Aspects of jurisdiction

In Gina Villa Gomez vs. People of the Philippines,  G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020 , t the Supreme Court enumerated the different aspects of jurisdiction:

Semantically, "jurisdiction" is derived from the Latin words "juris" and "dico" which means "I speak by the law." In a broad and loose sense, it is "[t]he authority of law to act officially in a particular matter in hand." In a refined sense, it is "the power and authority of a court [or quasi-judicial tribunal] to hear, try, and decide a case." Indeed, a judgment rendered without such power and authority is void thereby creating no rights and imposing no duties on the parties. As a consequence, a void judgment may be attacked anytime.

Relatedly, the concept of jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and (4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation. Additionally, a court must also acquire jurisdiction over the remedy in order for it to exercise its powers validly and with binding effect. As to the acquisition of jurisdiction in criminal cases, there are three (3) important requisites which should be satisfied, to wit: (1) the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed; and, (3) the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Therefore, here are the different aspects of jurisdiction:

1. jurisdiction over the subject matter; 
2. jurisdiction over the parties; 
3. jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and 
4. jurisdiction over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation. 
5. jurisdiction over the remedy.

As to the acquisition of jurisdiction in criminal cases, there are three (3) important requisites:

1. jurisdiction over the subject matter; 
2. jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed; and
3. jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

 

 

Jurisdiction over the parties and over the res

Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the court's authority to issue a decision, order or resolution that is binding upon the Plaintiff and Defendant.

The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the Plaintiff when the latter files the Complaint and pays the docket or filing fee. This is equivalent to voluntary submission.

As for the Defendant, the court can acquire jurisdiction over his person when he is properly served with summons or when he voluntarily submits himself to the court's jurisdiction, as when he files an Answer to the Complaint or when he asks for an affirmative relief through a motion for extension of time to file an Answer.

There is a need for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the parties in actions in personam, "an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability" (Jorge C. Paderanga vs. Hon. Dimalanes B. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475 September 28, 1993).

However, the rule does not apply in actions in rem which is an action against the thing itself, in which the judgment is binding upon the whole world.

Explaining the concept of action in rem, quasi in rem and in personam, the Supreme Court stated in the case of Bobie Rose D. V. Frias, as represented by Marie Regine F. Fujitra vs. Rolando F. Alcayde, GR No. 104262, February 28, 2018:

Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. The phrase, "against the thing," to describe in rem actions is a metaphor. It is not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem action; only legal or natural persons may be parties even in in rem actions. The following are some of the examples of actions in rem: petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, correction of entries in the birth certificate; or annulment of marriage; nullity of marriage; petition to establish illegitimate filiation; registration of land under the Torres system; and forfeiture proceedings.

A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is names as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant. But, unlike suits in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties. The following are some of the examples of actions quasi in rem: suits to quiet title; actions for foreclosure; and attachment proceedings.

In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person. "In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective."

At this point, it is worthwhile to examine the differences among these concepts: actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem, personal actions and real actions. These distinctions were well explained in the case of Jorge C. Paderanga vs. Hon. Dimalanes B. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475, September 28, 1993:

Private respondent appears to be confused over the difference between personal and real actions vis-a-vis actions in personam and in rem. The former determines venue; the latter, the binding effect of a decision the court may render over the party, whether impleaded or not.

In the case before us, it is indubitable that the action instituted by private respondent against petitioner affects the parties alone, not the whole world. Hence, it is an action in personam, i.e., any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded. However, this does not automatically mean that the action for damages and to fix the period of the lease contract is also a personal action. For, a personal action may not at the same time be an action in rem. In Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., we held thus —

In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem.

Consequently, the distinction between an action in personam and an action in rem for purposes of determining venue is irrelevant. Instead, it is imperative to find out if the action filed is a personal action or real action. After all, personal actions may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court (then Court of First Instance) where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff. On the other hand, real actions should be brought before the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the subject property or part thereof lies.

With respect to actions quasi in rem, where the Defendant is a non-resident and was served with summons by publication only, the relief that may be granted by the court is confined to the res. The court cannot render judgment holding the non-resident personally liable. The Supreme Court explained this in Idonah Slade Perkins vs. Arsenio Dizon, GR No. 46631, November 16, 1930:

The action being in quasi in rem, the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process, summons has been served upon her by publication. There is no question as to the adequacy of publication made nor as to the mailing of the order of publication to the petitioner's last known place of residence in the United States. But, of course, the action being quasi in rem and notice having be made by publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine court must be confined to the res, it having no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the non-resident. In the amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money judgment or other relief in personam is prayed for against the petitioner. The only relief sought therein is that she be declared to be without any interest in the shares in controversy and that she be excluded from any claim thereto.

Doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction

In Republic vs. Maria Lourdes P.A. Serreno, GR NO. 237428, June 19, 2019, the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction thus:

Indeed, the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction implies the grant of necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate its jurisdiction and subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions, every regularly constituted court has power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates. Accordingly, "demands, matters or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action, and coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of by the court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original causes of action, would not be within its cognizance."

Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction or adherence of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is finally terminated. (Republic vs. Central Surety and Insurance Company, et al, GR No. L-27802, October 26, 1968) This is the doctrine of continuity or adherence of jurisdiction. "The jurisdiction of a court depends upon the state of facts existing at the time it is invoked, and if the jurisdiction once attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached" (Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565, 583 [1971]).

However, when the subject matter jurisdiction of a court was changed, and the change was curative in character, the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction does not apply. Thus, in Lucia Barrameda vda. De Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of Canaman Inc., GR No. 176260, November 24, 2010, the Supreme Court stated:

When a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to final determination of the case is not affected by a new legislation transferring jurisdiction over such proceedings to another tribunal. (Alindao v. Joson, 264 SCRA 211). Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation (Bernate v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 323).

The afore-quoted cases, cited by Lucia to bolster the plea for the continuance of her case, find no application in the case at bench.

Indeed, the Court recognizes the doctrine on adherence of jurisdiction. Lucia, however, must be reminded that such principle is not without exceptions. It is well to quote the ruling of the CA on this matter, thus:

This Court is not unmindful nor unaware of the doctrine on the adherence of jurisdiction. However, the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has exceptions. One of the exceptions is that when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Garcia v. Martinez, 90 SCRA 331 [1979]; Calderon, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 459 [1980]; Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v. Navarro, 149 SCRA 432 [1987]; Abad v. RTC of Manila, Br. Lll, 154 SCRA 664 [1987]).

For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 is curative in character when it declared that the liquidation court shall have jurisdiction in the same proceedings to assist in the adjudication of the disputed claims against the Bank.

Jurisdiction vs. Venue

 Venue is the place or locality where the case should be filed. Generally, for personal actions, it is the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff. For real actions, it is the place where the real property is located.

Venue is a procedural matter, meaning that it is determined by the Rules of Court. It can also be agreed upon by the parties, as when they stipulate in writing where disputes are to be settled as long as the stipulation is entered into before the dispute arises.

Objections based on improper venue should be raised by the defendant as an affirmative defense in the Answer. Otherwise , the objection is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case even if it is not the venue provided for by the rules of court or by stipulation .

Jurisdiction refers to the court where the case is to be filed, whether it should be the first level courts, second level courts, or higher courts. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be agreed upon by the parties. .

Since it is a matter of law, it cannot be waived and cannot be the subject of stipulation. Objections to lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised any time, even after the defendant has filed an Answer, or even after the court has rendered a judgment. The reason is that a judgment rendered by a court which has no subject matter jurisdiction over the case is null and void.

Error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment

When we say that a court has committed an error of jurisdiction, we mean that a court acted upon a case that is outside its subject matter jurisdiction. The decision or order will be void and the remedy for this error is a petition for certiorari (Rule 65). The purpose of a petition for certiorari is to annul or modify a decision or final order that was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

On the other hand , when a court commits an error of judgment, the decision is wrong because of lack of factual or legal basis but the court has subject matter jurisdiction. The remedy for this error is appeal.

Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the power of a court to hear and decide a case. This is conferred by law.

Exercise of jurisdiction is a matter of procedure governed by the Rules of Court. It refers to the court's act of taking cognizance of a case.

Explaining the concept of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court stated in MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondents, G.R. No. 209830 (June 17, 2015):

"Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action."

Exercise of jurisdiction is the topic of the case CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM, INC., by itself and comprising the Unit Owners of Concorde Condominium Building, Petitioner, vs. AUGUSTO H. BACULIO; G.R. No. 203678 (February 17, 2016).

This case involved an application for a writ of injunction raffled to Branch 149 of RTC Makati, designated as a Special Commercial Court. This branch dismissed the application for being an ordinary civil action. It contended that the case should have been raffled among the RTCs not designated as a Special Commercial Court.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not Branch 149 of RTC Makati erred in dismissing the application.

According to the Supreme Court, yes, there was an error. True, the remedy falls within the general jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the Special Commercial Court retained the power to exercise jurisdiction over injunction applications because it continues to have subject matter jurisdiction over all cases under general RTC jurisdiction.

Adherence of jurisdiction

Once a court has jurisdiction over the case, it continues to have jurisdiction until it is resolved.

In the case of SPOUSES DR. JOHN O. MALIGA AND ANNIELYN DELA CRUZ MALIGA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ABRAHIM N. TINGAO AND BAI SHOR TINGAO, RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 211089, July 11, 2023, the Supreme Court stated:

"... once a party exercises his or her choice of forum and files an action, such court shall retain jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. This is also known as the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction.

Thus, once acquired, jurisdiction operates to exclude all other courts with concurrent jurisdiction from acting on the same case until a decision is finally rendered and executed. As held by the Court in Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225 September 6, 2011):

"a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment."