Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
JURISDICTION by Mind Map: JURISDICTION

1. 2. JURISDICTION OVER PERSON

1.1. THE COMPETENCE OR POWER OF A COURT TO RENDER JUDGMENT THAT WILL BIND PARTIES TO A CASE

1.2. HOW ACQUIRED?

1.2.1. 1. JURISDICTION OF PLAINTIFF

1.2.2. -

1.2.2.1. is acquired from the moment he invokes the aid or power of the court by instituting an action through proper pleading

1.2.3. JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT

1.2.4. A. NON - RESIDENT (GEMPERLE V. SCHENKER)

1.2.4.1. In an accion in personam where the defendant is a non-resident, substituted service of summons does not apply. However, by way of exception, substituted service of summons may be effected, if the following requisites are present: 1. The summons is served to the spouse of the defendant 2. The spouse must be residing in the Philippines 3. The spouse is appointed as attorney-in-fact of the spouse defendant in a previous case involving the non-resident spouse.

1.2.5. B. RESIDENTS, WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN (MACASAET V. CO)

1.2.5.1. As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court; but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.

1.2.6. C. FOREIGN CORPORATION (FRENCH OIL MILL MACHINERY V. RTC

1.2.6.1. 1. Under the Rules of Court, if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, summons may be served on (a) its resident agent designated in accordance with law; (b) if there is no resident agent, the government official designated by law to that effect, or (c) any of its officer or agent within the Philippines.

1.2.6.2. 2. For purposes of the rules on summons, the determination of principal-agent relationship from the allegations in the complaint is only preliminary and is not even conclusive as to liability. Nothing bars the court from later making a different finding after the parties had substantiated their respective allegations with respect to agency should the same be disputed

2. 3. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

2.1. Jurisdiction over the particular subject matter in controversy, regardless of the persons who may be interested therein.

2.2. HOW ACQUIRED?

2.2.1. 1. Seizure of property under the legal process

2.2.2. 2. Institution of legal proceedings where the court’s power over the property is recognized and made effective

3. 1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

3.1. It is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.

3.2. HOW ACQUIRED?

3.2.1. 1. CONFERRED BY LAW (PERKINS V ROXAS)

3.2.2. the nature of the cause of action

3.2.3. and of the relief sought,

3.2.4. conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court,

3.2.5. and is to be sought for in

3.2.6. general nature of its powers,

3.2.7. or in authority specially conferred

3.2.7.1. 2. MINIMUM CONTRACT TEST (INTERNATIONAL SHOE V. WASHINGTON)

3.2.8. The U.S. Supreme Court first established the minimum contacts test for determining whether a corporation is subject to the jurisdiction of a state court. Under the Court’s holding, the Constitution’s Due Process only requires that corporations have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so as to comply with the “traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice.”