Title Rem-Canonical-Doctrines.pdf ✅

U.P LAW BOC abon3298 REMEDIAL LAW Page 2 of 60 abon3298 Nature of Philippine Courts CASE DOCTRINE NOTES Albino v. Wallis G.R. No. 223434 | July 3, 2019 | J. Peralta COURTS OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION Under Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall have limited jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of IP/ICC only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group; but if such claims and disputes arise between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the proper regular courts shall have jurisdiction. Only when the claims involve the following matters shall the NCIP have primary jurisdiction regardless of whether the parties are non-ICC/IP, or members of different ICC/IP groups: (1) adverse claims and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral domains/lands; (2) cancellation of fraudulently issued Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title; and (3) disputes and violations of ICC/IP's rights between members of the same ICC/IP group. Local Government of Sta. Cruz, Davao Del Sur v. Provincial Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform G.R. No. 204232 | Oct. 16, 2019 | J. Reyes, Jr. PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the SC and CA have concurrent jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs, but such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. The Court enumerated 8 exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts: 1. When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time 2. When the issues involved are of transcendental importance 3. Cases of first impression 4. The constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court 5. Exigency in certain situations 6. The filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ 7. When petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression 8. The petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in People v. Azarraga (2011) and Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) Heirs of Casiño, Sr. v. Development DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in Lapu-Lapu Devt Corp v. Group
U.P LAW BOC abon3298 REMEDIAL LAW Page 3 of 60 abon3298 Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 204052- 53 | Mar. 11, 2020 | J. Hernando Various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. Management Corp (2002) and Villamor v. Salas (1991) JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of Various Philippine Courts CASE DOCTRINE NOTES Muñez v. People G.R. No. 247777 | Aug. 28, 2019 | J. Lazaro-Javier COURT OF APPEALS The Court of Appeals does not have appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts pertaining to violations of RA 3019. The assailed rulings should, therefore, be vacated and the case, remanded to the court of origin for referral to the proper forum — the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners are not responsible for the error in transmitting the case, such duty rests on the shoulders of the clerk of court. Montero v. Montero, Jr. G.R. No. 217755 | Sept. 18, 2019 | J. Caguioa REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof. Thus, if the relief prayed for involves the reconveyance of property, it is not incapable of pecuniary estimation, and it the jurisdiction shall be determined by the assessed value of the property involved. This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in Home Guaranty v. R-II Builders (2011) Philippine-Japan Active Carbon Corp v. Borgaily G.R. No. 197022 | Jan. 15, 2020 | J. Carandang REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS When the lease contract had already expired and the plaintiff filed an action for the return of the security deposit, this makes out a case for collection of sum of money and not for breach of contract. Hence, jurisdiction over the subject matter whether it be with the RTC or MTC is determined by following the threshold values. This is opposed to the principle that where the basic issue of the case is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is merely incidental to the principal relief sought, then the subject matter of the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation, and is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in Heirs of Padilla v. Magdua (2010) Spouses Soller v. Singson G.R. No. 215547 | Feb. 3, 2020 | J. J.C. Reyes, Jr. HOW JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED AND DETERMINED As conferred by Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC has jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject matter under litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. One of which, as established by jurisprudence, is a complaint for injunction. This doctrine is consistent with the rulings in Heirs of Padilla v. Magdua (2010).