a.

Court of Appeals In the case at bar, substantial ends of justice warranted the referral of the case to the appellate
BP 129, as amended by RA 7902, Sec. 9 and RA 8246 court for further appropriate proceedings.

Question of law, fact or both 

CGP Transport v. PU Leasing GR 164547 Mar 28, 2007
Although the form or mode of the original petition filed by herein respondent PCI from the d. Court of Tax Appeals
Order of the RTC was a special civil action for certiorari, an incorrect mode of appeal there RA 9282; RA 9503
being questions of fact as assigned errors, i.e., the existence and relevancy of specific
surrounding circumstance, their relation to each other and to the whole situation, this Court, in
order to serve the demands of substantial justice, considers and disposes of the case as an e. Sandiganbayan
appeal by certiorari instead. Pres. Decree No. 1606 as amended by Rep. Act. No. 7975 and 
In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. In petitions Rep. Act No. 8249
such as the one filed in G.R. No. 150483, questions of fact may not be the proper subject of
appeal under Rule 45 as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law . Well
entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. The resolution of factual f. Regional Trial Courts
issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with
respect and are in fact binding on us subject to certain exceptions. Cases where an Republic Act No. 11576, Sec. 1
appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or both fall within the exclusive appellate BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, Sec. 5
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. This is attested to by Section 15, Rule 44 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The section reads: Incapable of pecuniary estimation 
Agarrado et al v. Agarrado June 6, 2018 GR No. 212413
SEC. 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal. - x x x he may include in his assignment To be sure, according to the recent case of Foronda-Crystal vs. Son, jurisdiction is defined as
of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. To exercise this, the court or
within the issues framed by the parties. adjudicative body must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter,which is
conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by
It was on this score that we referred the subject petition to the appellate court. erroneous belief of the court that it exists.
Under Section 5(f) of Rule 56 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal may
be dismissed on the ground of erroneous choice or mode of appeal. Said section reads: Jurisdiction over cases for partition of real properties therefore, like all others, is
determined by law. Particularly, the same is identified by Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of the
SEC. 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - The appeal MAY be dismissed motu proprio or Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act 7691.
on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:

(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal. The provisions state that in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction where
This notwithstanding, the Court may refer the case to the Court of Appeals under par. 2, the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00 or, for civil actions in Metro Manila,
Section 6 of the same rule. Said section states: where such value exceeds P50,000.00. For those below the foregoing threshold amounts,
exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts
SEC. 6. Disposition of improper appeal. - x x x (MTC), or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC).25
An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court submitting
issues of fact may be referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. The
Thus, the determination of the assessed value of the property, which is the subject matter of
determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be
the partition, is essential. This, the courts could identify through an examination of the
final. [Emphasis supplied.]
allegations of the complaint.
This Court's discretion to refer the case to the Court of Appeals is by reason of the term "may"
in both sections. Such term denotes discretion on our part in dismissing an appeal or referring
one to the Court of Appeals. According to the case of Tumpag vs. Tumpag, it is a hornbook doctrine that the court should
only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its
Besides, it must be borne in mind that procedural rules are intended to ensure proper jurisdiction. According to the case of Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Cruz, et al., only these facts
administration of law and justice. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very can be the basis of the court's competence to take cognizance of a case, and that one cannot
rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. 26 A advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to
deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after determine the nature of the action thereby initiated.
all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of the courts.
According to Foronda-Crystal, failure to allege the assessed value of a real property in 7. RODRIGO AGARRADO died intestate and leaving no debts. Upon his death, plaintiffs by
the complaint would result to a dismissal of the case. The reason put forth by the Court is operation of law, became co-owners of the afore-described property jointly with the other
that: heirs, the herein defendants;

x x x absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property,  it cannot be 8. Demand thru counsel has been made by the herein plaintiffs upon the defendants for the
determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over partition of the subject property, but the same was simply ignored. Copy of the Demand Letter
the petitioner's action. Indeed, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market is hereto attached and marked as Annex 'D' and forming part hereof." 33
value of the land. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
None of these assertions indicate the assessed value of the property to be partitioned that
This same ratio has been repeated in a number of cases, including the cases of Spouses Cruz would invariably determine as to which court has the authority to acquire jurisdiction . More,
vs. Spouses Cruz, et al.30 and Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, where the Court concluded none of the documents annexed to the complaint and as attached in the records of this case
that: indicates any such amount Thus, the petitioners are correct in restating their argument against
the RTC's jurisdiction, for it has none to exercise.
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, Clearly, therefore, jurisprudence has ruled that an action for partition, while one not
all proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming the RTC. capable of pecuniary estimation, falls under the jurisdiction of either the first or second level
courts depending on the amounts specified in Secs. 19(2) and 33(3) of B.P. 129, as amended.
Based on the foregoing, in Foronda-Crystal, the Court already established the rules that have Consequently, a failure by the plaintiff to indicate the assessed value of the subject
to be followed in determining the jurisdiction of the first and second level courts. It said: property in his/her complaint, or at the very least, in the attachments in the complaint as
ruled in Foronda-Crystal, is dismissible because the court which would exercise
jurisdiction over the same could not be identified.
A reading of the quoted cases would reveal a pattern which would invariably guide both the
bench and the bar in similar situations. Based on the foregoing, the rule on determining the
assessed value of a real property, insofar as the identification of the jurisdiction of the Consequently, as the complaint in this case is dismissible for its failure to abide by the rules
first and second level courts is concerned, would be two-tiered : in Foronda-Crystal, then the Court sees no further necessity to discuss the other issues raised.

First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real
property as alleged in the complaint; and Tabar v. Abella-Abelgas, G.R. No. 206376 July 6, 2022

Bokingco v. CA, GR No. 161739, May 4, 2006

Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed value of the property, while not In this connection, it is well to note that the Court had the occasion to explain that "in
alleged in the complaint, could still be identified through a facial examination of the determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
documents already attached to the complaint. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action, or remedy sought must first be
ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
On the basis of this most recent ruling, the Court is without any recourse but to agree with the capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount of
petitioners in dismissing the complaint filed before the RTC for lack of jurisdiction. the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
A scouring of the records of this case revealed that the complaint did indeed lack any principal relief sought, the action is one where the subject of litigation may not be
indication as to the assessed value of the subject property. In fact, the only reference to the estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by Regional Trial Courts."13
same in the complaint are found in paragraphs six, seven, and eight thereof, which state that: As gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought by the respondents in their
complaint is for the court a quo to issue an injunction against petitioner Bokingo and his
"6. Meanwhile, during the lifetime of Rodrigo Agarrado, he acquired certain real and personal representatives to permanently enjoin them from preventing the survey of the subject land
properties due to his hard work, one of which is the parcel of land with improvements standing
thereon, located at Barangay Villamonte, Bacolod City, more particularly described as
follows, to wit: What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion
publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is
limited to the question of possession de facto. An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal)
xxxx together with forcible entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover
possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or
the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action
to recover ownership which includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of An action to quiet title is to be brought as a special civil action under Rule 63 of the  Rules of
actions to judicially recover possession.15 Court. Although Section 1 of Rule 63 specifies the forum to be "the appropriate Regional Trial
Court," the specification does not override the statutory provision on jurisdiction. This the
Significantly, the respondents’ complaint has not sought to recover the possession or Court has pointed out in Malana v. Tappa,34 to wit:
ownership of the subject land. Rather, it is principally an action to enjoin petitioner Bokingo To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second paragraph
and his representatives from committing acts that would tend to prevent the survey of the of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be read together with those of
subject land. It cannot be said therefore that it is one of a possessory action. The respondents, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended.
as plaintiffs in the court a quo, to be entitled to the injunctive relief sought, need to establish
the following requirements: (1) the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) that the acts It is important to note that Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically
against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of the said right. As such, the require that an action to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word "may"-
subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable that an action for quieting of title "may be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for
exclusively by the court a quo, a Regional Trial Court under Section 19 (1) of BP Blg. declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition for declaratory relief "may x x x
129, as amended by RA 7691: bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court." The use of the word "may" in a
statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
opportunity or an option.
jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended,
estimation; uses the word shall and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where
xxx the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00, thus:

Hence, the court a quo did not err in denying petitioner Bokingo’s motion to dismiss. xxxx
As found by the RTC, the assessed value of the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration
No. 02-48386 is only P410.00; therefore, petitioners Complaint involving title to and
Salvador v. Patricia Inc. GR No. 195834 Nov 9, 2016 possession of the said property is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the
For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the trial court must interpret and apply the law RTC.
on jurisdiction in relation to the averments or allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint The complaint of the petitioners did not contain any averment of the assessed value of the
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims property. Such failure left the trial court bereft of any basis to determine which court could
asserted therein. Based on the foregoing provision of law, therefore, the RTC had jurisdiction validly take cognizance of the cause of action for quieting of title. Thus, the RTC could not
over the cause of action for injunction because it was one in which the subject of the litigation proceed with the case and render judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Although neither the
was incapable of pecuniary estimation. But the same was not true in the case of the cause of parties nor the lower courts raised jurisdiction of the trial court in the proceedings, the issue
action for the quieting of title, which had the nature of a real action — that is, an action that did not simply vanish because the Court can hereby motu proprio consider and resolve it now
involves the issue of ownership or possession of real property, or any interest in real by virtue of jurisdiction being conferred only by law, and could not be vested by any act or
property — in view of the expansion of the jurisdiction of the first level courts under Republic omission of any party.
Act No. 7691, which amended Section 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 effective on April
15, 1994,32 to now pertinently provide as follows:          Phil-Japan Active Carbon Corp. v. Borgaily, G.R. No. 197022, Jan 15, 2020
In order to determine whether the subject matter of an action is one which is capable of
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must be considered.
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – If it is primarily for recovery of a sum of money, then the claim is considered as capable of
pecuniary estimation, and the jurisdiction lies with the municipal trial courts if the amount of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall the claim does not exceed P300,000.00 outside Metro Manila, and does not exceed
exercise: P400,000.00 within Metro Manila. However, where the basic issue of the case is something
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, possession of, other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is merely
real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest incidental to the principal relief sought, then the subject matter of the action is not capable
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro of pecuniary estimation, and is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceeds (sic) Fifty thousand pesos The CA held that the allegations of the complaint filed by petitioner make out a case for
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation breach of contract where an action for specific performance is an available remedy. Since the
expenses and costs: x x x same is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the same is cognizable by the RTC. The refund of
the P90,000.00 security deposit was merely incidental to the main action for specific
As such, the determination of which trial court had the exclusive original jurisdiction over the performance.
real action is dependent on the assessed value of the property in dispute. The CA was mistaken in appreciating the facts of the case. Contrary to its ruling, a perusal of
the complaint filed by petitioner makes out a case for collection of sum of money and not
for breach of contract. It is to be noted that the lease agreement had already expired
when petitioner filed an action for the return of the security deposit. Since the lease had Records show that at the time plaintiffs-appellees filed their complaint below, R.A.
already expired, there is no more contract to breach.30 The demand for the return of the No. 7691 which amended Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 was already in effect. However, the
security deposit was merely a collection suit. What the petitioner prayed for before the complaint failed to allege the assessed value of the real property involved. Although appellant
MTCC was the return of the amount of P90,000.00, and not to compel respondent to comply indeed raised the issue of jurisdiction in his answer, he had not filed a motion to dismiss on
with his obligation under the lease agreement. As such, the CA erred when it held that the this ground nor reiterated the matter thereafter but actively participated in the proceedings
MTCC has no jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the same for lack of jurisdiction after the denial of his demurrer to evidence anchored on the failure of the plaintiffs to identify
in their complaint all the heirs of the registered owner and supposed lack of technical
Respondent pleaded as counterclaim in his answer the cost of the repairs amounting to description of the property in the certificate of title. Indeed, appellant is now estopped to
P79,534.00, which he incurred in fixing the two units leased by the petitioner. Petitioner question the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the case having
rendered the two apartment units hazardous because petitioner recklessly and with impunity actively pursued throughout the trial, by filing various pleadings and presenting all relevant
disregarded all norms of decent living. Petitioner destroyed the two apartment units and documentary and testimonial evidence, his theory that the portion occupied by him is not
rendered it inhabitable and in need of major repairs. Thus, while respondent must return the covered by the torrens title of Eusebio Villegas. [16]
security deposit to petitioner, respondent had the right to withhold the same and to apply it to
the damages incurred by the apartment units occupied by petitioner. The RTC found that We agree.
respondent spent a total of P79,534.00 for the repairs on the leased premises. Petitioner, when
it occupied the apartment units, acknowledged that the leased premises were in good and As already shown, nowhere in the complaint was the assessed value of the subject
tenantable condition. Petitioner shouldered all expenses for repairs of the apartment units, property ever mentioned. There is no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC has
regardless of its nature, and that upon termination of the lease, petitioner must surrender the jurisdiction exclusive of the MTC. Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the
premises, also in the same good and tenantable condition when taken, with the exception of assessed value of the property, it cannot readily be determined which of the two trial
ordinary wear and tear. However, photographs of the extent of the damage on the leased courts had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.[17]
premises presented during trial showed that when petitioner vacated the apartment units, they
were in need of major repairs. The repairs undertaken by respondent were all covered by The general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any
receipts, which the latter furnished to petitioner. The failure of petitioner to inspect the repairs stage of the proceedings.[18] Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the
undertaken by respondent, despite notice of the same, bars petitioner to question the propriety court may dismiss a claim or a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the
of the repairs on the apartment units. Therefore, the RTC was correct when it ordered the evidence on record that any of those grounds exists, even if they were not raised in the answer
offsetting of the P90,000.00 security deposit to the expenses of the repairs amounting to or in a motion to dismiss. [19] The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of
P79,534.00. it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on
the action.[20]

Recovery of possession However, estoppel sets in when a party participates in all stages of a case before
challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court. One cannot belatedly reject or repudiate its
Honorio Bernardo v. Heirs of Eusebio Villegas GR 183357 Mar 15, 2010 decision after voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction, just to secure affirmative relief against
Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the plenary action of accion publiciana must be brought one's opponent or after failing to obtain such relief. The Court has, time and again, frowned
before the regional trial courts. With the modifications introduced by Republic Act No. upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting a case for decision and then accepting the
7691[14] in 1994, the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts was limited to real actions where judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.
the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00, and P50,000.00 where the action is filed in Metro
Manila, thus Significantly, the Technical Report on Verification Survey [25] by Engineer Robert C.
Pangyarihan, which was attached to and formed part of the records, contained a tax
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. -- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive declaration[26] indicating that the subject property has an assessed value of P110,220.00.
original jurisdiction: It is basic that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the
presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency.[27] Un
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or der Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC in fact has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty action.
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer Taking into consideration the decision of the MTC proclaiming that the case is one
of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial for accion publiciana and the assessed value of the property as evidenced by the case records,
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. jurisdiction pertains, rightfully so, with the RTC. Perforce, the petition should be denied.

Under the law as modified, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property.
A reading of the complaint shows that respondents failed to state the assessed value of the Encarnacion v. Amigo, GR No. 169793 Sep 15, 2006
disputed land.
   Lagundi v. Bautista, G.R. No. 207269, July 26, 2021 Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the petition for habeas
corpus and insists that jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the family courts under RA
Issue of constitutionality  8369. He invokes Section 5(b) of RA 8369:
Planters Products v. Fertiphil GR 166006 Mar 14, 2008
Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. – The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
Quasi judicial agency/Labor cases jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
Badillo v. CA GR 131903 June 26, 2008 b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
Tumaodos v. San Miguel Yamamura Packaging Corp. 
GR No. 241865 Feb 19, 2020 Petitioner is wrong.

CIAC  In Thornton v. Thornton,7 this Court resolved the issue of the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to
|||  Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. v. Ross Systems  issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in the light of the provision
  International, Inc., G.R. Nos. 230112 & 230119, May 11, 2021 in RA 8369 giving family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over such petitions:

The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the case since there is nothing in RA
RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court 
8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of
Land Bank v. Ralla Balista GR 164631 Jun 26, 2009
minors.
Default jurisdiction  We rule therefore that RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Mun of Pateros v. CA GR 157714 Jun 16, 2009 Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors.
Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development  The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the Court of
  Republic Act No. 11201, Feb 14, 2019 (with IRR) Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the custody of minors.
(formerly HLURB) Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092 [An Act Expanding the
Ma. Luisa Dazon v. Kenneth Yap and People Jan 15, 2010  Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals] and BP 129 [The Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980] are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court of Appeals and
Family Courts the Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas corpus in cases involving the custody of
Sec 5, RA 8369 Family Courts Act of 1997 minors. Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages 129 – that family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at
A.M. No. 02-11-11 Rule on Legal Separation issue.8 (emphases supplied)
A.M. No. 02-11-12 Rule on Provisional Orders
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over petitions for habeas corpus was further affirmed
Relation to Custody of Minors by A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ
A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC Rule on Guardianship of Minors of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors:
A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC Rule on Adoption
Summary Proceedings under the Family Code, Title XI, Chapters 1 to 3 on In any case, whatever uncertainty there was has been settled with the adoption of A.M.
separation in fact between husband and wife or abandonment by one of the other and No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation
incidents involving parental authority;  to Custody of Minors. Section 20 of the rule provides that:
Chapter 4 on Art. 41 (declaration of a spouse as presumptively dead),  Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. – A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus
Art. 51 (action of a child for presumptive legitime),  involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be
Art. 69 (judicial declaration of family domicile in case of disagreement of the enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.
spouses), 
Art. 73 (spouse’s objection to the profession of the other spouse),  The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any
Arts. 96 and 124 (annulment of husband’s decision in the administration and of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
enjoyment of community or conjugal property; appointment of spouse as sole Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court within
administrator except cases of “incompetent” other spouse which shall be under the region where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and
Rules 93 and 95) and Art. 217 (entrusting children to homes and orphanages). decision on the merits.

Madrinan v. Madrinan GR 159374 Jul 12, 2007 From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have
concurrent jurisdiction with family courts in habeas corpus cases where the custody of
minors is involved.9 (emphases supplied)
We note that after petitioner moved out of their Parañaque residence on May 18, 2002, he b) between the corporation, partnership, or association and its stockholders, partners,
twice transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions. This situation is members, or officers;
what the Thornton interpretation of RA 8369’s provision on jurisdiction precisely addressed:
c) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the State as far as its
[The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and
the lawmakers intended them to be the sole courts which can issue writs of habeas corpus]
will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like [respondent] without legal d) among the stockholders, partners, or associates themselves. [Emphasis
recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals who do not know the whereabouts supplied.]
of minors they are looking for would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family
The existence of any of the above intra-corporate relations was sufficient to confer jurisdiction
courts whose writs are enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a
to the SEC, regardless of the subject matter of the dispute. This came to be known as
minor is being transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case here,
the relationship test.
the petitioner in a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy. This lack of
recourse could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when they passed [RA However, in the 1984 case of DMRC Enterprises v. Esta del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc.,21 the
8369].10 Court introduced the nature of the controversy test. We declared in this case that it is not the
mere existence of an intra-corporate relationship that gives rise to an intra-corporate
Moreover, a careful reading of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals that family courts are
controversy; to rely on the relationship test alone will divest the regular courts of their
vested with original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, not in habeas corpus cases.
jurisdiction for the sole reason that the dispute involves a corporation, its directors, officers, or
Writs of habeas corpus which may be issued exclusively by family courts under Section 5(b)
stockholders. We saw that there is no legal sense in disregarding or minimizing the value of
of RA 8369 pertain to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in conjunction with a
the nature of the transactions which gives rise to the dispute.
petition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the
issuance of the writ is merely ancillary to the custody case pending before the family court. Under the nature of the controversy test, the incidents of that relationship must also be
The writ must be issued by the same court to avoid splitting of jurisdiction, conflicting considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether the controversy itself is intra-
decisions, interference by a co-equal court and judicial instability. corporate.22 The controversy must not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate
relationship, but must as well pertain to the enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and
The rule therefore is: when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all
obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of
auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed
the corporation. If the relationship and its incidents are merely incidental to the
by such court or officer.11 Once a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case,
controversy or if there will still be conflict even if the relationship does not exist, then no
it does so to the exclusion of all other courts, including related incidents and ancillary matters.
intra-corporate controversy exists.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED.
The Court then combined the two tests and declared that jurisdiction should be determined by
considering not only the status or relationship of the parties, but also the nature of the question
Yu v. Yu GR 164915 Mar 10, 2006 under controversy.23 This two-tier test was adopted in the recent case of Speed Distribution,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals:24
Commercial Courts
To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to be
Sec. 5.2, RA 8799
heard and decided by the branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court
A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-corporate
to try and decide such cases, two elements must concur: (a) the status or
Controversies
relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject
A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC dated June 21, 2016 
of their controversy.
A.M. 00-8-10-SC Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation 
The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate or
Oscar Reyes v. RTC Makati GR 165744 Aug 11, 2008 partnership relations between any or all of the parties and the corporation,
Intra-Corporate Controversy partnership, or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates;
between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership, or association of which
A review of relevant jurisprudence shows a development in the Court’s approach in
they are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively; and between such
classifying what constitutes an intra-corporate controversy. Initially, the main consideration in
corporation, partnership, or association and the State insofar as it concerns their
determining whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy was limited to a
individual franchises. The second element requires that the dispute among the
consideration of the intra-corporate relationship existing between or among the parties. 19 The
parties be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. If the nature
types of relationships embraced under Section 5(b), as declared in the case of Union Glass &
of the controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character, necessarily, the
Container Corp. v. SEC,20 were as follows:
case does not involve an intra-corporate controversy.
a) between the corporation, partnership, or association and the public;
Given these standards, we now tackle the question posed for our determination under the
specific circumstances of this case:
Application of the Relationship Test In Abejo and TCL Sales, the transferees held definite and uncontested titles to a specific
number of shares of the corporation; after the transferee had established prima
Is there an intra-corporate relationship between the parties that would characterize the case as facie ownership over the shares of stocks in question, registration became a mere formality
an intra-corporate dispute? in confirming their status as stockholders. In the present case, each of Anastacia’s heirs
holds only an undivided interest in the shares. This interest, at this point, is still inchoate and
We point out at the outset that while Rodrigo holds shares of stock in Zenith, he holds them in
subject to the outcome of a settlement proceeding; the right of the heirs to specific, distributive
two capacities: in his own right with respect to the 4,250 shares registered in his name, and as
shares of inheritance will not be determined until all the debts of the estate of the decedent are
one of the heirs of Anastacia Reyes with respect to the 136,598 shares registered in her
paid. In short, the heirs are only entitled to what remains after payment of the decedent’s
name. What is material in resolving the issues of this case under the allegations of the
debts;29 whether there will be residue remains to be seen. Justice Jurado aptly puts it as
complaint is Rodrigo’s interest as an heir since the subject matter of the present controversy
follows:
centers on the shares of stocks belonging to Anastacia, not on Rodrigo’s personally-owned
shares nor on his personality as shareholder owning these shares. In this light, all reference to No succession shall be declared unless and until a liquidation of the assets and debts
shares of stocks in this case shall pertain to the shareholdings of the deceased Anastacia and left by the decedent shall have been made and all his creditors are fully paid. Until a
the parties’ interest therein as her heirs. final liquidation is made and all the debts are paid, the right of the heirs to inherit
remains inchoate. This is so because under our rules of procedure, liquidation is
Article 777 of the Civil Code declares that the successional rights are transmitted from
necessary in order to determine whether or not the decedent has left any liquid
the moment of death of the decedent. Accordingly, upon Anastacia’s death, her children
assets which may be transmitted to his heirs.30 [Emphasis supplied.]
acquired legal title to her estate (which title includes her shareholdings in Zenith), and they
are, prior to the estate’s partition, deemed co-owners thereof. 25 This status as co-owners, Rodrigo must, therefore, hurdle two obstacles before he can be considered a stockholder of
however, does not immediately and necessarily make them stockholders of the corporation. Zenith with respect to the shareholdings originally belonging to Anastacia. First, he must
Unless and until there is compliance with Section 63 of the Corporation Code on the prove that there are shareholdings that will be left to him and his co-heirs , and this can be
manner of transferring shares, the heirs do not become registered stockholders of the determined only in a settlement of the decedent’s estate. No such proceeding has been
corporation. Section 63 provides: commenced to date. Second, he must register the transfer of the shares allotted to him to make
it binding against the corporation. He cannot demand that this be done unless and until he has
Section 63. Certificate of stock and transfer of shares. – The capital stock of stock
established his specific allotment (and prima facie ownership) of the shares. Without the
corporations shall be divided into shares for which certificates signed by the
settlement of Anastacia’s estate, there can be no definite partition and distribution of the estate
president or vice-president, countersigned by the secretary or assistant secretary, and
to the heirs. Without the partition and distribution, there can be no registration of the transfer.
sealed with the seal of the corporation shall be issued in accordance with the by-
And without the registration, we cannot consider the transferee-heir a stockholder who may
laws. Shares of stock so issued are personal property and may be transferred by
invoke the existence of an intra-corporate relationship as premise for an intra-corporate
delivery of the certificate or certificates indorsed by the owner or his attorney-in-fact
controversy within the jurisdiction of a special commercial court.
or other person legally authorized to make the transfer. No transfer, however, shall
be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is recorded in the In sum, we find that – insofar as the subject shares of stock (i.e., Anastacia’s shares) are
books of the corporation so as to show the names of the parties to the concerned – Rodrigo cannot be considered a stockholder of Zenith. Consequently, we cannot
transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the certificate or declare that an intra-corporate relationship exists that would serve as basis to bring this
certificates, and the number of shares transferred. [Emphasis supplied.] case within the special commercial court’s jurisdiction under Section 5(b) of PD 902-A,
as amended. Rodrigo’s complaint, therefore, fails the relationship test.
No shares of stock against which the corporation holds any unpaid claim shall be
transferable in the books of the corporation. Application of the Nature of Controversy Test
Simply stated, the transfer of title by means of succession, though effective and valid between The body rather than the title of the complaint determines the nature of an action.31 Our
the parties involved (i.e., between the decedent’s estate and her heirs), does not bind the examination of the complaint yields the conclusion that, more than anything else, the
corporation and third parties. The transfer must be registered in the books of the complaint is about the protection and enforcement of successional rights. The controversy it
corporation to make the transferee-heir a stockholder entitled to recognition as such presents is purely civil rather than corporate, although it is denominated as a "complaint
both by the corporation and by third parties.26 for accounting of all corporate funds and assets."
We note, in relation with the above statement, that in Abejo v. Dela Cruz27 and TCL Sales Contrary to the findings of both the trial and appellate courts, we read only one cause of action
Corporation v. Court of Appeals28 we did not require the registration of the transfer before alleged in the complaint. The "derivative suit for accounting of the funds and assets of the
considering the transferee a stockholder of the corporation (in effect upholding the existence corporation which are in the control, custody, and/or possession of the respondent [herein
of an intra-corporate relation between the parties and bringing the case within the jurisdiction petitioner Oscar]" does not constitute a separate cause of action but is, as correctly claimed by
of the SEC as an intra-corporate controversy). A marked difference, however, exists between Oscar, only an incident to the "action for determination of the shares of stock of deceased
these cases and the present one. spouses Pedro and Anastacia Reyes allegedly taken by respondent, its accounting and the
corresponding delivery of these shares to the parties’ brothers and sisters." There can be no
mistake of the relationship between the "accounting" mentioned in the complaint and the
objective of partition and distribution when Rodrigo claimed in paragraph 10.1 of the act on questions of title or ownership in a collation or advancement situation in Coca v.
complaint that: Pangilinan33 where we ruled:

10.1 By refusal of the respondent to account of [sic] his shareholdings in the It should be clarified that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the
company, he illegally and fraudulently transferred solely in his name wherein [sic] Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
the shares of stock of the deceased Anastacia C. Reyes [which] must be properly probate jurisdiction is in reality not a jurisdictional question. In essence, it is a
collated and/or distributed equally amongst the children including the complainant procedural question involving a mode of practice "which may be waived."
Rodrigo C. Reyes herein to their damage and prejudice.
As a general rule, the question as to title to property should not be passed upon in
We particularly note that the complaint contained no sufficient allegation that justified the the testate or intestate proceeding. That question should be ventilated in a separate
need for an accounting other than to determine the extent of Anastacia’s shareholdings for action. That general rule has qualifications or exceptions justified by expediency and
purposes of distribution. convenience.

Another significant indicator that points us to the real nature of the complaint are Rodrigo’s Thus, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or testate
repeated claims of illegal and fraudulent transfers of Anastacia’s shares by Oscar to the proceeding the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece
prejudice of the other heirs of the decedent; he cited these allegedly fraudulent acts as basis for of property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action.
his demand for the collation and distribution of Anastacia’s shares to the heirs. These claims
tell us unequivocally that the present controversy arose from the parties’ relationship as heirs Although generally, a probate court may not decide a question of title or
of Anastacia and not as shareholders of Zenith. Rodrigo, in filing the complaint, is enforcing ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one of
his rights as a co-heir and not as a stockholder of Zenith. The injury he seeks to remedy is one collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction
suffered by an heir (for the impairment of his successional rights) and not by the corporation by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired, the probate
nor by Rodrigo as a shareholder on record. court is competent to decide the question of ownership. [Citations omitted.
Emphasis supplied.]
More than the matters of injury and redress, what Rodrigo clearly aims to accomplish through
his allegations of illegal acquisition by Oscar is the distribution of Anastacia’s shareholdings In sum, we hold that the nature of the present controversy is not one which may be
without a prior settlement of her estate – an objective that, by law and established classified as an intra-corporate dispute and is beyond the jurisdiction of the special
jurisprudence, cannot be done. The RTC of Makati, acting as a special commercial court, has commercial court to resolve. In short, Rodrigo’s complaint also fails the nature of the
no jurisdiction to settle, partition, and distribute the estate of a deceased. A relevant provision controversy test.
– Section 2 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court – that contemplates properties of the
decedent held by one of the heirs declares:
Stephen Ku v. RCBC Securities October 17, 2018 G.R. No. 219491
Questions as to advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased
to any heir may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the
estate proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the
person raising the questions and on the heir. [Emphasis supplied.] g. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts/Circuit Trial Courts
Worth noting are this Court’s statements in the case of Natcher v. Court of Appeals: 32
Republic Act No. 11576, Sec. 1
BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, Secs. 2 to 4
Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent
Rules on Summary Procedure
fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its
The Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 
limited jurisdiction.

It is clear that trial courts trying an ordinary action cannot resolve to perform Unlawful detainer v. agrarian dispute 
acts pertaining to a special proceeding because it is subject to specific prescribed Sps Fajardo v. Anita Flores GR 167891 Jan 15, 2010
rules. [Emphasis supplied.] The issue in this case is whether it is MTC or the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the
case.
That an accounting of the funds and assets of Zenith to determine the extent and value of
Anastacia’s shareholdings will be undertaken by a probate court and not by a special There is no dispute that, on June 28, 1991, the parties executed an agreement, denominated as
commercial court is completely consistent with the probate court’s limited jurisdiction. It "KASUNDUAN NG PAGHAHATI NG LUPA AT PAGTATALAGA NG DAAN UKOL SA
has the power to enforce an accounting as a necessary means to its authority to determine the MAGKABILANG PANIG." Therein, it was admitted that Jesus Fajardo was the tiller of the
properties included in the inventory of the estate to be administered, divided up, and land. This Kasunduan was subsequently followed by another agreement, "KASUNDUAN SA
distributed. Beyond this, the determination of title or ownership over the subject shares HATIAN SA LUPA," whereby an area of 10,923 sq m of Lot No. 2351 was given to
(whether belonging to Anastacia or Oscar) may be conclusively settled by the probate court as petitioners. The portion of the land where petitioners’ house is erected is the subject of the
a question of collation or advancement. We had occasion to recognize the court’s authority to
instant case for unlawful detainer. Respondent argues that this portion is not included in the "Indeed, section 21 of the Republic Act No. 1199, provides that ‘all cases involving the
deed of partition, while petitioners insist that it is. dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and
disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and tenant . . . shall be under
We agree with the RTC when it clearly pointed out in its Order dated December 10, 2002 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.’ This jurisdiction
the resolution of this case hinges on the correct interpretation of the contracts executed by the does not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and tenant—at the time of the
parties. The issue of who has a better right of possession over the subject land cannot be dispute. The same may have arisen, and often times arises, precisely from the previous
determined without resolving first the matter as to whom the subject property was termination of such relationship. If the same existed immediately, or shortly, before the
allotted. Thus, this is not simply a case for unlawful detainer, but one that is incapable of controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has been
pecuniary estimation, definitely beyond the competence of the MTC. 11 lawfully terminated, or if the dispute springs or originates from the relationship of landlord
and tenant, the litigation is (then) cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . . ."
More importantly, the controversy involves an agricultural land, which petitioners have
continuously and personally cultivated since the 1960s. In the Kasunduan, it was admitted that In the case at bar, petitioners’ claim that the tenancy relationship has been terminated by the
Jesus Fajardo was the tiller of the land. Being agricultural lessees, petitioners have a right to a Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the
home lot and a right to exclusive possession thereof by virtue of Section 24, R.A. No. 3844 of termination of the relationship, or if the dispute originates from such relationship, the case is
the Agricultural Land Reform Code.12 Logically, therefore, the case involves an agrarian cognizable by the DAR, through the DARAB. The severance of the tenurial arrangement
dispute, which falls within the contemplation of R.A. No. 6657, or the Comprehensive will not render the action beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute. 15
Agrarian Reform Law.
Furthermore, the records disclose that the dispute between the parties, regarding the
An agrarian dispute13 refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether interpretation of the Kasunduan, was, in fact, raised and referred to the DAR, which in turn
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including referred the case to the DARAB. 16 In view of the foregoing, we reiterate Hilario v.
disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or representation of persons in negotiating, Prudente,17 that:
fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over
this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special
farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in competence. For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian
the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and Reform (DAR); more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
lessee. It relates to any controversy relating to, inter alia, tenancy over lands devoted to (DARAB).
agriculture.14

Undeniably, the instant case involves a controversy regarding tenurial arrangements. The
contention that the Kasunduans, which allegedly terminated the tenancy relationship between Recovery of possession 
the parties and, therefore, removed the case from the ambit of R.A. No. 6657, is untenable. Vda De Barrera et al v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR 174346 
There still exists an agrarian dispute because the controversy involves the home lot of Sept 12, 2008
petitioners, an incident arising from the landlord-tenant relationship. Ouano v. PGTT Gr No. 134230 July 7, 2002
Heirs of Generoso Sebe v. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla GR No. 174497 
● Amurao v. Villalobos is quite instructive: Oct 12, 2009
The instant case undeniably involves a controversy involving tenurial arrangements because
the Kasulatan will definitely modify, nay, terminate the same. Even assuming that the tenancy
relationship between the parties had ceased due to the Kasulatan, there still exists an agrarian h. Barangay Lupon
dispute because the action involves an incident arising from the landlord and tenant
relationship. RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) Secs 399-422
SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 29 July 3, 1989
In Teresita S. David v. Agustin Rivera, this Court held that:
Substantial compliance 
[I]t is safe to conclude that the existence of prior agricultural tenancy relationship, if true, will Leo Wee v. George de Castro et al GR 1764095 Aug 20, 2008
divest the MCTC of its jurisdiction the previous juridical tie compels the characterization of Caasi v. Sacramento, G.R. No. 243054, March 3, 2021
the controversy as an "agrarian dispute." x x x Even if the tenurial arrangement has been
severed, the action still involves an incident arising from the landlord and tenant relationship.
Where the case involves the dispossession by a former landlord of a former tenant of the land
claimed to have been given as compensation in consideration of the renunciation of the
tenurial rights, there clearly exists an agrarian dispute. On this point the Court has already
ruled: