Dean Jara notes 2013
47) not provided by bp 129 but there is an allocation
 Court cannot compel the defendant to explain why
plea of guilty was given (plea of guilty)
 Guilt should be proven by preponderance of evidence
 Family court has jurisdiction over the ff (beo it was the
rtc under bp 129)
- exclusive original jurisdiction over cases
involving:
 marriage
 adoption
 cases involving minors
 habeas corpus involving minors
 other civil or criminal cases involving minors
 special law prevails unless it provides otherwise or
the law allows parties to stipulate pertaining to the
matter of jurisdiction
substantive law
- jurisdiction over subject matter
- jurisdiction over the nature of the action
procedural law
- jurisdiction over the person of the litigants
- “ “ over property involved
- “” over the issues of the case
 SC exercises its authority from the constitution
 Sc exercises original jurisdiction and appellate
jurisdiction (judiciary act of 1948)
 Bp 129 did not repeal old judiciary act, still in force,
only repeal those that are inconsistent with bp 129
(see sec 9 bp 129)
 Cases where sc can exercise original and appellate
jurisdiction provided in the constitution are not
exclusive
(see art 8 sec 5)
 Concurrent jurisdiction of SC is subject to doctrine of
hierarchy of courts and direct recourse only in cases
when redress desired cannot be obtained in the lower
courts or when it serves the broader interest of justice
 SC,CA and RTC exercise jurisdictions over certiorari,
prohibitions, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas
corpus (original and concurrent jurisdiction over these
petitions)
(see rule 65)
- if one has been wronged due to grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction = pet
for mandamus can be filed with the SC
immediately (based on consti and bp 129)
- certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and quo
warranto have been greatly limited by hierarchy
of courts (see sec 4 rule 65)
 bp 129 does not been able to do away entirely with
concurrent in vesting jurisdiction upon courts
 the law classifies jurisdiction as follows:
- original jurisdiction
- appellate jurisdiction
- exclusive original jurisdiction
- exclusive appellate jurisdiction
 bp 129 concurrence jurisdiction with respect to
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo waranto and
habeas corpus
 Sc (supreme court of the land) is not a court of
general jurisdiction, exercises only limited original
jurisdiction as provided under the constitution
 CA only a limited jurisdiction
 Ca has exclusive original jurisdiction over annulment
of judgment of an rtc under rule 47
- cannot allowed to annul judgment by mtc
(immune from annulment by CA)
 decision of mtc can be annulled by rtc (sec 10 of rule
to the rtc of jurisdiction to entertain and decide all
kinds of actions which are not especially given to
other courts (real court of general jurisdiction)
 before bp 129 rtc can decide on cases of annulment
of judgments of another rtc
 (ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL VS CA) a person need
not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled.
What is essential is that he can prove his allegation
that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud
and collusion and he would be adversely affected
thereby
 SC cannot annul the judgments rendered by the CA
(no substantive law or special law authorizing sc to
annul judgments rendered by CA)
 Sc could exercise its equity (rule 65) in order to annul
a judgment of CA based on the same grounds given
under rule 47,extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction
 fraud is extrinsic when it prevents a party from having
a trial or from preventing a party from presenting his
entire case to the court or where it operates upon
mattes pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the
matter in which it is procured
 extrinsic fraud is not a valid ground if it was availed of
or could have been availed of in a motion for a new
trial or petition for relief
 lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of
judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party or over the subject
matter of the claim
 lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over
the person may be barred by estoppels by laches,
which is that failure to do something which should be
done or to claim or to enforce a right at a proper time
or a neglect to do something which one should do or
to seek or enforce a right at a proper time
 annulment of judgment- it is a remedy in law
independent of the case where the judgment sought
to be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such
action is to have the final and executor judgment set
aside so that there will be renewal of litigation.
 Co equal court cannot annul the final judgment of a
similar court
 CA has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of rtc
 An action to annul a judgment or final order of mtc
shall be filed in the rtc having jurisdiction in the former
and it shall be treated as an ordinary civil action
 Remedy of annulment of judgment may be availed of
when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are
NO LONGER available through no fault of the
petitioner
 A person need not be a party to the judgment
sought to be annulled. What is essential is that he
can prove his allegation that the judgment was
obtained by use of fraud and collusion and he
would be adversely affected thereby
 Extraordinary action to annul a final judgment is
restricted to the grounds provided by law to prevent it
from being used by a losing party to make a mockery
of a duly promulgated decision that has long become
final and executory
 under bp 129 annulment of judgment as procedurally
explained in rule 47 does not extend to the quasi
judicial or administrative body unless such provision
 was allowed by the charter of such administrative or
quasi judicial body
 rule 47 refers to an action filed by a petitioner to annul
a judgment rendered by an rtc in a civil case.
 If action is not civil action or rendered by a quasi
judicial body or administrative body rule 47 is not
applicable
 Decision of an rtc in a criminal case can be annulled
by filing a case for habeas corpus. Petition for habeas
corpus is the equivalent in criminal cases of petition
for annulment of judgments in civil cases
 Rtc could act as a civil and criminal courts. It
exercises original actions over both actions
 Rtc decisions in civil actions could be the subject of
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT BY CA
Rule 47 Petition for habeas corpus
Direct attack of a final and (lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic
executory judgment, the only fraud)
purpose of which is to nullify Indirect attack on the
and set aside a court decision judgment of an rtc in the
in a civil case criminal case
Petition filed in order to nullify
a decision on a criminal case,
principal relief which the
petitioner seeks is to declare
petitioner has been deprived
of his liberty unlawfully
Not principally to set aside the
judgment rendered by the rtc
in a criminal case
 Habeas corpus the detainee can challenge the validity
of the judgment of conviction, although he is not
attacking directly the validity of the said judgment of
conviction. He is attacking the validity of his liberty
 Collateral attack on judgment- it is made in another
action to obtain a different relief. An attack on the
judgment is made as an incident in said action. This is
proper only when the judgment, on its face is null and
void, as where it is patent that the court which
rendered such judgment has no jurisdiction.
 Annullemtn of judgment is an original action that can
be filed in the rtc and ca
 Petition will not stop the prevailing party from moving
for the execution of the final and executor judgment in
civil case notwithstanding the commencement of the
petition to have the judgment in the civil case annulled
- only remedies available to a petition for
annulment of judgment of an rtc in the CA is to
apply for the provisional remedy of petition for
injunction or TRO to stop the rtc from proceeding
with the execution of the said judgment
 not only the litigants can file the petition to annul a
judgment in civil case
(Islamic da’wah vs ca) the petition for annulment of
judgment in bp 129 and rule 47 does not prohibit a
stranger from filing a petition to annul judgment. AS
LONG AS HE CAN SHOW HE WILL BE
PREJUDICED BY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE
ANNULLED
Requisites:
1. all other remedies of motion for new trial, petition
for relief, and other remedies are no longer
available or to do so will not redound to his
benefit
2. through no fault of petitioner, remedies were
unavailing
3. petitioner is a stranger to the case
 in Islamic da’wah in allowing a stranger to file annul a
judgment, then he need not seek other remedies
since the stranger to a case cannot possibly avail of
remedies that are available only to a litigant in a case
 while CA has authority to outrightly dismiss annulment
of judgment, rtc cannot
 rtc= petition to annulment of judgment by an mtc
should be treated as any normal civil case
 in rule 47, if the judgment is annulled, it is declared
void by the court. It is unenforceable or if already
enforced CA can order restitution if that it is still
possible
 see rule 47 in relation to bp 129 and rule 132

3 grounds under rule 132 to impeach judgment:
1. lack of jurisdiction
2. extrinsic fraud
3. collusion
grounds under rule 47 to impeach judgment
1. absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. absence of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
3. extrinsic fraud (encompasses collusion)
- no conflict between 2 provisions
jurisdiction of rtc
1. won action is capable of pecuniary estimation
2. won the action is a real action
3. if the amout in known, whether the amout is within the
ambit of the jurisdictional amount
 not all actions incapable of pecuniary estimation is
cognizable by rtc
examples:
- annulment of judgment rendered by rtc, not
capable of PE= CA
- annulment of arbitral award by barangay court
acting as arbitral body= MTC as provided by LGC
- certiorari, prohibition and mandamus= not
exclusively cognizable by rtc although incapable
of PE
possessory action on real property
1. accion interdictal- summary action for the recovery of
physical possession where the dispossession has not
lasted for more than 1 year
 it is possible that a real action is at the same time one
incapable of pecuniary estimation
example:
foreclosure of real estate mortgage it is not capable of
PE as the determinative issue here is the right of the
mortgagee to foreclose not the value of the property
 if action carries the feature of real action and one
incapable of PE, then the determinative factor is the
feature of incapable of PE (foreclosure action)
 feature of foreclosure of mortgage as a real action will
only be important in determining the venue, not the
jurisdiction
 expropriation of a piece of land is one involving real
action
 in personal actions =amount sought to be recovered if
it is a claim for money
 if it is recovery of personal property=value of the
personal property as alleged in the complaint
 determining factor for jurisdiction in a pure collection
suit is the principal sought to be recovered, exclusive
of charges interest, AFs, damages etc
 if the principal amount is 200k and the rest are
charges, damages, interest etc then mtc has
jurisdiction
 complaints purely for damages= the aggregate or total  residual jurisdiction= found in appeals (rule 41 and
amount of damages will determine jurisdiction, not the 42) jurisdiction enjoyed by the trial court to act on
specific amounts claimed. certain matters for a very limited period, even if the
 Bp 129 as amended take into account he assessed case is on appeal
property only in the case of real properties
 Personal property values have no bearing in
jurisdiction, value STATED IN THE COMPLAINT shall
be determinative (whether amount is true or not)
 Court shall rely only on the allegations in the
complaint. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it
cannot be outsted, the courts proceeds with the case
until finally adjudicated
-even if the actual value of the car is far less than the
value in declared in the complaint the court will
continue to hear the case (adherence of jurisdiction)
- only way to oust jurisdiction is if congress files a law
abandoning the principle of adherence of jurisdiction
over a particular case
 Mtc is still a court of limited jurisdiction despite the
expanded jurisdiction under bp 129
- it can try only the cases given to it under
substantive law
- see sec 33 of bp 129
 totality test- is a provision for ascertainment of
jurisdiction, more encompassing than that provided in
the rules
TT in ROC TT in Bp 129
The totality of the money All claims or causes of
claims shall be actions in complaint,
determinative of jurisdiction whether they refer to the
of courts same or different parties
arsing out of the same or
differing transactions
 mtc in its delegated jurisdiction acts as if the were an
rtc
 if land registration or cadastral case is contested=
assessed value of the contested property is
determinative of jurisdiction (mtc acts as if it was a
cadastral court)
 if uncontested= mtc acts as a cadastral as if it were
an rtc, there being no limitation as to jurisdiction
 if mtc acts as a cadastral= appealable to CA Jara notes 2004
 habeas corpus proceedings can be heard in the mtc
but only in situations where petition was filed in the rtc Substantive laws in rel to procedure
but no judges are available in the rtc 1. constitution
- habeas corpus are urgent , always given special 2. judiciary reorganization act of 1980
preference by court 3. “ 1948
- if not rtc judge are available, COC in rtc must 4. amendatory laws
transfer the case to mtc and mtc must hear the - provide for the jurisdiction of courts. Laws that
petition promptly created the courts which resolve actual
- bp 129 does not authorized the filing of the HC controversies between litigants
case directly in the mtc  Sc= constitutional court
 trial court still has residual jurisdiction to act on certain  Sandiganbayan is only a constitutionally mandated
matters even if the case is already on appeal (sec 41 court
roc)  Jurisdiction of sc is given in the consti and not in bp
 trial court continues to exercise jurisdiction over 129
certain matters for a limited period of time in its  Not possible to conflict because bp 129 speaks
residual jurisdiction nothing about the jurisdiction of the SC (see sec 9 bp
 after the expiration of that period, absolute jurisdiction 129)
will now be exercised by the appellant court  Concurrence jurisdiction between public ministers and
 quasi judicial bodies are vested with jurisdiction by the consuls sc and rtc
congress. Quasi judicial bodies is better equipped to  Sc,ca and rtc have original and concurrent jurisdiction
decide disputes of litigant in certain cases than but subject to hierarchy of courts
regular courts - Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto
- in case of primary jurisdiction vested by and habeas corpus (see rule 65 sec 4)
substantive law to quasi judicial bodies, authority
 CA has original jurisdiction to try certiorari, prohibition
of the quasi judicial body is interpreted strictly
and mandamus whether or not it is in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction hence the change
 “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” in allocating the
power to try certiorari, prohibition and mandamus=
sandiganbayan
 there is nothing wrong if the CA decides to take cases
brough to it on appeal, decisions of CA can still be
review by the SC thru a petition for review of certiotari
 Sc has power to review, revise, reverse, modify or
affirm
 It is only the CA that can try and decide at the first
instance a case involving the annulment of a decision
rendered by the RTC
 CA can only annul judgment rendered by the rtc not
mtc (see rule 47)
 Bp 129 does not expressly say that rtc is a court of
general jurisdiction. Bp 129 mentions that rtc shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over all types of
cases, over all issues, which are not especially
allocated to other courts.
 SC is a court of limited jurisdiction
 Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law
 It is jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature
of action that is the matter or substantive law
 Procedural law
- jurisdiction over the person of the litigants
- jurisdiction over the issues
- jurisdiction over the res or the thing
 mtc does not exercise appellate jurisdiction only
plainly original jurisdiction
- there is not lower than the mtc so it cannot be
allocated appellate jurisdiction (power to review
decisions by other courts)
 appellate jurisdiction of CA s much broader compared
to SC
 decision rendered by a quasi judicial body is
reviewable by CA not SC (see sec 9 bp 129)
 rtc purely original jurisdiction is limited to cases of
- certiorari
- prohibition
- mandamus
- quo warranto
- habeas corpus
 original jurisdiction
-cases involving ambassadors
-public minsters
-consuls
 it is in th exercise of original and exclusive jurisdiction
where bp 129 enumerates several instances
cognizable by rtc
 the first civil action cognizable by the rtc exercising
exclusive original jurisdiction cover cases which are
not capably of PE
 if the recovery of money is only incidental to the relief
that is prayed for in the complaint, that action is not
capable of PE
 instances where the recovery of money is the
principal relief that is sought in the complaint or
petition and yet case is classified as one which is not
capable of PE
-expropriation
-eminent domain (payment of just compensation is
one of the principal relied sought by petitioner)
-foreclusure of REM, if it is founded on a contract of
loan which has not been paid, the complaint for
foreclosure or mortgage will always carry with a relief
for the payment of the loan
- in these to actions there is another principal issue
that is involved and this other principal issue must be
decided before the recovery of money which is
another principal issue to be resolved by the court.
 In foreclosure of mortgage the first principal issue that
should first be resolved by the court is whether or not
the mortgagee has the right to foreclose (not capable
of PE)
 In expropriation proceedings the first principal issue is
WON the plaintiff has the right to expropriate (not
capable of PE)
 The second principal issue that revolves around the
payment of money cannot be determined by the court
unless the first issues is resolved
 Expropriation of real property and foreclosure of
mortgage of real property are real actions, security is
going to be sold at public auction and the ownership
and possession of the collateral wil be taken over by
the higest bidder (not capable of PE)
 If action possesses several characteristics, that is the
issue is one that is not capable of PE but is also
simultaneously a real action = rtc has jurisdiction
 Feature of not capable of PE will always prevail over
the other characteristic of the action being a real
action
 Real property who does not have assessed value= go
to the neighboring lot until you locate the property that
has an assessed value and that will be the basis in
ascertaining the jurisdiction of the court
 Real property= assessed valuation of the property
plays an important role in determining the jurisdiction
of the court
 Personal property= valuation given by the plaintiff in
his complaint
-after the filing of complaint, the defendant is given
the chance to present his side by responding to the
complaint by filing his answer
-the truthfulness or falsity will be determined later on
by the court but that will not affect the jurisdiction of
the court (principle of adherence of jurisdiction)
 Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case based
on the allegations contained in the complaint, the
court continues to exercise jurisdiction until the case
is finally adjudicated
 Under the expanded jurisdiction of inferior courts,
there are three items that should be excluded in
determining the court’s jurisdiction when it comes to
recovery of money. Interests, AFs, damages and
charges of whatsoever kind should not be included in
ascertaining jurisdiction of the court BUT INCLUDED
IN FIXING THE FILING FEES
 Always factor in the excluded items in determining the
jurisdiction of courts whenever it comes to the
recovery of money
 See rule 10 sec 5
- plaintiff is entitled to present evidence to show
that he is entitled to a higher amount
- allowed of the defendant does not object to the
presentation of evidence
 rtc can grant monetary award if its was proven that
the award is below the jurisdiction of rtc but not in
case of mtc
-mtc cannot grant amount beyond the jurisdictional
amount given in bp 129 (plaintiff can waive his
entitlement to the excess but if he insist on the higher
amount then he decision will be null and void because
it goes beyond the jurisdictional limits given by bp 129
to an inferior court
 family courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
over these cases: (no longer entertained by rtc)
 - guardianship
- adoption
- family related cases
 see sec 33 bp 129, totality test in jurisdiction
 the totality of all claims embodied in one complaint
shall be the test in determining jurisdiction won these
claims arise out of the same or different transactions
or whether they belong to the same or different
persons (roc)
 totality test in bp 129 should always prevail won the
claims belong to the same or different persons and
won the claims arise out of the same or different
transactions
-as long as they embodied properly in one complaint,
the totality of all the claims shall be the basis in
determining the jurisdiction of the court