NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW
I. JURISDICTION
1. It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide the case (Continental
Micronesia, Inc., vs. Basco, GR Nos. 178382-83, September 23, 2015; Barangay Mayamot vs.
Antipolo City, GR No. 187349, August 17, 2016). Jurisdiction of the court includes the authority
to execute its decision. It includes the power of the court to control the execution of its
decision (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, 108).
2. A commercial case was filed in an RTC which is not designated as a Commercial Court. The
said Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Is the dismissal correct? NO. The
dismissal is not correct. It should have been referred to the RTC designated by the SC as a
Commercial Court (Gonzales vs. GJH Land, 2015).
3. How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined? ANSWER: It is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief sought (Geronimo vs.
Calderon, GR No. 201781, December 10, 2014; Cabling vs. Dangcalan, GR No. 187696, June 15,
2016). This is regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the
claims or reliefs sought therein (Continental Micronesia, Inc., vs. Basco, GR Nos. 178382-83,
September 23, 2015; Barangay Mayamot vs. Antipolo City, GR No. 187349, August 17, 2016).
Thus, Caption of the case is not controlling (Sps. Erotica vs. Sps. Dumlao, GR no. 195477,
January 25, 2916). Defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction (Balibago Faith Baptis
Church, Inc., Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist church, GR No. 191527, August 22, 2016). The
amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction (Dionisio vs. Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471,
477).
4. What if the defendant in an ejectment case raise the issue of tenancy in his answer, should
the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction? ANSWER: While the MTC does not lose its
jurisdiction over an ejectment case by defendant’s alleging the existence of tenancy
relationship, yet, if after the hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown, the court should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction (De la Cruz, vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103, 116).
5. What is jurisdiction over the parties? Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the
court to make decisions that are binding on persons (De Pedro vs. Romasan, supra). It is the
legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against the party to an action or
proceeding (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 767, cting Imperial vs. Hardy, La 302 So.2d 5, 7,
cited in Riano, Civil Procedure, 2016).
6. How is jurisdiction over the parties acquired? Plaintiff upon the filing of the compliant.
Defendant – upon valid service of summons and voluntary appearance. To constitute voluntary
appearance, it must be the kind that amount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. Submission to the jurisdiction of the court takes the form of appearance that seeks
affirmative relief except when the relief sought is for the purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. Thus, if he participates in the trial
despite defective service of summons tantamounts to voluntary appearance (De Pedro vs.
Romasan Development, supra).
7. What is the concurrent jurisdiction? When two or more court can exercise original
jurisdiction over the case. For example, certiorari petition, the RTC, CA and SC have original and
concurrent jurisdiction. If this is the case, then, the PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS WILL
APPLY.
,8. Primary Jurisdiction - The doctrine holds that if a case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first
be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the
matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or
some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Nestle, Philippines,
Inc., et al. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., et al., 648 Phil. 451, 459 (2010).
II. FILING FEE
1. It has been long settled that while a court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon
payment of the docket fees, its non- payment at the time of the filing of the complaint does
not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, provided the fees are paid within a
reasonable time. Even inadequate payment of filing will not divest the court of its jurisdiction.
This rule is applicable even if the claim for damages of the plaintiffs is metered or progressing
as case the case is pending (Unicapital vs. Consing, 2013).
III. INDIGENT LITIGANT
1. Who is an indigent litigant? An indigent is someone whose income, and that of his
immediate family, does not exceed double the monthly minimum wage AND does not own real
property with the fair market value exceeding P300,000. If he is an indigent litigant, he is not
required to pay filing fee.
IV. ACTION
1. What is a cause of action? Act or omission by which a
party violates the right of another (Section 2, Rule 2).
2. What is the test to determine whether a complaint state a cause of action of not? If the
court can render a valid judgment based on the allegation in the complaint, the complaint
states a cause of action. As a general rule, evidence aliunde should not be considered. But
annexed documents to the complaint may be considered because they are part of the
complaint (Sea Land Service, Inc., vs. CA, 327 SCRA 135).
3. What is splitting of cause of action? An act of a party of instituting more than one suit for a
single cause of action. A single cause of action may give rise to several remedies. The
availment of these remedies is prohibited as it is tantamount to splitting of cause of action.
4. What is joinder of causes of action? It is the assertion in one pleading, in alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party (Sec. 5, Rule
2).
5. What are the conditions that the joinder of parties is subject to: 1) The joinder shall not
include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules; 2) Where the causes of
actions are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the cause of actions falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and venue lies therein; 3) Where the claims in all causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction (Section 5, Rule 2).
6. When is joinder of parties allowed? All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief
in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist,
whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
, Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any questions of
law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action
(Section 6, Rule 3).
V. PARTIES
1. Who is real party in interest? A real party in interest is the party who stand to be benefited
and injured by the judgment of the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
otherwise authorized by law or the rules of court, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Sec. 2, Rule 3). The determination of who
the real party in interest is requires the examination of elements of a cause of action. A cause
of action involves the existence of a right and violation of such right. Thus, the owner of the
right violated is the real party in interest as plaintiff and the one violating the right is the real
party in interest as defendant.
2. What is the effect if the party is not a real a real party-in- interest? The complaint may be
dismissed for lack of cause of action if the defendant is not the real-party-interest (Sec.1(g),
Rule 16). If the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, complaint may be dismissed under
(Section 1(d), Rule 16).
3. Who is an indispensable party? An indispensable party is rea party in interest without whom
no final determination can be had of an action. Indispensable parties shall be joined as
plaintiffs or defendants (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
4. What is the effect of failure to implead an indispensable party? Failure to join an
indispensable party will not result in the outright dismissal of the action. Instead, parties may
be dropped or added by the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of
the action and on such terms as are just. (Sec. 11, Rule 3). It is when the order of the court to
implead an indispensable party goes unheeded may the case be dismissed for failure to comply
with the order of the Court (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Plasabas vs. CA 582 SCRA 686). Any decision
rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction over indispensable parties
is null and void for want of jurisdiction (Florete, Jr. vs. Florete, Sr. GR 174909, January 20, 2016),
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present (People vs. Go, GR 201644,
September 24, 2014).
5. Who is a necessary party? It is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as
a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action (Sec. 8, Rule 3).
6. What is the duty of a pleader is a necessary party is not joined? Whenever in any pleading in
which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth the name
of the necessary party, if his name is known, and shall state why such party is omitted (Sec. 9,
Rule 3).
7. May the Court order joinder of necessary party? If the reason given for the non-joinder
of necessary party is found by the court not meritorious, it may order the pleader to join
the omitted party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
8. What is the effect of failure to comply with the order of the Court? It shall be deemed
a waiver of claim against such party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3)
9. What is the effect if the non-inclusion of the necessary party is justified? The non-inclusion
of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the
judgment
I. JURISDICTION
1. It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide the case (Continental
Micronesia, Inc., vs. Basco, GR Nos. 178382-83, September 23, 2015; Barangay Mayamot vs.
Antipolo City, GR No. 187349, August 17, 2016). Jurisdiction of the court includes the authority
to execute its decision. It includes the power of the court to control the execution of its
decision (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, 108).
2. A commercial case was filed in an RTC which is not designated as a Commercial Court. The
said Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Is the dismissal correct? NO. The
dismissal is not correct. It should have been referred to the RTC designated by the SC as a
Commercial Court (Gonzales vs. GJH Land, 2015).
3. How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined? ANSWER: It is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief sought (Geronimo vs.
Calderon, GR No. 201781, December 10, 2014; Cabling vs. Dangcalan, GR No. 187696, June 15,
2016). This is regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the
claims or reliefs sought therein (Continental Micronesia, Inc., vs. Basco, GR Nos. 178382-83,
September 23, 2015; Barangay Mayamot vs. Antipolo City, GR No. 187349, August 17, 2016).
Thus, Caption of the case is not controlling (Sps. Erotica vs. Sps. Dumlao, GR no. 195477,
January 25, 2916). Defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction (Balibago Faith Baptis
Church, Inc., Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist church, GR No. 191527, August 22, 2016). The
amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction (Dionisio vs. Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471,
477).
4. What if the defendant in an ejectment case raise the issue of tenancy in his answer, should
the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction? ANSWER: While the MTC does not lose its
jurisdiction over an ejectment case by defendant’s alleging the existence of tenancy
relationship, yet, if after the hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown, the court should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction (De la Cruz, vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103, 116).
5. What is jurisdiction over the parties? Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the
court to make decisions that are binding on persons (De Pedro vs. Romasan, supra). It is the
legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against the party to an action or
proceeding (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 767, cting Imperial vs. Hardy, La 302 So.2d 5, 7,
cited in Riano, Civil Procedure, 2016).
6. How is jurisdiction over the parties acquired? Plaintiff upon the filing of the compliant.
Defendant – upon valid service of summons and voluntary appearance. To constitute voluntary
appearance, it must be the kind that amount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. Submission to the jurisdiction of the court takes the form of appearance that seeks
affirmative relief except when the relief sought is for the purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. Thus, if he participates in the trial
despite defective service of summons tantamounts to voluntary appearance (De Pedro vs.
Romasan Development, supra).
7. What is the concurrent jurisdiction? When two or more court can exercise original
jurisdiction over the case. For example, certiorari petition, the RTC, CA and SC have original and
concurrent jurisdiction. If this is the case, then, the PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS WILL
APPLY.
,8. Primary Jurisdiction - The doctrine holds that if a case is such that its determination requires
the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first
be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the
matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction. The objective of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or
some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Nestle, Philippines,
Inc., et al. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., et al., 648 Phil. 451, 459 (2010).
II. FILING FEE
1. It has been long settled that while a court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon
payment of the docket fees, its non- payment at the time of the filing of the complaint does
not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, provided the fees are paid within a
reasonable time. Even inadequate payment of filing will not divest the court of its jurisdiction.
This rule is applicable even if the claim for damages of the plaintiffs is metered or progressing
as case the case is pending (Unicapital vs. Consing, 2013).
III. INDIGENT LITIGANT
1. Who is an indigent litigant? An indigent is someone whose income, and that of his
immediate family, does not exceed double the monthly minimum wage AND does not own real
property with the fair market value exceeding P300,000. If he is an indigent litigant, he is not
required to pay filing fee.
IV. ACTION
1. What is a cause of action? Act or omission by which a
party violates the right of another (Section 2, Rule 2).
2. What is the test to determine whether a complaint state a cause of action of not? If the
court can render a valid judgment based on the allegation in the complaint, the complaint
states a cause of action. As a general rule, evidence aliunde should not be considered. But
annexed documents to the complaint may be considered because they are part of the
complaint (Sea Land Service, Inc., vs. CA, 327 SCRA 135).
3. What is splitting of cause of action? An act of a party of instituting more than one suit for a
single cause of action. A single cause of action may give rise to several remedies. The
availment of these remedies is prohibited as it is tantamount to splitting of cause of action.
4. What is joinder of causes of action? It is the assertion in one pleading, in alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party (Sec. 5, Rule
2).
5. What are the conditions that the joinder of parties is subject to: 1) The joinder shall not
include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules; 2) Where the causes of
actions are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the cause of actions falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and venue lies therein; 3) Where the claims in all causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction (Section 5, Rule 2).
6. When is joinder of parties allowed? All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief
in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist,
whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
, Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any questions of
law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action
(Section 6, Rule 3).
V. PARTIES
1. Who is real party in interest? A real party in interest is the party who stand to be benefited
and injured by the judgment of the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
otherwise authorized by law or the rules of court, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Sec. 2, Rule 3). The determination of who
the real party in interest is requires the examination of elements of a cause of action. A cause
of action involves the existence of a right and violation of such right. Thus, the owner of the
right violated is the real party in interest as plaintiff and the one violating the right is the real
party in interest as defendant.
2. What is the effect if the party is not a real a real party-in- interest? The complaint may be
dismissed for lack of cause of action if the defendant is not the real-party-interest (Sec.1(g),
Rule 16). If the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, complaint may be dismissed under
(Section 1(d), Rule 16).
3. Who is an indispensable party? An indispensable party is rea party in interest without whom
no final determination can be had of an action. Indispensable parties shall be joined as
plaintiffs or defendants (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
4. What is the effect of failure to implead an indispensable party? Failure to join an
indispensable party will not result in the outright dismissal of the action. Instead, parties may
be dropped or added by the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of
the action and on such terms as are just. (Sec. 11, Rule 3). It is when the order of the court to
implead an indispensable party goes unheeded may the case be dismissed for failure to comply
with the order of the Court (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Plasabas vs. CA 582 SCRA 686). Any decision
rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction over indispensable parties
is null and void for want of jurisdiction (Florete, Jr. vs. Florete, Sr. GR 174909, January 20, 2016),
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present (People vs. Go, GR 201644,
September 24, 2014).
5. Who is a necessary party? It is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as
a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action (Sec. 8, Rule 3).
6. What is the duty of a pleader is a necessary party is not joined? Whenever in any pleading in
which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth the name
of the necessary party, if his name is known, and shall state why such party is omitted (Sec. 9,
Rule 3).
7. May the Court order joinder of necessary party? If the reason given for the non-joinder
of necessary party is found by the court not meritorious, it may order the pleader to join
the omitted party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
8. What is the effect of failure to comply with the order of the Court? It shall be deemed
a waiver of claim against such party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3)
9. What is the effect if the non-inclusion of the necessary party is justified? The non-inclusion
of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the
judgment
