Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 1
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction – the power and authority of the court to
hear, try and decide a case. Jurisprudence considers
jurisdiction to include the authority to execute the
decisions rendered by the court.
Jurisdiction may be a matter of object, nature, and extent:
As to nature:
1. Original
2. Appellate
As to extent:
1. Exclusive
2. Concurrent
As to object:
1. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the Parties;
3. Jurisdiction over the Issues;
4. Jurisdiction over the Res;
5. Jurisdiction over the Territory.
I. JURISDICTION AS A MATTER OF NATURE:
A. Original – Exercised by court to take cognizance of
cases for the first time
B. Appellate – Exercised by court to take cognizance of a
case for the second, or third time.
II. JURISDICTION AS A MATTER OF EXTENT OF
EXERCISE
A. Exclusive – Confined to a particular court, with the
exclusion of other courts.
B. Concurrent – Possessed by courts together with other
courts.
Pat-og, Sr. vs. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 198755, June 5, 2013
Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same
parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more
separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government
body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific
matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive
unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the
same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent
jurisdiction over the matter.
Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the
body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
Note: Concurrent jurisdiction is applied in ORIGINAL
Jurisdiction. There is no such thing as concurrent
appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is always
exclusive.
PRINCIPLES ON CONCURRENT JURISDICTION:
1. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts – Lower courts shall
initially decide a case before it is considered by a higher
court.
Rationale: In case of loss, you still have a remedy to go to
a higher court.
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,
G.R. No. 155001, January 21, 2004)
The rule on hierarchy of courts in cases falling within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the trial courts and appellate courts
generally applies to cases involving warring factual allegations.
For this reason, litigants are required to repair to the trial courts
at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity of these
contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the
parties. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision
cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts as they
are not triers of facts.
It goes without saying that when cases brought before the
appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions, a
strict application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is not
necessary.
Liga ng mga Barangay National vs. Atienza, Jr.
G.R. No. 154599. January 21, 2004
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari (as well as of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive, but is concurrent
with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in
certain cases. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however,
to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an
absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefore will be directed. There is after all a
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue
of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A
becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly
indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with the
Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court
of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when
there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy.
It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the
Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
overcrowding of the Court’s docket.

St. Mary Crusade Foundation vs. Riel
G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015
Although the [Supreme] Court has concurrent jurisdiction with
the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct
resort is allowed only when there are special, extra-ordinary or
compelling reasons that justify the same. The Court enforces the
observance of the hierarchy of courts in order to free itself from
unnecessary, frivolous and impertinent cases and thus afford
time for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential
tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it.
2. Doctrine of Transcendental Importance – The doctrine
of hierarchy of courts can be dispensed with when the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate
courts.
e.g.
a. Special and important reasons clearly stated in the
petition;
b. When dictated by public welfare and advancement of
public policy;
c. When demanded by broader interest of justice;
d. When challenged orders were patent nullities; or
e. When analogous exceptional and compelling
circumstances called for and justified the immediate and
direct handling of the case.
Ferrer vs. Bautista,

G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015
Aside from presenting a novel question of law, this case calls for
immediate resolution since the challenged ordinances adversely
affect the property interests of all paying constituents of Quezon
City. As well, this petition serves as a test case for the guidance
of other local government units (LGUs). Indeed, the petition at
bar is of transcendental importance warranting a relaxation of
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Citing Senator Jaworski v. Phil. Amusement & Gaming Corp., the
Court said:
Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly
treated as a petition for prohibition, the transcendental
importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that we
set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over
the petition at bar. x x x This is in accordance with the well-
entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible
tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote
the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather
than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
3. Supreme Court is Not a Trier of Facts
Basis: Rule 45
The Supreme Court has the power to dismiss the case if
the petition raises questions of fact (Sec. 2, Rule 50).
Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the
Supreme Court:
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 2
a. When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; 

b. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; 

c. When there is grave abuse of discretion; 

d. When the judgment is based on misapprehension
of facts; 

e. When the findings of facts are conflicting; 

f. When in making its findings the CA went beyond
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary
to the admissions of both the appellant and the
appellee; 

g. When the findings are contrary to the trial court;
h. When the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;
i. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent;
j. When the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record; and
k. When the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties, which, if properly considered, could
justify a different conclusion.
III. JURISDICTION AS A MATTER OF OBJECT
A. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
The power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong and is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the
court and defines its powers.
Principle #1: Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
XPN: Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because it is
conferred by the Constitution.
Sec. 5, Art. VIII (8), 1987 Constitution:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus;
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question;
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto;
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court
is in issue;
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher;

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
Laws that confer jurisdiction:
1. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;
2. B.P. Blg. 129;
3. R.A. No. 7691;
4. R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act);
5. SC-AO No. 113-95 (Intellectual Property Courts);
6. R.A. No. 9282 (CTA);
7. R.A. No. 7975; 8249; 10660 (Sandiganbayan)
8. R.A. No. 9054 (Sharia’h Courts)
Circular No. 20 which designated several Regional Trial Courts
as Circuit Criminal Courts has already been abolished.
Courts created by law (e.g. Family Courts) can only be
abolished by law. It cannot be abolished by the Supreme Court
through a mere circular. However, courts created by the
Supreme Court (IPL Courts and Circuit Criminal Courts) can
be abolished by SC anytime.
PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINES INVOLVING
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER:
Any judgment, final order, decision rendered by a court
without jurisdiction is null and void.
GENERAL RULE: A party may assail the jurisdiction of
the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings
and even on appeal.
Duero vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 131282, January 4, 2002
The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of the court
over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or even cured
by their silence, acquiescence or even by their express consent.
Further, a party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the
action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal. Even
if private respondent actively participated in the proceedings
before said court, the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be
properly invoked against him because the question of lack of
jurisdiction may be raised at anytime and at any stage of the
action. Precedents tell us that as a general rule, the jurisdiction
of a court is not a question of acquiescence as a matter of fact,
but an issue of conferment as a matter of law. Also, neither
waiver nor estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a
court, barring highly meritorious and exceptional
circumstances.
XPN: Estoppel
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 3
Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 144025, December 27, 2002
Active participation in the proceedings in the court which
rendered the order or decision will bar such party from
attacking its jurisdiction.
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in
different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of
estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of
estoppel by laches.
While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a
total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, active
participation in the proceedings in the court which rendered the
order or decision will bar such party from attacking its
jurisdiction. As held in the leading case of Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy:
“A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in
different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of
estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of
estoppel by laches.
“It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a
court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question
that same jurisdiction x x x x [T]he question whether the court
had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of
the parties was not important in such cases because the party is
barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of
the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the
reason that such a practice can not be tolerated—obviously for
reasons of public policy.”
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok Wei
G.R. No. 139791, December 12, 2003
Where a party failed to raise the question of jurisdiction before
the trial court and the appellate court, it, in effect, confirmed and
ratified the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case and is now in
estoppel and can no longer question the trial court’s jurisdiction.
—While it may be true that the trial court is without jurisdiction
over the case, petitioner’s active participation in the proceedings
estopped it from assailing such lack of it. We have held that it is
an undesirable practice of a party participating in the
proceedings and submitting its case for decision and then
accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for
lack of jurisdiction, when adverse. Here, petitioner failed to
raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and the
Appellate Court. In effect, petitioner confirmed and ratified the
trial court’s jurisdiction over this case. Certainly, it is now in
estoppel and can no longer question the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Note: The application of the principle of estoppel is the
exception rather than the rule (Figueroa vs. People).

Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013
The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being
assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Here, what respondent was questioning in her
motion to dismiss before the trial court was that court’s
jurisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel. Thus, the
principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in this case.
Instead, the principles relating to jurisdiction over the person of
the parties are pertinent herein.
Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a
party to a case is not one of those defenses which are not deemed
waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked
when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to
prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is not raised
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to
the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant
is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-
quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
B. Jurisdiction over the Parties
It is the legal power of the court to render personal
judgment against a party to an action or proceeding.
Who are the parties?
In Civil Actions:
(1) Plaintiff;
(2) Defendant;
(3) Co-defendant;
(4) 3rd, 4th, etc. co-defendants;
(5) Intervenor (Rule 19)
In Criminal Actions:
(1) Plaintiff (Republic);
(2) Accused;
Special Proceedings:
Generally, there is only one party – the Petitioner.
In some cases, there are Oppositors, and they are akin to
defendants in civil actions.
XPN: In a petition for Habeas Corpus, there are respondents.
How is jurisdiction acquired over the person of:
1. The Plaintiff:
a. By filing of the complaint; AND
b. TIMELY payment of the CORRECT docket fees.
2. Defendant:
a. VALID service of summons; OR
b. Voluntary Appearance in Court.
3. The 3rd, 4th, etc. party defendant? – same with the
defendant.
4. Intervenor
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 4
Upon the approval of the motion for leave to intervene.
Criminal Actions:
(1) Plaintiff – no need to acquire jurisdiction
(2) Accused – upon lawful arrest; voluntary surrender
C. Jurisdiction over the Res
Res – the thing or the object of the action
How is the jurisdiction over the res acquired?
1. By seizure of the property under legal process, whereby
it is brought into actual custody of the law. (e.g.
Attachment); or
2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in
which the power of the court is recognized or made
effective.
Is it necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the res?
NO. Jurisdiction over the res is only required when
jurisdiction over the parties cannot be acquired.
Do you also acquire jurisdiction on the person through
seizure of the res? NO.
As a limitation to the jurisdiction over the res, relief is
only to the extent of the property. If there is a balance (the
value of the claim exceeds the value of the property), the
plaintiff cannot claim from the defendant.
If the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant, you can convert the action from action in
personam to an action quasi in rem. Invoke Rule 57
(Attachment).
D. Jurisdiction over the Issues
The power of the court to try and decide the issues raised
in the pleadings of the parties.
Jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the
allegations in the pleadings. The pleadings present the
issues to be tried and determine whether these are fact or
law.
What is an issue?
An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties
to an action have narrowed down their several allegations
and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.
Discussion:
Is it necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
issue? Yes.
e.g. in an action for sum of money, the pleading did not
assert the issue of demand to pay.
What will be the effect?
The court has no jurisdiction on the issue of demand, and
the plaintiff cannot submit evidence on the same.
 Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 5

What is the remedy of the plaintiff?

To amend the complaint. An amendment to conform to
evidence under Section 5, Rule 10. (The court must grant
the motion with liberality).

Criminal cases:
The court acquires jurisdiction over the issues upon
arraignment and plea. Once the court arraigned the
accused even if the accused does not come to court, the
trial can proceed.

E. Jurisdiction over the territory

Only applies in criminal cases and not to civil cases
because in civil cases, territory only determines venue.

In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.


JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL CASES
I. SUPREME COURT
Article VIII (8), Sec. 5 (1), (2)
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL (important)
Petitions for Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition against
the:
1. Court of Appeals;
2. Commission on Elections, under Rule 64;
3. Commission on Audit, under Rule 64;
4. Sandiganbayan;
5. Court of Tax Appeals (En Banc);
6. Appellate Sharia’h Courts (Lomondot vs. Balindong)
B. ORIGINAL CONCURRENT
1. With the CA:
Petitions for Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition against
the:
a. RTC;
b. Civil Service Commission;
c. Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
d. NLRC
e. Other quasi-judicial agencies
f. Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan
2. With the RTC and CA Petitions for:
a. Habeas Corpus;
b. Quo Warranto
c. Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
against inferior courts and other bodies.
3. With the RTC, CA and Sandiganbayan Petitions for:
a. Writ of Amparo
b. Writ of Habeas Data
4. With the RTC
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls
C. APPELLATE
By petition for review on Certiorari (Rule 45) against:
1. CA
2. Sandiganbayan
3. RTC on pure questions of Law
4. In cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a
treaty, international agreement or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost,
assessment, toll or penalty.
Art. 8, Sec. 5(2) does not state “appeal” but states the
power of judicial review.
How will the SC exercise its power of judicial review? By
(1) Rule 45; or (2) Rule 65.
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 6
All administrative cases against justices and judges falls within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but it does not
include criminal cases filed against judges or justices (Office of
the Court Admnistrator vs. Judge Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1370,
April 25, 2003).
Other important power of SC:
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court (Sec. 5(5), Article VIII, 1987
Constitution).
II. COURT OF APPEALS
Section 9, B.P. 129
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or
processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional
Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17
of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within
its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to
grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous
and must be completed within three (3) months, unless
extended by the Chief Justice.
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL: Actions for annulment of
judgments of the RTC. (Rule 47, Sec. 1)

Can the CA annul judgments of the MTC?
No. The remedy is to file a petition to annul the judgment
with the RTC (Sec. 10, Rule 47).
There is no annulment of judgment in criminal cases
because of double jeopardy.
B. ORIGINAL CONCURRENT
1. With SC:
To issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the RTC, CSC, CBAA, other quasi-judicial
agencies mentioned in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and Writ
of Kalikasan.
2. With the SC and RTC:
To issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies and writs of quo
warranto, habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, and writ of continuing mandamus
on environmental cases.
3. with SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan
Petitions for Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
C. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
1. By way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the
Family Courts;
2. By way of petition for review from the RTC rendered
by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction;
3. By way of petition for review from the decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC, CBAA and
other quasi-judicial bodies mentioned in Rule 43
(EXCEPT LABOR CASES, see Rule 43) and of the Office
of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases;
4. Over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land
registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction;
this is because decisions of MTCs in these cases are
appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTCs.
III. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
A. Regular RTC;
B. Special Criminal Courts;
C. Intellectual Property Courts;
D. Special Commercial Courts
A. “Regular” Regional Trial Courts
Sec. 19, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 7
An action capable of pecuniary estimation is one which may be
satisfied with money. If money is incidental, then the subject is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The prayer of the plaintiff is
NOT for money.
e.g. A obtained a loan from B evidenced by a promissory note.
IF the relief prayed for is “specific performance OR payment of
100,000 pesos” – the same is capable of pecuniary estimation.
If the relief prayed for is “specific performance AND payment”
– then the same is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Determinant: the prayer in the Complaint.
Note: ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS, (e.g. promissory notes)
the cause of the action is the BREACH in the contract. Hence,
they are incapable of pecuniary estimation.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;
“assessed value” – worth or value of property established by
taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied.
(Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi, September 12, 2008)
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds Three
Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Four Hundred
Thousand (P400,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds Three
Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value
exceeds Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00);
The jurisdiction of the MTC or the RTC, as the case may be,
involving matters of probate is in the exercise of its LIMITED
JURISDICTION. Meaning, probate courts can only determine
the authenticity and due execution of the will, and nothing else.
This however, is subject to exceptions.
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations; (now under the Family Courts)
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds Three Hundred
Thousand (P300,000.00) or, in such other cases in
Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
abovementioned items exceeds Four Hundred
Thousand (P400,000.00).
2. ORIGINAL (CONCURRENT)
Section 21, B.P. 129
a. With the SC and CA in issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction and writ of continuing mandamus on
environmental cases which may be enforced in any part
of their respective regions;
b. With the SC in actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls; and
c. with the SC, CA and Sandigabayan in petitions for writs
of habeas data and amparo.
3. APPELLATE
Sec. 22, BP 129
Over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
XPN: When the MTC exercises delegated jurisdiction in
cadastral and land registration cases, the decision of the
MTC shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals.
B. FAMILY COURTS
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
a. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is
below 18 years of age but not less than 9 years of age, or
when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of
the commission of the offense: Provided, that if found
guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain
any civil liability which the accused may have incurred;
b. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas
corpus in relation to the latter;
c. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof;
d. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of
nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status
and property relations of husband and wife or those
living together under different status and agreements,
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 8
and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of
gains;
e. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgement;
f. Summary judicial proceeding brought under the
Family Code;
g. Petition for declaration of status of children;
h. Petitions for constitution of family home;
i. Cases against minors under CDDA;
j. Violations of RA 7610, otherwise known as the Special
Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act;
k. Case of domestic violence.
Family Courts are a creation of law and are distinct from
Regional Trial Courts.
Note: When a minor is involved, whether criminal or civil, the
jurisdiction lies with the Family Court.
Note: With respect to a petition for guardianship, you
have to distinguish:
a. if the incompetent is a minor – Family Court
b. if not – Regular RTC
C. Intellectual Property Courts
SC-AO No. 113-95
Cases for violation of Intellectual Property Rights
IV. LOWER COURTS (Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 33, BP 129, as amended by RA No. 7691
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
a. Over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in
proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed 300,000
outside of Metro Manila or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of demand does not
exceed 400,000 pesos, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which should be specifically alleged:
Provided, that interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be
included in the determination of filing fees: Provided,
further, that where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims in all causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes
of action arose out of the same or different transactions
(totality rule);
b. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases. Provided,
that when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question
of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the

issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and
Unlawful Detainer - An action to recover possession of
real property from one who illegally withholds
possession after the expiration or termination of his right
to hold possession under any contract, express or
implied.
The possession of the defendant is originally legal but
became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the
right to possess. The proceeding is summary.
The action must be brought up within one year from the
date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the
right to physical possession.
In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession
of any land or building by means of force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth.
The possession is illegal from the beginning and the only
issue is who has the prior possession de facto.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the
right of possession when the dispossession has lasted for
more than one year. It is an ordinary civil action
proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
realty independently of title.
Accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria are not
automatically lodged with the RTC. The assessed value
should first be determined. If the assessed value exceeds
20,000 or 50,000, as the case may be, then the action is
lodged with the RTC. (Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi
(September 12, 2008)
XPN: Sec. 8, Rule 40. Appeal from orders dismissing case
without trial; lack of jurisdiction.
c. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved does
not exceed 20,000 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such value does not exceed 50,000 exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses and costs: Provided that in cases of
land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
2. SPECIAL
Sec. 35, BP 129
In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a
province or city, any Metropolitan, Municipal, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a
writ of habeas corpus or applications of bail in criminal
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 9
cases in the province or city where the absent Regional
Trial Judges sit.
3. DELEGATED
Sec. 34, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the
Supreme Court to hear and determine land or cadastral
cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of which
does not exceed 100,000, such value to be ascertained by
the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or from
the corresponding tax declaration of the real property.
Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the
same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
PROCEDURES IN THE MTC:
(1) Regular (P300,000; P400,000)
(2) Summary Sec. 36, BP 129 (P100,000; P200,000)
(3) Small Claims (P300,00.00)
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure: (In Civil Cases)
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be rendered. Where attorney’s fees are
awarded, the same shall not exceed 20, 000 pesos.
(2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings,
where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not
exceed 100,000 or 200,000 pesos in Metro Manila,
exclusive of interest and costs.
Pleadings allowed –
(a) complaints;
(b) compulsory counterclaims and cross- claims pleaded
in the answer; and
(3) answer thereto.
Prohibited pleadings –

(a) Motion to dismiss or quash the complaint except on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
or failure to comply with Barangay Conciliation;
(b) Motion for a Bill of Particulars;
(c)Motion for new trial, reconsideration or reopening of
trial;

(d) Motion for relief from judgment;

(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings;

(f) Memoranda;

(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;

(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
k) third-party complaints;
(l) intervention

Characteristics:
1. Applies only in lower courts (MTC);
2. No trial, instead, submission of position papers and
supporting documents such as affidavits and depositions;
3. There are 12 prohibited pleadings
4. Shorter prescriptive periods:
i. Answer (10 days)
ii. Parties (30 days)
iii. Judge (30 days)
2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
Sec. 5. Applicability – The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule
in all actions that are purely civil in nature where the
claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money.
The claim or demand may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
(1) Contract of Lease;
(2) Contract of Loan;
(3) Contract of Services;
(4) Contract of Sale; or
(5) Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For liquidated damages arising from contracts;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or
an arbitration award involving a money claim covered by
this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of RA 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code.
Prohibited pleadings –
(a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s;
b) Motion for a Bill of Particulars;
(c)Motion for new trial, reconsideration or reopening of
trial;
d) Motion for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) third-party complaints; and
(l) intervention
NOTE: Demurrer to Evidence is not prohibited even
though it is a kind of Motion to Dismiss.
A decision made under a small claims case suit is final
and unappeallable (Sec. 23).
Hence, the remedy of appeal is not allowed and the
prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 10
execution. However, it does not preclude the party from
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
Determinants:
1. There are no lawyers;
2. They do not use the words Complaint and Answer,
instead they use Application and Response;
3. Amount involved does not exceed P300,000;
4. If one of the parties is a corporation, the venue is not
necessarily the principal office of the corporation, it can
be the branch office;
5. Payment of docket fees
V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RA 8249, as amended
Sandiganbayan is not a Constitutional Court; it is a
constitutionally-mandated court. P.D. 1606 created the
Sandiganbayan.
1. ORIGINAL
a. Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act), as amended, RA No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or
more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government whether in a permanent,
acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission
of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989, specifically
including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial department
heads;
b. City mayors, vice mayors, members of the sangguniang
panlunsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
city department heads;
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains
and all officers of higher rank;
e. Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and those
holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;
f. City and provincial prosecutors and the assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman
and special prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of the Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation
and Position Classification Act;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice the provisions of the
Constitution;
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade
27 and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this
section in relation to their office;
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
Provided, that the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not
allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising
from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an
amount not exceeding 1,000,000.
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court,
the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC under
this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than
where the official holds office.
In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, or
military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
Regional Trial Court or MTC as the case may be, pursuant
to their respective jurisdiction as provided in BP 129, as
amended.
In case of private individuals are charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall
be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in
the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them.
2. APPELLATE
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of
regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.
3. ORIGINAL CONCURRENT
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 11
Petitions for the issuance of writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction, and
other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and other petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto, arising or that may arise from
cases filed or which may be filed under EO 1, 2, 14 and
14-A: Provided that the jurisdiction over these petitions
shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
Criteria to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction:
1. What offense was committed?
2. Who committed the offense?
3. How the offense was committed?
1. What offense was committed?
a. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
b. RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture in favor of the
State any Property found to have been unlawfully
acquired by any Public Officer or Employee and
Providing for the Proceeding Therefor)
c. Violation of EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG Cases)
d. Bribery under RPC
Jurisprudence dictates additional offenses cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan:
e. Estafa
Plainly, estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin requirements that
(a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and
that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office (Serana
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059. January 22, 2008).
f. Falsification (Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan)
All other crimes are not cognizable in the Sandiganbayan.
Rape with homicide is outside the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. (Sanchez vs. Dimetrio)
Murder is not within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary)
As long as the public office facilitated the commission of
the crime.

Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) vs.
Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015
Under Section 2 of the President’s Executive Order No. 14
issued on May 7, 1986, all cases of the Commission regarding
“the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired
or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand Marcos,
Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their Close Relatives,
Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, or
Nominees” whether civil or criminal, are lodged within the
“exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan” and
all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to, such cases
necessarily fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive
and original jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari
exclusively by the Supreme Court.
2. Who committed the offense?
Escobal vs. Garchitorena
G.R. No. 124644, February 5, 2004
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction over
crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office, it
is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation between
the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties
must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely
allege in the Information that the crime charged was committed
by the offender in relation to his office because that would be a
conclusion of law. The amended Information filed with the RTC
against the petitioner does not contain any allegation showing
the intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his
duties.
Moreover, even if the offender committed the crime charged in
relation to his office but occupies a position corresponding to a
salary grade below “27,” the proper Regional Trial Court or
Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police
Senior Inspector, with salary grade “23.” He was charged with
homicide punishable by reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC
had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged.
People of the Philippines vs. Henry Go
G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014
The requirement before a private person may be indicted for
violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such
private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with
a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such
person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the
public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer
may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where
the public officer has already died, the private person may be
indicted alone.
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 12
Serana vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 162059. January 22, 2008
Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) explicitly vests the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers
of government owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Petitioner, as Student Regern, falls under this category. The
Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of a board
of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of
the law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated in
PD No. 1606, as amended.
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 191894, July 15, 2015
Those that fall within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan are: (1) officials of the executive branch with
Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically
enumerated in Section 4(A)(1)(a) to (g), regardless of their salary
grades. While the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials
of the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its
second part specifically includes other executive officials whose
positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are
by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or
higher. Neither does he hold any position particularly
enumerated in Section 4(A)(1)(a) to (g).
VI. COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Republic Act No. 9282, amended RA 1125 by expanding the
jurisdiction of the CTA, enlarging its membership and
elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special
jurisdiction.
1. ORIGINAL
a. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein
provided:
Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases
involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees,
charges and penalties: Provides, however, that collection
cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the
proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court
and Regional Trial Court.
b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as
herein provided:
Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses
arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue
Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the
Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or
felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos

(P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount
claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision
of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary
notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability
for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously
instituted with, and jointly determined in the same
proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action
being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the
civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil
action separately from the criminal action will be
recognized.
2. APPELLATE
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as
herein provided:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations
thereto, or other matters arising under the National
Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal
Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in
which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial
Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by
them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases
involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money
charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected,
fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the Customs Law or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases
involving the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city board of
assessment appeals;
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases
elevated to him automatically for review from decisions
of the Commissioner of Customs which are adversed to
the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and
Customs Code;
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the
case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article,
and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural
product, commodity or article, involving dumping and
countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 13
safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where
either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to
impose said duties.
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
1. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders
of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally
decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions
or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of
their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective jurisdiction.
c. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
1. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders
of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases
originally decided by them, in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions
or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of
their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases
originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, in their respective jurisdiction.
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo
G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014
The exercise of two judicial bodies over basically the same
subject matter is precisely the split-jurisdiction situation which
is anathema to the orderly administration of justice.
Stated differently, it would be somewhat incongruent with the
pronounced judicial abhorrence to split jurisdiction to conclude
that the intention of the law is to divide the authority over a local
tax case filed with the RTC by giving to the CA or this Court
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against interlocutory
orders of the RTC but giving to the CTA the jurisdiction over
the appeal from the decision of the trial court in the same case.
CE Casecnan Water and Energy Co. Inc. vs. Province of Nueva
Ecija
G.R. No. 196278, June 17, 2015
With respect to the CTA, its jurisdiction was expanded and its
rank elevated to that of a collegiate court with special
jurisdiction by virtue of Republic Act No. 9282. This expanded
jurisdiction of the CTA includes its exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions, orders or
resolutions of the RTC in local tax cases originally decided or
resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its original or appellate
jurisdiction.
VII. QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES
TRADITIONAL MEANING OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION:

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact.
NEW MEANING: The Ombudsman will have primary
jurisdiction in the conduct of preliminary investigation
and inquest proceedings over complaints for crimes
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction. (Memorandum of Agreement
between the Office of the Ombudsman and Department
of Justice, 2012)
VIII. SHARIA’H COURTS
Presidential Decree No. 1083.
Two requisites:
1. Both parties are Muslims;
2. Both are residents of the Autonomous Region of
Mindanao.
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
a. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy,
paternity and filiation arising under Presidential Decree
No. 1083;
b. All cases involving disposition, distribution and
settlement of the estate of a deceased Muslim, probate of
wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment
of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or
the aggregate value of the property;
c. Petitions for declaration of absence and death and for
cancellation and correction of entries in the Muslim
Registries mentioned in Title VI, Book Two of Presidential
Decree No. 1083;
d. All actions arising from customary contracts in which
the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which
law shall govern their relations;
e. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and all auxiliary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. CONCURRENT ORIGINAL
a. Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of the family
home, change of name and commitment of insane person
to any asylum;
b. All other personal and real actions not mentioned in
paragraph 1(d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims
except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the Municipal Circuit Courts; and
c. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory
relief where the parties are Muslims or the property
involved belongs exclusively to a Muslim.
Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 14
Note: Concurrent jurisdiction with RTC on marital
relations where one party is not a Muslim.
3. APPELLATE
The Shari'a District Court has appellate jurisdiction over
all cases tried in the Shari'a Circuit Courts within their
territorial jurisdiction.
Lomondot vs. Balindong
G.R. No. 192463, July 13, 2015
The Shari’a Appellate Court has yet to be organized with the
appointment of a Presiding Justice and two Associate Justices.
Until such time that the Shari’a Appellate Court shall have been
organized, however, appeals or petitions from final orders or
decisions of the SDC filed with the CA shall be referred to a
Special Division to be organized in any of the CA stations
preferably composed of Muslim CA Justices.
Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong
G.R. No. 193340, January 11, 2017
In determining whether the Shari'a District Court has
jurisdiction over the case, the threshold question is whether
both parties are Muslims. It is clear from the title and the
averments in the complaint that Mayor Batingolo was
impleaded only in a representative capacity, as chief executive
of the local government of Tangkal. When an action is defended
by a representative, that representative is not-and neither does
he become-a real party in interest. The person represented is
deemed the real party in interest; the representative remains to
be a third party to the action. That Mayor Batingolo is a Muslim
is therefore irrelevant for purposes of complying with the
jurisdictional requirement under Article 143(2)(b) that both
parties be Muslims. To satisfy the requirement, it is the real
party defendant, the Municipality of Tangkal, who must be a
Muslim. Such a proposition, however, is a legal impossibility. A
juridical person exercises no religion. As a government
instrumentality, the Municipality of Tangkal can only act for
secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular
effects35-consistent with the non-establishment clause. Hence,
even if it is assumed that juridical persons are capable of
practicing religion, the Municipality of Tangkal is
constitutionally proscribed from adopting, much less
exercising, any religion, including Islam.
OTHER CONCEPTS:
Residual Prerogative vs. Residual Jurisdiction:
Residual prerogative are the general residual powers of
the courts to dismiss an action motu proprio upon the
grounds mentioned in Sec.1, Rule 9 and under authority
of Sec. 2, Rule 1.
Under Sec. 1, Rule 9, defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived, except when (1) lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res judicata and (4)
prescription are evident from the pleadings or the
evidence on record. In the four excepted instance, the
court shall motu proprio dismiss the claim or action.
 Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 15

Epistolary Jurisdiction:
On the other hand, residual jurisdiction is embodied in It is not really a form of jurisdiction. It is merely an advice
Rule 41, Sec. 9. The residual jurisdiction of trial courts is to lift locus standi.
available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed Alternative: To lower the benchmark in locus standi.
to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter
involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the This is not applicable in the Philippines because in
perfection of appeals by the parties or upon the approval Philippine jurisprudence, parties can only be natural
of the records of appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the persons… (rule 3).
original records or records on appeal. In either instance,
the trial court still retains its so-called residual
jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of
the appeal (Katon vs. Palanca, G.R. No. 151149, September 7,
2004).

Expanded Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of the CTA was expanded and its rank
elevated to that of a collegiate court with special
jurisdiction by virtue of Republic Act No. 9282. This
expanded jurisdiction of the CTA includes its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions,
orders or resolutions of the RTC in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by the RTC in the exercise
of its original or appellate jurisdiction (CE Casecnan Water
and Energy Company, Inc. vs. Province of Nueva Ecija, G.R.
No. 196278, June 17, 2015).

Equity Jurisdiction:
Equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in
cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its
judgments to the special circumstances of a case because
of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to
a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity
jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust
enrichment and to ensure restitution (Regulus
Development, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January
25, 2016).

Split Jurisdiction:
The exercise by two judicial bodies, of jurisdiction over
basically the same subject matter – precisely the split
jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly
administration of justice.

Stated differently, it would be somewhat incongruent

with the pronounced judicial abhorrence to split
jurisdiction to conclude that the intention of the law is to
divide the authority over a local tax case filed with the
RTC by giving to the CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue
a writ of certiorari against interlocutory orders of the RTC
but giving to the CTA the jurisdiction over the appeal
from the decision of the trial court in the same case (City
of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, February 4,
2014).
 Remedial Law Review I JSL| Page 16