UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO (USM)

First Year Law, Section B

2022-2023

CIVIL PROCEDURE I
(Rules 1-39, including its Amendments and Jurisdiction of
Courts, defined under BP Blg. 129, as amended)

Introduction
 Outline of Introductory Topics:
 1. Preliminary Considerations (Ch. 1 & 4)
 2. The Organization of Courts (Ch. 2)
 3. Jurisdiction of Courts (Ch. 3)
Main Sources of Lecture:
1. Noche, Civil Procedure Explained, Vol. 1

2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary

Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by RA
No. 8246 (1996), and by RA No. 11576 (July 30,
2021)

3. Supreme Court Decisions

Topic 1. Preliminary Considerations
1. Definition of Terms
2. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme
Court
A. Terms
1. Substantive law – the part of law which creates,
defines and regulates rights and obligations.
2. Remedial law – prescribes the methods of
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
violation (procedure)
 Which is more difficult to study?
Cabarios v. People, G.R. Nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41.
September 29, 2021
“Procedural laws are adjective laws which prescribe rules
and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining
redress for their invasion; they refer to rules of procedure by
which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly
administer justice. They include rules of pleadings, practice
and evidence. [As applied to criminal law, they provide or
regulate the steps by which one who commits a crime is to
be punished.]
[What is their purpose?]
Test: Who regulates it?
1. Congress – substantive (laws/statutes)
2. Supreme Court – remedial (Rules of
Court and other issuances)
3. Civil Procedure – provides for the manner by which civil
claims are prosecuted, from filing of Compaint, Answer,
issuance of summons through trial, judgment, appeals and
executions.
4. Scope of Study – Rules 1 – 39. (from where and how to file
a case, answering a complaint, service of summons, trial,
judgment up to execution only)
[Post Decision remedies, like appeals, annulment of
judgment, relief from judgment and procedures in the
appellate courts (starting with Rule 40) will be covered by
Civil Procedure II.
Bar Question, 2006, No. 1:
(a) What is the concept of remedial law?
(b) Distinguish between substantive law
and remedial law?
(c) How are remedial laws implemented in
our system of government?
B. Rule- Making Power of the Supreme Court

Art. VIII, Sec. 5: The Supreme Court Shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and
legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Limitations:
1. The rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases;
2. The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade;
3. The rules shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights
Some Questions:
1. In case of conflict between a procedural
rule and substantive law, which will
prevail?
 Estipona v. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160 (2017) (Rule-Making Power)
 Rule 115, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the guidelines
in plea bargaining. However, Section 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," provides: “SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining
Provision. - Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.”
 Is the provision valid?
 Held: The provision is unconstitutional. It encroaches on the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court under Sec. 5(5) Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution. As held in previous
cases, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. On the other hand, plea
bargaining is a rule of procedure. It is towards the provision of a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases in all courts that the rules on plea
bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the
parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an "important," "essential," "highly desirable,"
and "legitimate" component of the administration of justice. To reiterate, the Court's
authority to promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is exclusive and one of
the safeguards of its institutional independence.
 In Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., 808 SCRA 130 (2016):
 An action to quiet title is to be brought as a special civil action under Rule 63 of the Rules
of Court. Sec 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifies the forum to be “the appropriate
Regional Trial Court.” However, under BP No. 129, actions involving title to or possession
of property has to be brought with the MTC if the value of the real property does not
exceed P20,000.00 (now under RA No. 11576, it is P400,000.00. If the value of the land is
less than P20,000.00, which court has jurisdiction?
 Held: Jurisdiction is with the RTC. To determine which court has jurisdiction over actions
identified in the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court said
provision must be read together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1989, as
amended: xxx
 In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended, uses the word shall and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real
property where the assess value does not exceed P20,000. xxx

(The law on jurisdiction is substantive, not procedural.)

2. Can rules of procedure be given retroactive effect?

Cabarios v. People, G.R. Nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41. September 29,

2021
The general rule that statutes are prospective and not retroactive does not
ordinarily apply to procedural laws. It has been held that "a retroactive law, in a
legal sense, is one which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under
laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new
disability, in respect of transactions or considerations already past. Hence,
remedial statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which
do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of
the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the
legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive
operation of statutes." 
Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights
may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The
retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of
a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Nor is the
retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally
objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may
attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. It has been held that "a person
has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist
on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of
any other than the existing rules of procedure."
4. What does it mean when the Constitution
says that the rules “shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights.”

Illustration:
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties.

Bar Question, 2006, IV (2): State whether the

following are constitutional: (2) A law denying
persons charged with crimes punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death the right to bail.
Topic 2: The Organization of Courts
1.Philippine Court System
2.Quasi-Courts
3.Terms
A. Philippine Court System
Supreme Court

CTA + CA SDGN SAC*

RTC/Family Courts SDC

(Special Commercial Court,
Special Criminal Court, Special SCC
Agrarian Courts)

MTC, MCTC, MTCC, MeTC

*Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434. March 5, 2010

.
Notes:
1. CTA – RA No. 9503 (2008) – 9 justices, en banc
or 3 divisions
2. Sandiganbayan – 21 justices, RA No. 10660
(2014) 7 divisions of 3 members each
3. Court of Appeals RA No. 8246, 69 justices, in
divisions of 3 each, or 23 divisions
4. Regional Trial Court (1 for each Region)
5. MTC, MCTC, MTCC, MeTC
B. Quasi-Courts
1. Constitutional Commissions
a. Civil Service Commissions
b. Commission on Elections
c. Commission on Audit
2. Quasi-Judicial Agencies
a. [Civil Service Commission]
b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
(Appeals on property assessment by LGUs)
c. Securities and Exchange Commission
(Approve/revoke registrations of corporations)
d. Office of the President
(Qualified Political Agency)
e. Land Registration Authority
(Land Titles and Deeds)
f. Social Security Commission
(Benefits/claims of members]
g. Civil Aeronautics Board
[Air Transportation]
h. Intellectual Property Office
[Patents/Trademarks]
i. National Electrification Administration
j. Energy Regulatory Board
[Disputes on dealership agreements]
k. National Telecommunications Commission
[radio and wireless telephones]
l. Department of Agrarian Reform [DARAB]
[Tenancy cases, land distribution]
m. Government Service Insurance System
n. Employees Compensation Commission
o. Insurance Commission
p. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
q. Board of Investments
r. Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission
3. Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies
a. Ombudsman
b. National Labor Relations Commission
c. Bureau of Immigration
d. Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board
[ subdivision developers and buyers]
e. National Commission on Indigenous People
Some questions:
1. How do we distinguish a judicial from a quasi-
judicial body?
2. How do we know whether it is a quasi-judicial
body or not at all?
3. Why is it important to know?
-doctrine of primary jurisdiction
-exhaustion of administrative remedies
 Cases:
 Begnaen v. Caligtan, 800 SCRA 588 (2016) (Jurisdiction of NCIP)
 After the Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP dismissed the complaint without
prejudice because the dispute did not pass through the council of elders, but the Barangay
Lupon, plaintiff filed a case for forcible entry against defendant before the MCTC of Bauo-
Sabangan, Mountain Province. The disputed parcel of land was part of their ancestral
domain and both of them are members of Kankanaey Tribe. Is the dispute within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Officer of the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples?
 Held: No. While RA No. 8371 gave jurisdiction to the NCIP Regional Hearing Officer
over “all claims and disputes” involving rights of IPs, it is only the 2014 Revised Rules of
Procedure promulgated by the NCIP which gave it “original and exclusive jurisdiction”.
This is void because the implementing rule of a law cannot extend its coverage. At best,
the limited jurisdiction of the NCIP is concurrent with that of regular trial courts in the
exercise of the latter’s general jurisdiction. This means that the body or agency that first
takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others.
In this case, since the complaint was originally filed with the NCIP, which dismissed it
without prejudice, the MCTC had no jurisdiction.
Unduran v. Aberasturi, G.R No. 1812844, October 20215
Does the NCIP have jurisdiction if the parties to the dispute belong to
different tribes?
Held: Pursuant to Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction
over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they
arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. When
such claims and disputes arise between or among parties who do not
belong to the same ICC/IP, i.e., parties belonging to different ICC/IPs or
where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP, the case shall fall under the
jurisdiction of the proper Courts of Justice, instead of the NCIP. In this
case, while most of the petitioners belong to Talaandig Tribe,
respondents do not belong to the same ICC/IP. Thus, even if the real
issue involves a dispute over land which appear to be located within the
ancestral domain of the Talaandig Tribe, it is not the NCIP but the RTC
which shall have the power to hear, try and decide this case.
 PNB v. Lim, 689 SCRA 523 (2013) [Jurisdiction of the HLURB]
 Does the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board have jurisdiction
over a petition filed by a condominium unit buyer for annulment of
mortgage entered between the developer and the mortgagee bank
involving the land where the condominium project stands, on the ground
that it lacked the required approval of the HLURB?
 Held: Yes. The jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate
trade is broad enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for
annulment of mortgage. This is pursuant to the intent of P.D. No. 957 to
protect hapless buyers from the unjust practices of unscrupulous
developers which may constitute mortgages over condominium projects
sans the knowledge of the former and the consent of the HLURB.
However, the subject of the annulment should be limited only to the
portion that he is buying, not to the entire parcel of land. He has no
personality or standing to bring suit on the whole property.
Delos Santos v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 154877, March 27, 2007
For failure to refund a real estate developer of the purchase price of a
cancelled contract to sell a piece of land, the former filed a case for
specific performance before the HLURB. Does the HLURB have
jurisdiction?
No. Under PD No. 957, HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
real estate trade and business. The cases over which HLURB has
jurisdiction are those arising from either unsound real estate business
practices or claims for refund by subdivision lot or condomium unit
buyers against he project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman,
or specific performance filed by the lot buyer against the developer. In
this case, it is the other way around. [The only instance when the
HLURB may take cognizance is when the developer institutes a coutner-
claim against the buyer.]
 Ortigas v. Court of Appeals, 674 SCRA 46 (2012)
 The City of Pasig filed a complaint against Ortigas and Greenhills Properties, Inc. (GPI) for
specific compliance before the RTC of Pasig. The City alleged that Ortigas failed to comply with
Municipal Ordinance 5, Series of 1966 which required it to designate appropriate recreational and
playground facilities at its former Capitol VI Subdivision (regarded as a residential site).  Further, the
City alleged that despite the fact that the plan was only approved by the Municipal Council as to
layout, Oritgas proceeded to develop the property without securing a final approval. Does a regular
court have jurisdiction?
 Held: Yes. Section 1, paragraph a, of P.D. 1344 vests in the HLURB the exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases involving “unsound real estate business practices”. The law does not state which
party can file a claim against an unsound real estate business practice.  But, in the context of the
evident objective of Section 1, it is implicit that the “unsound real estate business practice” would, like
the offended party in paragraphs (b) and (c), be the buyers of lands. The policy of the law is to curb
unscrupulous practices in real estate trade and business that prejudice buyers. Obviously, the City had
not bought a lot in the subject area from Ortigas which would give it a right to seek HLURB
intervention in enforcing a local ordinance that regulates the use of private land within its jurisdiction
in the interest of the general welfare.  It has the right to bring such kind of action but only before a
court of general jurisdiction such as the RTC.
 Medical Plaza v. Cullen, Nov. 11, 2013
 Which tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a case for damages arising from
erroneous assessment of dues file by a condominium unit buyer against
the condominium corporation? Is it the HLURB or the regular courts?
 Answer: Neither. It is the Regional the Regional Trial Court sitting as a
Special Commercial Court, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No.
8799. This case involves intra-corporate controversy. It obviously
arose from the intra-corporate relations between the parties, and
the questions involved pertain to their rights and obligations under
the Corporation Code and matters relating to the regulation of the
corporation. Republic Act (RA) No. 9904, or the Magna Carta for
Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations, empowers the HLURB to
hear and decide inter-association and/or intra-association controversies
or conflicts concerning homeowners’ associations, but not condominium
corporations.
Bar 2006, No. 2: What court has jurisdiction over an action for specific
performance filed by a subdivision homeowner against a subdivision
developer? Choose the correct answer and explain.
a. The Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board
b. The Securities and Exchange Commission
c. The Regional Trial Court
d. The Commercial Court or the Regional Trial Court designated by the
Supreme Court to hear and decide “commercial cases”

See, also Pilar Development v. Villar, 505 SCRA 616 (2006)

Christian Gen. Assembly v. Ignacio, Aug. 27, 2009
C. Terms:
I. The court and the Judge –
Court – An entity vested with a portion of judicial
power.
Judge – The officer presiding over a court.
[administration of justice]
R.A. No. 11459 – Judges-at-Large Act of 2019-
100 RTC Judges and 50 Municipal Trial Judges with
“no permanent salas.”
 Notes on Definition:
1. It has no physical existence.
2. It is vested only with a “portion”
Sec. 1, Art. VIII, of the a987 Constitution: “The
judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be created
by law.”
3. Its main function is to settle controversies
involving rights
 2. Classification

 A. Superior and Inferior Courts

Superior courts are those exercising
supervisory authority over lower courts,
while inferior courts are those whose
decisions are subject to review by higher
tribunals.
 B. Original and Appellate
Original courts are those where cases are
commenced, while appellate courts are those
where cases are reviewed.
 C. Criminal and Civil Courts
Criminal courts are those which decide purely
criminal cases, while civil courts are those which
decide only civil cases.
Nearest to the concept to criminal courts:
1. Sandiganbayan (one exception)
2. Special Courts for Drug Cases (RTC designated
as such by A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC. Aug. 1, 2000
 D. Courts of law and courts of equity
Courts of law are tribunals deciding cases
by applying the law. Courts of equity are
tribunals proceeding according to the
precepts of equity [fairness].
Prescription v. Laches
Alonzo v. IAC, 150 SCRA 259
The question is sometimes asked in serious
inquiry or curious conjecture, whether we are a
court of law or a court of justice. Do we apply the
law even if it is unjust, or do we administer justice
even if it is against the law? Thus queried, we do
not equivocate. The answer is that we do neither
because we are a court both of law and justice. We
apply the law with justice for that is our common
mission and purpose…
 E. Constitutional court and statutory court
Constitutional courts are those created by
the Constitution itself, while statutory courts
are created by the legislature.
 F. Courts of general and courts of special
jurisdiction
Courts of general jurisdiction are those
that take cognizance of all causes of a
particular nature, while courts of special
jurisdiction are those taking cognizance only
of a few specified matters.
Enforcement of Writs and Processes:
1. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, injunction
(a) issued by CA/SC – nation-wide
(b) issued by RTC – Region-wide
2. Other Writs by any court – nation-wide (ex:
arrest warrant, summons, writ of amparo, habeas
data, subpoena
3. Search Warrant: generally territorial
Topic 3: Jurisdiction of Courts
Outline:
1. Basic concepts
2. Kinds of Jurisdiction
3. Elements of Jurisdiction
4. Hierarchy of Courts
5. Jurisdiction of Various Courts
 1. Basic Concepts/Terms

1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 2: The

Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of
various courts but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Sec. 5 hereof.
 1. Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction is the power and
authority of a tribunal to hear, try, and decide
a case. It is conferred by law and cannot be
dictated by any other authority, body, or
party. Daco v. Cadajar, G.R. No. 222611.
November 15, 2021
2. Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and
determine a cause or the right to act on a
case. All the acts of the judge in the course
of disposing of the case are part of the
exercise of jurisdiction.
3. Error of jurisdiction and error of judgment
1989 Bar Question, No. 10: Distinguish between error of
judgment and error of jurisdiction.
An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in
the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an error does not
deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by
appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction is one committed by
a court when it entertains a case over which it has no
authority. Such an error renders an order or judgment void,
and is correctible by a special civil action of certiorari.
[Cochingyan v. Cloribe, 76 SCRA 361].
 2. Kinds of Jurisdiction

a. General vs. limited jurisdiction

General jurisdiction pertains to the authority of
the court to hear and determine all types of actions
and suits whether criminal, civil, admiralty,
personal action, or real action. Limited and special
jurisdiction refers to the authority of the court to
hear and determine particular cases only.
b. Original vs. appellate jurisdiction
 Original jurisdiction is the power of the
court to take cognizance of the case at its
inception or commencement, while appellate
jurisdiction is the power vested in a superior
court to review and revise the judicial action
of a lower court.
 c. Exclusive vs. concurrent jurisdiction
 Exclusive jurisdiction is jurisdiction
possessed by a court to the exclusion of all
others, while concurrent or coordinate
jurisdiction is one possessed by a court
together with another court or other courts
over the same subject matter.
Combination of Terms:
A. Original Exclusive [Adoption, ML, Nat
B. Original Concurrent [Amb, Cert, HC]
C. Exclusive Appellate (Habeas
Data/Amparo)
D. Concurrent Appellate (Question of Law?)
 3. Elements of jurisdiction

The elements of jurisdiction in civil cases

are:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the parties
3. Jurisdiction over the res; and
4. Jurisdiction over the issues
 1. Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
means the power of the court to hear and determine
cases of the general class to which the proceeding
in question belongs. It is determined by law.
-cannot subject to waiver/agreement by parties
-maybe raised anytime, even on appeal
-cannot be conferred by acquiescence of the court
What is the only exception?
Tijam v. Sibunghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1969
Complaint for sum of money was filed in 1948 in the amount of
P1,908.00 before the CFI. It is the MTC that had jurisdiction, but
defendant did not move to dismiss. He lost the case. In 1963, the surety
filed a motion to dismiss before the CA for lack of jurisdiction. Should
the case be dismissed?
Held: The surety is barred by the principle of estoppel by laches. It
is based on public policy that for the piece of mind of society stale
claims are discouraged. It is a question of equity or fairness. Laches is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either
abandoned the right or declined to assert it.
Heirs of Yadao v. Heirs of Caletina, G.R. No. 230784. February 15, 2022
The general rule is that the issue on jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised
at any time in the proceedings, even on appeal. By way of an exception, however, Tijam
v. Sibonghanoy] has ruled that estoppel by laches may bar a party from invoking lack of
jurisdiction when the issue is raised later in the proceedings of the case and only after
the party raising the argument has actively participated during trial and lost.
The delay in raising the argument and the moving party's participation in the proceedings
has led the court and the opposing party of the waiver of this issue, and as a result, the
belated claim if considered and more so if granted would be inefficient and iniquitous as it
is opportunistic. Notably, by the time the jurisdictional challenge is raised long into the
proceedings: (i) scarce judicial resources have been spent determining the merits of the
claims; (ii) the truth-seeking function of the subsequent proceedings would be severely
compromised due to the long passage of time and the resultant loss of evidence and/or
interest in re-litigating the same claims already passed upon; and (iii) the moving party is
wagering on the basis of the latter's success or failure in the originating proceedings.
2. Jurisdiction over the parties
Jurisdiction over the parties refers to
jurisdiction over the plaintiff, the one suing,
and the defendant, the one being sued.
Jurisdiction over the person of the parties is
the power of the court to render judgment
which will bind parties to the case.
How Acquired:
1. Plaintiff – upon filing of complaint
2. Defendant – Service of summons and voluntary
appearance
Unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is subject to
waiver. But if there is no waiver, the decision is void.
Bar Question 1994, No. 2:
How is jurisdiction acquired by a court over the person of:
1. the plaintiff in a special civil action for mandamus?
2. the defendant in an action for unlawful detainer
3. Over the Res
Jurisdiction over the “thing” in dispute which
may be acquired by seizure. Applies generally to
actions involving:
(a) personal status of plaintiff
(b) property within the Philippines
[When jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
cannot be obtained.]
4. Over the Issues
The authority of the court to try and decide
the issues raised in the pleadings of the
parties.
Acquired by the court after defendant files
his answer, unlike subject matter jurisdiction
which is acquired upon filing.