II.
JURISDICTION
CASE ESSENTIAL FACTS
Sibal v Buquel Buquel filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real
2016 property and damages. The complaint alleged the value of the
property, but failed to mention that such value was the alleged
value. Annexed to the complaint, however, was the real property
tax order of payment, not tax declaration. Sibal then filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction since there was no assessed
value.
Malayan Malayan Insurance filed an action for replevin to recover a car
Insurance v issued to an employee, Alibudbud, since she was dismissed due
Alibudbud to redundancy. RTC granted, but CA reversed, ruling that the RTC
2016 has no jurisdiction since what was involved was an employer-
employee relationship.
Manchester Manchester filed a complaint for torts and damages, and specific
Development performance against City Land for the execution of a contract of
Corp v CA sale. The prayer contained no claim of damages, but the body
1987 stated damages suffered for P78 Million. Hence, the docket fees
paid were based on the action as one of incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Underassessment of the docket fee was brought to the attention
of the SC, SC order investigation. Manchester then amended its
complaint deleting all mention of damages. RTC then directed it
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
DOCTRINE/RULING
Motion to dismiss devoid of merit.
The real property tax order of payment reflects the assessed value of the
property. It is sufficient for purposes of determining jurisdiction.
RTC has jurisdiction: what was involved was creditor-debtor relationship,
not employer-employee, contrary to CA’s fndings.
GENERAL RULE: the jurisdiction of the SC in cases brought to it from the
CA is limited to reviewing and reversing errors of law imputed to it, its
findings of fact being conclusive.
Exceptions:
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 CA 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 the trial court’s.
The instant case involves an action for specific performance and
damages. As such, docket fee should be based on the said amount.
A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless
of the actual date of filing in court.
Thus, in the present case the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case by the payment of only P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can the
amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the
Court. (amended in Sun Insurance) For all legal purposes there is no
ZABALA 2D
 to specify amount, and hence, it included the amount of P10M as
damages, again in the body but in not in the prayer.
CA ruled that the amount of damages should be based on the
P78M in the original complaint.
Sun Insurance Tiong filed a complaint for refund of premiums. Body of the
Office v complaint alleged P50M as damages, but prayer contained no
Asuncion such claim. Hence, only P210 was paid as docket fees.
1989 Case went under investigation for underassessment of docket
fees, and docket fees were re-assessed. Hence, Tiong amended
complaint alleging P10M as docket fees in the prayer, but P44M
in the body. It later filed a supplemental complaint, alleging further
damages and paying the docket fees therefor.
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
such original complaint that was duly filed which could be amended.
Consequently, the order admitting the amended complaint and all
subsequent proceedings and actions taken by the trial court are null and
void.
The omission of the damages in the prayer was clearly done to evade
payment of docket fees. To put a stop to this, the SC ordered all
complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify
the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in
the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to
comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall
otherwise be expunged from the record.
Court here ordered only the reassessment of the docket fees instead of
the the dismissal of the complaint since there was willingness to abide by
the rules as shown by payment of the additional docket fees. This,
according to the SC, called for the more liberal interpretation of the rules.
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.
Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period. (amendment of Manchester
doctrine)
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims
and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless
the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond
its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of
the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by
the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on
the judgment. (clarified in Phil First Insurance) It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce
said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
ZABALA 2D
Tacay v RTC Pineda filed 3 complaints for recovery of possession of lands
1989 against Tacay and 2 other defendants. Each complaint contained
a handwritten notation saying, “5,000 as and for” above the type
written words “actual damages as proven”
Motions to dismiss were filed by defendants, based on the failure
to specify all amounts of damages as well as the assessed value
of the property.
RTC ordered the expunction of the claimed damages in the body
as well as the striking out of the handwritten notation. Instant case
alleges grave abuse of discretion on the RTC Judge for not
dismissing the case.
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
Judge correctly ordered striking out only.
A real action may be commenced and prosecuted without an
accompanying claim for actual, moral, nominal or exemplary damages;
and such an action would fall within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court. (Case decided in 1989, amendment of BP 129
not yet in effect)
1. Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages:
the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount
claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs (based on Rule 141;
subsequently amended by Admin Circular No. 11-94 and now
interest and costs are included. See Proton case)
 In this case, the complaint or similar pleading should, according to
Circular No. 7 of this Court, "specify the amount of damages being
prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer,
and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing
fees in any case."
 Two situations may arise:
1. Where the complaint or similar pleading sets out a claim purely for
money or damages and there is no precise statement of the amounts
being claimed:
 In this event the rule is that the pleading will "not be accepted nor
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record." In
other words, the complaint or pleading may be dismissed, or the
claims as to which the amounts are unspecified may be
expunged, although the Court may, on motion, permit
amendment of the complaint and payment of the fees provided
the claim has not in the meantime become time-barred.
2. The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of every
claim, but the fees paid are insufficient:
 here again, the rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable
time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance
thereof, and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the
court may properly take cognizance of the action, unless in the
meantime prescription has set in and consequently barred the
right of action.
2. Where the action involves real property and a related claim for
damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both:
(a) the value of the property and
(b) the total amount of related damages sought.
 The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the
initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite
fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading,
ZABALA 2D

Phil First Pyramid filed a case before the RTC for specific performance and
Insurance v damages against Philippine Insurance, seeking to recover
Pyramid proceeds of insurance policies. In the body of the complaint, it
Logistics alleged damages in the amount of P907k but in the prayer, it
2008 claimed P50k only. Thus, it paid docket fees based only on the
P50k prayer. PH First Insurance then sought the dismissal of the
complaint, alleging lack of jurisdiction for not specifying the
damages and that if Pyramid insists that it only claims P50K, then
it is the MTC that has jurisdiction.
Pyramid invoked the Sun Insurance case, contending that it only
left for the court’s determination the amount of damages to be
award. Thus, in accordance with the Sun Insurance, whatever
damages awarded shall be subject to a lien for the proper docket
fees.
Proton Pilipinas Proton availed of the credit facilities of BNP and entered into a
v BNP trust agreement with the latter for motor vehicles. When it failed
to pay or return the unsold vehicles, BNP filed a complaint before
the RTC praying for payment. BNP paid the docket fees as
assessed by the clerk of court. The clerk of court did not include
the interests claimed in the assessment of the docket fees. Thus,
Proton filed a motion to dismiss arguing that based on Admin
Circular 11-94, interests are included in the computation of the
correct docket fees. BNP argued that it merely relied on Tacay
that interests are excluded.
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
as of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time
as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the
meantime.
But where-as in the case at bar-the fees prescribed for an action involving
real property have been paid, but the amounts of certain of the related
damages (actual, moral and nominal) being demanded are unspecified,
the action may not be dismissed. The Court undeniably has jurisdiction
over the action involving the real property, acquiring it upon the filing of
the complaint or similar pleading and payment of the prescribed fee. And
it is not divested of that authority by the circumstance that it may not have
acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying claims for damages because
of lack of specification thereof. What should be done is simply to expunge
those claims for damages as to which no amounts are stated, which is
what the respondent Courts did, or allow, on motion, a reasonable time
for the amendment of the complaints so as to allege the precise amount
of each item of damages and accept payment of the requisite fees
therefor within the relevant prescriptive period.
RTC denied motion to dismiss, ruling that it will only award and confine
itself to the prayer of the complaint. CA reversed, ordering Pyramid to pay
the correct docket fees based on the losses alleged in the body of the
complaint.
SC affirmed CA.
While it is true that the determination of certain damages x x x is left to
the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty of the parties claiming
such damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of which the
court may make a proper determination, and for the proper assessment
of the appropriate docket fees. The exception contemplated as to claims
not specified or to claims although specified are left for determination of
the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of
the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the
claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.
Tacay was decided in 1989, when the Rule 141 (payment of docket fees)
was not yet amended. Reliance thereon is misplaced.
Thus, docket fees paid were insufficient. However, BNP only paid the
docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court. Plainly, while the payment
of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-
payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal
of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a
willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when
ZABALA 2D

Tijam v 1948 - Sps Tijam filed a completing against Sps Sibonghanoy for
Sibonghanoy recovery of P1.9k with interest. A writ of attachment was issued
1969 against the properites of Sps Sibonghanoy, but was thereafter
dissolved upon filing of a bond by Manila Surety. After trial,
judgment rendered in favor of Sps Tijam and a writ of execution
was issued.
Manila Surety moved to quash the writ of execution for being
issued without a summary hearing but the CFI denied the same.
It appealed to the CA, but CA affirmed TC. It was then, in 1963,
that Manila Surety filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that at the
time the action was filed, the Judiciary Act of 1948 had already
been effective and it placed within the jurisdiction of inferior courts
actions where the demand does not exceed P2k.
Rivera v Catalo Rivera filed a petition before the RTC for the issuance of a new
2015 owner’s duplicate copy of TCT alleging that hers had been
missing. On the basis of the Affidavit of Loss and the Certification
by the Registry of Deeds (RD), Judge Catalo granted the same.
However, after the judgment had become final and executory, the
RD filed a manifestation to the effect that it was recalling the
annotation of the Affidavit of Loss on the TCT since the said TCT
had already been cancelled. Judge Catalo then set aside his
previous decision. In the instant case, Rivera alleges that Judge
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there
was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule
does not apply.
September 7, 1998. As priorly discussed, this is required under Rule 141,
as amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94, which was the rule
applicable at the time. Thus, as the complaint currently stands,
respondent cannot claim the interest from August 16,
1998 until September 7, 1998, unless respondent is allowed by motion to
amend its complaint within a reasonable time and specify the precise
amount of interest petitioners owe from August 16, 1998 to September 7,
1998and pay the corresponding docket fee therefor.
With respect to the interest accruing after the filing of the complaint, the
same can only be determined after a final judgment has been handed
down. Respondent cannot thus be made to pay the corresponding docket
fee therefor. Pursuant, however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as amended by
Administrative Circular No. 11-94, respondent should be made to pay
additional fees which shall constitute a lien in the event the trial court
adjudges that it is entitled to interest accruing after the filing of the
complaint.
Manila Surety now barred by laches. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it
affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the
objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, by
reasons of public policy, a party may be barred by laches when he
invokes the jurisdiction of a court to secure an affirmative relief and, after
failing to obtain the same, repudiates the same jurisdiction.
Laches - negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
and may no longer be modified in any respect.1
Like any other rule, however, there are recognized exceptions to this
general rule such as
(1) the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party,
(2) void judgments, and
ZABALA 2D
 Catalo committed gross misconduct for recalling a final and
executory judgment.
Aala v Uy Petitioners filed an original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
2017 Mandamus before the SC challenging the validity of an ordinance
in Davao which adopted a new schedule of market values and
assessment levels of real properties in Tagum City.
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
(3) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable
Under the second exception, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no
judgment at all. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of
execution based on it is void. It may be said to be a lawless thing which
can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
whenever it exhibits its head.
the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus does not
exclusively pertain to this Court. Rather, it is shared with the Court of
Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts. Nevertheless, "this concurrence
of jurisdiction" does not give parties unfettered discretion as to the choice
of forum. The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is determinative of the
appropriate venue where petitions for extraordinary writs should be
filed. Parties cannot randomly select the court or forum to which their
actions will be directed. Consequently, this Court will not entertain direct
resort to it when relief can be obtained in the lower courts.
Exceptions: (BONGPANNTT)
(1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be
addressed immediately;
(2) when the case involves transcendental importance;
(3) when the case is novel;
(4) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;
(5) when time is of the essence;
(6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
(7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law;
(8) when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare,
public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice;
(9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and
(10) when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy
None of the exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts are present
in this case. Significantly, although petitioners raise questions of law,
other interrelated factual issues have emerged from the parties'
arguments, which this Court deems indispensable for the proper
disposition of this case.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies - Parties are
generally precluded from immediately seeking the intervention of courts
when "the law provides for remedies against the action of an
administrative board, body, or officer."
- relevant in this case because according to the LGC, aggrieved
taxpayers who question the validity or legality of a tax ordinance are
ZABALA 2D
 required to file an appeal before the Secretary of Justice before they seek
intervention from the regular courts
Exceptions:
(1) When there is a violation of due process;
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal and amounts to lack
or excess of jurisdiction;
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency
concerned;
(5) when there is irreparable injury;
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an
alter ego of the President, bears the implied and assumed approval of the
latter;
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be
unreasonable;
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy;
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention; and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the
complainant;
(12) when no administrative review is provided by law;
(13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies; and
(14) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has
been rendered moot.

Agarrado v Petitioners inherited a land from their deceased father. However,
Librando- their deceased father had other children, the respondents, with
Agarrado another woman. Respondents sought the partition of the property.
2018 Petitioners moved for the dismissal, contending that the complaint
failed to state the assessed value of the property.
In this case, however, the issues involved are not purely legal. There are
factual issues that need to be addressed for the proper disposition of the
case. In other words, this case is still not ripe for adjudication.
Petition should be dismissed.
For actions on partition, the subject matter is two-phased: the partition is
at once an action (1) for declaration of co-ownership and (2) for
segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties
involved. Thus, in a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a
declaration that he/she is a co-owner of the subject properties, and
second, the conveyance of his/her lawful share.

while actions for partition are incapable of pecuniary estimation owing to

its two-phased subject matter, the determination of the court which
will acquire jurisdiction over the same must still conform to Sec.
33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended.

CIVPRO DOCTRINES ZABALA 2D


Brgy Mayamot v Brgy Mayamot filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity and/or
Antipolo Annulment of a Resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan,
2016 commissioning the City Assessor to plot and delineate the
territorial boundaries of barangays in Antipolo.
RTC dismissed, ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the case
since it essentially involved a boundary dispute, despite the
caption of declaration of nullity.
PT&T v Smart PT&T entered into an agreement with Smart for the
2016 interconnection of their telecommunication facilities. Later, Smart
increased PT&T’s access charge which led PT&T to file a
complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission. In
turn, Smart filed the RTC a complaint for breach of contract,
praying that PT&T be ordered to pay and for the RTC to issue a
TRO against NTC and PT&T. RTC granted. PT&T challenges this
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and doctrine of primary
jurisdiction
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
the rule on determining the assessed value of a real property,
insofar as the identification of the jurisdiction of the first and second
level courts is concerned, would be two-tiered:
First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed
value of the real property as alleged in the complaint; and
Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed value of the
property, while not alleged in the complaint, could still be identified
through a facial examination of the documents already attached to the
complaint.
On the basis of this most recent ruling, the Court is without any recourse
but to agree with the petitioners in dismissing the complaint filed before
the RTC for lack of jurisdiction. A scouring of the records of this case
revealed that the complaint did indeed lack any indication as to the
assessed value of the subject property.
RTC correct. The nature of an action and its subject matter, as well as
which court or agency of the government has jurisdiction over the same,
are determined by the material allegations of the complaint in relation to
the law involved and the character of the reliefs prayed for, whether or
not the complainant/plaintiff is entitled to any or all of such reliefs. The
designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the
complaint. It is not even an indispensable part of the complaint. Also,
jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that
the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court.2
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has been increasingly called into play
on matters demanding the special competence of administrative
agencies even if such matters are at the same time within the jurisdiction
of the courts. A case that requires for its determination the expertise,
specialized skills, and knowledge of some administrative board or
commission because it involves technical matters or intricate questions
of fact, relief must first be obtained in an appropriate administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts although the
matter comes within the jurisdiction of the courts.
 The application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the
case in the court but only for its suspension until after the matters
within the competence of the administrative body are threshed
out and determined.
Generally, trial courts have the ancillary jurisdiction to issue writs of
preliminary injunction in cases falling within its jurisdiction
There are, however, exceptions to this rule, such as when Congress, in
the exercise of its power to apportion jurisdiction, restricts the authority of
regular courts to issue injunctive reliefs. Another well-recognized
ZABALA 2D

Oribello v CA Remedios filed an action for partition of 12 parcels of land against
2015 Berlinda. Remedios claimed that he was the adopted child of
Berlinda’s deceased husband with his former wife. Remedios
challenged the validity of the adoption decree. RTC dismissed the
action for partition and nullified the adoption decree previously
promulgated by the CFI.
Pajares v Remarkable Laundy filed a complaint for Breach of Contract and
Remarkable Damages against Sps Pajares. The complaint claimed a total
Laundry amount of P280k as damages. RTC dismissed for lack of
2017 jurisdiction, the demand not exceeding P300k.
Remarkable Laundry contends that the action being one for
breach of contract, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus
RTC has jurisdiction.
CIVPRO DOCTRINES
exception is that courts could not interfere with the judgments, orders, or
decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. This rule of
non-interference applies not only to courts of law having equal rank but
also to quasi-judicial agencies statutorily at par with such courts.
 NTC is co-equal with the RTC. RTC should not have issued an
injunction.
RTC without jurisdiction to nullify the adoption decree. In 1981, the
Legislature enacted BP 129. Among several innovations of this legislative
enactment was the formal establishment of the annulment of a
judgment or final order, and expressly vested the exclusive original
jurisdiction over such action in the CA.
Indeed, no court has the authority to nullify the judgments or
processes of another court of equal rank and category, having the
equal power to grant the reliefs sought. Such power devolves
exclusively upon the proper appellate court. The raison d'etre for
the rule is to avoid conflict of power between different courts of
equal or coordinate jurisdiction which would surely lead to
confusion and seriously hinder the proper administration of justice.
Based on the foregoing, the RTC did not have the jurisdiction to
determine or to review the validity of the decree of adoption issued by the
erstwhile CFI of Occidental Mindoro by virtue of the equal rank and
category between the RTC and the CFI. The proper court with jurisdiction
to do so was the CA.
RTC correctly dismissed. Breach of contract may give rise to a complaint
for specific performance or rescission of contract. In which case, the
subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore,
jurisdiction is lodged with the RTC. However, breach of contract may
also be the cause of action in a complaint for damages.
In an action for damages based on breach of contract, the court
which has jurisdiction is determined by the total amount of damages
claimed.
ZABALA 2D