ncti
onmustbemadebet weent hosepr opertiestheassessedv alueof
whichi sbel owP20, 000.00, ifoutsideMet roMani la, andP50, 000.00,i
fwi thin.Thequest i
on
posedi nthepr esentpetitionisnotcompl i
cated,i.e.,doest heRTChav ejurisdictionov erall
casesofr ecoveryofpossessi onr egar dlessoft hev alueoft hepr opertyi nv olved?The
answeri sno.Thedoct r
ineonwhi cht heRTCanchor editsdenialofpet i
tioner
sMot ionto
Dismi ss,as af fir
med byt he CAt hatal lcases ofr ecov er
yofpossessi on oracci on
publicianalieswi t
hther egional tr
ial cour t
sr egardlessoft hev al
ueofthepr oper tynol onger
holdst rue.Ast hingsnowst and,adi stinctionmustbemadebet weent hosepr oper t
iesthe
assessedv al
ueofwhi chi sbel ow P20, 000. 00,ifout sideMet r
oMani la;andP50, 000.00,if
within.
Same; Same; PleadingsandPr act
ice;Acomplaintmustal legetheassessedv al
ueoft hereal
propertysubj ectoft hecompl ai
ntort heinterestt her eont odet erminewhi chcour thas
j
ur i
sdi
ct i
on ov ert heact i
on.I n no uncer
tai
nt er ms,t heCour thasal readyhel dt hata
compl aintmustal l
eget heassessedv al
ueoft her ealpr opertysubjectoft hecompl aintor
theinterestthereont odetermi newhichcourthasj uri
sdi ctionov ertheaction.Thisisbecause
thenat ureoftheact ionandwhi chcourthasoriginal andexcl usivejur
isdictionov ert
hesame
i
sdet ermi nedbyt hemat erialall
egati
onsofthecompl aint,thetypeofr el
iefpr ayedforbyt he
plai
nti
f fandt hel awi neffectwhent heactioni sf il
ed,i rrespectiveofwhet herthepl ai
ntif
fs
areent i
tledtosomeoral l
oft heclai
msasser t
edt herei n.

Hei
rsofT.Jul
aov
sDeJesus
Jurisdiction;Since t he assessed v al
ue oft he propert
ywas notal l
eged,i tcannotbe
determi nedwhi cht ri
alcourthador i
ginalandex clusivejur
isdi
ctionov erthecase.I nthi
s
case,f ort heRTCt oexerci
sejurisdict
ion,theassessedv al
ueoft hesubjectpropertymust
exceedP20, 000.00.Sincepetit
ioner sfail
edt oall
egei ntheirCompl ai
nttheassessedv al
ue
oft hesubj ectpr opert
y,theCAcor rectl
ydi smissedt heCompl aintaspet it
ionersfail
edto
establisht hatt heRTC hadj urisdicti
onov eri t
.Inf act,si
ncet heassessedv al
ueoft he
propert ywasnotal leged,i
tcannotbedet erminedwhi chtri
alcourthador i
ginalandexclusiv
e
j
urisdictionov erthecase.
Hei
rsofMaur
aSov
sObl
i
osca
Lack of Jurisdi
ction and Exer cise of Juri
sdict
ion,Dist
inguished.
Petiti
oners clearl
y
confusedlackofjurisdict
ionwither r
orint
heexer ci
seofjuri
sdicti
on.Juri
sdict
ionisnott he
sameast heexer ciseofj ur
isdi
ction.Asdi st
ingui
shedfrom t heexerci
seofj urisdi
cti
on,
j
urisdi
cti
onist heaut hori
tytodecideacase,andnott hedecisionrender
edt herei
n.Wher e
thereisjuri
sdict
ionov ertheper sonand t hesubjectmatter,thedecisiononal lother
questi
onsar i
singi nt hecaseisbutanexerciseofsuchj uri
sdicti
on.Andt heerr
orswhichthe
courtmaycommi tint heexerci
seofjuri
sdi
ctionar emer el
yer rorsofjudgmentwhicharethe
propersubjectofanappeal .Theer r
orrai
sedbypet i
t i
onersper tai
nst othetri
alcourt
s
exerci
seofi tsj urisdicti
on,notit
sl ackofaut horitytodeci det hecase.Inapet it
ionfor
annulmentofj udgmentbasedonl ackofjurisdict
ion,petit
ionermustshow notmer el
yan
abuseofjur i
sdictionaldi scr
eti
onbutanabsol utelackofaut hori
tytohearanddeci dethe
case.Onthisbasi s,t her
ewoul dbenov ali
dgr oundtogr antt hepetit
ionforannul
mentof
j
udgment .

Bongat
ovsMal
var
Acour tslackofj ur
isdict
ionovert
hesubj
ectmat t
ercannotbewaiv
edbyt hepar t
iesorcured
byt heirsilence,acquiescenceorevenexpressconsent.
Acourt
slackofj ur
isdicti
onov er
thesubj ectmat tercannotbewai v
edbytheparti
esorcuredbythei
rsi
lence,acquiescenceor
evenexpr essconsent .Apar t
ymayassailt
hejuri
sdict
ionoft
hecourtovertheact ionatany
stageoft hepr oceedingsandev enonappeal .ThattheMTCCcant akecogni zanceofa
mot iontodi smissont hegroundofl
ackofjuri
sdi
cti
on,eveni
fananswerhasbeenbel atedly
fi
led.

Pr
ovofAkl
anv
sJodyKi
ng
DoctrineofPr imar yJurisdicti
on;Thedoct rineofpr imar yjurisdict ionhol dst hati facasei s
sucht hati tsdet ermi nati
onr equirest heexper ti
se, specializedt raini ngandknowl edgeoft he
properadmi nistrati
v ebodi es,rel
iefmustf i
r stbeobt ainedi nanadmi nistrati
vepr oceedi ng
beforear emedyi ssuppl i
edbyt hecour t sev eni fthemat termaywel lbewi t
hint heirpr oper
j
ur i
sdiction.Thedoct r
ineofpr i
mar yj urisdi ct i
on hol dst hati fa casei ssuch t hati ts
determi nation r equi r
est heexper tise,speci alized training and knowl edgeoft hepr oper
admi nistrati
v ebodi es,reliefmustf i
r stbeobt ainedi nanadmi nistr ativ
epr oceedi ngbef orea
remedyi ssuppl ied byt he cour tsev en i ft he mat t
ermaywel lbe wi thint hei rpr oper
j
ur i
sdiction.I tappl ieswher eacl aimi sor iginal lycogni zabl eint hecour ts,andcomesi nto
playwhenev erenf orcementoft hecl ai
mr equi rest her esolut i
onofi ssueswhi ch,undera
regulatoryscheme,hav ebeenpl acedwi thint hespeci alcompet enceofanadmi nistr
ative
agency .Insuchacase,t hecour ti nwhi cht hecl aimi ssoughtt obeenf or cedmaysuspend
thejudicialpr ocesspendi ngr eferralofsuchi ssuest ot headmi nist rati
v ebodyf ori tsv i
ewor ,
i
ft hepar t
ieswoul dnotbeunf ai
rlydi sadv ant aged,di smisst hecasewi thoutpr ejudi ce.The
objectiveoft hedoct r
ineofpr imaryj ur i
sdictioni stogui det hecour ti ndet ermi ni
ngwhet herit
shouldr efrainf r
om exer cisi
ng itsj urisdict ion unt ilafteran admi nist r
at i
ve agencyhas
determi nedsomequest ionorsomeaspectofsomequest i
onar i
singi nt hepr oceedi ng
beforet hecour t.
Commi ssiononAudi t(
COA) ;Juri
sdiction;UnderCommonweal thActNo.327,asamended
bySect ion26ofPr esi
dentialDecreeNo.1445,i tistheCommi ssiononAudi twhichhas
pri
mar y j uri
sdicti
on ov er money cl aims agai nst gov ernment agenci es and
i
nstrument ali
ti
es.UnderCommonweal th ActNo.327,as amended by Sect i
on 26 of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1445, iti
stheCOAwhi chhaspr i
maryjuri
sdicti
onov ermoneycl ai
ms
againstgov ernmentagenciesandi nstrumentali
ti
es.Secti
on26.Gener aljuri
sdicti
on.
The
authorit
yand power soft heCommi ssionshallextend to and compr ehend allmat t
ers
rel
atingt oaudi t
ingprocedures,systemsandcont rol
s,thekeepingoft hegener alaccounts
oftheGov ernment ,t
hepreservati
onofv oucherspert
aini
ngtheretoforaper iodoft enyear
s,
theexami nat
ionandi nspectionoft hebooks, r
ecor ds,andpaper sr elatingt ot hoseaccount s;
andt heauditandset t
lementoft heaccount sofal lpersonsr espect ingf undsorpr operty
recei
vedorhel dbyt hem inanaccount abl
ecapaci ty,aswel last heexami nat i
on,audi t
,and
settl
ementofal ldebtsandcl aimsofanysor tduef r
om orowi ngt ot heGov ernmentorany
ofi t
ssubdi visions,agenci esand i nstrument al
it
ies.Thesai dj urisdi cti
onext endst o all
government -
ownedorcont rol
ledcor porat
ions,i ncludingtheirsubsi diaries,andot herself-
governingboar ds,commi ssions,oragenci esoft heGov er
nment ,andasher einprescribed,
i
ncluding non- government alent i
ties subsi dized by t he gov ernment ,those f unded by
donationsthrought hegov ernment ,thoser equi r
edt opayl eviesorgov ernmentshar e,and
thosef orwhicht hegov er
nmenthasputupacount erpar
tfundort hosepar tl
yf undedbyt he
government .
Same;Same;Same;Rul eI I
,Sect ion1oft he2009Rev i
sedRul esofPr ocedureoft he
Commi ssiononAudi tspeci fi
call
yenumer atedt hosemat t
ersf all
ingunderCommi ssionon
Audi t(COA)exclusivej urisdiction,whichi ncl ude[m] oneycl aimsduef rom orowi ngt oany
gover nment agency .Pur suant t oi tsr ule-maki ng aut hor it
y conf erred by t he 1987
Const it
uti
onandexi sti
ngl aws,t heCOApr omul gat edt he2009Rev isedRul esofPr ocedur e
oftheCommi ssi
ononAudi t.RuleI I
,Section1speci fi
callyenumer at edt hosemat tersfalli
ng
underCOA sexclusivejurisdi ct
ion,whi chi nclude [m]oneycl aimsduef rom orowi ngt oany
gover nment agency .
Rul e VI I
I, Sect i
on 1 f urther pr ov ides: Sect i
on 1. Or iginal
Jurisdict
ion.TheCommi ssionPr opershal lhav eor i
ginaljurisdictionov er:a)moneycl aim
againstt heGov ernment ;b)r equestf orconcur rencei nt hehi ringofl egalretainersby
gover nmentagency ;c)wr it
eof fofunl iquidat edcashadv ancesanddor mantaccount s
receivableinamount sexceedi ngonemi lli
onpesos( P1,000, 000. 00) ;d)r equestf orrelief
from account abi
l
ityforl osesduet oactsofman, i
.e.theft,robber y, ar son, etc.,i
namount si n
excessofFi veMi ll
i
onpesos( P5,000,000.00) .
DoctrineofPrimaryJurisdict
ion;InEur o-MedLabor atori
esPhil.
,I
nc.v.Provi
nceofBat angas,
495SCRA301( 2006),theSupr emeCour tr
uledthati ti
st heCommi ssi
ononAudi tandnot
theRegi onalTrialCourtwhi chhaspr i
maryj uri
sdicti
ont opassuponpet i
tioner
smoney
clai
m agai nstrespondentl ocalgov ernmentuni t.
I nEur o-
MedLabor ator
iesPhi l.
,I nc.v.
ProvinceofBat angas,495SCRA301( 2006),wer uledthatitistheCOAandnott heRTC
whichhaspr i
mar yjur
isdicti
ont opassuponpet i
ti
onersmoneycl ai
m againstr espondent
l
ocalgov ernmentuni t
.Suchj ur
isdi
ctionmaynotbewai vedbyt hepart
iesfail
uretoar gue
theissuenoract i
vepartici
pationinthepr oceedings.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Respondent scollect
ion suitbeing direct
ed agai
nstal ocal
governmentunit
,suchmoneycl aim shouldhav ebeenf irstbroughttotheCommi ssionon
Audit
.Respondent
scol lect
ionsuitbeingdi r
ectedagai nstal ocalgovernmentunit
,such
moneycl ai
m shouldhav ebeenf i
rstbr oughtt otheCOA. Hence,t heRTC shouldhav e
suspendedthepr oceedingsandr eferthef il
ingoft hecl ai
m bef oretheCOA.Mor eov
er,
peti
ti
onerisnotestoppedf r
om rai
singthei ssueofjurisdict
ionev enaftert
hedenialofits
noti
ceofappealandbef oretheCA.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Except ionst ot heDoct ri
neofPr imar yJur i
sdict
ion.
Ther eare
est
ablishedexceptionstothedoct ri
neofpr i
maryj uri
sdict
ion,suchas:( a)wher et hereis
est
oppelon t he partoft he par tyi nvoking the doct r
ine;( b)wher ethe chal lenged
administr
ativ
eacti spatent
lyillegal,amount ingtol ackofj urisdi
ct i
on;(c)wheret hereis
unreasonabledelayoroffi
cialinactiont hatwilli
rretr
iev
ablypr ejudicethecompl ainant ;(
d)
wheret heamounti nvol
vedi sr el
at i
velysmal lso ast o maket her ul
ei mpracticaland
oppressive;(e)wherethequest ioni nvolv
edi spur el
ylegalandwi l
lulti
matelyhav et obe
decidedbyt hecour tsofj usti
ce;(f)wherej udici
alint
erventionisur gent;(g)wheni ts
applicati
onmaycausegr eatandirr
eparabledamage; (h)wherethecont r
ov er
tedactsviol
ate
duepr ocess;( i
)whent hei ssueofnon- exhaustionofadmi nistr
ati
ver emedieshasbeen
renderedmoot ;(j
)whent hereisnoot herplain,speedyandadequat er emedy ;(
k)when
strongpubl i
ci nter
estisinvolv
ed;and,(l
)inquowar r
antoproceedings.Howev er
, noneofthe
foregoingcircumst ancesisappli
cableinthepresentcase.
Remedi alLaw;Ci v
ilProcedure;Jurisdi
cti
on;Doctr
ineofPr i
maryJurisdi
cti
on;Same;Al lt
he
proceedingsofthecour tinvi
olati
onoft hedoctr
ineofpri
mar yj
uri
sdicti
onandal lordersand
decisionsrenderedtherebyarenul landvoid.
Thedoct r
ineofpri
mar yjuri
sdict i
ondoesnot
warrantacour ttoarrogateuntoitselfaut
hori
tytoresol
veacontroversythejurisdicti
onov er
which i sini
ti
all
yl odged with an admi nist
rat
ive body ofspeci
alcompet ence.Al lthe
proceedingsoft hecour ti
nv i
olati
onoft hedoctri
neandal lor
dersanddeci si onsrendered
therebyarenullandvoid.
Same;Jur i
sdict
ion;Sinceaj udgmentr enderedbyabodyort ri
bunalthathasnoj uri
sdict
ion
overthesubjectmat teroft hecasei snoj udgmentatal l
,i
tcannotbet hesourceofanyr i
ght
orthecreatorofanyobl i
gat ion.
Si nceaj udgmentr enderedbyabodyort r
ibunal
thathasno
j
urisdi
cti
onov erthesubj ectmat teroft hecasei snoj udgmentatall
,i
tcannotbet hesource
ofanyr i
ghtorthecr eatorofanyobl i
gation.Allact
spur suantt
oitandal lclai
msemanat ing
fr
om i thavenol egalef fectandt hev oidjudgmentcannev erbef i
nalandanywr itof
executi
onbasedoni tisli
kewi sev oid.

MBTCv
sNWPC
Undert hedoctr i
neofpr imaryjurisdiction,cour t
scannotandwi l
lnotr esolveacont r
ov ersy
i
nv ol
v i
ngaquest i
onwhi chiswi thint hej uri
sdicti
onofanadmi ni
strati
vet r
ibunal ,especi all
y
wheret hequest iondemandst heexer ciseofsoundadmi nistr
ati
vedi screti
onr equiri
ngt he
specialknowl edge,exper i
enceandser vicesoft headmi nistr
ati
vet ribunalt o det ermi ne
technicalandi ntri
catemat t
ersoff act .Undert hedoct ri
neofpr i
mar yjurisdiction,cour ts
cannotandwi llnotr esol
veacont rov ersyi nvolvi
ngaquest i
onwhi chi swi t
hinthej ur
isdiction
ofanadmi ni
strativ
et ri
bunal
,especi allywher ethequestiondemandst heexer ciseofsound
admi nistr
ativ
edi scretionrequir
ingt hespeci alknowledge,exper i
enceandser v i
cesoft he
admi nistr
ativ
et ri
bunal todeter
mi net echni calandintr
icat
emat t
ersoff act.

DeBar
rer
avsLegaspi
Fir
stl ev elcour tshav eexclusiveor i
ginalj ur i
sdi ct
ionov eraccionpubl i
cianaandacci on
rei
v i
ndicat ori
awher et heassessedv alueoft her ealpropertydoesnotexceed20, 000( or,
50,000wher et heact i
onisfil
edinMet r
oMani la) thejuri
sdict
ionalelementi st heassessed
valueoft hepr oper ty;Assessedv aluei sunder stoodt obet hewor thorv alueofpr operty
establi
shedbyt axingaut hor
iti
esont hebasi sofwhi chthet axrateisappliedcommonl y,it
doesnotr epresentt hetruevalueormar ketv alueoft hepr opert
y.Bef or
et heamendment s
i
ntroducedbyRepubl icActNo.7691,t hepl enar yact i
onofacci onpubl icianawast obe
broughtbef oret her egionaltr
ialcourt.Wi tht hemodi fi
cati
onsi nt
roducedbyR. A.No.7691i n
1994,t hej uri
sdi cti
onoft hefir
stlevelcour tshasbeenexpandedt oi ncl
udej urisdi
cti
onov er
otherr ealact ionswher etheassessedv aluedoesnotexceedP20, 000,P50, 000wher ethe
actioni sfiledinMet roManila.Thef irstlevelcour tsthushav eexclusiveoriginaljur
isdicti
on
overacci onpubl icianaandacci onr eiv
indicat oriawher et heassessedv al ueoft her eal
proper
tydoesnotexceedt heaforest
atedamounts.Accor
dingly,t
hejuri
sdict
ionalel
ementis
theassessedvalueoftheproperty.Assessedval
ueisunderstoodtobe thewor t
horvalue
ofpropert
yestabli
shedbyt axi
ngaut hori
ti
esont hebasi
sofwhi chthetaxr at
eisappli
ed.
Commonl y,however
,itdoesnotrepresentthet
rueormarketvalueoftheproperty.

Same;Same;Theest i
matedv alue,commonl yreferredt oasf airmarketv alue,isentirel
y
dif
ferentf r
om t heassessedv al
ueoft hepr oper
ty.
Thesubj ectlandhasanassessedv alue
ofP11, 160asr efl
ectedinTaxDecl arati
onNo.7565,acommonexhi bitofthepar ti
es.The
bareclaim ofr espondentsthatithasav al
ueofP50, 000t husfai
ls.Thecase, theref
ore,fall
s
withi
nt heexcl usiveori
ginalj
uri
sdi ctionoft hemuni cipalt ri
alcourt.I
twaser rorthenf orthe
RTCt ot akecogni zanceofthecompl aintbasedont heal legati
ont hat
thepresentest imated
val
ue[ ofthel andis]P50,000,
whi chal l
egationi
s,oddl y,handwr i
ttenonthepr i
ntedpleading.
Theest imat edv al
ue,commonl yref erredt oasfai
rmar ketv al
ue,isenti
relydi
fferentfrom the
assessedv alueofthepropert
y .
Same;Same;Lackofj ur
isdi
cti
oni soneoft hoseexcept edgroundswher ethecour tmay
dismissacl ai
m oracaseatanyt imewheni tappearsf r
om thepleadi ngsortheev i
denceon
recordt hatanyoft hosegr oundsexists,eveniftheywer enotr aisedi ntheanswerori na
mot i
ont odi
smi ss.Lackofj uri
sdict
ionisoneoft hoseexcept edgr oundswheret hecour
t
maydi smissacl ai
m oracaseatanyt i
mewheni tappearsf rom t hepleadi
ngsort he
evidenceonr ecordt hatanyoft hosegr oundsexists,ev eniftheywer enotraisedinthe
answerori namot iontodi smiss.Thatt heissueofl ackofj urisdict
ionwasr aisedby
petit
ionersonlyint heirMemor andum fi
ledbeforethet r
ialcourtdidnott husrenderthem i
n
estoppel .

Fl
ores-
Cruzv
sGol
i
-Cr
uz
Iti
saxi omat i
ct hatthenat ur eoft heact i
ononwhi chdependst hequest ionofwhet hera
suitiswi thint hej uri
sdicti
onoft hecour tisdet erminedsol elybyt heal legat
ionsi nthe
complaintandt hel aw att het i
met heactionwascommenced. Itisaxi omat i
ct hatthe
nature oft he actionon whi ch dependst he question ofwhet hera sui tiswi thinthe
j
urisdi
ctionoft hecour tisdet er
mi nedsolelybyt heall
egationsint hecompl aintandt helaw
atthetimet heact ionwascommenced.Onl yfactsall
egedi nthecompl aintcanbet hebasis
fordetermi ningt henatureoft heact ionandt hecourt
scompet encetot akecognizanceofi t
.
Onecannotadv erttoany t
hingnotsetf or
thi nthecompl aint
,suchasev i
denceadducedat
thetri
al,todet ermi nethenat ureoft heacti
ont herebyinit
iat
ed.
Jurisdiction;I
tisnol ongertruet hatallcasesofrecov
eryofpossessi
onoraccionpubli
ciana
l
iewi tht heRegi onalTrialCourt( RTC)regardl
essofthevalueofpropert
y.Ther
eisanother
reasonwhypet it
ionerscompl aintwasnotapr operactionforrecoveryofpossession
cogni zablebyt heRTC.I tisnolongert r
uethatal
lcasesofrecover
yofpossessionoraccion
publicianal i
ewi t
ht heRTCr egardl essoftheval
ueofthepropert
y.
Thet estofwhet heranact i
oninvolvi
ngpossessi onofr ealpropertyhasbeenf i
ledint he
propercour tnol ongerdependssolelyont hety
peofact i
onf i
l
edbutal soont heassessed
valueoft hepr opertyinvol
ved.
Whent hecasewasf i
ledi n2001,Congr esshadal ready
appr ovedRepubl icActNo.7691whi chexpandedt heMTC sj ur
isdict
iont oincludeot her
actions inv olvi
ng t i
tl
et o or possessi on of real proper
ty( acci
on publ i
ciana and
rei
nv indi
catoria)wher etheassessedv alueoft hepropertydoesnotexceedP20, 000( or
P50, 000,f
oract i
onsf i
l
edinMet r
oMani l
a).Becauseofthisamendment , t
het estofwhet her
anact i
oninv olv
ingpossessionofr ealpropertyhasbeenf i
ledinthepr opercour tnol onger
dependssolelyont hetypeofactionfi
ledbutal soontheassessedv al
ueofthepr opert
y
i
nv ol
ved.Morespeci f
ical
ly,si
nceMTCsnow hav ej
uri
sdict
ionoveraccionpubli
cianaand
accion r
einvi
ndicat
ori
a( dependi
ng,ofcour se,on theassessed valueofthepr opert
y),
j
urisdi
cti
onov ersuchactionshast obedeterminedont hebasi
soft heassessedv alueof
thepropert
y.
Thepr oceedingsbef oreacour twithoutj uri
sdict
ion,includi
ngitsdeci sion,arenulland
void.Sincepetit
ioner
scomplaintmadeoutacasef orunlawfuldetainerwhi chshouldhav e
beenf il
edi ntheMTCandi tcontai
nednoal l
egati
onont heassessedv alueoft hesubject
property,theRTCser iousl
yerredinpr oceedingwi tht hecase.Thepr oceedi ngsbefor
ea
courtwithoutjuri
sdict
ion,i
ncl
udingit
sdeci sion,arenullandv oi
d.Itfoll
owst hattheCAwas
correctindismissingt
hecase.

Fr
ianel
avsBanay
ad
Theappl i
cablelaw,therefore,confer
sj ur
isdict
ionont heRegionalTri
alCourt(RTC)ort he
Muni cipalTri
alCourt
s( MTCs)ov erprobat
epr oceedingsdependi
ngont hegrossval
ueoft he
estate,whichv aluemustbeal l
egedi nthecompl aintorpeti
ti
ontobef il
ed.
Theappl i
cable
l
aw,t herefor
e,confersj urisdi
cti
onont heRTC ort heMTCsov erprobateproceedings
dependi ngont hegrossv alueoft heestat
e, whichvaluemustbeallegedinthecomplaintor
petit
iont obefil
ed.
Same; Same; Settl
edi sthedoct ri
net hatt heissueofj uri
sdictionmayber aisedbyanyoft he
partiesormayber eckonedbyt hecour t,atanyst ageoft hepr oceedings,ev enonappeal ,
andi snotl ostbewai v
erorbyest oppel .Nowher eint hepet i
tionisther east atementoft he
grossv alueofMoi sessest ate.Thus, from ar eadi
ngoft heor iginalpeti
tionf i
led,i
tcannotbe
deter mi nedwhi chcour thasor iginalandexcl usiv
ej urisdict
ionov ert hepr oceedings.The
RTCt her eforecommi t
tedgr osser rorwheni thadper f
unct ori
lyassumedj uri
sdict
iondespi te
thef actt hatt hei nit
iatorypleadi ng filed bef or
ei tdi d notcal lf ort heexer ciseofi ts
j
ur i
sdi ction.TheRTCshoul dhav e,att heout set,di
smi ssedt hecasef orl ackofjurisdicti
on.
Bei tnot edt hatthedismi ssalont hesai dgr oundmaybeor deredmot upr opri
obyt hecour ts.
Further ,theCA,onappeal ,shouldhav edi smissedt hecaseont hesamegr ound.Set tledi s
thedoct ri
net hatthei ssueofj urisdictionmayber aisedbyanyoft hepar ti
esormaybe
reckonedbyt hecour t
,atanyst ageoft hepr oceedings,ev enonappeal ,andi snotl ostby
waiv erorbyest oppel.
Same;Same;Noi njust
icet ot heparti
esort oanyt hirdpersonwi llbewroughtbyt her uli
ng
thatthetr
ialcourthasnoj uri
sdict
ionov ertheinst
itutedprobatepr oceedings.Despi t
et he
pendencyofthiscasef orar ound18y ears,theexcept i
onlaiddowni nTi
jam v .Sibonghanoy ,
23SCRA29( 1968),andcl arifi
edrecentl
yi nFiguer
oav .People,558SCRASCRA63( 2008) ,
cannotbeappl ied.Fir
st,because,asagener alr
ul e,thepr i
ncipleofest oppelbyl aches
cannotli
eagainstthegov ernment.Noi njusti
cetot hepartiesort oanyt hir
dper sonwi llbe
wroughtbyt her ul
ingt hatt het r
ialcourthasnoj ur
isdi
ctionov erthei nstit
utedpr obate
proceedi
ngs.
Same;Same;Si ncet heRegi onalTri
alCour t(RTC)hasnoj ur
isdict
ionovertheacti
on,allthe
proceedingstherein,includingthedecisionr ender
ed,arenullandv oi
d.Si
ncet heRTChas
noj ur
isdict
ionov ertheact ion,al
lthepr oceedingstherei
n,i
ncludi
ngt hedecisi
onr ender
ed,
arenullandv oid.Witht heabov edisquisit
ion,theCourtfi
ndsitunnecessarytodiscussand
resolv
et heotherissuesr aisedinthepetiti
on.
 Al
l
egemei
neBauChemi
evsMBTC
Jurisdictions;PleadingsandPr act
ice;Itisaxi omati
cthatwhatdet er
mi nesthenat ur
eofan
acti
onandhence,t hejurisdicti
onoft hecour t,aret
heal l
egationsoft hecompl aintandt he
char acteroft hereliefsought .
I tisaxiomat icthatwhatdetermi nesthenat ur
eofanact i
on
andhence,t hejuri
sdicti
onofacour t,aret heall
egati
onsoft hecompl aintandt hecharacter
ofther eli
efsought .Petiti
onersonl ypray erinCA-G.R.No.71217i sf
ort hepreservati
onof
thest atusquo,t hatis,pet it
ioner,hav i
ngi npossessionov ert hesubj ectproperti
esf or
sever aly ears,shallretainsuchpossessi onuntilt
hecont r
ov ersy[CivilCaseNo.00- 196]
befor ethesai dtri
alcour t[Branch276, RTCofMunt i
nlupaCity]hasbeenf i
nall
yresolvedand
respondent sbepr eventedf r
om t akingov ersuchpossession.
Same;Same;I nj unctions;Anor igi
nalact i
onf orinj
unct i
oni sout sidet hejur i
sdi cti
onoft he
Cour tofAppeal s.Whatpet it
ionerf i
l
edwi tht heappel l
atecour twasanor iginalact ionfor
preli
mi naryi nj
unct i
on whi ch is a pr ovi
sionaland ext r
a-or dinaryr emedy cal culated to
preserveormai ntaint hest atusquo oft hi
ngsand i sav ail
ed oft o pr ev entact ualor
threatenedact s, untilthemer i
tsoft hecasecanbehear d.Anor i
ginalact i
onf orinjunct i
onis
outsidet hejurisdicti
onoft heCour tofAppeal s,howev er.UnderB. P.129, theappel latecourt
hasor iginaljurisdicti
ononl yov eracti
onsf orannul mentofj udgment soft heRTCsandhas
ori
ginalj uri
sdict i
ont oi ssuewr it
sofmandamus,pr ohibit
ion,cer tior
ari,habeascor pusand
quowar ranto,andauxi li
arywr i
tsorpr ocesseswhet herornott heyar ei naidofi tsappel l
ate
j
urisdicti
on.
Theappel latecour t
sj urisdi
cti
ont ogr antawr itofpr eli
mi naryi njunctioni sl i
mitedt ot he
acti
ons orpr oceedings pendi ng bef orei tori n a pet it
ion f orcer ti
or ari,prohibi
tion or
mandamus,underRul e65. Theappel l
atecour t
sj uri
sdi ct
iont ogr antawr itofpr el
imi nary
i
njuncti
oni sl i
mi t
edt oact i
onsorpr oceedi ngspendi ngbef orei t
,asSect i
on2ofRul e58of
theRulescl earl
ypr ovides:SECTI ON2.Whomaygr antpr el
imi naryi njunction.Apr el
imi nary
i
njuncti
onmaybegr antedbyt hecour twher etheact ionorpr oceedi ngi spending.xxx
(Emphasissuppl i
ed),ori napet i
tionf orcer t
iorari
,pr ohibiti
onormandamusunderSect ion7
ofRule65,t hus:SECTI ON7.Expedi tingpr oceedings;i nj
unct i
v er eli
ef.Thecour tinwhi ch
thepetit
ioni sf i
ledmayi ssueor dersexpedi ti
ngt hepr oceedi ngs,andi tmayal sogr anta
temporaryr estraini
ngor derorawr itofpr eliminaryi njunct i
onf ort hepr eserv
ationoft he
ri
ghtsoft hepar ti
espendi ngsuchpr oceedings.Thepet iti
onshal lnoti nterruptthecour seof
thepri
ncipalcaseunl essat empor aryrestraini
ngor derorawr i
tofpr eli
mi nar yi
njunctionhas
beenissuedagai nstt hepubl i
cr espondentf rom fur t
herpr oceedi ngi nt hecase.( Emphasi s
suppli
ed)
Same;Same;Same;Appeals;I
tiswel
l
-set
tl
edt
hatanor
dergr
ant
ingordeny
ingapr
eli
minar
y
i
njunct
ioni
snotappeal
able.I
tiswel
l-
set
tl
edt
hatanor
dergr
ant
ingordeny
ingapr
eli
minar
y
i
njunct
ioni
snotappeal
abl
e.

LPBSCommer
cial
,I
nc.v
s.Ami
l
a
Juri
sdi
cti
ons;TheSupr emeCour t
sorigi
naljuri
sdict
iontoissueawr i
tofcerti
orar
i(aswell
asofprohibi
ti
on,mandamus,quowar ranto,habeascorpusandinjuncti
on)i
snotexclusi
ve,
butisconcurrentwi t
ht he Regi
onalTr ialCourtsand the CourtofAppeal sin cert
ain
cases.
Nospeci alandimportantreasonorexcept i
onalandcompel li
ngcir
cumstancehas
beenadducedbyt hepeti
ti
onerwhydi rectrecoursetothi
sCour tshouldbeallowed.This
Cour
t
sori
ginaljur
isdi
cti
ontoissueawr i
tofcert
ior
ari(aswel
lasofprohi
bit
ion,mandamus,
quowarr
anto,habeascor pusandi nj
uncti
on)isnotexclusi
ve,buti
sconcur r
entwitht
he
Regi
onal
Tri
al CourtsandtheCourtofAppealsi
ncertai
ncases.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Hi erarchyofCour t s;Theconcur renceofj urisdi ct i
oni snot ,tobe
takenasaccor dingt opar t i
esseeki nganyoft hewr itsanabsol ut e,unr est rai nedf reedom of
choi ceoft hecour tt owhi chappl icat i
ont her eforwi llbedi rect edt her ei saf t eral lahi erarchy
ofcour tswhi chi sdet er mi nativeoft hev enueofappeal s,andal soser vesasagener al
det ermi nantoft heappr opr i
atef or um f orpet i
tionsf ort heext raor dinar ywr i
ts; Thepr opensi ty
ofl i
tigant sandl awy erst odi sregar dt hehi erar chyofcour tsi nourj udi cialsy stem byseeki ng
reli
efdi rectlyf rom t hisCour tmustbeputt oahal tf ort wor easons:( 1)i twoul dbean
i
mposi tionupont hepr ecioust i
meoft hisCour t;and( 2)i twoul dcauseani nev itabl eand
resul tantdel ay ,i nt ended orot her wi se,i nt he adj udicat ion ofcases. I n Li ga ng mga
Bar angayv .CityMay orofMani la,420SCRA562( 2004) ,wehel dt hat Thi sconcur r
enceof
j
ur i
sdi ctioni snot ,howev er ,tobet akenasaccor di
ngt opar tiesseeki nganyoft hewr i
tsan
absol ute,unr est rai nedf r
eedom ofchoi ceoft hecour tt owhi chappl i
cationt her eforwi llbe
direct ed.Ther ei saf terallahi erar chyofcour ts.Thathi er archyi sdet ermi nat iv eoft hev enue
ofappeal s,andal soser vesasagener aldet er mi nantoft heappr opr iatef or um f orpet i
tions
fort heext raor dinar ywr its.A becomi ngr egar doft hatj udi cialhi erarchymostcer tainly
i
ndi cat est hatpet itionsf ort hei ssuanceofext raor dinar ywr itsagai nstf irstl ev el( inferior
)
cour tsshoul dbef il
edwi tht heRegi onalTr ialCour t
,andt hoseagai nstt hel atter ,wi tht he
Cour tofAppeal s.Adi recti nv ocat ionoft heSupr emeCour tsor iginalj ur isdi ct i
ont oi ssue
thesewr i
tsshoul dbeal l
owedonl ywhent her ear especi alandi mpor t
antr easonst her efor ,
clear lyandspeci fical l
ysetouti nt hepet ition.Thi si s[ an]est ablishedpol icy .I tisapol icy
necessar yt opr ev enti nor dinat edemandsupont heCour t
st i
meandat tent ionwhi char e
bet terdev otedt ot hosemat terswi thini t
sexcl usivej urisdi ction,andt opr ev entf ur therov er-
crowdi ngoft heCour tsdocket .Thepr opensi t
yofl i
tigant sandl awy erst odi sregar dt he
hierar chyofcour tsi nourj udicialsy stem byseeki ngr eli
efdi r ectlyf r
om t hisCour tmustbe
putt oahal tfort wor easons:( 1)i twoul dbeani mposi tionupont hepr eci oust imeoft his
Cour t;and( 2)itwoul dcauseani nev i
tabl eandr esultantdel ay ,int endedorot her wise,i nt he
adjudi cat i
onofcases, whi chinsomei nst anceshadt ober e-mandedorr ef er redt ot hel ower
cour tast hepr operf orum undert her ul esofpr ocedur e, orasbet terequi ppedt or esol vet he
i
ssuesbecauset hisCour ti snotat ri
eroff act s.

GSI
SvsCabal
l
ero
TeststoDet er
mineWhet heraCount erclai
mi sCompul soryorPer missive.
Todet ermi ne
whetheracount erclaimiscompul sor
yornot ,t
heCour thasdevi
sedt hef oll
owi ngtests:(a)
Arethei ssuesoff actandl awr aisedbyt heclai
m andbyt hecountercl
aiml argelythesame?
(b)Woul dr esjudicatabarasubsequentsui tondef endant
sclai
ms,absentt hecompul sory
counterclai
mr ul
e?( c)Willsubstanti
all
ythesameev i
dencesupportorr efuteplainti
ff
sclaim
aswel last hedefendant
scount ercl
aim?and( d)I
st hereanylogicalrelati
onbet weent he
clai
m andt hecount ercl
aim?Aposi ti
veanswert oallfourquesti
onswoul dindicatethatt he
counterclai
mi scompul sory.
Theruleinpermissi
vecounterclai
msi st hatf ort
het r
ialcour
ttoacqui rejuri
sdict
ion,t he
count
ercl
aimantis bound to payt he pr escri
bed docketfees.
The r ulein permi ssive
count
ercl
aimsisthatfort
hetrialcourttoacqui rej
uri
sdicti
on,t
hecount er
clai
manti sbound
topaytheprescri
beddocketf ees.This,petiti
onerdidnotdo,becausei tassertedthati ts
cl
aimforthecoll
ecti
onofrentalpayment swasacompul sor
ycounter
claim.Sincepet i
tioner
fai
ledt opayt hedocketfees,t heRTC di dnotacquir
ejuri
sdicti
onov erit
sper mi
ssi
ve
count er
clai
m.Thejudgmentr enderedbyt heRTC,insof
arasi torderedFernandotopay
petit
ionertherent
alswhichhecol lectedfr
om CMTC,i sconsiderednullandv oi
d.Any
decisionrender
edwit
houtjur
isdicti
oni satot
alnul
l
ityandmaybest ruckdownatanyti
me,
evenonappeal bef
orethi
sCour t
.

I
nter
nat
ional
Indust
ri
alDev
tCor
pvs.CA
Thef actt hatt hemai nact ionorpr i
ncipalr eli
efsoughti nt hecompl aintisf orspeci fic
performance and/ orr escission is onl ydet er minat i
ve ofj urisdicti
on int he sense t hat,
regardlessoft heamountofi ncidentaloraddi ti
onalcl aimsf ordamages,t hecasei swi thin
theexcl usivej urisdicti
onoft heRTC. Thef actt hatt hemai nact ionorpr i
ncipalreli
efsought
i
nt hecompl ainti sf orspeci fi
cper f
ormanceand/ orr esci
ssioni sonlydet er
minat i
veof
j
urisdictioni nt hesenset hat, regardlessoft heamountofi ncident aloradditi
onalclaimsf or
damages,t hecasei swi t
hi nt heexcl usi
v eor i
gi naljurisdi
cti
onoft heRegi onalTrialCour t
.
Thisdoesnotmean, howev er,thatthesepar atecl ai
msf ordamagest her
einar eexemptf rom
thepay mentofdocketf ees.Thepr ayerinpr i
v ater espondent '
ssecondamendedcompl aint
revealst hat,inaddi ti
ont ot hepr i
ncipalreli
efofspeci ficperformanceand/ orrescissi
on,i t
categor i
cally and uncondi ti
onal ly seeks the pay mentofact ual,mor aland exempl ary
damages, wi that torney'sfeesandexpensesofl i
t i
gation.

Padi
l
lav
sMagdua
Wher et hebasi ci ssueissomet hingot herthant her ighttorecov erasum ofmoney ,wher e
themoneycl aimi spur elyi ncident alto,oraconsequenceof ,thepr i
ncipalreliefsought ,t
he
Cour thasconsi deredsuchact i
onsascaseswher et hesubjectoft heliti
gationmaynotbe
est imat edi ntermsofmoney ,andar ecogni zablebycour tsoffirsti
nstance( NowRegi onal
TrialCour ts).
Indet ermini ngwhet heranact ioni sonet hesubjectmat t
erofwhi chi snot
capabl eofpecuni aryest i
mat i
ont hi sCourthasadopt edt hecrit
erionoff ir
stascer t
ainingthe
nat ureoft heprincipalact ionorr emedysought .I
fitispr i
mar i
l
yf orther ecoveryofasum of
money ,theclaimi sconsi deredcapabl eofpecuni aryest imati
on,andwhet herj uri
sdicti
oni s
i
nt hemuni ci
palcour tsori nt hecour tsoff i
rstinstancewoul ddependont heamountoft he
claim.Howev er, wheret hebasi cissuei ssomet hingot herthanther i
ghtt orecov erasum of
money ,wher et hemoneycl aimi spur elyincidentalt o,oraconsequenceof ,thepr i
ncipal
reliefsought ,thisCour thasconsi deredsuchact ionsascaseswher et hesubj ectoft he
l
itigat i
onmaynotbeest imat edi nt ermsofmoney ,andar ecogni zablebycour tsoff i
rst
i
nst ance( nowRegi onal TrialCour ts) .
Same;Same;Same;Wel l
-entrenchedi st her ul
et hatjurisdicti
onov ert
hesubj ectmat terofa
casei sconf erredbyl aw andi sdet erminedbyt heal legationsi nthecompl aintandt he
characteroft her eli
efsought ,irrespect iveofwhet hert hepar tyisent i
tledt oallorsomeof
theclai
msasser ted.Whenpet i
tionersf il
edt heact ionwi tht heRTCt heysoughtt or ecover
ownershipandpossessi onoft hel andbyquest i
oning( 1)thedueexecut ionandaut henticit
y
oftheAf fi
dav i
texecut edbyJuani tainf avorofRi cardowhi chcausedRi cardot obet hesol e
owneroft hel andt ot heex clusionofpet i
ti
oner swhoal socl aimt obel egalhei r
sandent i
tled
totheland,and( 2)thev ali
dityoft hedeedofsal eexecut edbet weenRi cardosdaught ers
andDomi nador .Sincet hepr incipalact ionsoughther eissomet hingot herthant her ecovery
ofasum ofmoney ,t
heact i
oni si ncapabl eofpecuni aryest i
mat i
onandt huscogni zableby
theRTC.Wel l-entrenchedi st her ulet hatj uri
sdictionov ert hesubj ectmat terofacasei s
confer
redbylawandi sdeter
minedbytheal
legat
ionsi
nthecompl
aintandt
hechar
act
erof
therel
iefsought
,ir
respect
iveofwhet
herthepartyisent
it
ledt
oal
lorsomeoft hecl
aims
assert
ed.

Pal
togv
sCSC
InPusev .Sant os-Puse,615SCRA500( 2010),itwashel dthattheCSC,t heDepar tmentof
Educat ion ( DepEd) and t he Boar d of Pr ofessionalTeacher s-
Professi
onalRegul at
ory
Commi ssi on( PRC)hav econcur r
entj urisdicti
onov eradmi nistr
ati
vecasesagai nstpubl i
c
schoolt eacher s.UnderAr ti
cleIX-Boft he1987Const i
tuti
on,theCSCi sthebodychar ged
witht heest abli
shmentandadmi nist
rationofacar eercivilservi
cewhi chembr acesal l
branches and agenci es of t he gov ernment .Ex ecuti
ve Or der (E.O.) No.292 ( the
Admi nist r
ativeCodeof1987)andPr esidenti
alDecr ee( P.D.)No.807( theCiv i
lSer vi
ce
Decr eeoft hePhi l
ippines)expresslypr ovidethatt heCSChast hepowert ohearanddeci de
admi ni strativediscipl
inarycasesi nstit
utedwi thi torbr oughttoitonappeal .Thus,theCSC,
ast hecent ralpersonnelagencyoft hegov er
nment ,hastheinherentpowert osuper vi
seand
disciplineal l member soft hecivi
lser vi
ce, i
ncludingpubl icschoolteachers.
Republ i
cActNo.4670;Republ i
cActNo.7836;Teacher s;UnderSect ion9ofR. A.No.4670,
thej uri
sdict
ionov eradmi nistrativecasesofpubl i
cschoolt eacher sislodgedwi ththe
i
nv esti
gatingcommi tteeconst itutedtherein.Al so,underSect i
on23ofR. A.No.7836( the
Phili
ppineTeacher sPr of essional i
zati
onActof1994) ,theBoar dofPr ofessionalTeachersis
givent hepower ,af terduenot iceandhear i
ng,t osuspendorr ev okethecer ti
fi
cat
eof
registr
ati
onofapr ofessi onalteacherf orcausesenumer atedtherein.Indeed,underSection
9ofR. A.No.4670,t hej urisdictionov eradmi nistrat
ivecasesofpubl i
cschoolt eachersis
l
odgedwi ththeinv estigatingcommi t
teeconst i
tutedther ein.Also,underSect ion23ofR. A.
No.7836 ( t
he Phi li
ppi ne Teacher s Pr ofessionali
zat i
on Actof 1994) ,the Boar d of
ProfessionalTeacher si sgivent hepower ,afterduenot iceandhear ing,tosuspendorr evoke
thecer t
if
icateofregistrat i
onofapr of
essional teacherforcausesenumer at
edt herei
n.
RemedialLaw;Ci vilProcedure;Jur i
sdicti
on;Concur rentJur i
sdict
ion;Concur
rentjur
isdict
ion
i
st hatwhi
chi spossessedov ert hesamepar ti
esorsubj ectmat t
eratthesamet imebyt wo
ormor esepar at
et ri
bunal
s.Concur r
entj ur
isdicti
oni st hatwhi chispossessedov ert he
samepar t
iesorsubj ectmat t
eratt hesamet i
mebyt woormor eseparatetri
bunal
s.When
thelawbestowsuponagov er
nmentbodyt hejurisdi
ct i
ont ohearanddecidecasesinv olv
ing
specif
icmatters,itistobepr esumedt hatsuchj uri
sdicti
oni sexclusi
veunlessitbepr oved
thatanot
herbodyi sl i
kewisev estedwi ththesamej uri
sdict
ion,inwhichcase,bothbodi es
haveconcurrentjurisdi
cti
onov ert hemat ter
.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Whereconcur rentjuri
sdicti
onexi stsi
nsev er
altri
bunals,
t hebody
thatf
irsttakescognizanceoft hecompl aintshallexercisej
ur i
sdi
cti
ont otheexclusi
onoft he
other
s.Wher econcur rentjur
isdi
ctionexi st
si nsev eraltr
ibunal
s,thebodyt hatfi
rstt akes
cognizanceoft hecompl ai
ntshallexercisejuri
sdicti
ont otheexclusionoft heother
s.I nthis
case,itwasCSCwhi chfir
stacquiredjurisdi
ctionov erthecasebecauset hecompl aintwas
fi
ledbeforeit.Thus,ithadt heauthorit
yt oproceedanddeci det
hecaset otheexclusionof
theDepEdandt heBoar dofProfessionalTeacher s.
Same;Same;Same;TheSupr emeCour thastimeandagainfrownedupont heundesirable
pract
iceofapartysubmitt
inghiscasefordecisi
onandthenaccepti
ngthej udgmentonl yif
favor
able,butat
tacki
ngitforlackofjuri
sdict
ionwhenadver
se.Atanyr ate,granti
ngt hat
theCSCwaswi t
houtjur
isdict
ion,t
hepetit
ionerisi
ndeedest
oppedf rom raisi
ngt heissue.
Althought her ul
estat esthataj ur
isdicti
onalquest i
onmayber ai
sedatanyt i
me,suchr ule
admi tsoft heexcept i
onwher e,asint hiscase,estoppelhassuperv ened.Her e,inst
eadof
opposi ngt heCSC sexer ciseofj urisdicti
on,thepet i
ti
onerinvokedt hesamebyact iv
ely
parti
cipati
ngi nthepr oceedi ngsbeforet heCSC- CARandbyev enf i
l
inghi sappealbef orethe
CSCi tself
;onl yrai
singt hei ssueofj uri
sdicti
onl at
erinhismot i
onforr econsiderati
onaf t
er
theCSCdeni edhisappeal .Thi sCour thast i
meandagai nfrownedupont heundesi r
able
practi
ceofapar tysubmi t
tinghi scasef ordecisionandthenacceptingt hejudgmentonl yif
favorable,butatt
ackingi tforlackofj uri
sdicti
onwhenadv erse.

OngChi
ngv
sChi
naNat
ional
Cer
eal
s
Whilethegener alrulei
sthatthepor tionofadeci sionthatbecomest hesubj ectofexecut ion
i
st hator dainedordecr eedi nthedi spositi
vepar tthereof,therear eexcept i
onst ot hi s
rul
e.Whi letheCour tofAppeal sst atedint hedi sposi t
ivepor t
ionofi tsdecisiont hat the
prayerfordismissalofthecompl ainti nMani l
amaybepur suedbefor esaidcour tdur i
ngt he
proceedings,i
ti scl
earfr
om thebodyoft heCour tofAppeal sDecisiont hatthecasebef ore
theMani lacour tshouldbedi smissedongr oundsofl i
ti
spendent i
a,andf orum shoppi ng.
Whilethegener alrulei
sthatthepor tionofadeci sionthatbecomest hesubj ectofexecut ion
i
st hatordainedordecr eedint hedi sposit
ivepar tt hereof,thereareexcept ionst ot hi
sr ule.
Theex ceptionswher ethedisposit
ivepar toft hej udgmentdoesnotal waysprev ailovert he
bodyoft heopi nionare:(
a)wher ether eisambi guityoruncer t
ainty
,t hebodyoft heopi nion
mayber eferr
edt oforpur
posesofconst ruingthej udgmentbecauset hedispositivepar tofa
decisi
onmustf indsupportfrom t hedeci sion
sr atiodeci dendi;(b)wher eext ensiveand
expli
citdiscussionandsettl
ementoft heissuei sf oundi nthebodyoft hedecision.
When onecour thasacqui r
ed jurisdi
cti
on ov eracase,i texcludesal lot hercourtsof
concur r
entjuri
sdicti
onfrom acquiringjuri
sdicti
onov erthesame. TheQuezonCi tycourt
andt heMani l
acour thaveconcurrentjuri
sdi
ct i
onov ert
hecase.Howev er ,whent heQuezon
Cit
ycour tacquir
edj uri
sdi
cti
onov erthecase,i texcl
udedallothercour tsofconcur rent
j
urisdicti
onfrom acquiri
ngjur
isdi
ct i
onov erthesame.TheMani l
acour tis,therefor
e,devoid
ofjurisdi
cti
onov erthecompl ai
ntf i
ledresul
tingi ntheherei
nassaileddecisionwhi chmust
perforcebedecl arednullandv oid.Tohol dot her
wisewoul dbet oriski nstanceswher e
courtsofconcurrentjuri
sdi
cti
onmi ghthav econf l
ict
ingorder
s.

Ray
osv
sMani
l
a
Juri
sdi cti
on;TheCour t
sorigi naljuri
sdictiontoi ssuewr itsofcerti
or arii
snotexcl usive;Itis
shared byt he Courtwi th Regi onalTr ialCour ts and wi t
ht he Cour tofAppeal s;Thi s
concur renceofj ur
isdicti
oni snot ,howev er ,tobet akenasaccor dingt oparti
esseeki ngany
ofthewr i
tsanabsol ute,unr estrainedf r
eedom ofchoi ceoft hecour ttowhi chappl ication
thereforwi llbedi r
ected;Di recti nvocationoft heSupr emeCour tsor i
ginaljuri
sdictiont o
i
ssuet hesewr i
tsshoul dbeal l
owedonl ywhent her ear especialandi mportantr easons
therefor,clearl
yandspeci f
ical l
ysetouti nt hepet i
ti
on. ThisCour t
sor igi
naljuri
sdictiont o
i
ssuewr i
tsofcer t
iorarii
snotexcl usive.Iti ssharedbyt hisCourtwi thRegionalTr i
alCour ts
andwi ththeCour tofAppeal s.Thi sconcur r
enceofj ur i
sdict
ionisnot ,howev er,t
obet aken
asaccor di
ngt oparti
esseeki nganyoft hewr i
tsanabsol ute,
unrestrainedfreedom ofchoi ce
ofthecour tt owhichappl icat i
ont hereforwi llbedi rected.Therei saf t
erallahi erarchyof
courts.Thathi erar
chyi sdet erminat i
veoft hevenueofappeal s,andal soservesasagener al
determi nantoft heappr opriatef orum forpet i
ti
onsf ort heextraordinarywr i
ts.Abecomi ng
regar dforthatjudicialhi erarchymostcer tainl
yindicatesthatpetit
ionsfortheissuanceof
extraordinarywritsagai nstf i
rstlevel(
inferi
or)courtsshouldbef i
l
edwi ththeRegionalTrial
Cour t,andt hoseagai nstt hel att
er,witht heCour tofAppeal s.Adi recti
nvocati
onoft he
Supr emeCour t
soriginalj uri
sdicti
ont oissuet hesewr i
tsshouldbeal lowedonlywhent here
arespeci alandi mpor tantr easonst herefor,cl
earl
yandspeci f
ical
lysetouti nthepet i
ti
on.
Thisi s[an]establi
shedpol icy.

Cabr
erav
sFr
anci
sco
Juri
sdiction;Jur
isdict
ionoft hecourtisdet er
minedbyt henatur
eoft heacti
onpl eadedas
appearing f r
om t he al l
egat
ions i
nt he Compl ai
nt.
To ascertai
nt he corr
ect ness of
peti
ti
oner scont
ention,theaverment
si ntheCompl ai
ntandthecharacteroft
hereliefsought
i
nt hesai dCompl aintmustbeconsul ted.Thisisbecauset hejuri
sdi
cti
onoft hecour tis
deter
mi nedbyt henat ureoftheactionpl eadedasappearingfrom theall
egationsi nthe
Complai nt.
Same;Same;Same;I ndet erminingwhet heranact ioni sonet hesubj ectmat t
erofwhi chi s
notcapabl eofpecuni ar
yest imationt heSupr emeCour thasadopt edthecr i
terionoff i
rst
ascer tai
ningt henat ureoft hepr incipalactionorr emedysought .
TheCour ti nUngr i
av .
Cour tofAppeal s, 654SCRA314( 2011) ,
restatedthecr iterionl
ai ddowni nSi ngsonv .Isabel a
Sawmi ll
,88SCRA 623( 1979) ,toascer t
aini fanact ioni scapabl eornotofpecuni ary
estimat i
on,v i
z.:Indet er
mi ningwhet heranact i
oni sonet hesubj ectmatterofwhi chi snot
capabl eofpecuni aryesti
mat iont hisCour thasadopt edt hecriterionoffir
stascer tainingt he
natureoft heprincipalactionorr emedysought .I
fiti spr i
mar i
l
yf ortherecov eryofasum of
money ,thecl ai
mi sconsideredcapabl eofpecuni aryest i
mat i
on,andwhet herjurisdictioni s
i
nt hemuni ci
palcour t
sori nt he[C]our t
sof[ F]i
rst[
I]nstancewoul ddependont heamountof
thecl aim.Howev er,wheret hebasi cissuei ssomet hingot hert
hant heri
ghtt or ecoverasum
ofmoney ,wheret hemoneycl aimi spur el
yincidentalt o,oraconsequenceof ,thepr incipal
rel
iefsought ,thisCour thasconsi deredsuchact ionsascaseswher et hesubj ectoft he
l
iti
gat ionmaynotbeest i
mat edint ermsofmoney ,andar ecogni zableexclusivelyby[ C] ourts
of[F]irst[I
]nstance( nowRegi onalTrialCourts).
Same; Civ ilProcedur e;Act ions; RealAct ions; UnderSect ion1, Rule4oft heRul esofCour t,
a
realactioni sanact ionaf fect i
ngt i
tlet oorpossessi onofr ealproper t
y ,orinter estt herein.
These i ncl ude par tit
ion or condemnat ion of ,or f oreclosure of mor tgage on,r eal
property.Cl early, theal legat ionsint hei rCompl ai
ntf ai
ledt osuffi
cientlyshowt hatt heyhav e
i
nterestofwhat ev erki ndov ert hepr oper t
iesofr espondent s.Gi v
ent hese,pet i
tioner sclaim
thattheiract i
oni nv ol vesi nt erestov erar ealpr opertyisunav ai
li
ng.Thus,t heCour tquot es
withappr ovalt heCA sr atiocinati
onwi thr espectt ot hesame:Ast ot hei
rweakcl aim of
i
nterestov erthepr oper t
y ,itisappar entt hatt hei
ronlyinterestistobecompensat edf ortheir
l
ong-term admi nist rationoft hepr oper ties.Theydonotcl aim ani nt
er esti nthepr operti
es
themsel vesbutmer elypay mentf ort heirser vices,such pay mentt heycomput et o be
equivalentt of i
v e( 5%)per centoft hev alueoft hepr operti
es.UnderSect ion1,Rul e4oft he
RulesofCour t,ar ealact ioni sanact ionaf fecti
ngt i
tletoorpossessi onofr ealpr oper t
y,or
i
nterestt her ei
n.Thesei ncl udepar titi
onorcondemnat ionof ,orforeclosur eofmor tgageon,
realproper ty.Plai ntiffs-appel l
antsinteresti sobv iouslynott heonecont empl atedundert he
rul
esonj ur i
sdiction.
Same;Same;Cour ts;RegionalTri
alCourt
s;Juri
sdict
ion;Thi
sj ur
isdi
cti
onalamountof
exceedi
ng P100,
000.00 f
orRegionalTr
ialCour
ts( RTCs)out
sideofMet ro Mani
l
awas
adjust edt oP200, 000. 00ef fectiv eMar ch20, 1999i npur suancet oSect i
on5ofRA7691. To
deter mine whet hert he RTC i nt hi
s case has j urisdiction ov erpet iti
oner sCompl aint
,
respondent scor rectlyarguedt hatt hesamebeconsi deredv is--v
isSect ion19( 8)ofBP129,
whi chpr ov ides:SEC.19.Jur isdi cti
oni nCi vilCases. Regi onalTr ialCour tsshal lexercise
exclusi veor igi
nalj uri
sdicti
on:x xxx(8)Inal lothercasesi nwhi cht hedemand, excl
usiveof
i
nter ests,damagesofwhat everki nd,at t
orney sf ees,l i
tigationexpenses,andcost sort he
valueoft hepr oper t
yexceedsOnehundr edt housandpesos( P100, 000.00)or ,insuchot her
casesi nMet roMani l
a,wher et hedemand,excl usiv eoft heabov ement ionedi t
emsexceeds
Two hundr ed t housand pesos ( P200,000.00) .Thi sj urisdict i
onalamountofexceedi ng
P100, 000. 00f orRTC sout sideofMet r
oMani lawasadj ustedt oP200, 000.00ef fective
Mar ch20,1999i npur suancet oSect i
on5ofRA7691whi chf urtherprov ides:SEC.5.Af ter
fi
ve( 5)y ear sfrom t heef f
ect i
v ityoft hi
sAct ,thej urisdictionalamount sment ionedi nSec.
19(3) ,(4) ,and( 8); andSec.33( 1)ofBat asPambansaBl g.129asamendedbyt hisAct,shall
beadj ust edt oTwohundr edt housandpesos( P200, 000.00) .Fi ve( 5)year sther eaft
er,such
j
ur i
sdi ctionalamount s shal lbe adj usted f urthert o Thr ee hundr ed t housand pesos
(P300, 000. 00):Pr ovided,howev er ,Thati nthecaseofMet roMani l
a,theabov ement i
oned
j
ur i
sdi ctionalamount sshal lbeadj ustedaf t
erf ive( 5)y earsf rom t heef f
ect ivi
tyoft hi
sActt o
Fourhundr edt housandpesos( P400, 000.00).Hence,whenpet i
ti
oner sf i
ledt heirCompl aint
onSept ember3,2001,t hesai di ncreasedj urisdictionalamountwasal readyef fect
ive.The
demandi nt heirCompl ai
ntmustt hereforeexceedP200, 000. 00i nor derfori ttof al
lundert he
j
ur i
sdi ctionoft heRTC.

Russel
vsVest
il
Act
ions;Jur
isdi
cti
on;Compl aintfi
led beforetheRegionalTri
alCour tisdoubt
lessone
i
ncapabl
eofpecuni aryest
imationandt heref
orewit
hinthejur
isdi
cti
onofsaidcourt.
The
complai
ntfi
l
edbef oret heRegionalTrialCourtisdoubtl
essonei ncapabl
eofpecuniar
y
est
imati
onandthereforewit
hinthejur
isdict
ionofsai
dcourt.
Same;Same;Same;I ndet erminingwhet heranact ioni sonet hesubj ectmatterofwhi chi s
notcapabl eofpecuni aryest i
mat iont hi
sCour thasadopt edt hecri
ter
ionoff i
rstascer t
aini
ng
thenat ureofthepr incipalact i
onorr emedysought .
I nSingsongv s.IsabelaSawmi ll
,wehad
theoccasi ont or ulet hat:[I
]ndet er
mi ni
ngwhet heranact ionisonet hesubjectmat terof
whichi snotcapabl eofpecuni aryest imati
ont hisCour thasadopt edt hecr i
ter i
onoff i
rst
ascer taini
ngt henat ureoft hepr incipalactionorr emedysought .I
fi tisprimar il
yf orthe
recov eryofasum ofmoney ,thecl aimi sconsideredcapabl eofpecuni aryest imation,and
whet herj ur
isdicti
oni si nthemuni cipalcourtsori nthecour tsoffir
stinstancewoul ddepend
ont heamountoft hecl aim.Howev er,wheret hebasi ci ssueissomet hi
ngot herthant he
ri
ghtt or ecoverasum ofmoney ,wher et hemoneycl aim ispur elyinci
dent alt o,ora
consequenceof ,
thepr incipalrel
iefsought ,thisCour thasconsi deredsuchact ionsascases
wher et hesubj ectoft hel i
ti
gationmaynotbeest i
mat edi ntermsofmoney ,andar e
cogni zableexcl usiv
elybycour tsoff irsti
nstance( nowRegi onalTri
alCour t
s).
Same;Same;Same;Exampl esofactionsincapableofpecuniaryest
imat i
on.Examplesof
actionsi ncapabl
eofpecuni aryest
imationar ethoseforspecif
icperformance,support
,or
foreclosureofmor tgageorannulmentofjudgment ;al
soacti
onsquestioni
ngthev al
idi
tyofa
mor tgage,annulli
ngadeedofsal eorconv eyanceandt orecoverthepr i
cepaidandf or
rescission,whichi
sacount erpar
tofspecifi
cper f
ormance.
Same;Same;Same;Whi
l
ethecompl
aintal
sopr
aysf
ort
hepar
ti
ti
onoft
hepr
oper
ty,t
hisi
s
j
usti ncident alt
ot hemai nact i
on,whi chisthedecl arati
onofnul l
it
yoft hedocument ;Itis
axiomat ict hatjurisdi cti
onov erthesubj ectmat terofacasei sconferredbyl aw andi s
determi nedbyt heal legationsi nt hecompl aintandt hecharacteroft her eliefsought ,
i
rrespect i
ve ofwhet hert he plainti
f fi sentit
led to al lorsome oft he cl ai
msasser ted
therei
n.Themai npur poseofpet it
ioner sinfi
lingt hecompl aintistodecl arenul landv oid
thedocumenti nwhi chpr i
vaterespondent sdeclaredt hemselvesast heonlyhei rsoft helate
spousesCasi meroTaut hoandCesar i
aTaut hoanddi vi
dedhispropertyamongt hemsel ves
totheexcl usionofpet it
ionerswhoal soclaimt obel egalhei
rsandent it
ledt othepr operty
.
Whi l
et hecompl aintal sopr aysfort hepar ti
ti
onoft hepr oper
ty,thi
si sj
usti nci
dent altot he
mai nact ion,whi chi st hedecl arationofnul l
ityoft hedocumentabov e-described.I tis
axiomat ict hatjurisdi cti
onov erthesubj ectmat terofacasei sconferredbyl aw andi s
determi nedbyt heal legationsi nt hecompl aintandt hecharacteroft her eliefsought ,
i
rrespect i
veofwhet hert hepl ai
ntif
fisent i
tl
edtoal lorsomeoft heclaimsasser tedt herei
n.

Phi
l
naVsEst
ani
sl
ao
Apet i
ti
onisonef ordeclar
atoryreli
efwherei tseeksthedeclarationbythecour tofthe
unconsti
tut
ional
ityandi ll
egali
tyofther ul
einwhi chtheSupremeCour thasonlyappel l
ate
andnotor i
ginaljurisdi
cti
on.Whil
et hiscaseisst yl
edasapet i
tionforcer
tior
ari,ther
ei s,
however,nodeny ingt hefactthat
,inessence,itseekst hedeclarati
onbythecour tofthe
unconsti
tut
ional
ityandi ll
egali
tyofthequestionedrule,t
huspar t
akingthenature,inreal
ity,
ofonefordeclaratoryrel
iefoverwhichthisCourthasonlyappel
late,notor
igi
nal,
jurisdi
cti
on.
Same; Same; Same; Eveni fSupr emeCour thaspr i
mar yjurisdictionitwi llnotent ertaindi rect
resorttoi tunlessr edresscannotbeobt ainedinpr opercour tsandonl yf orexcept ionaland
compel li
ng ci rcumst ances. Ev en i
n cases,wher et hi
sCour ti sconf erred wi th pr i
mar y
j
ur i
sdicti
on, startingwi tht hecaseofSant i
agov s.Vasquezetal .
, wehav est ressed, thus. x
xxWedi scerni nt hepr oceedi ngsi nthi
scaseapr opensi tyont hepar tofpet i
tioner ,and, for
thatmat ter,thesamemaybesai dofanumberofl it
igantswhoi niti
at erecour sesbef oreus,
todisregar dthehi erarchyofcour tsinourjudicialsystem byseeki ngr eli
efdi r
ect l
yf rom t his
Courtdespi tet hef actthatt hesamei sav ail
ableint helowercour tsi nt heexer ciseoft heir
origi
nalorconcur r
entj urisdicti
on,ori sev enmandat edbyl aw t obesoughtt her ein.Thi s
practi
cemustbest opped, notonlybecauseoft heimposi tionupont hepr ecioust imeoft his
Courtbutal sobecauseoft hei nevit
ableandr esultantdel ay ,intendedorot herwi se,i nt he
adjudicati
onoft hecasewhi chof t
enhast ober emandedorr eferredt ot hel owercour tas
thepr operf orum undert her ulesofpr ocedure,orasbet terequi ppedt or esol vet hei ssues
sincet hisCour tisnotat ri
eroff acts.We,t herefore,reiteratet hej udici alpol i
cyt hatt his
Courtwi llnotent ertaindi rectresorttoitunlesst her edressdesi r
edcannotbeobt ainedi n
theappr opriatecour tsorwher eexcept i
onalandcompel l
ingci r
cumst ancesj ustifyav ailment
ofar emedywi thi
nandcal li
ngf ortheexerciseofourpr imar yj uri
sdiction.

LapuLapuv
sPeza
Juri
sdicti
on;Cour
ts;RegionalTri
alCourts;Declarat
or yRelief
;Thecour
twi t
hjuri
sdi
cti
onov er
peti
tionsfordeclarator
yr el
iefistheRegi onalTr i
alCour t(RTC),t
hesubj ectmatterof
l
iti
gationinanact i
onf ordeclar
ator
yr eli
efbei ngi ncapableofpecuni
ar yesti
mati
on.The
courtwithjuri
sdi
cti
onov erpeti
ti
onsf ordeclaratoryr el
iefistheRegionalTri
alCourt,the
subjectmatterofli
tigat
ioninanact i
onf ordecl aratoryreli
efbei
ngincapableofpecuniary
esti
mat i
on.Secti
on19oft heJudiciaryReor ganiz at
ionActof1980pr ovi
des:SEC.19.
Juri
sdi ctioninCi vilCases. Regi onalTr ialCour t
sshal l exerciseexcl usiveor iginalj
urisdi
cti
on:
(1)Inal lcivilactionsi nwhi cht hesubj ectofl iti
gationi sincapabl eofpecuni aryest i
mation[
.]
Consist entwi t
ht hel aw,t heRul esst atet hatapet iti
onf ordecl aratoryr el
iefi sfi
led i
nthe
appropr iateRegi onalTr i
alCour t.
Aspeci alcivilact i
onf ordecl aratoryr eli
efi sf i
l
edf ora
j
udicialdet er minat i
onofanyquest ionofconst ructionorv al
idityar i
singf rom,andf ora
declarationofr ight sanddut ies,underanyoft hef ollowi ngsubj ectmat ters:adeed,wi l
l,
contractorot herwr i
tteninstrument ,st atute,execut iv
eor derorr egulation, ordinance,orany
othergov ernment alregulati
on.Howev er, adeclaratoryj udgmentmayi ssueonl yiftherehas
been nobr eachoft hedocument sinquest i
on.I fthecont r
actorst atutesubj ectmat t
erof
theact ionhasal r eadybeenbr eached,t heappr opriateor dinaryci vi
lact i
onmustbef il
ed.If
adequat er eliefisav ai
lablethr oughanot herf orm ofact i
onorpr oceedi ng,t heot heracti
on
mustbepr eferredov eranact i
onf ordecl arat
oryr eli
ef.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;I tisrequir
edt hatt hepar t
iestot heact ionf or
decl
aratoryr el
iefbet hosewhoser ightsorinter
estsareaffectedbyt hecontractorstat utein
quest
ion.I tisal sor equiredthatt hepartiestot heacti
onf ordecl ar
atoryreli
efbet hose
whoseright sori nterestsar eaff
ectedbyt hecontractorstatuteinquest i
on.Theremustbe
anactualj ustici
abl econt r
ov er
syort her
ipeni
ngseedsofonebet weent hepar ti
es.The
i
ssuebet weent hepar ti
es mustber i
peforjudici
aldeter
mi nati
on.Anact i
onf ordeclaratory
rel
i
efbasedont heoreticalorhy potheti
calquesti
onscannotbef iledforourcour tsar enot
advi
sorycour t
s.
Same; Same; Same; Juri
sdictionov erthesubj ectmat teri
sthepowert ohearanddet ermine
casesoft hegeneralclasst owhi cht hepr oceedingsinquest ionbelong.Ther ear esev eral
aspectsofj urisdi
cti
on.Jur isdict i
onov ert hesubj ectmat teris thepowert o hearand
determinecasesoft hegener alcl asst owhi cht hepr oceedingsinquest ionbel ong.Itis
conferr
edbyl aw,whichmayei therbet heConst it
utionorast at
ute.Jur isdi
ctionov erthe
subjectmattermeans thenat ureoft hecauseofact i
onandt hereliefsought .Thus,t he
causeofact i
onandchar acteroft her eli
efsoughtasal l
egedi nthecompl aintareexami ned
todeterminewhet heracour thadj urisdicti
onov erthesubjectmat ter.Anydeci si
onr endered
byacour twit
houtj ur
isdi
ctionov erthesubj ectmat teroftheact i
onisv oid.
Same;Ci vi
lPr ocedure;Jurisdiction;Jur i
sdiction overt he person oft he defendanti s
i
ndispensabl ei n actions in per sonam ort hose actions based on a par ty
s personal
l
iabil
it
y.Anot heraspectofj urisdict i
oni sjurisdicti
onov ertheperson.Itis thepowerof[ a]
courttor enderaper sonaljudgmentort osubj ectthepar ti
esinapar t
icularactiontot he
j
udgmentand ot herruli
ngs r ender ed i nt he act i
on.A cour tautomat i
call
y acquires
j
ur i
sdi
ctionov ert heper sonoft hepl ainti
ffupont hefili
ngoft hei ni
ti
atorypl eading.With
respecttot hedef endant,vol
unt aryappear ancei ncourtorav al
i
dser vi
ceofsummonsv ests
thecour twi t
hj uri
sdicti
onov ert hedef endant
sper son.Jur i
sdi
cti
onov ert heper sonoft he
defendanti si ndispensableinact ionsi nper sonam ort hoseactionsbasedonapar t
y
s
personalliabil
ity.Thepr oceedingsi nanact ioninper sonam ar ev oi
dift hecour thadno
j
ur i
sdi
ctionov ertheper sonoft hedef endant .
Same; Same; Same; Jur
isdicti
onov ert heresisnecessaryinact i
onsi nr
em orthoseact ions
dir
ectedagainstt hethingorpr oper tyorst atusofaper sonandseekj udgment swi th
respecttheret
oasagai nstthewhol ewor l
d.
Jurisdi
cti
onov ert heresort hethi
ngunder
l
iti
gati
oni sacquiredeit
her bythesei zureoft heproper
tyunderl egalpr
ocess,wher ebyitis
broughtintoactualcust
odyoft hel aw; orasar esul
toftheinstit
utionofl
egal pr
oceedings, i
n
whicht hepoweroft hecour tisrecogni zedandmadeef fecti
ve.Juri
sdi
cti
onov ertheresi s
necessaryinactionsinrem ort hoseact ionsdir
ectedagainstthet hi
ngorpropert
yorst atus
ofaper sonandseekjudgmentswit
hrespectt
heret
oasagai
nstthewholeworl
d.The
pr
oceedingsi
nanacti
oninrem arev
oidi
fthecour
thadnoj
uri
sdi
cti
onovert
hethi
ngunder
l
it
igat
ion.
TheSupr emeCour t(SC)hasr ul edthatt heCour tofTaxAppeal s( CTA) ,nott heCour tof
Appeal s( CA) ,hast heexcl usiveor iginaljurisdict
ionov erpet
iti
onsf orcer ti
or ariassail
ing
i
nt er
locutoryor der si ssuedbyRegi onalTr ialCour ts(RTCs)inal ocalt axcase. Wehav e
alsor ul
edt hatt heCour tofTaxAppeal s,
nott heCour tofAppeals,hast heexcl usiveorigi
nal
j
ur i
sdicti
onov erpet iti
onsf orcer ti
orariassaili
ngi nter
locutor
yordersissuedbyRegi onalTrial
Courtsi nal ocalt axcase.Weexpl ainedi nTheCi t
yofMani l
av .Hon.Gr ecia-Cuerdo,715
SCRA182( 2014) ,t hatwhi l
et heCour tofTaxAppeal shasnoexpr essgr antofpowert o
i
ssuewr itsofcer tiorariunderRepubl icActNo.1125,asamended,t het axcour t
sjudicial
powerasdef inedi nt heConst itutionincludest hepowert odet
ermi newhet herornott here
hasbeengr av eabuseofdi scretionamount ingt olackorexcessofj uri
sdicti
onont hepartof
the[ RegionalTr i
alCour t]inissui ngani nterlocutoryorderofjuri
sdictioni ncasesf all
ing
withi
nt heexcl usiveappel l
atejur i
sdictionoft het axcourt.

Domi
nicanHi
l
lvsCSLP
The Supr eme Cour tdoes notpossess or i
ginaljurisdict
ion to enter
tai
n petiti
ons for
declarat
oryr eli
ef.
Tot heextentthatt
heinstantcasei sdenomi natedasonef ordeclar
atory
rel
ief,wei nitial
lyclari
fythatwedo notpossessor iginaljur
isdict
ionto enter
tainsuch
petit
ions.Suchi svestedintheRegionalTri
alCourts.Accor di
ngly,weshalll
imitourrevi
ewt o
ascertai
ningi ftheproceedingsbeforepubli
crespondentCOSLAPar ewit
houtori nexcess,
ofitsjuri
sdiction.I
nt hi
swise,arecounti
ngoft hehistoryoft heCOSLAPmaypr ov
ideuseful
i
nsightsintot heextentofit
spower sandfuncti
ons.

Mi
rasol
vsCA
RegionalTri
alCour t
shav et heauthori
tyandj uri
sdicti
ontoconsi dertheconst i
tut
ional
ityofa
stat
ute,presidenti
aldecree,orexecut i
veor der.
Itissettl
edt hatRegionalTr i
alCourt
shav e
theaut hori
tyandj ur
isdicti
ont o considert heconstit
utionali
tyofast at
ute,presi
dential
decree,orexecutiveorder .TheConstituti
onv eststhepowerofj udi
cialrevi
ewort hepower
todeclareal aw,treaty,inter
nati
onalorexecut i
veagr eement ,presidenti
aldecree,order,
i
nstructi
on,ordinance,orregulati
onnotonl yinthisCourt,butinallRegionalTri
alCourts.
I
n al lactions assaili
ng t he vali
dityofa st atut
e,treaty,pr esidentialdecree,order,or
proclamation,noticet ot heSoli
citorGeneralismandat ory.
Thepur poseoft hemandat ory
noti
cei nRul e64,Sect ion3i stoenabl etheSol i
cit
orGener altodeci dewhet herornothi s
i
nterventi
oni nt heact i
onassai l
ingt hevali
dityofal aw ortreat yisnecessar y.Todenyt he
Soli
citorGener alsuchnot i
cewoul dbetant amountt odeprivinghi m ofhi sdayincour t
.We
mustst resst hat,contrar ytopet i
ti
oner
sst and,themandat orynot icer equi
rementisnot
l
imitedt oactionsi nvolvi
ngdecl arat
oryreli
efandsi mi
larremedi es.Ther uleit
selfpr
ov i
des
thatsuchnot iceisr equiredinanyact i
onandnotj ustactionsi nvolvingdeclarat
oryrel
ief
.
Wher ethereisnoambi guityi
nthewor dsusedi ntherule,
ther eisnor oom forconstr
ucti
on.
I
n al lactions assaili
ng t he vali
dityofa st atut
e,treaty,pr esidentialdecree,order,or
proclamation,noticetot heSoli
citorGeneralismandat ory.
Same;Same;Same;Ourj
uri
sdi
cti
oninapetit
ionforrev
iew underRul
e45oftheRul
esof
Cour
tisli
mitedonl
ytorevi
ewingquest
ionsoflaw andfactuali
ssuesar
enotwit
hini
ts
province.Findi
ngsoff actbyt heCourtofAppealsar econcl
usiveandbi ndingupont his
Cour tunlesssaidfi
ndi
ngsar enotsupport
edbytheev i
dence.Ourjurisdi
cti
oninapet i
ti
onf or
revi
ewunderRul e45oft heRulesofCourtisli
mitedonlytorevi
ewi ngquest i
onsoflawand
factualissuesar enotwi t
hinitsprovi
nce.Inview oftheaforequot edfindi
ngoff act,no
mani festerrorischargeabletot herespondentcourtforrefusingt opi er
cet heveilof
corpor at
ef i
cti
on.

Vi
l
lagr
aci
avsShar
iaDi
str
ictCour
t
Juri
sdi cti
on;Jur isdi
ctionov erthesubj ectmatteristhepowert ohearanddet ermi necases
ofthegener alclasst owhi chthepr oceedingsi nquesti
onbel ong.
Jur i
sdictionov erthe
subjectmat teris t
hepowert ohearanddet erminecasesoft hegener alcl
asst owhi chthe
proceedi ngsi nquest i
onbel ong.Thispoweri sconf er
redbyl aw,whi chmayei t
herbet he
Constitutionorast atute.Sincesubj ectmat t
erjuri
sdict
ionisamat teroflaw,par t
iescannot
choose,consentt o,oragr eeast owhatcour tort ri
bunalshoulddecidetheirdi sput es.Ifa
courthear s,tri
es,anddeci desanact i
oni nwhichithasnoj urisdi
cti
on,allit
spr oceedi ngs,
i
ncludingt hej udgmentr endered,ar ev oi
d.Todet erminewhet heracour thasj urisdicti
on
overt hesubj ectmat teroft heaction,t hemat eri
alall
egati
onsoft hecompl aintandt he
charact eroft hereli
efsoughtar eexami ned.
Same; Same;Same; Courts;Shar i
aDistri
ctCour t
s;Codeoft heMusl im Per sonalLawsoft he
Philippines;Thel aw conf err
ingt hejurisdi
ctionofShar i
aDi stri
ctCour tsi st heCodeoft he
Musl i
m Per sonalLawsoft hePhi l
ippines.Thel aw conf er r
ingt hej urisdicti
onofShar i
a
DistrictCour t
sist heCodeoft heMusl i
m Per sonal Lawsoft hePhi l
i
ppines.UnderAr ticle143
oft he Musl i
m Code,Shar ia Dist
rictCour t
s hav e concur rentor i
ginalj ur i
sdicti
on wi th
existingcivilcour t
sov errealact i
onsnotar isingf rom cust omar ycont r
act swher eint he
partiesi nvol
vedar eMusl ims:ART.143.Or iginaljurisdict
ion.x x
xx( 2)Concur rentlywi th
existingciv i
lcourts,theShar i
aDi st
rictCour tshal lhav eoriginaljuri
sdictionov er:xxx
x( b)
Allot herper sonalandr ealact ionsnotment ionedi npar agr aph1( d)wher ei
nt hepar t
ies
i
nv olvedar eMusl imsexceptt hosef orforci
bleent r
yandunl awfuldet ainer,whi chshal lfall
undert heexclusi
v eorigi
nal j
urisdict
ionoft heMuni cipalCir
cui tCour t.
Jurisdi ction; UnderRule9, Section1oft heRul esofCour t
,ifi tappear sthatthecour thasno
j
ur i
sdi ctionov erthesubjectmat teroft heact ionbasedont hepl eadi ngsortheev idenceon
recor d,t hecour tshalldismi sst hecl aim;RespondentFi f thShar iaDistri
ctCour thadno
author ityundert hel awtodeci deRol dan sact i
onbecausenotal loft hepart i
esi nv ol
vedi n
the act ion ar e Musl i
ms. When i tbecame appar entt hatVi vencioi s nota Musl im,
respondentFi f
thShar i
aDistri
ctCour tshoul dhav emot upr opr i
odi smissedt hecase.Under
Rule9, Sect ion1oft heRulesofCour t,
ifitappear st hatthecour thasnoj uri
sdictionov ert he
subjectmat teroft heactionbasedont hepl eadingsort heev idenceonr ecor d,t hecour t
shalldi smi sst hecl ai
m:Sect i
on1.Def ensesandobj ectionsnotpl eaded.Def ensesand
object ionsnotpl eadedeitherinamot i
ont odi smi ssori nt heanswerar edeemedwai ved.
Howev er,wheni tappearsfrom t hepl eadingsort heev idenceonr ecor dthatthecour thasno
j
ur i
sdi ctionov erthesubjectmat ter,thatt hereisanot heract ionpendi ngbetweent hesame
partiesf ort hesamecause,ort hatt heact i
oni sbar redbyapr i
orj udgmentorbyst at
uteof
l
imitat ions,t hecour tshalldismisst hecl aim.RespondentFi fthShar i
aDistr
ictCour thadno
author ityundert hel awtodeci deRol dan sact i
onbecausenotal loft hepart i
esi nv ol
vedi n
theact ionar eMusl i
ms.Thus,i thadnoj uri
sdictionov erRol dan sact i
onf orr ecov eryof
possessi on.Al litsproceedingsinSDCSpeci alProceedi ngsCaseNo.07- 200ar ev oid.
Asamat t
eroflaw, Shari

aDi str
ictCour t
smayonl ytakecognizanceofar ealact
ion wherein
thepar t
iesinvolvedar eMuslims. Thi scaseinv ol
vesanact i
onf orrecov er
yofpossessi on
ofr ealproperty
.Asamat terofl aw,Shar i
aDi stri
ctCourtsmayonl yt akecogni zanceofa
realactionwher ei
nt hepar t
iesinv olvedareMusl i
ms.Consi der
ingthatoneoft hepar t
ies
i
nv olved i
nt his case is nota Musl im,respondentFi f
th Shari
a Distri
ctCour thad no
j
urisdict
iont ohear,try,anddeci det heactionf orrecoveryofpossessi onofr ealpr operty
.
Thej udgmentagai nstVi vencioisv oidforrespondentFi ft
hShar i
aDist r
ictCour t
slackof
j
urisdict
ionov erthesubjectmat teroft heaction.
Same;Same;Same;Apar t
ymayassai lt
hej uri
sdi
cti
onofacour tortri
bunaloverasubject
mat t
eratanyst ageofthepr oceedings,ev enonappeal .
ThatVi v
encioraisedtheissueof
l
ackofj uri
sdict
ionoverthesubj ectmat t
eronl yaf
terrespondentFift
hShar i
aDist
ri
ctCourt
hadr enderedjudgmenti simmat er
ial
.A par tymayassai lthejuri
sdict
ionofacour tor
tri
bunaloverasubjectmatteratanyst ageoft heproceedings,ev
enonappeal .Thereasonis
thatj
uri
sdicti
onisconferr
edbyl aw,andl ackofitaffect
st heveryauthori
tyofthecourtto
takecognizanceofandtorenderj udgmentont heacti
on.
Same;Same;Same;Par ti
esmaybebar r
edfrom assai l
ingthejurisdicti
onofthecour tover
thesubjectmat t
eroft heact i
oni fittookt hem anunr easonableandunexpl ai
nedl engt hof
ti
me t o objectt ot he cour t
sj uri
sdi ct
ion.
Par t
ies may be bar red from assai l
ing the
j
urisdi
cti
onoft hecourtov erthesubj ectmat teroftheact i
onifittookt hem anunr easonable
andunexpl ai
nedl engthoft imetoobj ecttothecour t
sjuri
sdicti
on.Thi sistodiscouraget he
deli
beratepract i
ceofpar t
iesini nvokingt hejuri
sdi
ct i
onofacour ttoseekaf fi
rmat iv
er eli
ef,
onlytor epudiatet hecour t
sjurisdicti
onaf terfai
lingt oobt ai
nt her eli
efsought .Insuch
cases,thecour t
sl ackofj uri
sdicti
onov erthesubj ectmat t
erisov er l
ookedinf avoroft he
publi
cpol i
cyofdi scouragi
ngsuchi nequi t
ableandunf airconduct.
Same;Same;Same;Jur i
sdict i
onov ert heper soni s t
hepowerof[ a]cour tt orendera
per sonaljudgmentort osubj ectt hepar ti
esinapar ti
cularactiont ot hejudgmentandot her
rulings render ed i
nt he act ion;Jur isdicti
on ov ert he person i sr equi r
ed i n acti
ons i n
per sonam oract i
onsbasedonapar tysper sonall i
abilit
y.Jur i
sdi ctionov ert hepersoni s
thepowerof[ a]courttorenderaper sonalj udgmentort osubj ectt hepar t
iesi napar ti
cular
act i
ontot hej udgmentandot herr ul
ingsr enderedi nt heact i
on.Acour tacqui r
esj uri
sdiction
ov ertheper sonoft hepl aintif
fonceheorshef il
est hei niti
at orypl eading.Asf ort he
def endant ,thecour tacquir
esj ur
isdictionov erhi sorherper sonei therbyhi sorherv ol
unt ary
appear ancei ncour torav alidserv iceonhi m orherofsummons.Jur i
sdictionov ert he
per sonisr equi r
edinact i
onsi nper sonam oract i
onsbasedonapar t
ysper sonalli
abi l
ity
.
Since act ions i n personam are di rected agai nstspeci f
ic per sons and seek per sonal
j
udgment s,iti snecessaryt hatt hepar ti
est ot heact i
on arepr oper lyimpl eadedanddul y
hear dorgi venanoppor tunityt obehear d.Wi thr espectt othedef endant ,heorshemust
hav ebeendul yser vedwithsummonst obeconsi deredpr operlyi mpl eaded;ot her
wise,t he
proceedingsi nper sonam, i
ncl udingt hej udgmentr ender ed,arev oid.
Same;Same;Same;Jur isdi
cti
onov ertheresi sacqui redei t
her byt heseizureoft he
propertyunderlegalprocess,wher ebyitisbroughti nt
oact ualcust odyoft helaw;orasa
resultoftheinsti
tut
ionofl egalpr oceedi
ngs,inwhi cht hepoweroft hecour ti
sr ecogni zed
andmadeef fecti
ve.
Jur i
sdict
ionov ert
heper sonisnotnecessar yforacour tt
ov al
idlyt r
y
anddeci deact i
onsinr em.Act ionsi nrem are di
rectedagai nstt het hi
ngorpr opertyor
statusofaper sonandseekj udgment swithrespecttheret oasagai nstt hewhol ewor ld.In
acti
onsi nrem,t hecour ttry
ingt hecasemusthav ej urisdict
ionov ert her es,ort het hing
underlit
igat
ion,tovali
dlytryanddeci dethecase.Jurisdictionov erther esisacqui r
edei ther
bytheseizureoft
hepr opert
yunderlegalprocess,
wherebyitisbr
oughti
ntoactualcust
ody
ofthelaw;orasar esultoftheinst
it
utionoflegalpr
oceedings,i
nwhichthepoweroft he
courti
sr ecogni
zedandmadeef f
ecti
ve.Inacti
onsinr
em, summonsmustst i
llbeservedon
thedefendantbutonlytosati
sfydueprocessrequir
ements.
Unlikeobj ecti
onst ojuri
sdict
ionoverthesubjectmatterwhi chmayber aisedatanyst ageof
thepr oceedings,objectionstojur
isdi
ctionovertheper sonoft hedef endantmustber ai
sed
attheear li
estpossibleoppor t
uni
ty;other
wise,theobjectiont ot hecour t
sjurisdict
ionov er
theper sonoft hedef endantisdeemedwai ved.
Unl i
keobj ectionst oj ur
isdi
ct i
onov erthe
subjectmat t
erwhi ch maybe r ai
sed atanyst age oft he pr oceedings,obj ecti
ons t o
j
urisdict i
on overt he person ofthe defendantmustbe r aised att he earl
iestpossi ble
oppor tunity
;ot her
wise,t heobjecti
on tot hecour t
sj ur
isdicti
on ov ert heper son oft he
defendanti sdeemedwai ved.UnderRule9,Sect i
on1oft heRul esofCour t
,defensesand
objectionsnotpl eadedei t
herinamot i
ontodismi ssorintheanswerar edeemedwai ved.
Same;Same;Same;Cour ts;Shar i
aAppel lateCour t;Undert hej udicialsy stem inRepubl i
c
ActNo.9054, theShar i
aAppel lateCour thasexcl usiv eor i
ginaljuri
sdi cti
onov erpet i
ti
onsf or
cert
iorariofdeci si
onsoft heShar i
aDi st
rictCour ts.
Wenot ethatViv enciof il
eddi r
ectl
ywi th
thi
scour thi spet i
tionf orcer ti
orar iofr espondentFi fthShar i
aDi st ri
ctCour t
sdecision.
Undert hej udicialsy stem inRepubl icActNo.9054, theShar i
aAppel lateCour thasexcl usive
ori
ginaljur i
sdictionov erpetit
ionsf orcer ti
or ariofdeci sionsoft heShar i
aDi stri
ctCourts.He
shouldhav ef il
edhi spet i
ti
onf orcer t
ior
ar ibef or
et heShar i
aAppel lat eCour t.Howev er,the
Shari
aAppel l
at eCour tisyett obeor ganized.Thus, wecal lfortheor gani zati
onoft hecour t
syst
em cr eatedunderRepubl i
cActNo.9054t oeff
ect ivelyenforcet heMusl iml egalsystem
i
nourcount r
y .Af t
eral l,
theMusl i
ml egal sy stem al egal system compl etewi thit
sownci vi
l,
cri
minal ,commer cial,poli
tical
,inter nati
onal ,andr eligiousl aws i spar toft helaw oft he
l
and, andShar i
acour tsarepar toft hePhi li
ppi nejudicial syst
em.

Per
ezv
sOmbudsman
Iti
st henatureoft hecasethatdeterminestheproperremedytobef i
l
edandt heappell
ate
courtwheresuchr emedyshouldbef il
edbyapar t
yaggr i
evedbythedecisi
onsoror dersof
theOf fi
ceoft heOmbudsman. Iti sthenatureoft hecasethatdeterminest heproper
remedyt obef il
edandt heappel l
atecour twher
esuchr emedyshouldbef i
l
edbyapar t
y
aggriev
ed by the decisions oror ders ofthe Off
ice ofthe Ombudsman.I fiti s an
administr
ati
vecase,appealshoul dbet akentotheCour tofAppealsunderRul e43oft he
RulesofCour t
.Ifitisacri
minalcase,theproperr
emedyi stofi
l
ewi t
htheSupr emeCour tan
ori
ginalpeti
ti
onf orcer
ti
orari
underRul e65.
Asthepr esentcontroversyper t
ainedtoacr i
mi nalcase,t hepet
it
ionerswer
ecorrectin
avai
li
ngoft heremedyofpet it
ionf orcer
ti
orariunderRul e65buttheyerredi
nfi
li
ngitinthe
CourtofAppeals.Thepr oceduresetouti nKui zonv s.OmbudsmanandMendoza- Arcev s.
Ombudsman,r equi
ringthatpet i
ti
onsf orcert
iorariquesti
oningtheOmbudsmansordersor
deci
sionsincriminalcasesshoul dbef il
edi nt heSupr emeCour tandnottheCour tof
Appeals,
issti
ll
thepr ev
ail
ingrule.

Lant
ingv
sOmbudsman
Ombudsman;Appeal
s;Pl
eadingsandPract
ice;TheSupr emeCour
thassoleauthor
it
yto
r
evi
ew theOmbudsmansresolut
ionsi
ncri
mi nalcases,onpur
equest
ionsoflaw,whil
e
appeal sfrom deci sionsoftheOf ficeoft heOmbudsmani nadmi nistrat
ivedisci
pli
nar ycases
shoul dbet akent otheCour tofAppeal sundert hepr ovisionsofRul e43oft he1997Rev ised
RulesofCi vilProcedur e.
Consi deringthatpet i
tionerscompl aintiscr i
minalinnat ure,t hi
s
Cour thast hesol eaut hor
it
yt oreviewt heOmbudsman sResol ut i
onsonpur equest i
onofl aw
asexpr esslymandat edinSection14, 2ndpar agr aphofR. A.6770, whichprov i
des:Sec.14.
Restricti
ons.xxx.Nocour tshal lhearanyappealorappl icationf orremedyagai nstt he
decisionorf indingsoft heOmbudsman, excepttheSupr emeCour tonpur equestionofl aw.
InFabi anv s.Desi er
to,wehel dt hatonl yappeal sfrom t hedeci si
onsoft heOff i
ceoft he
Ombudsmani nadmi nist
rati
vedi scipl
inarycasesshoul dbet akent ot heCour tofAppeal s
undert hepr ovisionsofRul e43( ofthe1997Rev isedRul esofCi vilProcedure).

BPICr
edi
tCor
pvsCA
Manchest err ulemodi f
ied.Thei nstantcasei sf orr epl
ev i
nandf orpur posesofdet ermi ning
thej uri
sdictionoft hecour t,thev al
ueoft heper sonalpr oper t
yi nvolvedi scont roll
ing;t he
damagesandat t
orney
sf eescl ai
medar emer elyi ncidental.Accor dingl y,foll
owi ngt her ulein
Magaspi ,t
hecour thadv alidlyacqui r
edj urisdictionont hebasi soft heor iginal compl aint;the
i
ncr easei ntheamountoft hedamagescl aimeddi dnotaf fectit,al thoughCabacunganst il
l
hast opayt hedef iciencyi ndocketf eesbasedont heamendedcompl aint.Itmust ,howev er,
best r
essedher ethatt hesubsequentr ulingoft hisCour tinManchest erDev elopmentCor p.
vs.Cour tofAppeal s,pr omul gatedbar elyni ne( 9)day saf t
ert hecour tbel ow deci dedt he
i
nst antcase,par tl
ymodi f
iedt heMagaspir uli
ng.Nev ert
heless,just iceandequi tywoul dnot
war ranttheappl i
cationofManchest erint hiscase.Besi des,Manchest erwasl at ermodi f
ied
i
nSunI nsuranceOf ficeLtd.v s.Asunci on, wher einWemadet hef ollowingcl arificat oryr ul
es:
xxx.Wher et hetri
alcour tacqui r esjurisdictionov eracl aim byt hef i
l
ingoft heappr opr i
at e
pleadingandpay mentoft hepr escr i
bedf i
lingf eebut ,subsequent ly,thej udgmentawar dsa
clai
m notspeci fi
edi nt hepl eading,ori fspeci fi
edt hesamehasbeenl eftf ordet ermi nation
byt hecour t,theaddi ti
onalf il
i
ngf eether eforshal lconst i
tuteal ienont hej udgment .Itshal l
bet her esponsi bil
ityoft heCl erkofCour torhi sdul yauthor i
zeddeput yt oenf or cesai dlien
andassessandcol lectt headdi ti
onal fee.

DOLEv
sEst
eva
Themodef orjudi ci
alr evi
ewov erdeci sionsoft heNLRCi sbyapet i
ti
onf orcerti
or ariunder
Rule65oft heRev isedRul esofCi vilPr ocedur e;Apet it
ionf orcer tiorar iofadeci sionor
resol
ut ionoft heNLRCshoul df i
rstbef i
ledwi tht heCour tofAppeal s.Ithasl ongbeen
settl
edi nt hel andmar kcaseofSt .Mar ti
nFuner alHomev .NLRC,t hatt hemodef orj udicial
revi
ewov erdeci sionsoft heNLRCi sbyapet iti
onf orcer ti
or ar
iunderRul e65oft her evised
RulesofCi vilPr ocedur e.Thedi fferentmodesofappeal ,namel y,wr itofer r
or( Rul e41) ,
peti
tionf orreview( Rul es42and43) ,andpet i
ti
onf orr eviewoncer ti
orar i(Rule45) ,cannot
beav ail
edofbecauset hereisnopr ov i
siononappel later evi
ew ofNLRCdeci si
onsi nt he
LaborCode, asamended.Al thought hesamecaser ecogni zest hatbotht heCour tofAppeal s
andt heSupr emeCour thaveor iginal j
ur i
sdictionov ersuchpet i
tions,i
thaschosent oi mpose
thest ri
ctobser vanceoft hehier archyofcour ts.Hence, apet it
ionf orcer tior
ariofadeci sion
orresol utionoft heNLRCshoul df irstbef il
edwi tht heCour tofAppeal s;di r
ectresor ttot he
SupremeCour tshal lnotbeal lowedunl esst her edr essdesi r
edcannotbeobt ainedi nt he
appropr iatecour tsorwher eexcept i
onalandcompel l
ingci r
cumst ancesj usti
fyanav ail
ment
ofa r emedywi thin and cal l
ing f ort heexer cisebyt heSupr emeCour tofi tspr i
mar y
j
uri
sdi
cti
on.

Angel
esv
sCA
Jurisdi
ction;Resi dualJur isdicti
on;Theresidualjur
isdi
ctionoftri
alcour t
sisav ail
abl
eata
stagei nwhi cht hecour ti snor mall
ydeemedt ohav elostjuri
sdi
ctionov erthecaseort he
subjectmat t
erinv ol
vedi nt heappeal.
Theresi
dualjuri
sdicti
onoft r
ialcourtsisavai
lable
atast agei nwhicht hecour tisnormallydeemedt ohav elostjuri
sdicti
onov erthecaseort he
subjectmat t
eri nvolvedi nt heappeal.Thi sstagei sreachedupont heperfecti
onoft he
appealsbyt hepar ti
esorupont heappr ovaloft herecordsonappeal ,butpr iortot he
tr
ansmi ttaloftheor iginalr ecordsorther ecordsonappeal .Ineit
herinstance,thetri
alcourt
sti
llr etains its so- called r esi
dualj urisdi
cti
on t o issue protective orders,appr ove
compr omi ses,per mitappeal sofindigentl i
ti
gants,orderexecut i
onpendi ngappeal ,and
al
lowt hewi thdrawal oft heappeal .