Jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide cases. There are different types of jurisdiction including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by law and cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties. Remedial law governs procedures for enforcing rights or obtaining redress, while substantive law creates and defines rights. Courts can lose jurisdiction if a new law prohibits continued exercise of jurisdiction or if a defendant is deprived of constitutional rights. Jurisdiction is divided among trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court based on factors like the type of case, amount in controversy, and whether an appeal is involved.

1. 1
I. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
REMEDIAL LAW is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion [Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640]. It is also known as
Adjective Law.
SUBSTANTIVE LAW is one which creates, defines, and regulates rights.
PROCEDURE is the method of conducting a judicial proceeding. It includes whatever is
embraced in the technical terms, pleadings, practice, and evidence. It is the means by which the
power or authority of a court to hear and decide a class of cases is put to action [Manila
Railroad vs. Atty. General, 20 Phil. 523].
JURISDICTION is the power to hear and decide cases [Herrera vs. Baretto & Joaquin, 25 Phil.
245]. It is the power with which courts are invested with the power of administering justice, that
is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of a case
on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties [Republic
Planters Bank vs. Molina, 166 SCRA 39].
JURISDICTION VENUE
The authority to hear and determine a case The place where the case is to be heard or
tried
A matter of substantive law A matter of procedural law
Establishes a relation between the court and
the subject matter
Establishes a relation between plaintiff and
defendant, or petitioner and respondent
Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the
parties
May be conferred by the act or agreement of
the parties
PRINCIPLE OF THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION is a situation where the court is
called upon to decide a particular situation and release the parties from their correlative
obligations but if it would result in adverse consequences to the parties and the public, the court
would go beyond its power to avoid negative consequences in the release of the parties [Agne vs.
Director of Lands, 181 SCRA 793; Naga Telephone Co. vs. CA, 48 SCAD 539].
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:
(1) Jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of
the case
(2) Jurisdiction over the
parties
(3) Jurisdiction over the res
It is conferred by law (BP
129), and does not depend on
the objection or the acts or
omissions of the parties or
anyone of them [Republic vs.
Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515].
Jurisdiction over the person
of the plaintiff is acquired by
the filing of the initiatory
pleading, like a complaint.
It is acquired by the seizure of
the thing under legal process
whereby it is brought into
actual custody of law, or it
may result from the institution
of a legal proceeding wherein

2. 2
It is not waivable, except in
cases of estoppel to question
or raise jurisdiction [Tijam
vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA
29].
It is determined upon the
allegations made in the
complaint, irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is
entitled or not, to recover
upon the claim asserted
therein, a matter resolved
only after and as a result of
the trial.
Jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant is acquired
by the proper service of
summons, or by his voluntary
appearance in court and his
submission to the authority of
the court [Paramount
Industries vs. Luna, 148
SCRA 564].
the power of the court over
the thing is recognized and
made effective [Banco-
Español Filipino vs. Palanca,
37 Phil. 291].
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION:
(1) Territorial jurisdiction (2) Jurisdiction over the
subject matter
(3) Jurisdiction over the
person of the accused
It is determined by the
geographical area over which
a court presides, and the fact
that the crime was committed,
or any of its essential
ingredients took place within
said area [US vs. Jueves, 23
Phil. 100].
It is determined by the
allegations of the complaint
or information in accordance
with the law in force at the
time of the institution of the
action, not at the time of its
commission [US vs. Mallari,
24 Phil. 366].
It is acquired by the voluntary
appearance or surrender of
the accused or by his arrest
[Choc vs. Vera, 64 Phil.
1066].
INSTANCES WHEN A COURT MAY LOSE JURISDICTION EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN
ATTACHED TO IT:
1 When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for the continued exercise of
jurisdiction [Rilloraza vs. Arciaga, 21 SCRA 717].
2 Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent
law. The reason is that, the State loses the power to prosecute when the law is
repealed, hence, the court has no more power to decide [People vs. Pastor, 77 Phil.
1000].
3 When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to
provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not
intelligently waive his constitutional right [Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663].
4 When the proceeding s in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned

3. 3
or declared void [Seven vs. Pichay, 108 Phil. 419].
5 When the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment [Bengzon vs. Inciong, 91 SCRA
284].
6 Once appeal has been perfected [Alma vs. Abbas, 18 SCRA 836].
7 When the law is curative [Garcia vs. Martinez, 90 SCRA 331].
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY: Should one branch be permitted to equally assert,
assume, or retain jurisdiction over a case in controversy over which another coordinate or co-
equal branch has already assumed jurisdiction, then that would be sanctioning undue
interference by one branch over another. With that, judicial stability would be meaningless
precept in a well-ordered administration of justice [Parcon vs. CA, 111 SCRA 262].
JURISDICTION OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of the kind, nature, value or amount therof;
provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. [Sec. 2, RA 7691].
JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (RTC):
1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000, or
for civil actions in Metro Manila where such value exceeds P50,000 except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC;
3. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds
P200,00, or in Metro Manila where such demand or claim exceeds P400,00;
4. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds P200,00 or probate mattes in Metro Manila where such value exceeds P400,000;
5. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising juridicial or quasi-judicial functions;
7. In all civil actions and civil proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as
now provided by law; and
8. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest and damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost or the value of the property in

4. 4
controversy exceeds P200,000, or in such other cases in Metro Manila where the
demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds P400,000.
JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS (CA):
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs;
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders,
or awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards, or omissions,
except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
with the Constitution, the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1948;
4. The CA shall have the power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary
to resolve factual issues raised in (a) cases falling within its original jurisdiction, such as
actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs, (b) cases falling within its appellate
jurisdiction where a motion for new trial based only on newly discovered evidence is
granted by it.
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT (SC):
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and other petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement,
or law, which shall be heard by the SC en banc, and all other cases which under the
Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of the majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberation on
the issues in the case and voted thereon;
3. Cases on matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence
of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of
such Members.
4. The Supreme Court has the power to:
(a) exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus;
(b) review, revise, reverse, modify, of affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(1) all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulations
is in question;

5. 5
(2) all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto;
(3) all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
(4) all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed in reclusive perpetua or higher;
(5) all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
CLASSES OF JURISDICTION:
General – power to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from the
plenary powers of the court.
Special or Limited – restricts the courts jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject to
such limitations as may be provided by the governing law.
Original – power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial
action for the first time under conditions provided by law.
Appellate – authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of
a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review.
Exclusive – power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at
that stage.
Concurrence/Confluent/Coordinate – power conferred upon different courts, whether of
the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the
same or different judicial territories.