civil procedure doctrines by topic

7/25/2019 Civil Procedure Doctrines by topic

1/169

CIVIL PROCEDURE

PART I

1.

General Principles

1.1Concept of Remedial Law

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the methods of enforcing rightsand obligations created by substantive law in case of invasion of these rights.

Nature of Remedial Law:

Since they (remedial law) are promulgated by authority of law, they have the force andeffect of law if not in conflict with substantive law (Ateneo v. De La Rosa, G.R. No. L-286, March

28, 1946)1.2Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, orwhich regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the lawwhich courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, whichprescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. (Bustos v.Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949 Motion for Reconsideration Resolution)

Distinction between Remedy and Substantiveright:

The distinction between "remedy" and "substantive right" is incapable of exactdefinition. The difference is somewhat a question of degree. It is difficult to draw a line in any particular case beyond which legislative power over remedy and procedure can pass without touching upon the substantive rights of parties affected, as it is impossible to fix that boundaryby general condition. This being so, it is inevitable that the Supreme Court in making rulesshould step on substantive rights, and the Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not toexpect such incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner or deprivehim of a defense, but operates only in a limited and unsubstantial manner to his disadvantage.For the Court's power is not merely to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure existing at the time of the Constitution's approval. This power is "to promulgate rules concerning

pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts," which is a power to adopt a general, completeand comprehensive system of procedure, adding new and different rules without regard totheir source and discarding old ones. (Bustos v. Lucero, supra)

1.2.1Meaning of Procedural Laws

According to De los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat: Procedural law refers to the adjectivelaw which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able toadminister justice. Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactivelaw, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statues they may be given

retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and thiswill not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch asthere are no vested rights in rules of procedure. (Priscilla Alma Jose, Vs. Ramon C. Javellana, EtAl., G.R. No. 158239, January 25, 2012)


2/169

1.2.2Procedural rules applicable to actions pending at the time of promulgation

Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered applicable toactions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. Procedural laws and rules are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The effect of procedural statutes and rules on the

rights of a litigant may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. Thisretroactive application does not violate any right of a person adversely affected. Neither is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attachto or arise from procedural laws and rules. It has been held that "a person has no vested right inany particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure." More so when, asin this case, petitioner admits that it was not able to pay the docket fees on time. Clearly, therewere no substantive rights to speak of when the RTC dismissed the Notice of Appeal. PanayRailways Inc., Vs. Heva Management And Development Corporation, Pamplona Agro-Industrial

Corporation, And Spouses Candelaria Dayot And Edmundo Dayot, G. R. No. 154061, January 25,

2012)

1.2.3Liberal construction or suspension of procedural rules

It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. (Building CareCorporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency And/Or Ruperto Protacio, Vs. Myrna

Macaraeg, G.R. No. 19835710 December 2012)

In Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines v. Tanghal-Salvaa, this Court held:

Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking onthe policy of liberal construction. Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate theadjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules.And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, thiswas never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Theliberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases andunder justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game oftechnicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. (Mca-Mbf

Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Guiluz V, Amable C. Aguiluz Ix, Cielo C. Aguiluz,Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay And Mca Holdings And Management Corporation, Vs. Mbf

Card International Limited And Mbf Discount Card Limited, G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012)

When liberal construction of the rules proper?

A liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the literalobservance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprivedthe court of its authority. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Rulesshould be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy andinexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are tools designedto facilitate the attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict and rigid applicationwhich would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial

justice. (Douglas F. Anama Vs. Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012)


3/169

The liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may besome excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does notsubvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt atcompliance with the rules. Besides, fundamental is the precept that rules of procedure aremeant not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; hence, their rigid application

may, for deserving reasons, be subordinated by the need for an apt dispensation of substantialjustice in the normal course. They ought to be relaxed when there is subsequent or evensubstantial compliance, consistent with the policy of liberality espoused by Rule 1, Section 6.Not being inflexible, the rule on verification allows for such liberality. (Felix Martos, JimmyEclana, Rodel Pilones, et al. Vs. New San Jose Builders, Inc.,G.R. No. 192650. October 24, 2012)

1.2.3.1 When liberal construction is not applicable?

The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberallyconstrued. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a

satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberalinterpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve anexceptional treatment. It was never the Courts intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants toviolate the rules with impunity."

This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the duty ofevery member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptionsshould they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on liberalconstruction. (Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual, Vs. Spouses Marilyn Lim And George Lim AndThe Registry Of Deeds Of Valenzuela City, G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012)

1.3

Rule-Making Power of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court shall have the following powerPromulgate rules concerning theprotection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in allcourts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for thespeedy 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. (Article VIII,Section 5(5), 1987 Phil. Constitution)

1.3.1Limitations of Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

1.

The rules provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition ofcases;

2.The rules shall be uniform (not different or varying) for all courts of the same grade;

3. The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Article VIII,Section 5(5), 1987 Phil. Constitution)

1.3.2

Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to excepta case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justicerequires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/192650.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/192650.pdf


4/169

is discretionary upon the court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant PagbilaoCorporation, G.R. No. 159593. October 12, 2006).

In fact, this Court has held that even if there was complete non-compliance with the ruleon certification against forum shopping, the Court may still proceed to decide the case on the

merits, pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its own rules on grounds, as stated above,of substantial justice and apparent merit of the case. (SM Land, Inc. (Formerly Shoemart, Inc.)

and Watsons Personal Care Store, Phils., Inc. Vs. City of Manila, Liberty Toledo, in her official

capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, et al.G.R. No. 197151. October 22, 2012)

1.3.3.Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules carries with it the power to overturn

judicial precedents:

a)

The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and

procedure to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries with it the power to overturn

judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of

Court.(Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R No. 170354, June 30, 2006).

1.3.4.Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules are means for the court to exercise

jurisdiction:

The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. Inpromulgating the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properlydenominated as the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in allcourts; consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the means, ways or manner inwhich said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised .(Minerva A. Gomez-Castillo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2011)

1.3.5.Rule on the Writ of Amparo an exercise of Rule-making Power

The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rulemaking powers inresponse to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances andextrajudicial killings. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favorof Lilibeth Ladaga Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine

Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al./In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of

Amparo in Favor of Angela A. Librado-Trinidad Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu,Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al.In the Matter fo the

Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Carlos Isagani T. Zarate Vs. Major

General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry

Division, et al.,G.R. No. 189689/G.R. No. 189690/G.R. No. 189691. November 13, 2012)

1.3.6 Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to excepta case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justicerequires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules

is discretionary upon the court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant PagbilaoCorporation, G.R. No. 159593. October 12, 2006).

1.3.7. Primary objective of the suspension of the rules
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/197151.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/189689.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/197151.pdf


5/169

In the interest of just and expeditious proceedings, the Supreme Court may suspend theapplication of the Rules of Court and except a case from its operation because the Rules wereprecisely adopted with the primary objective of enhancing fair trial and expeditious justice(Republic v. CA, et al., L-31303-04, May 31, 1978).

1.4 Nature of Philippine Courts

1.4.1 What is a Court?

An organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which isthe application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the publicadministration of justice (Blacks, 5th Edition, 356).

A court is called upon and authorized to administer justice. Sometimes it refers to the

place where justice is administered (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, 1, 1965; 21 C.J.S., Courts, 1).

It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64O.G. 3189)

1.4.2.Court distinguished as from Judge

1.

A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply anofficer of such tribunal (Wagen Horst v. Philadelphia Insurance Company 358pa. 55, 55 82d762).

2.

A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct fromthe person or judge who sits on it.

3.

A court is an office while a judge is a public officer.

4. .The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstance that wouldaffect the judge. The continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceeding are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it. In other words the judge may resign, become incapacitated, or be disqualified to hold office but thecourt remains.

The death of the judge does not mean the death of the court (Riano, Civil Procedure;restatement for the bar 2009, p.45).

1.4.3 Classification of Philippine Courts

Constitutional Court - Those which owe their creation and existence to the Constitution. Itsexistence as well as the deprivation of its jurisdiction and powers cannot be made a subject oflegislation. Example: The Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 1(1), 1987 Phil. Constitution)

Note: Supreme Court is the only Constitutional Court in the Philippines. All others areStatutory Courts.

Statutory Courts A court created by law whose jurisdiction is exclusively determined bylegislation. It may be abolished by Congress by simply repealing the law which created them.Example: Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan/Municipal Courts (created by BP


6/169

129), The Court of Tax Appeals (created by RA 1125) Family Courts, Shariah DistrictCourts,Shariah Cicuit Courts (P.D.1083)

1.4.4.Nature of Philippine Courts: Law and Equity

a.

Court of lawdecides a case according to thepromulgated law

b.

Court of Equity decides a case according to the common precepts of what is rightand just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.

Philippines courts, either original or appellate, exercise both the legal and equitable jurisdictions (U.S. v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 9527, August 23, 1915).

1.4.5.What is jurisdiction?

Refers to the power and authority of the court to hear, determine controversies, anddecide a case (People v. Mariano, G.R. L-40527, June 30, 1976)

1.Kinds of jurisdiction:

a)Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

a)

Original Jurisdictionpower of the court to take cognizance of a case at its inceptionor commencement.

b)

Appellate Jurisdictionpower vested in a superior court to review and revise thejudicial action of a lower court.

b)General and Special Jurisdiction

a)

General Jurisdiction authority of the court to hear and determine all actions andsuits.

Example: Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction:

b)

Special or Limited Jurisdiction authority of the court to hear and determineparticular cases only.

Example: MTC/MCTC can entertain petition for habeas corpus if there is no availableRTC judge:

1.4.6.Principle of Judicial Hierarchy:

Hierarchy of courts meant that while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue original writs of certiorari,prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, such concurrence does not accord

litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of court to which filing thereof may be directed.Petitions should be filed with the court of lower level unless the importance of the issue involved deserves the action of a higher court. (Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27,2007; De los Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006)

General rule: A higher court will not entertain a direct resort to it UNLESS the redress cannot be


7/169

obtained in the appropriate lower court.

Exception: In cases of national interest and of serious implications, Supreme Court does nothesitate to set aside the rule and proceed with the determination of the case (COMELEC v.

Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002).

Purposes of Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts; Exception

This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is sharedbythis Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of

jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs anabsolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venueof appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions forthe extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates

that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts shouldbe filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. Adirect invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should beallowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. (United Claimants Association of NEA (Unican) Vs. National

Electrification Administration (NEA), G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012)

Doctrine of Transcendental Importance

Evidently, the instant petition should have been filed with the RTC. However, as an

exception to this general rule, the principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside for specialand important reasons. Such reason exists in the instant case involving as it does theemployment of the entire plantilla of NEA, more than 700 employees all told, who were effectively dismissed from employment in one swift stroke. This to the mind of the Court entailsits attention. (United Claimants Association of NEA (Unican) Vs. National ElectrificationAdministration (NEA), G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012)

The rule on hierarchy of courts does not prevent the Supreme Court from assumingjurisdiction where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to such remedy,in which case, the Supreme Court exercises its primary jurisdiction (Agan vs. PhilippineInternational Air Terminal Co.,[PIATCO], G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003).

Doctrine of Non-interference or Judicial Stability

Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere or review with the orders ofeach other. A court is barred from reviewing judgments of a co-equal court over which it has noappellate jurisdiction nor power of review.

Doctrine of Non-interference applicable in administrative bodies:

The doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such

body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the control ofthe latter (Civil Procedure [A Restatement For The Bar], Riano, 2007 ed. Citing SinterCorporation and Phividec Industrial Authority v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R.

No. 127371, 25 April 2002).

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is withinthe jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the


8/169

question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in determining technical or intricate matters of fact. (Omictin vs. Courtof Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007)

Exceptions:(a)where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of

jurisdiction;(c)where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice

the complainant;(d)where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and

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

the courts of justice;(f)where judicial intervention is urgent;(g)

when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;(h)where the controverted acts violate due process;(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered

moot;(j)when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;(k)when strong public interest is involved; and,(l)in quo warranto proceedings.(Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255)


9/169

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction/Continuing Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction, once it attaches, cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events even of such character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first

instance. The rule of adherence of jurisdiction (exists) until a cause is finally resolved oradjudicated. (Abad, et. al. v. RTC of Manila, et. al. G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987)

Exceptions:

When the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad et. al. v. RTC of Manila et.al., supra)

2.How jurisdiction is acquired?

2.1

Over the Plaintiff

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires jurisdiction over the person ofthe plaintiff by the filing of his complaint. (Dilweg v. Phillips, G.R. L-19596, October 30, 1964,citing Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523)

Petitioners were correct when they argued that upon Macaria Berots death, her legal

personality ceased, and she could no longer be impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure suit. It isalso true that her death opened to her heirs the succession of her estate, which in this case was anintestate succession. However, it can be gleaned from the records of the case that petitioners didnot object when the estate of Macaria was impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure case.Petitioners did not object either when the original Complaint was amended and respondentimpleaded him as the administrator of Macarias estate, in addition to his being impleaded as an

individual respondent in the case. Thus, the trial and appellate courts were correct in ruling that,indeed, petitioners impliedly waived any objection to the trial courts exercise of jurisdiction overtheir persons at the inception of the case. SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT vs. FELIPE C.SIAPNO, G.R. No. 188944, July 9, 2014, CJ. Sereno

Pag-IBIG requested the intervention of the trial court through a letter on the allegedanomalous auction sale conducted. The Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdictionover the case since no proper initiatory pleading was filed. Said letter could not in any way be

considered as a pleading. Also, no docket fees were paid before the trial court. Rule 141 of the Rulesof Court mandates that upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action

or proceeding, the fees prescribed shall be paid in full. EDUARDO D. MONSANTO, DECOROSO D.MONSANTO, SR., and REV. FR. PASCUAL D. MONSANTO, JR. vs. LEONCIO LIM and LORENZO DEGUZMAN G.R. No.178911, September 17, 2014, J. Del Castillo

2.1.2. Over the defendant:

In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by service of summons or by the defendants voluntary appearance in court and submission to its

authority. (Optima Realty Corporation Vs. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc.G.R. No. 183035. January 9,2013)

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons orthe defendants voluntary appearance in court. (Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379,

December 1, 2010)

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/183035.pdf


10/169

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is NOT a prerequisite in an action in rem andquasi in rem (Gomez v. CA, 425 SCRA 98).

2.2Over Subject Matter:

Meaning of Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of thegeneral class to which the proceedings in question belong (C. J. S., p. 36) and is conferred by thesovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers (Banco Espaol Filipinovs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Perkins vs. Dizon, 40 Off. Gaz. No. 7, 3d Sup. p. 216; Ng Si Chok vs. Vera,G.R. No. 45674). (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, November 26, 1941). In other terms, it isprovided by law.

How is jurisdiction over the subject matter acquired?

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the generalclass to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject matter isconferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subjectmatter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint. (G.R. No.178193, Danilo S. Ursua Vs. Republic of the Philippines)

How Jurisdiction is conferred and determined

It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of

the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespectiveofwhether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As anecessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon thedefenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of

jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines thejurisdictionof the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in thecomplaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted. (Fe V. Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva and Annie F. Aparejado, representedbyEdgar Aparejado Vs. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, of RTC-Branch 47, Masbate City; SSGT.

Edison Rural, et al.G.R. No. 171855. October 15, 2012)

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegationsin the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot beconferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or acquired through or waived,enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court.Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, thismatter being legislative in character. (Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G. 165676, November 22,2010)

Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determinewhether a suit is within its jurisdiction. There may be instances, however, when a rigid application ofthis rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a partys substantial right. In

Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Garcia, [the Court] allowed the RTC to consider, in addition to thecomplaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaintshould be dismissed for lack of cause of action. In Guaranteed Homes, Inc. vs. Heirs of Valdez, et al.,[the Court] held that the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with thestatements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/171855.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/171855.pdf


11/169

In the present case, [the Court finds] reason not to strictly apply the above-mentionedgeneral rule, and to consider the facts contained in the Declaration of Real Property attached to thecomplaint in determining whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the Esperanzas case. A merereference to the attached document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction and would

have rendered lengthy litigation on this point unnecessary. ESPERANZA TUMPAG, SUBSTITUTED BYHER SON, PABLITO TUMPAG BELNAS, JR. vs. SAMUEL TUMPAG, G.R. No. 199133, September 29,2014, J. Brion

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter a ground for annulment of judgment.

As this Court previously clarified in Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., "lackofjurisdiction" as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction overtheperson of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. It does not contemplate"grave abuse of discretion" considering that "jurisdiction" is different from the exercisethereof. As ruled in Tolentino v. Judge Leviste: Jurisdiction is not the same as theexercise of

jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is theauthority todecide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over theperson and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but anexercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of

jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. (RemediosAntonino, Vs. The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City And Tan Tian Su, G.R. No. 185663, June 20,

2012)

When to raise objections to jurisdiction over subject matter?

As a rule, an objection over subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time of theproceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or vested by the agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by law, which prevails at the time of the filing ofthe complaint. (Lasmis v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010)

Effects of Estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

The defense of lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage ofthe proceeding even on appeal since it is conferred by law (De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 245SCRA 166, 1995).

A party may be barred from raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction or jurisdiction maybe waived on the ground of estoppel by laches. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a courttosecure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain suchrelief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450,April 15, 1968).

Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter vs. lack of jurisdiction over person of the petitioner

Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final orderis

either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdictionover the person of the petitioner. The former is a matter of substantive law becausestatutory lawdefines the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter or nature of the action. Thelatter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or otherprocess on thepetitioner. A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction over the subjectmatter or nature of the action is always void, and, in the words of Justice Street in BancoEspaol-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil 949 [1918]), in this sense it may be said to be a lawlessthing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored whereverand whenever


12/169

it exhibits its head. But the defect of lack of jurisdiction over the person, being a matter ofprocedural law, may be waived by the party concerned either expressly or impliedly.(Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Cp., now Bank of thePhilippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014.)

Lack of jurisdiction due to violation of constitutional rights

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts areousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a partys right to due process raises a serious

jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of thefundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is voidfor lack of jurisdiction. APO CEMENT CORPORATION vs. MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIESCORPORATION G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe

2.3

Over the Issues

This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, asprovided in Sec. 5, Rule 10. (De Joya v. Marquez, et. al., G.R. No. 163416, January 31, 2006)Note: An issue is a single, certain, and material point arising out of the allegations andcontentions of the parties; it is a matter affirmed on one side and denied on the other, andwhen a fact is alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer, the matters is then put in issuebetween the parties (Blacks, 9th Ed. Citing 35A C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure Sec. 357, at 541).

2.4

Over the Res or Property Involved in Litigation

This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing inquestion, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision oflaw which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter withinits territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or realproperty in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant. (De Joya v. Marquez, et. al., supra)

2.5. Error of Jurisdiction as distinguished from Error of Judgment

Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit inthe exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of wasissued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, whichis tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by theextraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in itsappreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings andits conclusions of law. (First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of Court of Appeals et. al., G.R.No. 171989, July 4, 2007)

2.6. Jurisdiction versus the Exercise of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority todecide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter, the decision of all other questionarising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. (Napa v. Weissenhagen, G.R. No. L-9698, January 6, 1915)


13/169

2.7. Jurisdiction of different Courts:

2.5.1 Supreme Court (SC)

ORIGINAL Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against CA,COMELEC, COA, CTA and Sandiganbayan.

1. Exclusive

2.Concurrent

a.with the CA

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against RTC,Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,Other quasi-judicial agencies and NLRC

2.

Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and continuing mandamuspursuant to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective 29 April 2010)

b. with the CA,

SANDIGANBAYAN and

RTC

1.

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against courtsof the first level and other bodies; and

2.

Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto3.

Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the Rules ofProcedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,effective 29 April 2010)

c. with RTC Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

d. with CA, RTC and

Sandiganbayan

1.

Petition for Writ of Amparo; and2.

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data

APPELLATEPetitions for Review on Certiorari against the CA, Sandiganbayan,CTA en banc, Final judgment or order in a Writ of Amparo orHabeas Data case and RTC in cases involving:a.

Constitutionality or validity of a treaty, international orexecutive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,order, instruction, ordinance or regulation

b. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or a penalty inrelation thereto

c. Jurisdiction of a lower court, andd.

Pure error or question of law.

JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL CASES


14/169

g 2.5.2 Court of Appeals (CA) )

ORIGINAL1. Exclusive

1. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC

2.Concurrent

a.with the SC

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamusagainst RTC, Civil Service Commission, Central Boardof Assessment Appeals, Other quasi-judicial agencies& NLRC

2. Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and continuingmandamus pursuant to the Rules of Procedure forEnvironmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective29 April 2010)

b. with SC, Sandiganbayan

and RTC

1.

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamusagainst courts of the first level and other bodies; and

2. Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No.09-6-8-SC, effective 29 April 2010)

c. with SC, Sandiganbayan

and RTC

1.

Petition for Writ of Amparo (Sec. 3, Rule on the Writof Amparo); and

2. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 3, Rule on theWrit of Habeas Data)

APPELLATE1.

Ordinary Appeals from RTC, except in casesexclusively appealable to the SC, Family Courts andSpecial Commercial Courts

2. Appeal by Petition for Review from Civil ServiceCommission, SEC, Land Registration Authority, SocialSecurity Commission, Office of the President and anyother quasi-judicial agency, instrumentality, board orcommission in the exercise of its quasi- judicialfunctions

3. Petitions for Review from RTC in cases appealedthereto from the lower courts


15/169

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office ofthe Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.

Bunag-Cabacungan's contention that the phrase "in all other cases" has removed the

distinction between administrative and criminal cases of the Ombudsman is ludicrous. It must bestressed that the above-quoted Section 7 is provided under Rule III, which deals with the procedurein administrative cases. When Administrative Order No. 07 was amended by Administrative OrderNo. 17, Section 7 was retained in Rule III. It is another rule, Rule II, which provides for the procedurein criminal cases. Thus, the phrase "in all other cases" still refers to administrative cases, notcriminal cases, where the sanctions imposed are different from those enumerated in Section 7. It isimportant to note that the petition filed by Bunag-Cabacungan in CA-G.R. SP No. 86630 assailed onlythe "administrative decision" rendered against her by the OMB for Luzon. FELICIANO B. DUYON,SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN vs. THE FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OFAPPEALS AND ELEONOR P. BUNAG-CABACUNGAN, G.R. No. 172218, November 26, 2014, J.Leonardo-De Castro

2.5.3 Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

1. Over all criminal cases arising from violation of NIRC of the TCCand other laws, part of laws, or special laws administered bythe BIR or the BOC where the principal amount of taxes andfees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than

P1M or where there is no specified amount claimed;2.

In tax collection cases involving final and executor assessmentsof taxes, fees, charges and penalties where the principalamount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penaltiesclaimed is less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC andRTC.


16/169

APPELLATE1.

In criminal offenses (1) over appeals from the judgments,resolutions, or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decidedby them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction and (2) overpetitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of

the RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over taxcases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs,and MCTCs intheir respective jurisdiction;

2.

In tax collection cases (1) over appeals from the judgments,resolutions, or orders of the RTC in tax collection casesoriginally decided by them, in their respective territorial

jurisdiction and (2) over petitions for review of the judgments,resolutions or orders of the RTC in the the exercise of theirappellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originallydecided by the MeTCs, MTCs,and MCTCs in their respective

jurisdiction.

Exclusive original or

appellate to review by

appeal

1.

Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessment,refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges,penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under theNIRC or other laws administered by the BIR;

2. Inaction by the CIR in cases involving disputed assessment,refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges,penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under theNIRC or other laws administered by the BIR where the NIRC orother applicable law provides s specified period of action, inwhich case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;

3.

Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxesoriginally decided by them in the exercise of their original andappellate jurisdiction;

4.

Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (1) in casesinvolving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges,seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,forfeiture, or other penalties in relation thereto, or (2) othermatters arising under the Customs law, or other laws, part oflaws or special laws administered by BOC;

5.

Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the

exercise of appellate jurisdiction over cases involvingassessment and taxation of real property originally decided bythe provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

6. Decision of the Secretary of Finance on custom cases elevatedto him automatically for review from the decisions of theCommissioner of Customs which are adverse to thegovernment under section 2315 of the TCC;

7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry I the case ofnon- agricultural product, commodity or article and thesecretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,commodity or article, involving dumping duties and

counterveiling duties under Secs. 301 and 302 of TCC andsafeguard measures under RA **)), where the party mayappeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.(RA 9282 and Rule 5, AM 05-11-07-CTA)


17/169

2.5.4. Sandiganbayan

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

Civil cases filed pursuant to E. O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A(PCGGcases for recovery of ill-gotten wealth)

Three conditions:

1. What offenses: offenses must be cognizable by theSandiganbayan (Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.No. 162059, January 22, 2008).

2.

Offender: offender must be a public officer (Escobalvs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 124644, February 5, 2004).

3. How committed: it must be committed in relation to theirpublic office (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

128096,January 20, 1999).

2.5.5. Regional Trial Court (RTC)

2.Concurrent

a.with the SC

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus,injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate

jurisdiction including quo warranto arising in cases falling underE.O.s 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG cases for recovery of ill-gotten wealth)

b. with the SC CA Petition for writ of am aro and habeas data

APPELLATE Final judgments, resolutions or orders of RTC whether in theexercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction (RA 8249) overcrimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed bypublic officers below SG 27


18/169

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

1. Actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of

pecuniary estimation;

2.

Actions involving title to or possession of real property or aninterest therein, where the assessed value of such propertyexceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila, or P20,000 outside MetroManila, except forcible entry and unlawful detainer;

3.

Actions involving marriage and marital relations;

4.

Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicialfunctions;

5. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages,attorneysfees, litigation expenses and costs, or the value of theproperty exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000outside Metro Manila (SC Circular No. 09-94);

6. Actions for annulment of MTC judgments;

7.

Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration

agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award,application for arbitration award and supervision (Sec. 47, ADRAct of 2004);

8.

Citizen suit (Sec. 41 of the Clean Air Act).

9. Admiralty and maritime cases where the demand or claimexceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000 outside MetroManila, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigationexpenses, and costs (CLAID);

10.Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value ofestate exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000 outsideMetro Manila

As a SPECIAL

COMMERCIAL COURT

1. Cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights;2. Cases enumerated under Sec. 5, PD 902-A (Intra-corporate

disputes, fraud scheme cases, election cases, petitions forsuspension of payments and/or rehabilitation proceedings).

2. Concurrent Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.


19/169

a. with the SC

b. with the SC and CA1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against

lower courts and bodies; and

2. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,

effective 29 April 2010)

c. with the SC, CA and

SandiganbayanPetition for writ of amparo and habeas data

d. With MeTC, MTCC,

MTC, & MTCC

APPELLATE All

cases decided by the MTCs in their respective territorial

jurisdiction

2.5.6. Family Courts

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL 1.

Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpusin relation to the latter;2. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;3. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of

marriage and those relating to marital status and propertyrelations of husband and wife or those living together underdifferent status and agreements, and petitions for dissolutionof conjugal partnership of gains;

4.

Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;5. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of

E.O. No. 209 or the Family Code;

6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary orinvoluntary commitment of children; the suspension,termination, or restoration of parental authority and othercases cognizable under P.D. No. 603, E.O. No. 56, (Series of1986 and other related laws


20/169

2.5.7. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

NOTE: The jurisdictionalamount was adjustedpursuant to Sec. 5, RA

7691, now being the 2nd

5-year period from thedate of effectivity of saidact.

1. Actions involving personal property valued at not more thanP400,000 in Metro Manila and P300,000 outside Metro

Manila;

2.

The following cases or actions where the value in considerationdoes not exceed P400,000 in Metro Manila and P300,000outside Metro Manila, in both cases, exclusive of interest,damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs (CLAID):

a.

Actions demanding sums of money;b. Demand or claim in admiralty and maritime

cases;

c. The estate value in probate proceedings,interstate or estate;

3. Actions involving title or possession of real property wherethe assessed value does not exceed P50,000 in Metro Manila,or P20,000 outside Metro Manila, exclusive of interest,damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs(CLAID);

4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, provided that in caseswhere the defendant raises the question of ownership and thequestion of possession cannot be resolved without deciding onthe issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall beresolved only to determine the issue of possession;

2.Concurrent

a.with RTC

3. Delegated Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by the SC wherethere is a). no controversy or opposition, or b). where there iscontroversy, the contested lot valued at not more than P100,000.

4. Special Petition for habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal casesin the absence of all RTC Judges in a province or city (BP 129, asamended, Chapter III, Sec 35)

7.

Petitions for the constitution of the family home; and8.

Cases of domestic violence against women and children, asdefined in sec. 5(k), R.A. 8369, but which do not constitutecriminal offenses subject to criminal prosecution and penalties

9.

Cases covered by Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344)


21/169

5. Summary Procedure

1. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of theamount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered;but attorneys fees shall not exceed P20,000;

2.

All other cases, except probate proceedings, where total claimdoes not exceed P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P100,000outside Metro Manila, exclusive of interest and costs.

3. Small claims cases where the amount of the claim for paymentor reimbursement of money does not exceed P100,000.00

2.5.8. Sharia Court (P.D. No.1083)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

NOTE: The ShariaDistrictCourts are equivalent tothe RTC in rank whichwere established incertain provinces ofMindanao where theCode of Muslim PersonalLaws of the Philippines is

enforced.

(P.D. No. 1083)

1.

All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternityand filiation arising under PD No. 1083;

2. All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement ofthe estate of a deceased Muslim, probate of wills, issuance of

letters of administration or appointment of administrators orexecutors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of theproperty;

3. Petitions for declaration of absence and death and forcancellation and correction of entries in the Muslim Registriesmentioned in Title VI, Book Two of P.D. No. 1083;

4. All actions arising from customary contracts in which the

parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shallgovern their relations;

5. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari,habeas corpus, and all auxiliary writs and processes in aid ofits appellate jurisdiction (Art. 143[1]).


22/169

NOTE: The decisions of the ShariaDistrict Courts whether on appeal from the ShariaCircuit

Courts or not, shall be final. The Supreme Court shall, however, continue to exercise originaland appellate jurisdiction over certain issues as provided by the Constitution (Art. 145).

Vivencio filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging that the decisionrendered by the Sharia District Court is void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Heasserts that he is a Christian which means that the Sharia District Court does not have any

jurisdiction to rule on the matter. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 143 of the Muslim Codewould reveal that Sharia courts has jurisdiction over real actions when the parties are bothMuslims. The fact that the Sharia courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts incases of actions involving real property means that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the said

courts when the action involves parties who are both Muslims. In cases where one of the partiesis a non-muslim, the Shariah Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It would immediatelydivest the Shariah court jurisdiction over the subject matter. VIVENCIO B. VILLAGRACIA vs. FIFTH(5th) SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT and ROLDAN E. MALA, represented by his father HadjiKalam T.Mala, G.R. No. 188832, April 23, 2014, J. Leonen

2.7.Jurisdiction over Small Claims cases:

Over all actions which are:

a.

purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solelyforpayment or reimbursement of sum of money, andb. the civil aspect of criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action

in court, pursuant to Rule of 111.

Court which has jurisdiction.

To be tried before the Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for payment of money where the

2. Concurrent with

EXISTING CIVIL COURTS

1. Petitions by Muslim for the constitution of the family home,change of name and commitment of insane person to anyasylum;

2. All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph

1(d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those forforcible entry and unlawful detainer which shall fall under theexclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Courts;and

3. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory reliefwhere the parties are Muslims or the property involved belongexclusively to a Muslim (Art. 143[2]).

APPELLATEAll cases tried in the Sharia Circuit Court within their territorial

jurisdiction.

NOTE: The Sharia District Court shall decide every case appealedto it on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted as wellas such memoranda, briefs or oral arguments as the parties maysubmit (Art. 144[2]).


23/169

valueof the claim does NOT exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusiveof interest and costs.

These claims or demands may be:

a.

For money owned under any of the following:1) Contract of Lease;2) Contract of Loan;3) Contract of Services;4) Contract of Sale; or5)

Contract of Mortgage.

b. For damages arising from any of the following:1) Fault or negligence;2)

Quasi-contract; or3) Contract.

Immediate execution of judgment in Small Claims cases.

Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that the decisionshall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases anda copythereof forthwith served on the parties. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar,accompanied by her husband, Efren Mondejar,G.R. No. 200804. January 22, 2014.)

Rule on Summary Procedure

A.

Civil Cases:

1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; but attorney's fees shall not exceedP20,000.00.

2. All other civil cases, EXCEPT probate proceedings, where the total amount of theplaintiff's claim does not exceed P100, 000.00 or P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, exclusiveof interest and costs. (as amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002)

Criminal Cases:

1.

Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;2. Violations of the rental law;3.

Violations of Municipal or city ordinances;4.

All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged isimprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties,

5.

Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shallgovern where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00

Note:

This Rule shall NOT apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of action is pleaded inthe same complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to acriminal case where the offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer summary proceedings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804http://www.scribd.com/doc/206891645/200804


24/169

An action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial court and is a summary action,while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC. x x x Because they only resolve issues ofpossession de facto, ejectment actions are summary in nature, while accion publiciana (for therecovery of possession) and accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) are plenaryactions.48 The purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer to be

decided in summary proceedings is to provide for a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means ofpreventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly taking and continuing hispossession during the long period it would take to properly resolve the issue of possession de

jure or ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community;otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might take the law in his hands and seize the property by force and violence. An ejectment case cannot be a substitute for a full blowntrial for the purpose of determining rights of possession or ownership. (Fiorello R. Jose Vs.Roberto Alfuerto, et al.G.R. No. 69380. November 26, 2012)

Barangay Conciliation:

General rule:

The lupon tagapamayapa of each barangay shall have authority to bring together theparties residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of ALLdisputes

EXCEPT

a.

Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; however,when it is only one of the contending parties, a confrontation should still be undertakenamong the other parties (Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907. September 13, 1989)

b.

Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performanceof his official functions;

c.

Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5,000;

d. Offenses where there is no private offended party;e.

Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unlessthe parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by anappropriate lupon;

f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or

municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties theretoagree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

g.

Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justiceor upon the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice; and

h.

Where one of the parties is a juridical entity (Sec. 408, R.A. 7160)

i. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Lawj.

The submission of disputes before the Lupon prior to their filing with the court or othergovernment offices are not applicable to labor cases. (Montoya v. Escayo, G.R. No. 82211-12 March 21, 1989)

k. An action for annulment of a compromise judgment which as a general rule is immediatelyexecutory and accordingly, beyond the authority of the Barangay Court to change ormodify.(Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988)

l.

Proceedings where relief is sought under R.A. No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Womenand their Children Act (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 9262)

Other Instances where parties may go directly to court without the need of prior barangay

conciliation:

a. Where the accused is under detentionb. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/169380.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/169380.pdf


25/169

corpus proceedings;c.

Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,attachment, replevin and support pendent lite; and

d. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. (Section 412,LGC)

Barangay conciliation not required in case of juridical entity:

Referral of a dispute to the Lupon is required only in cases involving natural persons,and not where any of the parties is a juridical person such as a corporation, partnership,corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc. (Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277. November 29, 1983)

Nature and effects of non-compliance with barangay conciliation:

As cited in the case Sanchez v. Tupaz, referral to the Lupon is compulsory (as ruled inthe cited case of Morato vs. Go, 125 SCRA 444), [1983] and non-compliance of the same couldaffect the sufficiency of the cause of action and make the complaint vulnerable to dismissal onthe ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity (Peregrina vs. Panis, 133 SCRA 75).

Venue of barangay conciliation.

1.Disputes between or among persons actually residing in the same barangay shall bebrought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said barangay.

2.

Actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be

brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, atthe election of the complainant

3.

All disputes which involved real property or any interest therein shall be brought inthe barangay where the real property or any part thereof is situated.

4.

Disputes arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where the contending parties are enrolled to study, the barangay where suchworkplace or institution is located. (Sec. 409, LGC).

Nature of Amicable Settlement

[A]n amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation proceedings, like theKasunduang Pag-aayos in this case, is binding between the contracting parties and, upon itsperfection, is immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, goodcustoms, public order and public policy. This is in accord with the broad precept of Article 2037 of the Civil Code. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25,2012)

Effect of amicable settlement:

Being a by-product of mutual concessions and good faith of the parties, an amicablesettlement has the force and effect of res judicata even if not judicially approved. Ittranscends being a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, and is akin to a

judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs.Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012)

Remedy of Execution of settlement, when available?


26/169

Modes of execution of amicable settlement or arbitration award:

Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code, such amicable settlement orarbitration award may be enforced by

(1) Execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6) months from the date ofsettlement, or

(2)by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal

court, if beyond the six-month period.

Execution before the barangay:

Under the first remedy, the proceedings are covered by the Local Government Code andthe Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Punong Barangay is

called upon during the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance of the terms ofthe settlement and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying withhis obligation under the settlement.

Execution before the court:

Under the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, asamended. The cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which, by operation of law, hasthe force and effect of a final judgment.

Execution is available only when there is no repudiation of the amicable settlement:

It must be emphasized, however, that enforcement by execution of the amicablesettlement, either under the first or the second remedy, is only applicable if the contractingparties have not repudiated such settlement within ten (10) days from the date thereof in

accordance with Section 416 of the Local Government Code.

Remedies if a party repudiated the settlement

If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either expressly or impliedly, theother party has two options, namely, (1) to enforce the compromise in accordance with the

Local Government Code or Rules of Court as the case may be, or (2) to consider it rescinded and insist upon his original demand. This is in accord with Article 2041 of the Civil Code, whichqualifies the broad application of Article 2037, viz: If one of the parties fails or refuses to abideby the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it asrescinded and insist upon his original demand.

In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tieredmode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit:

(a)by execution by the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature

on mere motion of the party entitled thereto; and(b)an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial.

However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out the right of rescission under Art.2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of the right of rescission is apparent from the wording ofSec. 417 itself which provides that the amicable settlement "may" be enforced by execution bythe lupon within six (6) months from its date or by action in the appropriate city or municipalcourt, if beyond that period. The use of the word "may" clearly makes the procedure providedin the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory or merely optional in nature.


27/169

The CA took off on the wrong premise that enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is

the proper remedy, and therefore erred in its conclusion that the case should be remanded tothe trial court. The fact that the petitioner opted to rescind the Kasunduang Pag-aayos meansthat she is insisting upon the undertaking of the respondent under the original loan contract.

Thus, the CA should have decided the case on the merits, as an appeal before it, and not prolong the determination of the issues by remanding it to the trial court. Pertinently, evidenceabounds that the respondent has failed to comply with his loan obligation. In fact, theKasunduang Pag-aayos is the well nigh incontrovertible proof of the respondentsindebtednesswith the petitioner as it was executed precisely to give the respondent a second chance tomake good on his undertaking. And since the respondent still reneged in paying hisindebtedness, justice demands that he must be held answerable therefor. (Crisanta AlcarazMiguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012)

2.8.Totality Rule

Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or differentparties embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of theclaims in all causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the sameor different transactions.

The causes of action in favor of two or more plaintiffs or against two or moredefendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there shouldbe a common question of law or fact as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (Flores v. Mallare-Philips, L-66620, September 24, 1986).

3.Civil Procedure

3.1.Kinds of Actions:

3.1.1.Meaning of Ordinary Civil Actions

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection ofa right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Rule 1, Section 3(a), Rules of Court). It isgoverned by ordinary rules on action.

3.1.2.Meaning of Special Civil Actions

It is one which is also governed by the rules of ordinary civil actions, but subject to thespecific rules prescribed for such particular special civil action (Rule1, Sec. 3[a] 2ndpar., Rule 1).

3.1.3.Meaning of Criminal Actions

It is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.(Sec. 3[b], Rule 1)

3.1.4.Civil Actions versus Special Proceedings

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or aparticular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another forthe enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate aspecial proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed. (Ramon Ching and Po WingCorp. v. Rodriguez, et. al., G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011)

3.1.5.Real Actions and Personal Actions: Issue as to venue:


28/169

Real Actions are actions affecting title to or the recovery of possession of real property, or an interest therein, or forcible entry and detainer actions. A real action is local, i.e., itsvenue depends upon the location of the property involved in the litigation. (Riano).

Personal Actions are actions founded on privity of contract or for the enforcement orresolution of a contract, or for recovery of personal property (Feria Noche, CivilProcedure Annotated, Vol. I). A personal action is transitory,i.e., its venue dependsupon the residenceof the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff (Riano).

Action to annul Sale and Title over a real property is a Real Action:

Civil Case No. 01-1567, being an action for Annulment of Sale and Titles resulting from the extrajudicial foreclosure by Union Bank of the mortgaged real properties, is classified as areal action. In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that a case seeking to annul aforeclosure of a real estate mortgage is a real action, viz: An action to annul a real estatemortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property.(Muoz v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950). While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek therecovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale andhis claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which,under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioners primaryobjective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale ofreal property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature ofthe case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. (Paglaum Management &Development Corp. And Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., Vs. Union Bank Of The Philippines,

Notary Public John Doe, And Register Of Deeds Of Cebu City And Cebu Province, $J. King & Sons

Co., Inc. Intervenor, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012)

3.1.6.Local and Transitory Actions

Local Actions are actions which can only be instituted in a particular place. Transitory Actions are actions where the venue of which is generally dependent upon the residence of theparties regardless of where the cause of action arise.

3.1.7. Actions In Rem, In Personam, Quasi- in- Rem: Issue as to jurisdiction in relation to

service of summons (Rule 14):

In Rem:

One which is not directed against a particular person but on the thing or res itself andthe relief sought is binding upon the whole world.

The thing or res may be personal or real property or it may be a status, right, or aparticular fact (Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, Vol.I, Civil Procedure, Riguera, 1st ed., 2009).

The object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make any objection againstthe right sought to be enforced, hence the judgment therein is binding theoretically upon the whole world, e.g., expropriation (Regalado).

In PersonamOne which is directed against a particular person and the relief sought is binding upon

such person e.g., action for sum of money or for specific performance.

Service of summons in actions in personam


29/169

Where the action is in personam [footnote: An action in personam is one which seeks toenforce personal rights and obligations against a defendant and is based on the jurisdiction ofthe person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specificproperty, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate ofthe court. (See Belen v. Chavez , G.R. No. 175334, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 479, 481.)] and the

defendant is in the Philippines, service of summons may be made through personal service, that is, summons shall be served by handing to the defendant in person a copy thereof, or if herefuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If the defendant cannot be personallyserved with summons within a reasonable time, it is then that substituted service may bemade. Personal service of summons should and always be the first option, and it is only whenthe said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort tosubstituted service. (Planters Development Bank, Vs. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 19561905September 2012)

Quasi in Rem:

It is a proceeding where an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of theproceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the propertye.g., Quieting of Title where the object is in rem (real property) and the subject is in personam(defendant). The judgment entered in this proceeding is conclusive only between the parties(Feria Noche, Civil Procedure, Vol. I)

Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam or quasi in rem is determined by itsnature and purpose (Yu v. Pacleb, etc., G.R. No. 172172, 24 Feb. 2009).

3.1.8.Independent Civil Actions

Rules on independent civil actions: Nature:

In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceedindependently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In nocase, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omissioncharged in the criminal action. (Rule 111, Section 3)

Cases which are considered as an independent civil action:

Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectlyobstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following(constitutional) rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damagesx x xArticle 32, Civil Code (in italics added for clarification)

In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirelyseparate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civilaction shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only apreponderance of evidence.Article 33, Civil Code

When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid orprotection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall beprimarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsibletherefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.Article 34, Civil Code


30/169

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, isobliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existingcontractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by theprovisions of this Chapter.Article 2176, Civil Code

3.2.

Cause of Action

3.2.1Meaning of Cause of Action

It is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).

A cause of action is defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omissionby which a party violates the right of another. (Goodland Company, Inc., vs. Asia United Bank,Abraham Co, Atty. Joel T. Pelicano And The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City, G.R. No. 195561,

March 14, 2012)

Elements of Cause of Action:

1)A legal right of the plaintiff;2)A correlative duty of the defendant to respect plaintiffs right; and3)

An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiffs right withconsequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action forrecovery or other relief (Relucio vs. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578, 2002).

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission by

which a party violates the right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it

contains three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely:

1)the legal right of the plaintiff,2)

the correlative obligation of the defendant, and3)

the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right (Juana Complex IHomeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March 5, 2012)

3.2.2.Right of Action versus Cause of Action

Right of action is the right to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the reliefsought, while cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right ofanother (Rule 2, Sec. 2).

Elements of Right of Action:

a)Existence of the cause of action;b)Performance of all conditions precedent; andc)The action must be instituted by the proper party.

3.2.3.Failure to State Cause of Action

Where there is failure to state a cause of action in a pleading, the remedy of the defendant is to move for its dismissal on the ground that the pleading asserting the claimstates no cause of action. Rule 16, Sec 1 (g)

The petitioner Lourdes Suites filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against therespondent Noemi Binaro. After the presentation of the evidence, the Metropolitan Trial Court


31/169

found that there is lack of cause of action against Binaro as there was an insufficiency of evidencepresented by Lourdes Suites against Binaro. Hence, it dismissed the complaint. After thepresentation of the evidence, the Metropolitan Trial Court found that there is lack of cause ofaction against Binaro as there was an insufficiency of evidence presented by Lourdes Suitesagainst Binaro. Hence, it dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that failure to state a

cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other. On the one hand,failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground fordismissal under Rule 16 ofthe Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause [of] action refers toa situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged inthe pleading.LOURDES SUITES (Crown Hotel Management Corporation) vs. NOEMI BINARO G.R. No. 204729,August 6, 2014, J. Carpio

3.2.4.Test of Sufficiency of Action

Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment uponthe same in accordance with the prayer in the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative,Inc. v. David, 468 SCRA 63).

The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is determined by itsaverments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a concisestatement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. To betaken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts andcircumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered.

The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of actionis whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in

accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated differently, if the allegations in thecomplaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same shouldnot be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be asserted by the defendant. (JuanaComplex I Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March

5, 2012)

A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to a remedialright. The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is determined by itsaverments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus it "must contain a concisestatement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action." Failure to

make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint "warrants its dismissal." Aperusal of the complaint would show that aside from the fact that respondent spouses hadmortgaged the property subject herein to respondent bank, there is no other allegation of an actor omission on the part of respondent Bank in violation of a right of petitioner. The RTC is,therefore, correct in dismissing the case for failure to state cause of action. EMILIANO S. SAMSONvs. SPOUSES JOSE and GUILLERMINA GABOR, TANAY RURAL BANK, INC., and REGISTER OF DEEDSOF MORONG, RIZAL G.R. No. 182970, July 23, 2014, J. Peralta

A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3)essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatevermeans and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named

defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of thenamed defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation ofdefendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. Ifthe allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaintbecomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. It iswell to point out that the plaintiffs cause of action should not merely be "stated" but,

importantly, the statement thereof should be "sufficient." This is why the elementary test in amotion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts which if true

7/25/2019 Civil Procedur

civil procedure doctrines by topic

Documents