64.

Iniego v Purganan
Facts: Private respondent Santos filed a complaint for quasi-delict and damages against
Jimmy T. Pinion, the driver of a truck involved in a traffic accident, and against petitioner
Artemio Iniego, as owner of the said truck and employer of Pinion. Santos filed a Motion to
Declare defendant in Default allegedly for failure of the latter to file his answer within the final
extended period. Petitioner Iniego filed a Motion to Admit and a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on the ground, among other things, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
cause of action of the case. Public respondent J. Purganan issued the assailed Omnibus
Order denying the Motion to Dismiss of the petitioner and the Motion to Declare Defendant in
Default of the private respondent.

Issue: Whether or not actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that are
capable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore would fall under the jurisdiction of the
municipal courts if the claim does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00 in
Metro Manila.

Ruling: Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for
the recovery of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendant’s
alleged tortious acts, and are therefore capable of pecuniary estimation. It is crystal clear
from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, that what must be determined to
be capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject
matter of the action. A cause of action is "the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by
the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff." On the other hand, the
"subject matter of the action" is "the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money,
lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or
wrong committed by the defendant."

65. Davao Light & Power Co. Inc v. CA

Facts: Davao Light and Power Inc, Co. filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money and
damages against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna. The complaint contained an ex
parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted. Queensland and
Adarna filed a motion to discharge the attachment for lack of jurisdiction to issue the same
because at the time the order of attachment was promulgated (May 3, 1989) and the
attachment writ issued (May 11,1989), the Trial Court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over
cause and person of defendants. Trial Court denied the motion to discharge. CA annulled
the Trial Court’s Order. Davao seeks to reverse CA’s order.

Issue: Whether or not a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte against a
defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the latter's person by service of summons or
his voluntary submission to the Court's authority.

Ruling: Yes. An action or proceeding is commenced by the filing of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading. By that act, the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter or nature
of the action or proceeding is invoked or called into activity; and it is thus that the court
acquires jurisdiction over said subject matter or nature of the action. And it is by that self-
same act of the plaintiff (or petitioner) of filing the complaint (or other appropriate pleading)
— by which he signifies his submission to the court's power and authority — that jurisdiction
is acquired by the court over his person. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is obtained, as above stated, by the service of summons or other coercive
process upon him or by his voluntary submission to the authority of the court.

66. Eugenio, Sr. v. Velez

Facts: Vitaliana Vargas’ brothers and sisters filed a petition for Habeas Corpus before the
RTC of Misamis Oriental alleging that she was forcibly taken from her residence sometime in
1987 and was confined by the herein petitioner. The court then issued a writ of habeas
corpus but petitioner refused to surrender the Vitaliana’s body to the sheriff on the ground
that a corpse cannot be subjected to habeas corpus proceedings. Vitaliana, 25 year old
single, died of heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy in Eugenio’s residence. The court
ordered that the body should be delivered to a funeral parlor for autopsy but Eugenio
assailed the lack of jurisdiction of the court.

Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the case by treating it as an action
for custody of a dead body

Ruling: Sec. 19, BP 129 provides for the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts over civil cases. It is an elementary rule of procedure that what controls is not the
caption of the complaint or petition; but the allegations therein determine the nature of the
action, and even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may nevertheless be
granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so
warrant.