Paragraph 2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Cases of Forcible Entry and Unlawful

February 18, 2020
CivPro Discussion
Sec. 33.
Last sentence:
Example:
1. If the same parties and cause of actions, all actions be consolidated (amount) then that’s the
jurisdictional amount.
2. Torregosa demanded 300K, then Galleon demanded 200K; all against Gravador. Then filed
separately before getting the jurisdictional amount. BUT what if the same Counsel for the creditor and
advised them to file one complaint. Then the jurisdictional amount will be the totality.
- Sec. 33. Rules of Court

Paragraph 2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer.
 It has to be filed in the first level courts regardless of the amount (assessed
value of the property), still has to be first level courts.
 Even when the defendant raised the issue of ownership, first level court shall
not be divested of its ownership.
 Even in when MTC passed a decision over the ownership, it is provisionally
allowed if the reason is to determine the right of the person over the possession
of the property in question.
 Read the case of BALIBAG.
Paragraph 3. Vest upon first level courts exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any property therein where
assessed value does not excess 20k (manila) and 50k (outside manila). ONLY THE
ASSESSED VALUE, the one appearing in the tax declaration. Exclusive of interest,
damages or whatever kind, declared for taxation purposes.
 How about quieting of title? (Originally, it’s with the RTC).
 Answer: Concha vs Lumocso – defendants assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC
over a parcel of land. The plaintiff said it cannot be applied because it is a
quieting of title. SC said even when the action is an action for a quieting of title,
the jurisdiction is based on the assessed value of the real property involved. THE
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION THAT THIS KIND OF CASE IS INCAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION is misplaced.
 The ruling of Concha was reiterated in Sebe vs Sevilla
 BUT, there’s a contradicting ruling. In the case of Sabitsana vs Muertegui, SC
said quieting of title is not capable of pecuniary estimation so go to RTC. This
case was ruled on 2013.
 Which one is controlling now? The controlling doctrine is _________________.
Toregossa and Moteclar believe that Concha is more reasonable because the
reason of the amendment (RA 7691) is precisely to unclog the case load of RTC.
Also, the amendment of the law is a substantive law, contrary to Sabitsana was
held pursuant to the Rules of Court, which is procedural.
- Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction
 Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and registration case. MTCs may be assigned

by the SC to hear and determine cadastral and land registration cases covering
where there is no controversy or opposition.
 Or contested or opposed but the value of the property does not exist 100k.
 The 100k is only applicable IF THERE IS OPPOSITION. Absent such, MTC still has
jurisdiction regardless of the amount of the real property involved.
 The decision of the MTC shall be appealable in the same manner as how
decisions in the RTC is done. Meaning, go to CA directly if you want to appeal.
- Sec. 35. Special Jurisdiction in certain cases.

 In the absence of all the RTC judges in a province or city, any Metopolitan Trial
Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, MCTC Judge may hear and decide petition for a
writ of habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal cases in the province or
city where the absent RTC Judge sits.
 Example: All of the RTC Judges are attending a convention, so Sec 35 comes into
play. The reason is that such petition is in a nature of an urgent situation.
 The moment the judges come back, MTC must endorse the case to said RTC.
Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
- Sec 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases – RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
Paragraph 1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Examples:
1.An Action for expropriation as it rather deals with the exercise of the
government of its authority and right to take private property.
2. An action seeking to annul a resolution of a GOCC.
3. An action for injunction against the adverse
4. Action for recognition of an illegitimate child and support
5. Interpretations of Contracts
6. Declaratory Relief
7. Petition for correction of entries in the Birth records.
 The problem is brought upon by RA 7691. What if the action is a specific

performance and it involves real property?
 Answer: Saraza vs Francisco. This is a case of specific performance involving
acquisition of real property. SC said the action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Because what is sought is the execution of the obligation. Hence,
cognizable by the RTC regardless of the value of the property.
 BUT THERE IS A CONTRADICTING RULING: The case of Ruiz vs Tuazon. Also
involves an action for specific performance to execute a deed of sale in favor of
the plaintiff. Issue is where is jurisdiction? BUT SC said the action is one for
recovery of a property involved. Although is titled to be one of specific
performance, but the fact the he wants the property to be issued in his favor, IF
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE AND NATURE IS ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY OR ON
OWNERSHIP, then jurisdictional value.
 HOWEVER, in the case of Russel VS Vestil, the issue is recovery of property , SC
said that the main purpose of the plaintiff was to annul the contract, then
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
 Partition – Real Action (so jurisdictional amount)
 Rescission of Partition – incapable of pecuniary estimation
 Specific Performance (purpose is nullity of contract) – incapable of pecuniary
estimation
 Take Note the case of Ruiz (about specific performance) – no contract here.
Only alleged that there has been sale. So real action ni.
 Foreclosure of Mortgage – Real Action (jurisdictional amount)
 Nullity of Foreclosure – incapable of pecuniary estimation.
ANSWER: Ascertain the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. You determine the primary
objective of the case. It would depend on that.
Example:
1. If the purpose is to obtain title to real property it is considered as real action.
Atty’s Opinion: If not rooted in a pre-existing contract, this is almost always, a real property. But if we
have a pre-existing contract, whatever you do with it, whether enforce or rescind, it is almost always an
action of incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Paragraph 2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Cases of Forcible Entry and Unlawful

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paragraph 2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Cases of Forcible Entry and Unlawful

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paragraph 2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Cases of Forcible Entry and Unlawful

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 18, 2020

- Sec. 33. Rules of Court

 Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and registration case. MTCs may be assigned

- Sec. 35. Special Jurisdiction in certain cases.

Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts

 The problem is brought upon by RA 7691. What if the action is a specific

You might also like