A.

JURISDICTION in GENERAL
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the
court to hear, try and decide a case. It is also
considered as an authority to execute the
decisions rendered by the court.
Test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the
power to enter into the inquiry and not whether
the decision is right or wrong.
Duty of a court to determine its jurisdiction
courts are bound to take notice of the limit of
their authority and they may act accordingly
(motu proprio) by dismissing the action even
though the issue of jurisdiction is not raised in the
pleadings or not been suggested by counsel.
Effect of lack of jurisdiction the GR is that
proceedings conducted or decisions made by a
court are legally void where there is an absence
of jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is true
even where the court in good faith believes that
the subject matter is within its jurisdiction. A
decision rendered by a court devoid of jurisdiction
may be subject of a collateral attack, if that
jurisdictional defect appears on the face of the
record.
Aspects of jurisdiction
(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) Jurisdiction over the parties;
(c) Jurisdiction over the issues of the case;
and
(d) Jurisdiction over the res or thing involved
in the litigation
B. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter
it is referred to as the power of a particular court
to hear the type of case that is then before it. The
term also refers to the jurisdiction of the court
over the class of cases to which a particular case
belongs.
Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court.
The exercise of this power or authority is called
the exercise of jurisdiction.
Error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment an
error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court without or
in excess of jurisdiction. An error of judgment
presupposes that the court is vested with
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
but, in the process of exercising that jurisdiction,
it committed mistakes in the appreciation of the
facts and the evidence leading to an erroneous
judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of
procedure or mistakes in the courts findings.
Lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction
there is lack of jurisdiction when the court or
tribunal is not vested by law or authority or power
to take cognizance of the case. On the other
hand, excess of jurisdiction presupposes the
existence of an authority for the court to assume
jurisdiction over a case but, in the exercise of that
authority, it acted beyond the power conferred
upon it.
Jurisdiction and cause of action jurisdiction is
the power or authority of a court to hear and
determine a cause. A cause of action does not
refer to the authority of the court. A cause of

action is the act or omission of a person violative

of the rights of others.
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law which may be either the
Constitution or a statute.
Consequences of the rule that jurisdiction is
conferred by law it cannot be (1) granted by the
agreement of the parties; (2) acquired, waived,
enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of
the parties; or (3) conferred by acquiescence of
the courts. Cannot be conferred by the
administrative policy of any court or its unilateral
assumption of jurisdiction.
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined jurisdiction over the subject matter
of a case is conferred by law and determined by
the allegations in the complaint which comprise
concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs case of action.
Caption of the case not controlling the cause of
action in a complaint is not what the designation
of the complaint states, but what the allegations
in the body of the complaint defined and
subscribed. The designation or caption is not
controlling, more that the allegations in the
complaint themselves are, for it is not even an
indispensable part of the complaint.
The defenses and the evidence do not determine
jurisdiction jurisdiction over the subject matter
is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by
the defendant in an answer or a motion to
dismiss.
The amount awarded does not determine
jurisdiction
Exception to the rule that jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint
in ejectment cases in which the defendant
averred the defenses of the existence of a
tenancy relationship between the parties. Not
automatic. There must first be a reception of
evidence, and if, after hearing, tenancy had in
fact been shown to be the real issue, the court
should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (primary
administrative jurisdiction) under the Doctrine
of Primary Jurisdiction, the courts cannot and will
not resolve a controversy involving a question
within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially when the question demands
the sound exercise of administrative discretion
requiring special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Exceptions to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction

(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;

(e) Where the question involved is purely

legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by 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
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (continuity
of jurisdiction) the doctrine means that once
jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by
subsequent happenings or events, although of a
character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained
up to the end of litigation.
Law which governs jurisdiction jurisdiction being
a matter of substantive law, the established
general rule is that the statute in force at the
time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court.
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
the court, may, on its own initiative object to an
erroneous jurisdiction ex mero motu, take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in
the case, and has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction in any proceeding.
The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the
issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed
before the filing of the answer because lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground
for a motion to dismiss. If no motion to dismiss is
filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be
raised as an affirmative defense in the answer.
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
while it is true that jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings since it is conferred by law, it is,
nevertheless, settled that a party may be barred
from raising it on the ground of estoppel i.e.
partys active participation in all stages of a case.
Applicability of estoppel to administrative
proceedings the active participation of an
individual before the administrative proceedings
and the belated challenge to the jurisdiction of
the said body bars him from assailing such acts
under the Principle of Estoppel.
Tijam ruling, an exception rather than the rule
estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the
issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which
factual milieu is analogous to that in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy (read case). In such controversies,
laches should have been clearly present; that is,
lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so
belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the
party entitled to assert it had abandoned or
declined to assert it.
Omnibus motion rule under the omnibus motion
rule, a motion attacking a pleading, order,
judgment, or proceeding shall include all

objections then available, and all objections not

so included shall be deemed waived.
Effect of a judgment rendered without jurisdiction
over the subject matter is no judgment at all. It
cannot be the source of any right or the creator of
any obligation. All acts pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
C. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
Meaning of jurisdiction over the person;
jurisdiction in personam the former is the legal
power of the court to render a personal judgment
against a party to an action or proceeding. The
latter is the power by which a court has over the
defendants person which is required before a
court can enter a personal or an in personam
judgment. A decision in personam imposes a
responsibility or liability upon a person directly
and therefore, binds him personally.
How jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is
acquired whether the party is the plaintiff or the
defendant.
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by the
filing of the complaint or petition. By doing so, he
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in
civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary
appearance in court and his submission to its
authority or by service of summons.
Voluntary appearance of the defendant to
constitute voluntary appearance, it must be the
kind that amounts to a voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the court. It takes the form of
an appearance that seeks affirmative relief
except when the relief sought is for the purpose
of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the defendant. Examples: (a) when
the defendant files the corresponding pleading
thereon; (b) when the defendant files a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment by default; (c)
when the defendant files a petition to set aside
the judgment of default; or (d) when the parties
jointly submit a compromise agreement for
approval of the court.
When jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required jurisprudence suggests
that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
us required only in an action in personam for the
court to validly try and decide the case. An action
in personam is an action against a person on the
basis of his personal liability.
Objections to jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant may be raised as a ground in a
motion to dismiss. If no motion to dismiss has
been filed, the objection may be pleaded as an
affirmative defense in the answer. If neither is
done, it is deemed waived by virtue of Sec. 1 Rule
9 (Defenses and objections not pleaded either in
a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived.)
D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Meaning of jurisdiction over the issue is the

power of the court to try and decide the issues
raised in the pleadings of the parties. An issue is
a disputed point or question to which several
allegations and upon which they are desirous of
obtaining a decision.
How jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and
determined (a) Generally, jurisdiction over the
issue is conferred and determined by the
allegations in the pleadings of the parties. (b) it
may also be determined and conferred by
stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial,
the parties enter into stipulations of facts and
documents or enter into an agreement
simplifying the issues of the case. (c) may also be
conferred by waiver or failure to object to the
presentation of evidence on a matter not raised
in the pleadings.
Jurisdiction over the issue distinguished from
jurisdiction over the subject matter the former
is conferred upon by the pleadings, the latter is
conferred by law. The former may also be
conferred by consent either of the parties, either
express or implied.
Distinction between a question of law and a
question of fact there is a question of law when
the doubt or difference arises as to what the law
is on a certain set of facts. There is a question of
fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the
truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.
When an issue arises even if not raised in the
pleadings while it is a rule that an issue arises
from the pleadings of the parties, an issue may
arise in the case without it having been raised in
the pleadings. This occurs when the parties try an
issue with their consent
E. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
Meaning of jurisdiction over the res; actions in
personam, in rem, and quasi in rem Res, in
civil law, is a thing, an object. It means
everything that may form an object of rights, in
opposition t persona which is the subject of
rights. It includes an object, subject-matter or
status
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the courts
jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is
the subject of the action. This type of jurisdiction
is necessary when the action is one in rem or
quasi in rem. When the action is one in
personam, jurisdiction over the res is not
sufficient to authorize the court to render a
judgment against the defendant. In an action in
personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required.
Actions in personam are directed against persons
and seek personal judgment. Actions in rem or
quasi in rem are directed against the thing or
property or status of a person and seek
judgments with respect thereto as against the
whole world.
How acquired jurisdiction over the res may be
acquired by the court by placing the property or
thing under its custody (custodial egis) or
constructive seizure e.g. attachment of property).
It may also be acquired by the court through
statutory authority conferring upon it the power

to deal with the property or thing within the

courts territorial jurisdiction e.g. suits involving
the status of the parties or the property in the
Phils of non-resident defendants.
Extent of relief when jurisdiction is only over the
res any relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem
actions must be confined to the res, and the court
cannot lawfully render a judgment against the
defendant.
F.

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions

for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
against the:
a. Court of Appeals
b. Commission on Elections
c. Commission on Audit
d. Sandiganbayan
e. Court of Tax Appeals
2. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the
Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against the:
a. Regional Trial Court
b. Civil Service Commission
c. Central Board of Assessment
Appeals
d. National Labor Relations
Commission
e. Other quasi-judicial agencies
Subject to Doctrine of Judicial Hierarcy
3. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the
Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court
in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against lower courts and
bodies, and in petitions for quo warranto
and habeas corpus. This jurisdiction is
subject to Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts.
4. Concurrent original jurisdiction with the
Regional Trial Court in cases affecting
ambassadors, public ministers, and
consuls.
5. Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for
review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari)
against the:
a. Court of Appeals
b. Sandiganbayan
c. Regional Trial Courts on pure
questions of law and in cases
involving constitutionality or
validity of a law or treaty,
international or executive
agreement, law presidential
decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance or regulation,
legality of a tax, impost,
assessment, toll or penalty,
jurisdiction of a lower court,
d. Court of Tax Appeals in its decisions
rendered en banc
The supreme court is not a trier of facts passing
upon a factual issue is not within the province of
the SC. The findings of facts of the CA are not
generally reviewable by the SC. Factual findings
of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by
the CA, are generally binding on the SC.
Exceptions in the exercise of its power of
review, it is not a trier of facts,
(1) When the findings are grounded entirely
on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(2) When the inference made is manifestly

mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(3) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(6) When, in making its findings, the XA went
beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of
both the appellant and the appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of
the trial court;
(8) When the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they
are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition, as
well as in the petitioners main and reply
briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;
(10)
When the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; and
(11)
When the CA manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which, if properly considered,
could justify a different conclusion.
Original cases congnizable by the supreme court
as a rule, the SC is not a trier of facts and cases
are not filed originally with the SC, save in such
cases as:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Petition for certiorari;

Petition of prohibition;
Petition for mandamus;
Petition for quo warranto;
Petition for habeas corpus;
Disciplinary proceedings against members
of the judiciary and attorneys; and
(7) Cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministries and consuls.
A petition for a writ of amparo and habeas
datamay also be filed directly with the SC aside
from the other courts mentioned.
Appeal to the supreme court an appeal to the
SC may be taken only by a petition for review on
certiorari, except in criminal cases where the
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment
Cases which, under the 1987 Consti, must be
heard en banc:
(a) All cases involving the constitutionality of
a treaty, international, or executive
agreement, or law;
(b) All cases which, under the RoC are
required to be heard en banc;
(c) All cases involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of PDs, PPs, POs,
instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations;
(d) Cases heard by a division when the
required number in the division is not
obtained;
(e) Cases involving a modification or reversal
of a doctrine or principle of law laid down
previously by the SC in a decision
rendered en banc or by a division;
(f) Cases involving discipline of judges of
lower courts;

(g) Contests relating to the election, returns,

and qualifications of the President or VicePres
Procedure when the SC en banc is equally divided
the case shall again be deliberated. After
redeliberating and no decision is reached, the
original action commenced in the court shall be
dismissed. In appealed cases, the judgment or
order appealed from shall stand. On all incidental
matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
G. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
CA may sit en banc only for the purpose of
exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other
non-adjudicatory functions.
The CA shall exercise jurisdiction over the ff
cases:
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for
the annulment of the judgments of RTC
(b) Concurrent and original jurisdiction with
the SC to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against
a. RTC
b. CSC
c. Central Board of Assessment
Appeals
d. Other quasi-judicial agencies
e. NLRC
(c) Concurrent and original jurisdiction with
the SC and RTC to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against lower
courts and bodies and also writs of quo
warranto and habeas corpus
(d) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
ordinary appeal from the judgments of the
RTC and the Family Courts
(e) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
petition for review from the judgment of
the RTC rendered in exercise of is
appellate jurisdiction
(f) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
petition for review from the decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC,
and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43.
The decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases are appealable to the CA.
(g) Appellate jurisdiction over decisions of
MTCs in cadastral or land registration
cases pursuant to its delegated
jurisdiction
Power to try and conduct hearings like a trial
court it has the power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence, and perform any and
all acts necessary to resolve factual issues falling
not only within its original jurisdiction but also in
cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction. This
authority includes the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings
It has been held that CA may pass upon the
evidence to factual issues as when a petition for
certiorari is filed before it.
The authority granted by law to the CA to conduct
trials or hearings is subject to the ff limitations:
(a) Trials or hearings must be continuous;

(b) Trials and hearing must be completed

within three (3) months, except when
extended by the CJ

H. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF TAX APPEALS

A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by
appeal:
a. 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 Code
or other laws administered by the BIR;
b. Inaction by the CIR 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 Code or other laws administered
by the BIR, where the NIRC provides a
specific period of action, in which case the
inaction shall be deemed a denial;
c. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTC
in local tax cases originally decided or
resolved by them in the exercise of their
original or appellate jurisdiction;
d. 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;
e. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on
customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of

the Commissioner of Customs which are

adverse to the Government under Sec.
2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; and
f. 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 Secs. 301 and 302,
respectively of the Tariff and Customs
Code, and safeguard measures under RA
8800, where either party may appeal the
decision to impose or not to impose said
duties.
B. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases:
a. Exclusive jurisdiction in tax collection
cases involving final and executor
assessments for taxes,, fees, charges and
penalties: Provided, however, That
collection cases where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties claimed, is less than
P1,000,000.00 shall be tried by the proper
MTC and RTC.
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax
collection cases:
i. Over appeals from judgments,
resolutions o orders of RTC in tax
collection cases originally decided by
them, in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
ii. Over petitions for review of the
judgments, resolutions or orders of the
RTC in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction over tax collection cases
originally decided by MTCs, in their
respective jurisdictions