Below is a comprehensive, straightforward discussion of the jurisdiction of the first-level courts—Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)—as affected by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11576. This write-up integrates the relevant provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended), the changes introduced by R.A. No. 11576, and practical considerations in Remedial Law practice.

1. Overview of First-Level Courts

1.1. Statutory Basis

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) originally established and defined the jurisdiction of the various courts in the Philippine judicial system, including:
- Regional Trial Courts (RTCs),
- Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
- Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs),
- Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and
- Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs).
Over the years, BP 129 has been amended several times to adjust jurisdictional thresholds and address docket congestion. One of the most significant recent amendments is Republic Act No. 11576 (approved on July 30, 2021, effective on August 6, 2021), which further expands the jurisdiction of the first-level courts.

1.2. Types and Locations

Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) – Located in the National Capital Region (Metro Manila).
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs) – Located in cities outside Metro Manila.
Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) – Located in municipalities (non-city local government units).
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) – Cover two or more municipalities consolidated into one judicial circuit.

Despite differences in nomenclature and location, these courts are generally referred to as first-level courts and share parallel jurisdictional parameters (with certain minimal variations depending on local or special laws).

2. Jurisdiction of First-Level Courts (Before and After R.A. 11576)

2.1. Civil Jurisdiction (Prior to R.A. 11576)

Historically (pre-2021 amendments), the first-level courts had exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where:

The amount of the demand or value of the property in controversy did not exceed ₱400,000 (for areas outside Metro Manila) or ₱500,000 (for cases filed in Metro Manila).
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (ejectment) cases, regardless of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals claimed.
Title to, or possession of, real property where the assessed value did not exceed ₱20,000 (outside Metro Manila) or ₱50,000 (in Metro Manila). (These figures had been modified by earlier amendments, but were still relatively low prior to R.A. 11576.)

2.2. Civil Jurisdiction (Under R.A. 11576)

With the enactment of R.A. No. 11576, the jurisdictional thresholds were significantly increased, particularly benefiting the first-level courts. The key changes are found under Section 33 of B.P. 129, as amended, which now read alongside R.A. 11576:

Actions involving personal property:
- The first-level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of the personal property in controversy does not exceed ₱2,000,000.
Actions involving real property (title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein):
- The first-level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction where the assessed value of the property does not exceed ₱400,000, or
- If there is no assessed value, the estimated value (fair market value) does not exceed ₱2,000,000.
Probate proceedings (testate or intestate):
- The first-level courts have jurisdiction over estates where the gross value does not exceed ₱2,000,000.
Admiralty or maritime claims:
- The first-level courts now have jurisdiction over these claims if the amount does not exceed ₱2,000,000.
Other civil actions:
- Where the subject of litigation is capable of pecuniary estimation, and the value of the demand (or claim) does not exceed ₱2,000,000, exclusive original jurisdiction lies with the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs.

Practical Effect: The increase to a ₱2,000,000 threshold means that a large number of civil cases that previously had to be filed with the Regional Trial Courts now fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, or MCTCs. This is intended to decongest the RTC docket and expedite the resolution of more straightforward or lower-value civil matters.

3. Criminal Jurisdiction of First-Level Courts

Although R.A. 11576 primarily focused on expanding civil jurisdiction, the basic parameters for criminal jurisdiction of the first-level courts remain important in understanding their overall authority:

Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine (except those offenses falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of particular courts by specific laws).
Violations of city or municipal ordinances (within their respective territorial jurisdictions).

R.A. 11576 did not significantly alter these established rules on criminal jurisdiction for first-level courts.

4. Special Civil Actions and Other Matters

4.1. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible entry (detainer by force) and unlawful detainer (failure to vacate upon demand after lease expiration or non-payment of rent).
The law (and Supreme Court circulars) underscores that these cases are to be filed in the first-level courts where the property is located, and this has remained unchanged by R.A. 11576.

4.2. Cadastral and Land Registration Cases (Delegated Jurisdiction)

By delegated jurisdiction, MTCs, MTCCs, MeTCs, and MCTCs may hear certain cadastral or land registration cases:
- Those covering lots not exceeding 50,000 square meters in area; or
- Cases where there is no controversy or opposition or the controversy involves only questions of fact.

4.3. Small Claims and Summary Procedure

Small Claims Cases: The first-level courts have original jurisdiction over small claims (monetary claims not exceeding ₱400,000, under the latest Supreme Court rules). R.A. 11576 does not directly change the “small claims” threshold since that is governed by a Supreme Court rule.
Summary Procedure: Certain civil and criminal cases within first-level court jurisdiction proceed under summary rules (e.g., forcible entry and unlawful detainer, cases where the principal amount does not exceed ₱2,000,000 under the revised rules of summary procedure, etc.). The issuance of Administrative Circulars from the Supreme Court aligns these summary procedure thresholds with R.A. 11576’s expansions.

5. Rationale and Legislative Policy Behind R.A. 11576

Decongestion of RTC Dockets: By allowing first-level courts to handle higher-value civil disputes (up to ₱2,000,000), the RTCs can focus on more substantial or complex matters.
Speedy Disposition of Cases: First-level courts generally have fewer procedural steps for smaller claims and can employ summary procedures, leading to faster resolution.
Accessibility and Convenience: Litigants dealing with lower- to mid-range claims can file cases in courts physically and administratively closer to them, lowering litigation expenses and travel costs.

6. Implications for Legal Practice

Pleading and Filing:
- Counsel must carefully assess the amount of claims or the assessed/fair market value of property before determining where to file.
- Wrong choice of venue or court (jurisdiction) can result in outright dismissal or transfer.
Evidence of Property Value:
- In real property cases, evidence of assessed value (tax declaration, tax assessments) is crucial. If there is no assessed value, the claimant must show a credible estimate (e.g., fair market value) to establish that the case falls within the ₱2,000,000 limit for first-level courts.
Adjustments in Strategy:
- Lawyers must consider that more cases (especially contract disputes, collection suits, and property claims up to ₱2,000,000) will now be heard in the MeTC, MTCC, MTC, or MCTC.
- Settlement or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) avenues may be more swiftly facilitated at the first-level court level.
Interaction with Revised Rules of Procedure:
- The Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Revised Rules on Small Claims continue to govern simplified procedures. Lawyers should keep track of any administrative issuances that coordinate these rules with the expanded jurisdiction.
Impact on Court Congestion and Speed:
- While the stated goal is to decongest the RTCs, it also means first-level courts could see a surge of new filings. The efficiency of each metropolitan or municipal trial court will heavily depend on logistical support, staffing, and the ability of judges to handle increased caseloads.

7. Key Takeaways

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Up to ₱2,000,000
- For personal property and civil claims that can be estimated in monetary terms.
- For real property, up to an assessed value of ₱400,000 or a fair market/estimated value of up to ₱2,000,000 if no assessed value.
Probate and Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Estates up to ₱2,000,000 and maritime claims up to ₱2,000,000 fall under the first-level courts.
Unchanged Criminal Jurisdiction
- Crimes punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or violations of ordinances remain under the first-level courts unless a special law provides otherwise.
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Ejectment
- Forcible entry and unlawful detainer remain under MTC/MeTC/MTCC/MCTC jurisdiction, regardless of property valuation.
Speedy Remedies
- Summary and small claims procedures often apply to cases falling under the new thresholds, aiming for efficient disposition.

8. Practical Tips and Reminders

Always verify the assessed value of any real property via the Tax Declaration or relevant local assessor’s certification.
When the property has no assessed value, provide a credible basis (e.g., certificate of fair market value, appraisal, or local tax ordinance) to prove that the value does not exceed ₱2,000,000.
For personal property or monetary claims, ensure your complaint clearly states the total amount sought (principal + allowable damages, interest, attorney’s fees if any) to establish compliance with the first-level court’s jurisdiction.
Watch for updated Supreme Court issuances that refine or clarify summary and small claims procedures in light of the increased jurisdictional amounts.
Be mindful of the venue rules—file in the place where plaintiff or defendant resides or where the property is located (for real actions), as the case may be. Wrong venue or lacking jurisdiction is a fatal procedural error.

Conclusion

R.A. No. 11576 significantly expanded the civil jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts by raising the threshold to ₱2,000,000 for most civil actions involving monetary claims or personal property, as well as setting new guidelines for real property jurisdiction based on ₱400,000 assessed value or ₱2,000,000 estimated value. This legislative reform is geared toward docket decongestion in the Regional Trial Courts and the speedy administration of justice for litigants with smaller claims.

In practice, lawyers must be meticulous in pleading the correct assessed or estimated values and properly establishing the subject matter to avoid jurisdictional pitfalls. Familiarity with the summary procedures, small claims, and the interplay between local assessors’ data and judicial requirements ensures a smoother litigation process in the first-level courts. Ultimately, the expanded jurisdiction under R.A. 11576 underscores the judiciary’s ongoing commitment to making justice more accessible, efficient, and responsive to the needs of the public.