Brgy. San Roque vs. Heirs of Francisco Pastor

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Accordingly, it falls within the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts, regardless of the value of the subject property.

Facts:

Petitioner Brgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu a Complaint to expropriate a property of the respondents heirs of Francisco Pastor. The MTC dismissed the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that "eminent domain is an exercise of the power to take private property for public use after payment of just compensation. In an action for eminent domain, therefore, the principal cause of action is the exercise of such power or right. The fact that the action also involves real property is merely incidental. An action for eminent domain is therefore within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not with this Court."

The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when filed before it, holding that the action for eminent domain or condemnation of real property is a real action affecting title to or possession of real property, hence, it is the assessed value of the property involved which determines the jurisdiction of the court. Section 3, paragraph (3), of Republic Act No. 7691, provides that all civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00 are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts. The Tax Declaration shows that the assessed value of the land involved is only P1,740.00. Hence, it is the MTC which has jurisdiction.  

Issue:

Who has jurisdiction in expropriation cases?

Held:

RTC.

Test to determine whether a suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. 

If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. 

However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now RTC). 

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation

An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private property for public use. 

The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government’s exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation.

To emphasize, the question in the present suit is whether the government may expropriate private property under the given set of circumstances. The government does not dispute respondents’ title to or possession of the same. Indeed, it is not a question of who has a better title or right, for the government does not even claim that it has a title to the property. It merely asserts its inherent sovereign power to "appropriate and control individual property for the public benefit, as the public necessity, convenience or welfare may demand." (Brgy. San Roque vs. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, G.R. No. 138896. June 20, 2000)

read more...

Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals

The doctrine that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the RTC regardless of the value of the property -- no longer holds true.  As things now stand, a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within. A complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the parties

Facts:

The heirs of Juan dela Cruz filed a complaint for recovery of a parcel of land with damages before RTC Cagayan against Victorino Quinagoran. 

Quinagoran filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to include all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein which does not exceed P20,000.00.  He argued that since the 346 sq m lot which he owns adjacent to the contested property has an assessed value of P1,730, the assessed value of the lot under controversy would not be more than the said amount.

The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the action is accion publicciana and therefore, its jurisdiction lies in the RTC, regardless of the value of the property.  The CA affirmed decision of the RTC.

RTC appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that under RA 7691, the jurisdiction falls in the MTC. He likewise avers that it is an indispensable requirement that the complaint should allege the assessed value of the property involved. The complaint does not alleged that the assessed value of the land in question is more than P20,000.00. There was also no tax declaration attached to the complaint to show the assessed value of the property. Respondents, therefore, failed to alleged that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The tax declaration submitted to the CA likewise shows that the value of the property is only P551.00.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over all cases of recovery of possession regardless of the value of the property involved?

2. Whether the complaint must allege the assessed value of the property

Held:

Jurisdiction over accion publiciana

The doctrine that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the RTC regardless of the value of the property -- no longer holds true.  As things now stand, a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within.

Republic Act No. 7691 expressly provides:

SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

(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 Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

In Atuel v. Valdez  G.R. No. 139561, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 517),  the Court likewise expressly stated that: Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.  Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction “in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property.”  However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property.

Allegation of the assessed value

In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action. This is because the nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein. 

Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed value of the subject property ever mentioned.  There is therefore no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the respondents. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. The courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land. 

Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the parties.  Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.

Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the motion to dismiss.  Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming the RTC. (Victorino Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 155179, August 24, 2007)

read more...

Jurisdiction over Complex Crime

Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must logically be lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the complex crime. A complex crime must be prosecuted integrally, as it were, and not split into its component offenses and the latter made the subject of multiple informations possibly brought in different courts. (Cuyos vs. Garcia, G.R. L46934, April 15, 1988)

read more...

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is perhaps one of the most often amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997. Before RA 8249, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was determined on the basis of the penalty imposable on the offense charged. Then, it was amended such that regardless of the penalty, so long as the offense charged was committed by a public officer, the Sandiganbayan was vested with jurisdiction. Under RA 8249, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, lawyers must look into two (2) criteria, namely:

• The nature of the offense and
• The salary grade of the public official.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Exclusive:

Thus, Sec.4 of RA 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive jurisdiction over:

1.)  Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law);

2.)  RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);

3.)  Crimes by public officers or employees embraced in Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII,   Book II of the RPC (Crimes committed by Public Officers) namely:

      a. Direct Bribery (Art. 210 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985);

      b. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985);

      c. Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A as amended by RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993);

      d. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212)

where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

A. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 Republic Act No. 6758) specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine Army and Air Force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

B.  Members of Congress and Officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;

C. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;

D. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;

E.  All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

4.)  Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed in relation to their office by the public officials and employees mentioned above;

5.)  Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986

6.)  OTHERS provided the accused belongs to SG 27 or higher:

a.)   Violation of RA 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards

b.)   Violation of RA 7080 - THE PLUNDER LAW

c.)    Violation of RA 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law

d.)  RA 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money Laundering Law when committed by a public officer

e.)   PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree which makes it punishable for any official or employee to receive directly or indirectly and for the private person to give or offer to give any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion including Christmas, when such gift, present or valuable thing is given by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or his immediate relatives.

f.)    PD 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Art.210, 211 or 212 of the RPC, RA 3019, Sec.345 of the NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned and other laws, rules and regulations penalizing graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse and who willingly testifies against the public official or employee subject to certain conditions.

It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.

Concurrent with Supreme Court: 

• Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court 

• Quo Warranto arising in cases falling under said EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

The Sandiganbayan is vested with Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary Grade 27.

Meaning of crime committed "in relation to their office" 

●  The offense need not be connected with the official duties. It is enough that it is in relation to office (Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-56384, March 22, 1984).

● A public official and employee commits a crime "in relation to their office" if the offense was intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetuated while he is in the performance of his official function. Mere allegation in the information that the offense was commited by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused's official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999).

read more...

Jurisdiction of Family Courts

Family courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases:

1. Where an accused or victim is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense

2. Against minors charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165)

3. Involving violations of RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Act), as amended by RA 7658

4. RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003)

5. Involving domestic violence against women and children under RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004)

6. Involving child pornography (RA 9775, 2009)

Source: Criminal Procedure by Diosdado Peralta, Handbook for Judges

read more...

Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts

REGULAR CASES

1. Offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, or a fine exceeding P4,000.00, when the offender's position carries a salary scale lower than grade 27.

1. All other offenses where the imposable penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the fine, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offense or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof.

SPECIAL CASES

1. Libel is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and maximum periods or fine or both. Libel committed by public officers in relation to their office is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of RTC. This would normally under the exclusive jurisdiction of MTCs. However, by law this was expressly placed under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.

2. Dangerous Drugs cases. 

3. Violations of the Intellectual Property Code regardless of the imposable penalty. 

Source: Criminal Procedure by Diosdado Peralta, Handbook for Judges

read more...

Expanded Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts

1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions 

2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years (1) irrespective of the amount of the fine, and (2) regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof 

3. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence regardless of the value of the property.

4. Crimes Punishable by Destierro.

5. In the absence of all Regional Trial Court Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, and Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit. 

● A municipal trial court has jurisdiction over a case of simple seduction (Art. 338, RPC), as amended, with arresto mayor, regardless of the civil liability, such as the support and acknowledgment of the offspring that may be imposed under Article 345 of the same Code.

● Impossable accessory penalties that should not be considered in determining jurisdiction of MTCs refer to the accessory penalties accompanying:

 - pricion correccional

 - arresto menor

 - confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds and instruments of the crime prescribed in Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code

● Where the offense charge is within the exclusive competence of the Municipal Trial Court by reason of the penalty (imprisonment, etc.) it shall have jurisdiction to try and decide the case, even if the civil liability (such as actual, compensatory, etc.) claimed exceeds its civil jurisdiction.

● Where the imposable penalty is destierro such as that imposed in the case of concubinage in the crime of concubinage as defined in Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, considering that in the hierarchy of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, destierro follows arresto mayor which involves imprisonment.

Source: Criminal Procedure by Diosdado Peralta, Handbook for Judges

read more...

Requisites for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed; 
3. Jurisdiction determined by allegations of Complaint or Information; and,
4. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.


JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER

Philippine courts have no common law jurisdiction or power, but only those expressly conferred by the Constitution and statutes and those necessarily implied to make the express grant of jurisdiction effective.

The question of jurisdiction of the court over the case filed before it is to be resolved on the basis of the law or statute providing for or defining its jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined not by the law in force at the time of the commission of offense but by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.

Once vested, jurisdiction cannot be withdrawn or defeated by a subsequent valid amendment of the information.

JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORY WHERE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED

General Rule: A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place.

Exceptions: 

1. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court may order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice
2. When the law provides otherwise – e.g., Presidential Decree No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be known as 'Sandiganbayan' and for other purposes, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1861. 
3. Continuing crimes committed during a voyage.
4. Offenses committed under RA 9372 Human Security Act of 2007

JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

The averments in the complaint or information identify the crime charged and determine the court before which it must be tried.

To determine the jurisdiction of the court in a criminal case, the complaint or information must be examined to ascertain if the facts set out therein and the penalty prescribed by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court regardless of the court’s findings after the trial.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF ACCUSED

is acquired either by his/her arrest or voluntary appearance in court.

The voluntary appearance of the accused is accomplished either by his

1. pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction)
2. appearing for arraignment, entering trial, or
3. by filing bail

On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule, the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.

Source: Criminal Procedure by Diosdado Peralta, Handbook for Judges

read more...

Criminal Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it, if conviction results

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:

1. penalty attached 

2. nature of the offense charged

3. territorial jurisdiction over place of crime commission

●  The jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the penalty imposable, and not by the penalty ultimately imposed. 

●  The additional penalty for habitual delinquency is not considered in determining which court shall have jurisdiction over a criminal case because such delinquency is not a crime. 

●  The absence of any of these elements may be challenged by an accused at any stage of the proceedings in the court below or on appeal. Failing to comply with anyone of them, the resulting judgment of conviction is null and void.

Source: Criminal Procedure by Diosdado Peralta, Handbook for Judges

read more...