WHAT IS JURISDICTION? VENUE?

> Power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear and determine certain
controversies
> Power of courts to hear and determine a controversy involving rights which are demandable
and enforceable

VENUE
-Particular country or geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction may hear or
determine a case
-Procedural
-In civil cases, may be waived or stipulated by the parties

JURISDICTION
-Power of the court to decide a case on the merits
-Place of trial

-Substantive
-Granted by law or by the constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated

IN CRIMINAL CASES, IS VENUE AND JURISDICTION ONE

> This is different from civil cases, wherein venue and jurisdiction are different with one another
Venue vs Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction and venue are words that are related to law. Jurisdiction is the authority given to a
legal body for hearing a case. Venue is the place where a case is heard.
Venue is the place where the suit is filed. In another term, venue decides the locality of a suit.
Venue can be any region such as a country or a district or a town or a city.
When talking of jurisdiction, there are three concepts; such as, personal jurisdiction, subject
matter jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction means the right of the
court over a person, and here the position of the individual is not so important. Subject matter
jurisdiction means the right over the subject. Territory jurisdiction means the right over a
region or territory. The court does not have the right to hear cases that fall outside its
jurisdiction.
As said earlier, venue is the place where a case is filed. In criminal cases, the venue will be the
locality where the crime has been committed such as the judicial district, town, or country. In
civil cases, the venue will be the principal defendants residence or the place where a contract
was carried out. But sometimes the parties concerned may change the venue for convenience.
And in case a suit is filed in a different venue, the defendant can readily demand for shifting the
venue.
Though these two words are related to law and courts, the two words are very much
connected. In all cases, the venue of any crime is important as well as that of the jurisdiction.

Summary
In all cases, the venue of any crime is important as well as that of the jurisdiction.
Venue is the place where the lawsuit is filed. Venue can be any region such as a country or a
district or a town or a city.
Jurisdiction is the authority given to a legal body for hearing a case.
When talking of jurisdiction, there are three concepts; such as, personal jurisdiction, subject
matter jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction.
In criminal cases, the venue will be the locality where the crime has been committed such as
the judicial district or town or country.
In civil cases, the venue will be the principal defendants residence or the place where a
contract was carried out.
The court does not have the right to hear cases that fall outside its jurisdiction.
DEVORAH E. BARDILLON vs. BARANGAY MASILI
Facts:

Two lots measuring 144 square meters was to be expropriated by Bargy Masili for the purpose
of constructing a barangay hall. However, the barangay and the lot owners could not agree with the
purchase price of Php 200,000.

The first complaint was filed before the MTC. Whereas, the second complaint was filed before
the RTC.

The MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of interest of the petitioner lot owners.

The RTC stated that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case. It also ruled in favor of Brgy
Masili.

Issue/s:

1. WON the MTC has jurisdiction over the case of expropriation;

2. WON the State is barred from expropriating the property by reason of res judicata; and

3. Legality of entry into the premises subject of expropriation.

Ruling:

The SC held that the expropriation proceedings is within the jurisdiction of the RTC because it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. As discussed:

xx 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 property for public use. As such, it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the regional trial courts. xx

As regards to the second issue, the principle of res judicata does not apply against the inherent
powers of the State. The SC has this to say:

xx Res judicata literally means a matter adjudged, judicially acted upon or decided, or settled
by judgment. It provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar
to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.

The following are the requisites of res judicata: (1) the former judgment must be final;

(2)the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a
judgment on the merits; and (4) there is -- between the first and the second actions -- an identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action.

Since the MTC had no jurisdiction over expropriation proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata
finds no application