Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19398883/Barops08-Rem-Civpro
Timestamp: 2014-08-21 21:04:11
Document Index: 30526439

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 1', 'Art 8', 'Art. 2035', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9']

Barops08 Rem Civpro
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Save to My LibraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks0Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents1. LOJ OVER THE DEFENDANT’S
P. 1Barops08 Rem CivproBarops08 Rem CivproRatings: (0)|Views: 1,225
|Likes: 47Published by Raymond RoqueMore info:Categories:Types, School Work, Essays & ThesesPublished by: Raymond Roque on Sep 03, 2009Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/19398883/Barops08-Rem-Civpro03/31/2014pdftextoriginal 1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 1111 of 95959595 CIVIL PROCEDURE REMEDIAL LAW PART 1: JURISDICTION DEFINITION •
Power of the court to hear an action or proceedings, and to render a judgment thereon which will bind the parties to such action/ proceeding. [Regalado]
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice: [Art 8, Sec. 1, Consti] 1)
To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable; 2)
To determine WON there has been a GADALEJ on the part of any government branch/instrumentality. I. PRESCRIBED JURISDICTION •
Jurisdiction over a particular subject matter. •
Conferred only by the Constitution or by law. •
Determined by the allegations in the complaint. •
An error in jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even for the first time on appeal. [David v. Cordova (2005)]
Cannot be waived; Judgment without jurisdiction is void. •
Jurisdiction by estoppel. [Soliven v. Fastforms (2004)]
To prohibit parties from accepting judgments of court only if favorable to them. •
Cannot be the subject of compromise [Art. 2035, CC] •
Once attached to a court, cannot be ousted by subsequent statute. •
The statute itself conferring new jurisdiction expressly provides for retroactive effect. [Southern Food v. Salas (1992)]
The filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action. •
The court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive period. [IBP v. Legasto (2006)]
II. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION SUPREME COURT •
The judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law. [Art. 8, Sec. 1, Consti]
SC’S POWERS [Art. 8, Sec. 5, Consti]
Have original jurisdiction over: a)
Cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls; b)
Review/revise/reverse/modify/affirm on appeal or certiorari, final judgments/orders of lower courts on: a)
Constitutionality/validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree/proclamation/order/ instruction, ordinance or regulation; b)
Legality of any tax/impost/assessment/toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto; c)
Any lower court’s jurisdiction; d)
Criminal cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher; e)
Only errors/questions of law are involved. •
[Josefa v. Zhandong (2003)] (1)
The conclusion is grounded on speculations/surmises/conjectures; (2)
The inference is manifestly mistaken/absurd/impossible; (3)
There is GAD; (4)
The judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
The findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
There is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7)
The finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8)
The CA’s findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (9)
The CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) The CA’s findings are beyond the issues of the case; (11) The CA’s findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. 3)
Temporarily assign judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require, which shall not 6 six months without the consent of the judge concerned. 4)
Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. 5)
Promulgate rules on: a)
Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; b)
Pleading/practice/procedure in all courts; c)
Admission to the practice of law; d)
The integrated bar; e)
Legal assistance to the under-privileged. •
Guidelines on the rules: (1)
Simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases; (2)
Uniform for all courts of the same grade; 1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 2222 of 95959595 CIVIL PROCEDURE REMEDIAL LAW (3)
Not diminish/increase/modify substantive rights. 6)
Appoint all Judiciary officials/EEs in accordance with the Civil Service Law. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSSIONS •
Decisions/orders/rulings of constitutional commissions (CSC, COMELEC and COA) may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party, within 30 days from receipt of copy. [Art. 9-A, Sec. 7, Consti]
If otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law. •
CSC judgments/decisions/orders are within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA through Rule 43. [RA 7902]
CTA judgments/decisions are now appealable by petition for review on certiorari to the SC. [RA 9282]
COURT OF APPEALS [Sec. 9, BP 129]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION •
Mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs/processes, WON in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION •
Annulment of RTC judgments. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION •
Final judgments/decisions/resolutions/orders/ awards of: 1)
RTC; 2)
Quasi-judicial agencies/instrumentalities/ boards/commissions including: a)
SEC; b)
Social Security Commission; c)
ECC; d)
CSC. •
Those falling within the SC’s appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with: (1)
The Constitution; (2)
Labor Code; (3)
BP 129; (4)
Sec. 17, Par. 3(1) and Par. 4(4) of the Judiciary Act of 1948. •
Supposed appeals from the NLRC to the SC are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
[St. Martin’s Funeral Home v. NLRC (1998)
POWERS 1)
Try cases; 2)
Conduct hearings; •
Trials/hearings must be continuous and must be completed within 3 months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. 3)
Receive evidence; 4)
Any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES [Sec. 19, BP 129]
1) Incapable of pecuniary estimation; •
If the action is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount of the claim. [RCPI v. CA (2002)]
If the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, if the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the action is one where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. [Soliven v. Fastforms (1992)]
If the thing sought to be deposited or consigned is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is determinable and capable of pecuniary estimation. [Ascue v. CA (1991)] •
Action for support is incapable of pecuniary estimation because the court is asked to determine first WON the plaintiff is indeed entitled to support. [Baito v. Sarmiento (1960)]
Action for specific performance is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Manufacturer’s Distributor’s v. Yu Siu Liong (1966)]
The jurisdiction of the respective courts is determined by the value of the demand and not the value of the transaction out of which the demand arose. The alternative prayer for specific performance is also of the same value, for the alternative prayers would not have been made in the complaint if one was more valuable than the other. [Cruz v. Tan (1950)]
Rescission is a counterpart of specific performance therefore also incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Lapitan v. Scandia (1968)]
Action for declaration of nullity of a deed of partition is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Russel v. Vestil (1999)]
An action for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Bardillon v. Masili (2003)] 2)
Title to, or possession of, real property (or any interest therein) where the property’s assessed value exceeds P20K or P50K (for civil actions in Metro Manila); •
Forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands/buildings. 3)
Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand/claim exceeds P300K or P400K (in Metro Manila); •
Maritime and admiralty cases involve trade and transactions in the sea. Maritime jurisdiction includes maritime tort. [Negre v. Cabahug (1966)]
Probate (testate and intestate) where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300K or P400K (in Metro Manila); 5)
Marriage contract and marital relations; 6)
- All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court/tribunal/person/body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; 7)
Within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations; 8)
All other cases where the demand (exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's 1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 3333 of 95959595 CIVIL PROCEDURE REMEDIAL LAW fees, litigation expenses and costs) or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P300K or P400K in Metro Manila. •
The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional amount under Sec. 19(8) and Sec. 33 (1) of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, if the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. [Admin Circ. 09-94]
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. This money claim is the principal relief sought, and is not merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. [Iniego v. Purganan (2006)]
[Sec. 21, BP 129
Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; 2)
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. APPELLATE JURISDICTION [Sec. 22, BP 129]
All cases decided by MeTCs/MTCs/MCTCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions. METROPOLITAN, MUNICIPAL AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION [Sec. 33, BP 129] 1)
Civil actions and probate proceedings (testate and intestate), including the grant of provisional remedies, where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed P300K or P400K (in Metro Manila); •
Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees. •
If there are several claims or causes of actions between the same/different parties in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, WON the causes of action arose out of the same/different transactions. 2)
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer; •
If the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. •
That the MeTC has jurisdiction even in cases where the issue of possession is closely intertwined with the issue of ownership is now a settled doctrine in ejectment proceedings. [Heirs of B. Hernandez v. Vergara (2006)
All civil actions that involve title to, or possession of, real property (or any interest therein) where the assessed value of the property (or interest therein) does not exceed P20K or P50K (in civil actions in Metro Manila). DELEGATED JURISDICTION IN CADASTRAL AND LAND REGISTRATION CASES [Sec. 34, BP 129]
Lots where there is no controversy/opposition; 2)
Contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100K. •
The value is to be ascertained: a)
By the claimant’s affidavit; b)
By agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; c)
From the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. •
MTC decisions in cadastral and land registration cases are appealable in the same manner as RTC decisions. KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY •
To reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. [Lumbuan v. Republic (2006)
Authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes. [Sec. 480, RA 7160]
Exception: 1)
If one party is the government; 2)
If one party is a public officer/EE and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; 3)
Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5K; 4)
Offenses with no private offended party; 5)
Real properties located in different cities/municipalities; •
Exception to exception:
Parties agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon. 6)
Parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities/municipalities; •
If such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon. 7)
Such disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. VENUE [Sec. 409, RA 7160
] Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay Their barangay Disputes between actual residents of different barangays within the same city/municipality Barangay where the respondent (or any of the respondents) actually resides, at the complainant's election Disputes on real property (or any interest therein) Barangay where the real property (or the larger portion thereof) is situated Activity (0)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeNo activity yetLoad more
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library SB No. 324
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Anti-Schoolbag Overloading Bill
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Tribe - The Curvature of Constitutional Space
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library IBT Finals Exam
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library National Development Co vs Cebu City
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Municipality of Sta Fe vs Municipality of Aritao
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Municipality of San Fernando vs Firme
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Municipality of Paranaque vs VM Realty
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Municipality of Paoay vs Manaois
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Morata vs Go
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Montesclaros vs Comelec
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Moday vs CA
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library MMDA vs Garin
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Valles vs Comelec
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Villanueva vs Castaneda
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Mendoza vs de Leon
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Mendova va Afable
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Marquez vs Comelec Not Complete