CivPro - Mawis - A2015 Cases Reviewer

CIVIL PROCEDURE DIGESTS REVIEWER
Dean Soledad Derequito-Mawis

Second Semester – AY 2012-2013
RULE 19: (Intervention)
CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

252 – Pagtalunan v. Tamayo Petitioners sought to intervene in an Intervention is not a matter of right
(1990) expropriation case, asking for but may be permitted by the courts
payment of disturbance when the applicant shows facts
compensation as they are allegedly which satisfy the requirements of the
the land’s agrucultural tenants. This law authorizing intervention. What
was denied by the TC. The Court held qualifies a person to intervene is his
that since petitioners were never possession of a legal interest in the
issued a emancipation patent (a sign matter in litigation, or in the success
that ownership has been vested), of either of the parties, or an interest
they cannot argue that they are against both, or when he is so
entitled to compensation. Petitioners situated as to be adversely affected
had no actual, direct and material by a distribution or other disposition
interest in the case, so they had no of property in the custody of the
right to intervene. court or an officer thereof. Such
interest must be actual, direct and
material, and not simply contingent
and expectant.
253 – Magsaysay-Labrador v. CA An action was brought against a Assignees to shares of a corporation The interest of a corporation is
(2000) corporation & petitioners sought to may not validly intervene, their separate from its stockholders.
intervene basing their claim as interest in the dispute merely being
assignees of shares in the inchoate, expectant, and indirect as
corporation. The Court held that such corporations maintain a distinct
interevention was not proper as the personality from that of its
corporation had a personality owners/shareholders.
separate from the petitioners (as
assignees of shares): their interest
was purely an inchoate right in the
management of corporation. While as
(assignee) shareholders they have an
interest in the property of the
corporation, it does not vest them
with any legal right to the title of any
CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 1 of 116

LOR. KAYE. PAO. CLAIRE. LINDSEY. KOR. JAY. JAMIE. PAU. AIKEN.
of the corporation’s property.
254 – Ordoñez v. Gustilo (1990) The original parties entered into a Intervention is only collateral or The continuation of reception of
compromise agreement as they had ancillary to the main action. The final intervenor’s evidence would serve
agreed upon during pre-trial dismissal of the principal action no purpose at all as the TC’s action
conference. TC approved and results in the dismissal of said could no longer be set aside even if
rendered a decision therewith. As a ancillary action. the intervenors prove their case as
result, it also discontinued the decision was already final and
petitioner-intevenor’s presentation executory as 2 years already lapsed
of evidence. before the intervenors filed their
motion.
255 – Metropolitan Bank and Private respondent filed a MR to A claim in intervention that seeks After the intervenor has appeared in
Trust Co. v. Presiding Judge (1990) intervene in a case where its affirmative relief prevents a plaintiff the action, the plaintiff has no
dismissal with prejudice upon the from taking a voluntary dismissal of absolute right to put the intervenor
original parties’ motion, he was not the main action. Where a complaint out of court by the dismissal of the
notified. His MR granted by the TC in intervention was filed before action. The parties to the original suit
and he filed an amended complaint. plaintiff's action had been expressly have no power to waive or otherwise
The Court held that the intervention dismissed, the intervenor's complaint annul the substantial rights of the
was proper despite the dismissal of was not subject to dismissal on the intervenor. When an intervening
the main action bec. there was no ground that no action was pending, petition has been filed, a plaintiff
final dismissal of the main case. The since dismissal of plaintiffs action did may not dismiss the action in any
joint motion to dismiss the case, not affect the rights of the intervenor respect to the prejudice of the
without notice to and consent of the or affect the dismissal of intervenor's intervenor.
intervenor, has the effect of putting complaint.
to rest only the respective claims of An intervenor's petition showing it to
the said original parties inter se but be entitled to affirmative relief will
not the claim of respondent which be preserved and heard regardless of
was allowed by the court to the disposition of the principal
intervene w/o opposition from the action.
original parties.
256 – Quinto v. COMELEC (2010) Petitioners assailed a COMELEC Interventions have been allowed
resolution declaring appointive even beyond the period prescribed in
officials who filed their certificate of the Rules, when demanded by the
candidacy, as ipso facto resigned higher interest of justice. It has also
from their positions. The MR-in- been granted to afford indispensable
Interventions were filed out of time parties, who haven’t been impleaded,
(should be before judgment) but the the right to be heard even after a
SC allowed said intervention due to decision has been rendered by TC,
higher interests of justice and when the petition for review of the
because they movant-intervenors judgment has already been
established a substantial submitted for decision before the SC,
right/interest (as voters, public and even where the assailed order

officers and candidates). has already become final and
executory.
RULE 20: (Calendar of Cases)

257 – Ang Kek Chen v. Bello The judge of the MTC where the The raffle of cases is of vital
(1998) petitioner’s criminal cases were importance to the administration of
pending was promoted to the RTC justice because it is intended to
and the respondent (OIC of the MTC) insure impartial adjudication of
ordered the re-raffle of the cases. cases. By raffling the cases public
Petitioner imputes GAD against the suspicion regarding assignment of
respondent because he received said cases to predetermined judges is
order for re-raffle only after the obviated.
cases had already been re-reraffled.
The Court held that there was GAD.
RULE 21: (Subpoena)

258 – Universal Rubber Products, Respondent corporations requested Requisites for the issuance of a A subpoena duces tecum may be
Inc. v. CA (1984) the TC judge to issue a subpoena “subpoena duces tecum”: it must quashed if the issuance is (1)
duces tecum for sales, invoices, sales appear, by clear and unequivocal unreasonable and oppressive, or (2)
books, and ledgers. Petitioner sought proof, that (1) the book or document the books or documents are
quashal of the subpoena as it was sought to be produced contains irrelevant, (3) or if the persons in
unreasonable and oppressive evidence relevant and material to the whose behalf the subpoena is issued
because the records sought are issue before the court, and that the fails to advance the reasonable cost
numerous and it was not based on precise book, paper or (2) document of production thereof.
any good cause, and the docs are containing such evidence has been so
irrelevant to the case. SC stated that a designated or described that it may be
suit for unfair competition is identified.
basically for injunction & damages
and the accounting of gross sales is
important. Thus it held that the
issuance of the subpoena duces
tecum was proper as it was
necessary to accord the complaining
party his full rights of redress.
259 –People v. Montejo (1967) A witness to a criminal case was Section 9 of Rule 23 of the OLD Rules
ordered to appear pursuant to a of Court which provides that a

subpoena but he did not show up so witness is not bound by a subpoena if
the fiscal moved for an order of his residence was more than 50 km.
arrest or contempt citation for his from the place of trial is interpreted
failure to appear at the trial, but the to apply solely to civil cases not
motion was denied by respondent criminal cases.
Judge. Respondents relied on Sec. 9,
Rule 23, contending that the witness
is not bound by a subpoena since his
residence was admittedly more than
50 km. from the place of trial, and
that said rule applies to both criminal
and civil cases. The Court disagreed
and said that the rule only applies to
civil cases.
260 – Genorga v. Quintain (1977) A warrant of arrest was issued Under the Rules of Court at that time What the court may in the alternative
against petitioner Genorga for his (now Sec. 10, Rule 22), a witness was is to order the witness to post bail for
failure to appear as government not bound to attend a hearing if it is his appearance, and upon refusal to
medico-legal witness in a pending held outside the province he resides post bail the court must commit the
murder case. Genorga’s excuse for unless the distance is less than 50km witness to prison until he complies
non-appearance was the non-reply of from his residence to the place of or is legally discharged.
the judge to his inquiry of whether trial. However, this rule only applies
he will be reimbursed for travel to civil cases and does not apply to
expenses. Genorga invokes the criminal cases. If the rule were to
exception for compulsory attendance apply in criminal cases, the
of witnesses (TC was 50 km away prosecution would suffer a serious
from his residence). SC disagreed handicap
with petitioner’s argument.
RULE 22: (Computation of Time)

261 – Nactor v. IAC (1988) The petitioners filed a MR on June 24 In periods to appeal, in case the last In computing a period, the first day
which was denied for being filed out day is a Sunday or a legal holiday, it shall be excluded, and the last day
of time. Petitioners argue that it was is understood that where the time included.
filed on time because the 15th day refers to a period prescribed or
(June 23) was a Sunday. In this case, allowed by the Rules of Court, by an
the MR was denied not because it order of the court, or by any other
was filed late, but because it lacked applicable statute, the last day
merit. should really be the next day,
provided said day is neither a

Sunday nor a legal holiday
262 –Mayor v. IAC (1988) Aug 29: Petitioner received decision Lacsamana rule: since the petitioner Section 3 of Rule 41: the last day to
Sept. 13 (15th day from Aug. 29): filed his motion for reconsideration perfect the appeal was October 1.
Petitioner filed an MR with the TC. on the last day to appeal, he had only The right to file the petition for
MR was denied. one day to perfect his appeal. review would have expired on
Sept. 30: Petitioner received notice of October 1, not September 30. When
the denial of the MR. Lloren rule: since petitioner filed his the petitioner asked for an extension
Oct. 1: Petitioner filed an urgent MR on the 15th day of the period of 15 days to file his petition for
motion for extension. within which he may perfect his review, the 15 day period no longer
Oct. 16: Petition for review was filed appeal, that day should be excluded includes October 1 because that day
so that when he received copy of the was already given to him by Rule 41.
CA held that the extension should be order denying his motion for The fifteen-day period is on top of
counted from Sept. 30, not Oct. 1, so reconsideration he still has 1 day October 1. It started on October 2
the petition for review was filed out within which to perfect his appeal. and ended on October 16.
of time. The SC disagreed, saying
that the petition was filed on time
(see notes).
263 – Luz v. National Amnesty Petitioner only had until Dec. 7 (Sat) Based on the new circular issued by This is the rule for the reckoning
Commission (2004) to file a petition for review the SC (AM 00-2-14-SC), any point of the extension, cf with date of
extension of time to file the required actual submission of pleading which
Dec. 9 (Mon): He filed a MFE of 15 pleading should be counted from the may be on the next business day
days to file a petition. expiration of the period regardless of after weekend or holiday (Rule 22).
Dec. 26 : He filed a 2nd MFE and the fact that said due date is a
reckoned the counting for the 15-day Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
extension from the next business day
after the holiday (i.e. Dec. 26)
Jan. 10: He filed his petition.
CA held that the petition was filed

out of time. SC agreed.
264 – Neypes v. CA (2005) Mar. 3: Petitioner received order of A party only has 15 days to appeal FRESH PERIOD RULE
dismissal. from a notice of judgment OR a final
Mar. 18: Instead of filing an appeal, order. However, if the party files a The fresh period rule only applies
he filed an MR. motion for new trial/reconsideration when a party chooses to file a motion
July 1: TC dismissed MR. instead of a notice of appeal, they are for new trial/reconsideration.
July 22: He received MR given a fresh period of 15 days to file Otherwise, the 15 day original period
July 28: He filed notice of appeal. a notice of appeal in relation to the of appeal must still be strictly
motion for new complied with.
TC denied appeal because it was 8 trial/reconsideration.
days late. Petitioner argues that the
15 day period to appeal started to

run only on July 22 when he received
denial of MR. CA disagreed saying it
should be counted from Mar 3, when
he received the order dismissing his
case. SC disagreed with CA.
RULE 23: (Depositions Pending Action)

265 – Koh v. IAC (1986) A “notice of case status” was sent to Conducting at least one of the modes Recourse to discovery procedures is
the parties saying that if no of discovery is NOT compulsory, it is not mandatory.
manifestation indicating their mode merely optional. Pre-trial conference should be set up
of discovery is filed, the case would as per Sec 1, Rule 20 even if the
be dismissed. No manifestation was parties or their counsel do not resort
filed so the case was dismissed. to exercise modes of discovery
The subsequent refiling of same case
was not dismissed due to res judicata
by another court. SC agreed with the
latter and held that the notice was
just a warning (not an order). Failure
of the parties to heed such was not
tantamount to disobedience of a
lawful order of the court, for the
'officer-in-charge' was not the court
or judge. So order of dismissal was
null and void and not a bar for
refiling the same.
266 –Republic v. SB (1991) Sandiganbayan allowed the filing of There are two purposes for the SC’s answer to issues raised: 1. if the
“amended interrogatories” despite modes of discovery: (1) as a device to party served with interrogatories is a
the objection that they did not narrow and clarify the basic issues juridical entity, the same shall be
specifically name the individuals who between the parties, and (2) as a answered by any officer thereof
are supposed to answer the question, device for ascertaining the facts competent to testify in its behalf (Sec.
being only addressed to PCGG in relative to those issues. 1 R25). 2. Not a ground for
general, they dealt with factual Mutual knowledge of all the relevant suppression 3. There is nothing
matters which will be part of the facts gathered by both parties is wrong in a party’s making his
PCGG’s proof upon trial and that they essential to proper litigation. Hence, adversary his witness.
want PCGG commissioners and either party may compel the other to
officers as their withness. SC held disgorge whatever facts he has in his
that Sandiganbayan didn’t commit possession.
GAD in allowing such.

267 – Caguiat v. Torres (1969) The respondent, a defendant in a civil The right to take depositions is not If the purpose of the MoD is merely
case, was served with a notice to take absolute and may be curtailed by the to ask repetitive questions it no
his deposition twice (both times his Courts when they appear to be longer has any purpose.
motion to prevent the deposition was intended to annoy, embarrass or
granted by the court). The SC held oppress the other party.
that the court was expressly
authorized by Secs. 16 & 18 of Rule
24 to prevent the taking of a
deposition. In this case, aside from
having practically disclosed all his
evidence at the pre-trial, respondent
was willing to enter into a stipulation
of facts, an offer which appellants
rejected. Also, the deposition could
have served no useful purpose, for
there was nothing anymore to
discover.
268 – Santiago Land Dev’t Corp. v. Petitioner served Sec. 5, Rule 29 warrants the If plaintiff fails to answer
CA (1996) written interrogatories dismissal of the complaint when interrogatories, he may be
on respondent’s counsel but they the plaintiff fails or refuses to considered non-suited. Whether or
failed to answer so Pet. filed a MTD answer the written interrogatories. not the case will be dismissed is up
with prejudice based on Sec. 5, Rule Failure/refusal to answer the to the discretion of the court.
29. Respondent alleged that there interrogatories may be a good basis
was no valid service as service was for the dismissal of his complaint for
made on the respondent’s counsel non-suit unless he can justify such
and not directly upon any of the failure or refusal. It should be noted
respondent’s officers who were that it is discretionary on the court to
competent to testify in its behalf, order the dismissal of the action.
pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 25. The Court
held that there was a valid service of
summons.
269 – Vda. Manguerra v. Risos This is a criminal case whereby the Since Rule 119 under the Rules of Rule 119 specifically states that a
(2008) complainant filed a motion for her Criminal Procedure adequately witness may be conditionally
deposition to be taken due to her old covers the conditional giving of examined: 1) if the witness is too sick
age. The motion was granted and the testimony by a witness outside of or infirm to appear at the trial; or 2)
RTC directed the deposition be taken trial in criminal cases, Rule 23 should if the witness has to leave the
before the Clerk of Court (it ended up not be resorted to suppletorily. Philippines with no definite date of
being taken at her residence). returning.
Respondent argued that the
deposition was null and void as
according to Sec. 15, Rule 119, the Rule of MoD not applicable to

deposition should have been taken criminal proceedings.
before a judge. SC sided with
respondent, rejecting petitioner’s Depositions in criminal proceedings
contention that Concepcion’s are made before the court.
advanced age and health condition
exempt her from the application of
Section 15, Rule 119 and places her
within the ambit if Rule 23.
RULE 24-28: (Other Modes of Discovery)

270 – Lañada v. CA (2002) The defendants were served with a There is no reason to strictly
Request for Admission of the truth of construe the phrase “the party to
the facts of the complaint and the whom the request is directed” in Sec.
genuineness of the documents 2, Rule 26 to refer solely or
appended thereto. The complainant personally to the petitioners
sought for the answers of the (defendants) themselves.
defendants to be striken out because There is sufficient compliance when
their verified answers were signed the Answer to the Request for
by their respective counsels and not Admission is signed and swown to by
the defendants themselves. RTC the counsels.
denied them. CA reversed and struck
them out. SC sided with RTC.
271 – Security Bank Corp. v. del Respondent filed a suit against Deposition may be taken wherever a
Alcazar (2002) petitioner bank. Respondent filed a person may be. Rule 24, Sec. 11
Notice of Deposition By Oral allows depositions to be taken
Examination, so she can give her abroad.
testimony in Los Angeles, USA. Trial
court allowed this. SC held the same.
272 – Rosete v. Lim (2006) Respondent spouses filed a According to Rule 23, Sec. 1,
complaint against petitioner. The depositions may be taken without
latter filed an Answer Abudanti leave of court after an Answer had
Cautela. Respondent filed a Notice to been filed. That it was filed “ex
Take Desposition to cause oral exam abudanti cautela” does not make it
of petitioners. Latter opposed since less of an Answer.
their answer was only “ex abundanti
cautelam”.
273 – Solidbank v. Gateway Petitioner filed a Motion for Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court In Security Bank Corporation v. Court
Electronic Corp. (2008) Production and Inspection of permits “fishing” for evidence, the of Appeals, the Court enumerated the

Documents against respondent. only limitation being that the requisites in order that a party may
Petitioner then filed a motion to cite documents, papers, etc., sought to be compel the other party to produce or
Respondent in contempt because it produced are not privileged, that allow the inspection of documents or
was not satisfied with the documents they are in the possession of the things:
presented by the latter. TC denied party ordered to produce them and (a) must show good cause;
motion but ruled that respondent did that they are material to any matter (b) notice to all parties;
not exert diligent effort and thus the involved in the action. (c) *must designate documents;
contents of documents sought to be (d) documents not privileged;
produced will be established in favor (e) contains material evidence;
of respondent. SC held that Motion (f) in custody of other party.
for Production was too broad and too
generalized in scope. The inspection
should be limited to those documents
designated with sufficient
particularity in the motion.
RULE 29: (Refusal To Comply with Modes of Discovery)

274 – Lopez v. Maceren (1954) Petitioner filed a “Notice for the Depositions may be prevented by the
Taking of her deposition” in Manila court if it is to protect the party or
after the respondents have filed their witness from annoyance,
answers. Respondent judge from embarrassment, or oppression.
Davao issued an order prohibiting These reasons are not present in this
the deposition upon respondents’ case. The petitioner should be
motion. Among the reasons for allowed to take deposition as a
prohibiting the taking is the court matter of right.
could not observe the demeanor of
the deponents. SC held the
respondent committed GAD in
issuing the order.
275 – Fortune Corp. v. CA (1994) Petitioner filed case for breach of The reasons cited by the court when
contract against respondent it denied the deposition are NOT a
corporation. Then they filed a Notice bar to the taking of depositions, as
to Take Depo Upon Oral Exam long as no bad faith. Taking of
against the corporation chairman. deposition and using depositions are
The respondent opposed. TC denied different so deposition may still be
deposition on the ground that the taken even if the deponent is
respondent had already answered appearing on trial.
written interrogatories, had signified The court enumerates the sanctions

his availability to appear in court, the for refusal to comply with discovery:
court will not be able to observe the (a) dismissal of action
behavior nor ask the deponent (b) judgment by default
clarificatory questions. SC allowed (c) contempt
petitioner to take the deposition (d) arrest
upon oral examination (e) striking out pleadings.
RULE 30: (Trial)

276 – Laluan v. Malpaya (1975) The trial court allowed the No provision of law or principle of
petitioners to present their evidence public policy prohibits a court from
before the clerk of court in the authorizing its clerk of court to
absence of the respondents. Does receive the evidence of a party
this constitute prejudicial error so as litigant. After all, the reception of
to vitiate the proceedings? evidence by the clerk of court
Petitioner says the clerk of court is constitutes but a ministerial task.
merely performing ministerial task. The duty to render judgment on the
Respondents says that it cannot merits of the case still rests with the
delegate thrclerk to receive evidence judge who is obliged to personally
short of appointing him as and directly prepare the decision
commissioner first. SC ruled for the based upon the evidence reported.
petitioner.
277 – Yu v. Mapayo (1972) Petitioner was allowed to present The defendant was not able to Exception to the order of
evidence ex parte. But he does not support his special defenses. The presentation of evidence.
want to proceed because he was answer admitted defendant's
insisting for the defendants to prove obligation as stated in the complaint,
its special defenses first. and pleaded special defences hence
The case was dismissed by the judge the plaintiff had every right to insist
for failure to prosecute. The court that it was for the defendant to come
held that the dismissal is untenable forward with evidence in support of
and contrary to law. TC’s insistence his special defences. Judicial
that plaintiff should present proof in admissions do not require proof.
support of allegations that were not
denied but admitted by the adverse
party were not warranted.
278 – Lee v. Romillo (1988) During hearing, petitioner’s counsel In Laluan vs Manalo, “no provision of Nevertheless, the lower court revised
failed to show, hence, the opposing law or principle of public policy its earlier decision and allowed the
party was allowed to present prohibits a Court from authorizing its petitioner for adduce evidence
evidence ex parte. Upon petition for Clerk of Court to receive the evidence anyway, and the latter had

review, one of the issues raised was of a party-litigant.” participated in the trials for 3 years.
whether the reception of evidence ex
parte to the lower court’s legal
researcher is illegal as having no
basis in law. SC held otherwise.
279 – Continental Bank v. Tiangco Petitioner filed an action to revive Judgment rendered on evidence ex
(1979) judgment. Respondents opposed and parte received by the deputy clerk of
moved to dismiss, because the court as commissioner is valid where
original judgment was void because defeated party did not question such
the evidence was received by the delegation or showed that they were
clerk of court as commissioner. SC prejudiced by such a procedure.
held that the judgment is valid It is too late for respondents to
rendered by a court of competent question the reception of evidence by
jurisdiction and was not impaired by the clerk.
extrinsic fraud nor lack of due
process.
RULE 32: (Trial by Commissioner)

280 – Wassmer v. Velez (1964) Respondent was declared in default Rule 32 allows the procedure to
for not attending in hearings. designate the clerk of court as
Petitioner was allowed to adduce commissioner to receive evidence.
evidence ex parte. SC rejected
respondent’s argument that
judgment sought to be set aside was
null and void, it having been based
on evidence adduced before the clerk
of court.
RULE 33: (Demurrer to Evidence)

281 – Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Based on a Demurrer to Evidencef Defendants who present a demurrer
Sps. Del Rosario (2000) for alleged lack of cause of action, TC to the plaintiff’s evidence retain the
dismissed the case. The CA reversed right to present their own evidence, if
the TC’s dismissal BUT remanded the the trial court disagrees with them.
case to the RTC for further If the trial court agrees with them,
proceedings. but on appeal, the appellate court

Hence, this petitioner’s petition for disagrees with both of them and
review on certiorari assails the reverses the dismissal order, the
remand of the CA to the RTC. defendants lose the right to present
Petition granted. SC held that CA their own evidence.
should have rendered judgment The appellate court shall, in addition,
based on the evidence submitted by resolve the case and render judgment
the petitioner NOT remand. on the merits, inasmuch as a
demurrer aims to discourage
prolonged litigations.
282 – Choa vs. Choa (2002) Petitioner wife files a demurrer to General rule is that, interlocutory A demurrer to evidence is defined as
evidence because of insufficiency of orders are neither appealable nor “an objection or exception by one of
evidence of her husband’s accusation subject to certiorari proceedings. the parties in an action at law, to the
of psychological capacity against her. However, a denial of a demurrer that effect that the evidence which his
RTC denied. She thus files a Rule 65 is tainted with grave abuse of adversary produced is insufficient in
Certiorari against this denial. CA discretion amounting to lack or point of law (whether true or not) to
denied certiorari since denial of MTD excess of jurisdiction may be assailed make out his case or sustain the
is interlocutory. SC held that RTC issue.”
should have been granted since the The demurrer challenges the
husband had no sufficient evidence sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence
and only alleged that his wife “lacked to sustain a verdict.
the intention of procreative
sexuality” among other things.
283 – Casent Realty Dev’t Corp. vs. Respondent filed a collection suit Judicial admissions [of genuineness What should be resolved in a motion
Philbanking Corp. (2007) against petitioner. The latter and due execution of documents] to dismiss based on a demurrer to
presented documents which would should be considered in resolving the evidence is whether the plaintiff is
prove that its obligation had already demurrer to evidence. However, it entitled to the relief based on the
been extinguished. Respondent did does not mean that the judicial “facts” and the “law”. The “facts”
not deny the documents. So admissions will warrant dismissal of referred to in S8, R8 should include
Petitioner filed a Demurrer stating the case. all the means sanctioned by RoC in
that such non denial constituted ascertaining matters in judicial
admission of the genuiness and due proceedings including judicial
execution of the documents. RTC admissions.
granted. SC held that admission of
the genuineness and due execution of
the documents does not prevent the
introduction of evidence showing
that the Dacion excludes the
promissory notes. Case shouldn’t
have been dismissed.
284 – Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Sps. Petitioners filed a complaint against The demurrer challenges the The petitioner’s failure to make a

Parocha (2007) respondents but they failed to make sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence formal offer of evidence is fatal.
a formal offer of documentary to sustain a verdict. In passing upon Documents which may have been
evidence after they have rested their the sufficiency of the evidence raised identified and marked as exhibits but
case. Respondents filed a MtD on in a demurrer, the court is merely were not formally offered as
Demurrer to Evidence. The RTC required to ascertain whether there evidence cannot in any manner be
granted. SC held that petitioners is competent or sufficient proof to treated as evidence.
were deemed to have waived their sustain the indictment or to support
right to make a formal offer, thus the a verdict of guilt.
offered evidence were insufficient.
The dismissal due to the Demurrer to
Evidence was proper.
285 – Uy vs. Chua (2009) Petitioner filed a Petition for A demurrer to evidence may be
declaration of illegitimate filiation issued
against putative father, the (1) when, upon the facts and the law,
respondent. The latter filed a the plaintiff has shown no right to
“Demurrer to Evidence” on the relief.
ground of res judicata because of an (2) where the plaintiff's evidence
earlier proceeding where the parties together with such inferences and
had agreed to compromise the status conclusions as may reasonably be
of the child. drawn therefrom does not warrant
SC held that the civil status of a recovery against the defendant, a
person is not subject to compromise demurrer to evidence should be
based on public policy. So the sustained.
agreement being void ab initio does (3) when, admitting every proven
not operate as res judicata. fact favorable to the plaintiff and
SC clarified that although captioned indulging in his favor all conclusions
“Demurrer”, the motion must be fairly and reasonably inferable
“Motion to Dismiss on the ground of therefrom, the plaintiff has failed to
res judicata”. Case remanded (Note: make out one or more of the material
The essential question to be resolved elements of his case, or
in a demurrer to evidence is whether (4) when there is no evidence to
petitioner has been able to show that support an allegation necessary to
she is entitled to her claim, and it is his claim.
incumbent upon RTC make such a (5) where the plaintiff's evidence is
determination.) prima facie insufficient for a
recovery.
RULE 34: (Judgment on the Pleadings)

286 – Wood Technology Corp. vs. Respondent filed complaint for a sum In a case for judgment on the In a case for summary judgments, the
Equitable Bank (2005) of money against petitioner who pleadings, the essential question is crux of the inquiry is whether or not
answered with affirmative defenses. whether there are issues generated the issues raised are genuine. Issues
Respondent moved for judgment on by the pleadings. There is no apprently exist (i.e. facts asserted
the pleadings. RTC granted and ruled ostensible issues at all because of the have not yet been admitted,
in their favor. CA affirmed. failure of the defending party’s disavowed, or qualified; specific
Petitioner assails the “judgment on answer to raise an issue. denials or affirmative defenses are
the pleadings” since according to set out) but the issues are sham,
them their Answer contained fictitious or not genuine.
genuine issues and raised special
defenses.
Respondent said that petitioner’s
evidence may already be resolved
based on the pleadings and does not
require a full-blown trial.
The SC ruled that the RTC and CA did
not commit error. But the RTC
actually rendered a “summary
judgment” and not a “judgment on
the pleadings”.
RULE 35: (Summary Judgment)

287 – Auman vs. Estenzo (1976) A complaint for easement of way was A summary judgment is one granted
filed against petitioner. by the court,
Respondent judge ordered the case (1) upon motion by any of the
for pretrial and warned that any parties, for the prompt and
party who fails to submit list of expeditious settlement of the case,
witnesses with affidavits or after both parties have pleaded,
documents would be non-suited or (2) the motion to be supported by
defaulted. affidavits, depositions, or other
Petitioner was late in filing the documents,
affidavits. Judge rendered summary (3) after notice thereof had been
judgment. Petitioner asks for served upon the adverse party,
reconsideration but denied. who in turn may oppose the motion
SC held that Summary Judgment by with supporting affidavits and other
respondent judge was premature. documents and, after hearing,

There was no motion for Summary (4) it appears that there is no
Judgment with supporting affidavits, genuine issue as to any material
no notice and hearing conducted. fact, except as to the amount of
Hearing is a prerequisite to inquire damages, and that the movant or the
into the existence of a genuine moving party is entitled to a
controversy. judgment as a matter of law.
288 – Estrada vs Consolacion Private respondents filed a motion Summary judgment is a device for Test for summary judgment:
(1976) for Summary Judgment against weeding out sham claims or defenses whether the pleadings, affidavits and
petiitoner on the ground that there is at an early stage of the litigation, exhibits in support of the motions
no genuine issue as to any material thereby avoiding the expense and are sufficient to overcome the
fact in the case except as to the loss of time involved in a trial. opposing papers and to justify a
amount of damages. Respondents finding as a matter of law that there
attached the sketch of accident, is no defense to the action or the
investigator’s affidavit, sworn claim is clearly meritorious.
statements of the drivers of the two
pick-ups, and sworn statements.
Based on these,
respondent Judge issued an order
saying that there is no genuine issue
as to material fact, and has concluded
that defendants are entitled to
summary judgment. SC held that
judge properly issued the summary
judgment.
289 – Galicia vs Polo (1989) Petitioners’ property was levied and The Rules of Court authorizes the
sold. They failed to redeem within 1 rendition of summary judgment if the
year. Thereafter, they filed a pleadings, depositions and
complaint questioning the ownership admissions on file together with the
of the property which was the same affidavits, show that, except as to the
subject of a previous forcible entry amount of damages, there is no issue
case. Defendants moved for the as to any material fact and that the
summary judgment alleging that no moving party is entitled to a
genuine issue exists. judgment as a matter of law (Sec. 3,
SC stated that there is no question Rule 34).
that the issue of ownership of the Conversely, summary judgment is
disputed land subject of the present not proper where the pleadings
petition has long been decided in the tender vital issues the resolution of
forcible entry case. Having failed to which call for the presentation of
redeem the property sold at the evidence.

public auction sale, petitioners
cannot now claim that they still own
said property. So SC held that there
being no issue as to any material fact,
summary judgment may be
rendered.
290 – Grand Farms vs CA Based on the alleged implied Because of violation of formal notice
admission by the respondent bank provision of mortgage contract, any
that no formal notice was sent, the subsequent foreclosure proceeding
petitioner filed or annulment of the should be annulled. Thereafter, with
foreclosure proceedings and a no issue to any material fact,
motion for summary judgment for summary judgment should be
dmamages contending that the rendered as to the amount of
foreclosure was violative notice damages due.
requirement. TC denied.
SC held that action was ripe for
summary judgment. There has been
no denial by BF that no personal
notice was ever sent to petitioners.
This omission, by itself, rendered the
foreclosure defective and irregular,
thus, no further necessity to inquire
into the other issues cited by the trial
court, for the foreclosure may be
annulled solely on the basis of such
defect.
291 – Kalilid Wood Corp vs. In an unverified answer, petitioner as When no genuine issue having been But the court still has to look into the
IAC and Philippine Banking Corp a defense, asserted that the authority raised regarding the existence and accuracy of the amounts as stated in
(1987) to borrow money on its behalf had validity of liabilities under the Statement of Account.
not been granted to the signatories. A apromissory note, summary There was an implied admission as
motion for summary judgment was judgment is properly and to the genuineness and due
filed by Bank alleging the implied appropriately rendered therein. execution of the PNs but not of the
admission of the genuineness and Statements of Account. The
due execution of the PNs which was petitioner could therefore not be
granted. SC agree with the ruling of bound by the computations found in
the trial Judge and the respondent the Statement of Account without the
appellate court that petitioner, due to court ascertaining the correctness
its failure to verify its answer, is thereof.
deemed to have admitted by
implication the authenticity and due
execution of PNs.

292 – Excelsa Industries vs CA A motion for summary judgment was Summary judgment cannot be had Burden of Proof that there is” no
(1995) granted by TC in favor of petitioner, since there is an existing genuine genuine issue that has to be
solely based on the answer of one of issue over the ownership of the resolved,” and that a summary
the third party complainants, machine. judgment is proper, is on the part of
defendant corporation who denied the movant.
any claim over subject machinery.
SC held that summary judgment is
not proper bec. that such mere
withdrawal of claim does not settle
the issue on ownership since there
are other third party complainants
(stockholders) alleging that the
owner of the property is the
defendant corporation.
293 – Solidbank Corp vs CA (2002) A motion for summary judgment was Summary judgment cannot be
filed on the ground that no factual rendered because there are genuine
issue as to the liability of defendant issues raised by the answer of the
due to them. Its basis is the defendant.
statement of defendant’s counsel
before the court that he does he does
not disagree to a motion for
summary judgment and that he will
not object if the Court will just
require affidavits in support of his
client’s contentions.
SC held that the statement of
defendant’s counsel cannot be
deemed an admission that summary
judgment was in order. As a matter
of fact, defendant’s counsel
expressed his disagreement that
there are no genuine issues. He
merely agreed to submit affidavits if
required by the court and that such
be the basis of the judgment.
294 – Bitanga vs Pyramid TC rendered a summary judgment The issuance of summary judgment
Construction (2008) ordering guarantor spouses to pay may only be forestalled by genuine
for petitioner’s liabalities owed to issues as to any fact material to the
respondent corporation. action.
SC held that the summary judgment A genuine issue is an issue of fact
rightfully issued. There were no which requires the presentation of

genuine and material issues in the evidence as distinguished from an
case. First the impropriety of the issue which is a sham, fictitious,
service of the demand on Bitanga contrived or false claim.
was not a genuine issue since he did
not present evidence to back up his
claim that such demand was
improperly served. Second, the
invocation of his right to the benefit
of excussion was not a genuine issue,
as he had lost the right to invoke
such once he failed to comply with
requirements on when to invoke the
said benefit.
RULE 36: (Judgments, Final Orders and Entry)

295 –Pengson vs IAC (1984) Petitioner filed a suit for declaration Courts should make complete
of nullity and inefficacy of sale or findings of facts and render decision
rescission of sale and mortgage with based thereon.
damages. Trial court ruled in his
favour but CA reversed.
SC reversed CA. The decision of the
CA in respect of the facts is sketchy
compared to the facts stated in the
decision of the TC which is found in
the Record on Appeal.
296 – Mangelen vs CA (1992) Respondents failed to file an answer A meritorious defense, which public
and were declared in default. respondent considers as
Judgment was rendered based on the synonymous to a “good and valid
petitioner’s evidence presented ex defense,” is not only basis for the
parte. Respondent filed a motion to lifting of an order of default. It is
set aside the order of default but was merely one of two requisites which a
denied. On appeal, CA granted and party must comply with. The first is
set aside the order of default without the existence of fraud, accident,
stating the alleged “good and valid mistake or excusable neglect. These
defense” for the reversal of the two requisites must concur.
decision.
SC set aside CA decision. Private
respondents cannot just state the

allegations of fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable neglect to
justify their failure to file the answer.
Their filing of the petition much later
was but part of a well-planned
strategy to gain more time to delay
the case.
297 – Barrera vs Militante (1982) Petitioner filed a complaint for the Issuance of minute orders is NOT The remedy is not to assail the
recovery of ownership and allowed. A trial court must specify in validity of the judgment but to file a
possession land, with damages. its order the reasons for the motion for clarificatory judgment.
Case was set for pre-trial conferences dismissal of the complaint so that
at various dates, however, petitioner when the order is appealed, the
and counsel were absent; thus, Judge Court can determine whether there
dismissed the case. Petitioner filed is prima facie justification for
an MR alleging that her counsel’s dismissal.
lateness in the pre-trial conference
was caused by the tardiness of the
counsel’s secretary. Petitioner also
questions the decision for failure to
state the causes for dismissal.
SC held that the decision is improper
for not stating the basis for dismissal,
however, MR is still denied bec. of
counsel’s lack of authority.
298 – Lianga Bay vs Enage (1987) Respondent contends that the MR A draft of a decision does not operate Promulgation of decision in civil
filed by petitioner of the decision of as judgment on a case until the same cases is done by the submission of
the OP was denied in an alleged is duly signed and delivered to the the decision to the clerk of court by
"decision" dated August 15, 1966, clerk for filing and promulgation. A the judge for filing. (In criminal cases,
signed by Assistant Executive decision cannot be considered as it is the act of reading the judgment
Secretary Leido. He said, however, binding on the parties until its to the defendant).
that for some mysterious, unknown if promulgation.
not anomalous reasons and/or illegal
considerations, said decision was
never released and instead a decision
was released on August 9, 1968,
signed by then Assistant Executive
Secretary Duavit, granting
petitioner’s MR.
SC held that mere suspicion of
respondent that there were
anomalies in decision of OP does not

justify judicial review. Such annot
overcome the presumption of
regularity and legality of official
actions.
299 – Echaus vs CA (1990) Petitioner MR was denied by the TC. The alleged verbal approval of the
Petitioner filed an appeal before the record on appeal does not have a
CA and a motion to hold respondents’ legal effect.
urgent motion for execution of
judgment (filed before the TC) in All orders and judgments of the court
abeyance. CA ruled that it shall hold must be reduced in writing and filed
the appeal in abeyance until the with the clerk of court, otherwise
resolution of the urgent motion in they would have no legal effect
the TC because only then will the whatever.
record on appeal be transmitted to
the appellate court. Petitioner filed
an MR with the CA’s abeyance order
alleging that at the hearing of the
urgent motion, the judge verbally
approved the record on appeal in
open court.
300 – Ybiernas vs Gabaldon While the appeal was pending in the A final judgment or an order is one The RTC summary judgment fully
(2011) CA, respondents filed a motion for that finally disposes of a case, leaving determined the rights and
new trial. Petitioners countered nothing more for the court to do in obligations of the parties relative to
arguing that the questioned decision respect thereto, such as adjudication the case for quieting of title and left
was a partial summary judgment on the merits which, on the basis of no other issue unresolved, except the
which could not be the subject of a evidence presented at the trial, amount of damages.
motion for new trial. CA granted the declares categorically what the rights
MNT saying that the RTC summary and obligations of the parties are and Ma’am: Right to damages is different
judgment was a final adjudication on which party is in the right from amount of damages. The RTC
the merits of the case, having summary judgment was able to
completely disposed of all the issues determine the entitlement to the
except as to the amount of damages, right to damages. It is already
and could therefore be the subject resolved with finality. Only the
MNT. SC affirmed with CA. amount is missing.
301 – Garrido vs Tortogo (2011) MTCC rendered a decision in favor of The principle of immutability of a Remedies from a final judgment:
petitioners and thereafter, issued a final judgment should be applied. 1. Petition to annul the judgment
writ of execution. More than a year When judgments become final and based on the ground of extrinsic
after the writ of execution was executory, they are immutable fraud and lack of jurisdiction (Rule
served upon respondents, they filed a except through equity grounded 47)
petition for certiorari to annul the remedies provided by the Rules of 2. Petition for relief under Rule 38
decision with prayer for the issuance Court. This case does not fall within 3. Have a competent court stay the

of a TRO. the equitable grounds under the ROC execution when
SC denied their petition. (Rule 47). (a) facts and circumstances that
render execution inequitable or
unjust transpire, or
(b) when a change in the situation
of the parties can warrant an
injunctive relief
302 – The Law Firm of Raymundo Petitioner law firm sought to recover When there is a conflict between the
Armovit vs CA (2011) the balance of its contingent fee from dispositive portion or fallo of a
private respondent. SC upheld their decision and the opinion of the court
claim awarding P252k (as stated in contained in the text or body of the
the dispositive) based on the judgment, the former prevails over
monetary amounts recovered, the latter.
excluding real properties. A year An order of execution is based on the
after the decision had become final disposition, not on the body, of the
and executory, petitioner filed an decision. This rule rests on the
omnibus motion for final assessment theory that the fallo is the final order
seeking to include the real properties while the opinion in the body is
recovered quoting from the body merely a statement ordering nothing.
decision that the award is, “20%
contingent fee computed on the value
to be recovered by favorable judgment
in the cases.”
SC dismissed the petition.
303 – Ranola vs Ranola (2009) The parties informed the court thru a Compromise Agreement is a judicial
Manifestation that they have already compromise and has the force and
executed a Compromise Agreement. effect of a judgment
They seek the dismissal of the case A compromise agreement that has
and so, they pray that a Decision be been made and duly approved by the
issued and promulgated approving court attains the effect and authority
the Amicable Settlement. of res judicata, although no execution
SC held that the compromise may be issued unless the agreement
agreement should be approved receives the approval of the court
provided its stipulations are not where the litigation is pending and
contrary to law. compliance with the terms of the
agreement is decreed.
RULE 37: (New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration)

304 – Abe Industries vs CA (1998) Respondent received the RTC The period within which to perfect
decision on Nov 4, while petitioners an appeal by the other party is not
received it on Nov 7. Petitioners filed dependent on the period to perfect
a notice of appeal on Nov. 14 (ahead an appeal by the other party, or
of the last day which is Nov. 22), whether the other party had already
which was granted. Respondent filed perfected its appeal. It is dependent
a motion for partial execution on the date a party receives notice of
pending appeal in the RTC on Nov. 19 judgment.
(last day of appeal). Petitioners
opposed this motion on the ground
that the appeal had already been
perfected on Nov. 15 (after they filed
a notice of appeal), therefore the RTC
had lost jurisdiction over the case.
SC held that respondent’s motion for
execution was timely and properly
filed.
305 – Yap v. Tanada (1988) Petitioner’s MR was denied on the Sec. 2, Rule 37 requires that when
ground that it was pro forma as it the motion for new trial is founded
alleged fraud but was not on Sec. 1 (a), i.e., FAME, it should be
accompanied by an affidavit of merit; accompanied by an affidavit of merit.
the absence of the affidavit rendered i.e., an affidavit "showing the facts
the MR defective with the result that (not conclusions) constituting the
its filing did not interrupt the valid defense which the movant may
running of the period of appeal. prove in case a new trial is granted.
SC denied Yap’s petition. Under Sec. 3, Rule 41, failure to
comply with this rule will not give
the MR the effect of interrupting the
running of the appeal period.
306 – Mendoza v. Bautista (1983) Petitioner’s MR to the MTD was While a MR may be equivalent to a
denied on the ground that it was MNT if based on a ground for new
defective for not including an trial, an affidavit of merit (a
affidavit of merit. It was argued that requirement for MNT) is only
a MR is equivalent to a MNT, and one required if MNT/MR is based on any
of the requirements for a MNT is an of the causes mentioned in
affidavit of merit to be attached to subdivision (a) of Section I of Rule 37
the motion. i.e. fraud, accident, mistake or
SC held petition was not filed out of excusable negligence, which is not
time. The MTD was not proper. the ground in this case.
307 – Llantero v. CA (1981) Petitioner filed an MR for the denial The MR although timely filed, bore an
of his appeal to the CA. He erroneous docket number, therefore

erroneously placed a different docket the motion was legally inexistent in
number in the MR. SC held that there the pending case.
being no MR documented in the The oversight cannot be considered
pending case in the CA, the judgment as excusable negligence because the
became final and executory. counsel had prepared the MR a
month before.
308 – PCIB v. Judge Ortiz (1987) SC held that MR and MNT on the A MNT grounded on FAME should be Ma’am: Neypes supersedes this.
ground of excusable negligence (fault accompanied by 2 affidavits: (1)
of plaintiff’s counsel) and award of setting forth the facts and
excessive damages was dismissed for circumstances constituting the
not having an affidavit of merit FAME, and (2) setting forth the
attached. particular facts claimed to constitute
the movant's meritorious cause of
action or defense. However, if the
MNT is grounded on other grounds
such as an award of excessive
damages, no affidavit of merit is
required and the motion cannot be
denied pro forma just because it
lacks an affidavit of merit. The
untenability of one ground does not
render the other ground
unmeritorious.
309 – Lacsamana v. IAC (1986) Motion for extension of time of 15 In modes of appeal where the Note the Neypes ruling where the
days to file a petition for review was remaining balance of the period to denial of a MR or MNT grants the
denied on the ground that the period appeal runs when the MR is denied, movant a fresh period of 15 days to
for filing a MR cannot be extended. the remaining period to appeal may file the appropriate appeal reckoned
SC affirmed stating that an extension be too short and a motion for from the time of the notice of denial.
of only 15 days for filing a petition extension of time to file an appeal/
for review may be granted by the petition for review may be filed.
court, save in exceptionally
meritorious cases
310 – Gonzales v. COMELEC (2011) COMELEC en banc denied Grounds for considering an MR to be
petitioner’s MR challenging the pro forma: (1) it was a second MR;
ruling that disqualified as a candidate (2) it did not comply with the rule
in the May 2010 elections, for being that the motion must specify the
pro forma. findings and conclusions alleged to
SC held otherwise because the MR be contrary to law or not supported
did not show any grounds for it to be by evidence, or (3) it failed to
considered pro forma. substantiate the alleged errors; or
(4) it merely alleged that the decision

in question was contrary to law; or
(5) the adverse party was not given
notice thereof. It was not shown the
MR suffered from one of these
defects, hence the COMELEC erred in
denying the MR.
311 – UE v. UE Employees Petitioner filed a second MR in the The general rule is that a second MR
Association (2011) NLRC challenging the award of the is a prohibited pleading. However,
share of the employees in the the Court may authorize the
proceeds of the tuition fee increase. suspension of the rules of procedure
SC held the 2nd MR was prohibited so as to allow the resolution of a
but it should be entertained. This is second motion for reconsideration,
bec. the NLRC decision is a patent in cases of extraordinarily persuasive
nullity since the law and reasons such as when the decision is
jurisprudence clearly allows a patent nullity.
petitioner the discretion to dispose
of the proceeds of the tuition fee
increase subject to certain
conditions, which they duly complied
with.
RULE 38: (Petition for Relief from Judgment)

312 – Demetriou v. CA Petitioner filed an action to annul An action to annul a final judgment Extrinsic fraud refers to any
judgment on the ground of a false on the ground of fraud will lie only if fraudulent act of the prevailing party
and fraudulent affidavit of loss of the the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in in the litigation which is committed
owner’s duplicate copy of a TCT. character. The fraud alleged in this outside of the trial of the case,
Judgment was made based on this case (affidavit of loss) is intrinsic, whereby the defeated party has been
fraudulent affidavit ordering the rather than extrinsic. The use of a prevented from exhibiting fully his
procurement of a new title favor of forged instrument did not prevent side of the case, by fraud or
respondents. the adverse party from presenting deception practiced on him by his
SC held that the petition for his case fully and fairly. opponent.
annulment should be dismissed. Use Intrinsic fraud takes the form of “acts
of false affidavit of loss does not of a party in litigation during the trial
constitute extrinsic fraud to warrant such as the use of forged or false
the invalidation of a final judgment. document or perjured testimony,
which did not affect the presentation
of the case, but did prevent a fair and

just determination of the case.”
313 – Arcilla v. Arcilla RTC denied the petition for relief The law gives an exception to the
from judgment was denied for being doctrine of finality of judgment. This
filed out of time. The decision sought "last chance" is through a timely
to be set aside was rendered on petition for relief from judgment filed
October 27, 1976. Petitioner, through within the reglementary period
counsel, received a copy of the (within 60 days from knowledge and
decision on November 8, 1976, and 6 months from entry of judgment)
he filed his petition for relief from But such grace period must be taken
judgment only on April 18, 1977 as "absolutely fixed, inextendible,
(past 60 days from knowledge of never interrupted and cannot be
judgment, and past 6 months from subjected to any condition or
the judgment or order to be set contingency.
aside).
SC affirmed.
314 – Ibabao v. IAC Upon denial of his MR, petitioner When a party had another remedy
failed to file an appeal from the CFI available to him, which was either a
within the reglementary period; thus motion for new trial or appeal, and
he files a petition for relief from he was not prevented by fraud,
judgment. accident, mistake or excusable
SC ruled against petitioner. It held negligence from filing such motion or
that failure to appeal within the taking the appeal, he cannot avail
reglementary period of perfecting an himself of the relief provided in Rule
appeal is not a ground to grant a 38.
petition for relief. Relief will not be granted to a party
when the loss of the remedy was due
to his own negligence, or a mistaken
mode of procedure; otherwise, the
petition for relief will be tantamount
to reviving the right of appeal which
has already been lost either because
of inexcusable negligence or due to a
mistake in the mode of procedure by
counsel.
315 – Marasigan v. IAC (1987) Petition for relief from judgment was Since the records do not bear the
denied for being filed out of time exact date the questioned judgment
although the reckoning date when was entered, the 6-month period can
the 6-month period will be counted be counted from when the writ of
from is unclear since the exact date execution of the final judgment was
the judgment was rendered did not issued.
appear on the record. The phrase "or other proceeding" in

SC held that petitioner cannot avail a Section 3 of Rule 38 includes a writ of
relief from judgment. 6-month period execution.
was counted when the writ of
execution was issued. A period of ten
(10) months had already lapsed
when the petition was filed.
316 – Quelman v. VHF (2005) Petitioner filed a petition for relief The 60-day period for filing a Service by registered mail is
from judgment, alleging that he was petition for relief must be reckoned complete upon actual receipt by the
never served with from date of knowledge of judgment, addressee, or after five (5) days from
summons (summons was torn by the order or other proceedings to be set the date he received the first notice
wife) and was unaware of the aside. Five days after first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is
proceedings in the ejectment suit. from postmaster, service is deemed earlier.
SC held petition was filed 175 days complete and such date was the day
late. The decision was sent to when actual receipt by petitioner is
petitioner through registered mail at presumed.
his given address on Nov. 25, 1992.
The first notice to him by the
postmaster to check his mail was on
Nov. 25, 1992. Hence, service of said
MeTC decision became effective five
days after Nov. 25, 1992, pursuant to
Sec. 10, Rule 13.
317 – Sps. Dela Cruz v. Sps. Andres Petitioners filed with CA a petition A claim of counsel’s gross negligence
(2007) for review. It was dismissed on the must be backed by a showing that the
ground that it was petitioner’s counsel clearly abandoned the
counsel, and not the petitioners, who client’s cause.
signed the certificate of non-forum The negligence must be so gross that
shopping. Petitioners filed a petition the client is deprived of his day in
for relief of judgment based on the court and thus deprived of his
ground that the gross negligence of property without due process of law.
their counsel did not bind them.
SC ruled agaisnt them. It held that
there was no excusable nor gross
negligence amounting to a denial of
due process. Both parties were
adequately heard and the issues
were tacked fully before the
promulgation of the decision
318 – Purcon v. MRM Philippines Petitioners files a petition for relief When Sec. 1, Rule 38 states that the
(2008) from judgment in the Supreme Court petition can be filed in “any court” it
on the ground of gross mistake on refers only to MTCs/ MeTCs and

the part of the Labor Arbiter. RTCs. This is not available in CA and
SC dismissed the case. Petition for SC. The petition for relief will not be
relief from judgment is not an granted to a party who seeks to be
available remedy in SC. It is not one relieved from the effects of the
of the cases under Sec. 1, Rule 56, judgment when the loss of the
which enumerates the original cases remedy of law was due to his own
that can be filed in the SC. negligence, or mistaken mode of
procedure.
RULE 39: (Secs. 1-14 Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments)

319 – Dy v. CA (1991) The execution of a judgment on an In cases decided under the Rules of Although cases decided under the
ejectment case (governed by the Summary Procedure, the immediate Rules of Summary Procedure are
Rules on Summary Procedure) was execution of the judgment of the RTC immediately executor, these must be
contested on the ground that notice may not be effected unless prior harmonized with the Sec. 2 Rule 39
of the judgment of the RTC affirming notice of the judgment or order had which provides that the execution
the MTC decision was not served on been served on the losing party and pending appeal of a judgment or
the losing party. proof of such service accompanies order may be granted upon motion
SC held that RTC Decision could be the motion for execution of the of the prevailing party, upon good
not be immediately executed before a judgment. reasons, with notice to the adverse
copy thereof was served on the party. The ex-parte motion for the
petitioners. issuance of a writ of execution must
be supported by a proof of service of
judgment on the losing party.
320 – Tuballa v. Heirs of Cabrera In an ejectment case, RTC ruled The general rule is that a decision
(2008) against respondent ordering them to that has acquired finality becomes
vacate the property. Judgment unalterable and may no longer be
became final and executory. modified in any respect even if the
Petitioner filed a Manifestation bec. modification is meant to correct
of the typographical error in the erroneous conclusions of fact and
dispositive portion of the RTC law.
decision, indicating Lot No. 6579 Exceptions to the immutability of
instead of Lot No. 5697. final judgments are the correction of
SC held that decision even though it clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries
has attained finality, can still be w/c cause no prejudice to any party,
corrected or altered. The RTC only and void judgments.
committed a typographical error in
ordering private respondents to
vacate a lot w/ a different lot number

than what was actually intended.
321 – Heirs of the Late Justice JBL In an ejectment case, the CA issued a Discretionary execution is allowed
v. CA (2000) writ of execution of its own decision pending appeal of a judgment or final
pending appeal and designated a order of the trial court, upon good
special sheriff to enforce the writ and reasons to be stated in a special
eject petitioners. order after due hearing. The good
SC held that CA has no authority to reasons must constitute superior
issue immediate execution pending circumstances demanding urgency
appeal of its own decision. that will outweigh the injuries or
damages to the adverse party if the
decision is reversed.
Once final and executory, the
judgment must be remanded to the
lower court, where a motion for its
execution may be filed only after its
entry.
322 - Katon vs. Palanca (2004) CA motu propio dismissed the case Residual jurisdiction is different from Note: Very relevant in R41; referred
on the ground of laches even if it is residual prerogatives. to multiple times by Dean Mawis.
an issue not raised by the pleading. Under Rule 41, Residual jurisdiction
Petitioners claims this is what's is is available to the courts when it has Residual prerogatives is found under
called residual jurisdiction. lost jurisdiction over the case or Section 9, Rule 9. Defenses and
SC stated that petitioner wrongfully subject matter. During the stage objections not pleaded either in a
called residual prerogative as when the parties have perfected the motion to dismiss or in the answer
residual jurisdiction. CA may dismiss appeal or the records of appeal have are deemed waived, except when (1)
the case in this case for lack of been proved, but prior to the lack of jurisdiction over the subject
jurisdiction and prescription due to transmittal of the original records or matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res
residual prerogatives. the records on appeal - the trial court judicata and (4) prescription are
still retains its so-called residual evident from the pleadings or the
jurisdiction to issue protective evidence on record. When either of
orders, approve compromises, these four are present, the court shall
permit appeals of indigent litigants, motu propio dismiss the claim or
order execution pending appeal, and action.
allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
323 - NPC vs. Judge Adiong (2011) In a case, respondent judge issued a General Rule: Writ of Execution is To allow for the exception, these
writ of execution (to refund charges) issued after judgment was circumstances must be superior,
during pre-trial. promulgated. outweighing the injury or damages
SC held that the writ is void. Exception: There are circumstances that might result should the losing
Respondent failed to conduct a pre- of good reason that warrant party secure a reversal of the
trial conference contrary to the rules immediate execution. Section 2 Rule judgment.
of procedure. 39 defines “good reason” not to
necessarily mean unassailable and Compelling circumstance – anything

flawless basis but at the very least, it that would render the decision
must be on solid footing. nugatory
324 - Gan vs. Reyes (2002) A motion of execution was filed to General rule: A writ of execution is Reason why support should be
enforce judgment on a support case generally issued after judgment. immediately executed – it never
against petitioner. This was granted One of the Exceptions: Judgments in attains finality
even before judgment attained actions for support are immediately
finality. SC held that Writ of executory unless otherwise ordered
execution is valid. by the Court.
325 - Jalandoni vs. PNB (1981) Petitioner’s lot was levied but 10 Execution is enforced and Rule 39 Section 6
years had already passed still no accomplished by BOTH levy and sale; Cf with Art 144 CC - An action upon a
public auction of the lot. This not levy alone. This means that judgment must be brought within 10
prompted him to file a motion to properties LEVIED upon execution years from the time the right of
cancel the levy on the ground of must be SOLD in public auction action accrues
prescription. SC held that levy should within the period of ten years so the
be cancelled. judgment can be executed.
326 - Pelejo vs. CA (1982) This first case was dismissed because The only portion of a decision that Cf with the definition of execution -
it didn’t state a cause of action. A writ becomes the subject of execution is Execution is the remedy for
of possession was applied for and that ordained or decreed in the enforcement of a judgment.
granted in relation to the first case. dispositive part.
SC nullified the writ of possession. Whatever may be found in the body
The dispositive ordered the of the decision can only be
petitioners of the first case to amend considered as part of the reasons, or
their complaint hence there was conclusions of the court and while
nothing to execute because the first they may serve as guide or
case was not judged on its merits/did enlightenment to determine the ratio
not solve any controversy. decidendi.
327 - City of Manila vs. CA (1991) Petitioner won a case against private Execution of the judgment cannot be Execution pending appeal has to be
respondent for violation of lease demanded as a matter of right unless very urgent to outweigh the damage
agreement. The latter filed an appeal. a judgment is already final and of the losing party if the decision is
Petitioner filed a motion for executory, meaning the period of reversed.
execution while appeal case was still appeal has already lapsed
pending. SC held that such motion
should not be granted.
328 - Enriquez vs. CA (2001) Private respondent failed to enforce Action to revive judgment only
the judgment by motion within the requires proof of a final judgment
five-year period from its entry so he which has not prescribed and has
decided to file an action to revive remained unexecuted after the lapse
judgment. SC ruled in his favor. In the of five (5) years but not more than
action to revive judgment, he only ten (10) years from its finality.
has to prove the attainment of the An action to revive judgment is not
final judgment and no longer needs meant to retry the case all over again.

to prove the enforceability of the Its cause of action is the judgment
judgment. itself and not the merits of the
original action.
329 - Cordero vs. Go (2002) A motion for execution was filed in Rule 39 provides that the trial court
the RTC by petitioner. This was may execute a judgment on motion of
restrained by a TRO. Petitioner then a party while it has jurisdiction over
filed a notice of appeal was in CA. the case and is in possession of either
SC held that the writ of execution the original record or record on
should now be filed in the CA appeal.
because when notice of appeal was After the trial court had lost
filed in CA, RTC lost jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the motion for execution
enforce the execution. pending appeal may be filed in the
appellate court
330 - Luzon Surety Co. vs. IAC A judgment became final & executory The ten year prescriptive period
(1987) on April 13, 1967 and this was not commences to run only from the date
enforced. A revival of 1967 judgment of finality of the original judgment
was filed and a revived judgment and not that of the revived judgment.
was rendered on May 24, 1974 but
this was not also enforced. SC held
that the right to enforce 1967
judgment had already prescribed
when second action to revive was
filed on September 1, 1982.
331 - Republic vs. CA (1985) On Aug 27 1968, TC judgment Judgment maybe executed on motion In computing the time limited for
became final and executory. TC held within five years from date of entry suing out an execution, although
in abeyance the enforcement of the or from the date it became final & there is authority to the contrary, the
writ it issued, pending resolution of executory. general rule is that there should not
private respondents' petition. Any interruption or delay occasioned be included the time when execution
Petitioner filed a motion for the by the debtor will extend the time is stayed, either by agreement of the
issuance of an alias writ of execution within which the writ may be issued parties for a definite time, by
on Jan 25, 1974. SC held that the without scire facias injunction, by the taking of an appeal
motion is still seasonable and well or writ of error so as to operate as
within the 5 year period, despite supersedeas, by the death of a party,
respondent’s dilatory scheme. or otherwise.
332 - Moslem vs. Soriano (1995) A judgment was being executed so Sec 13 Rule 39 provides that the
petitioners were asked to vacate the refusal of the defeated party to
lot, but they refused. Respondent surrender the property to the
thus filed a motion to declare them in winning party upon the order of the
contempt of court. sheriff does not constitute contempt.
And the sheriff’s remedy if the
petitioners don’t want to leave is to

file a case against them.
333 - Fiestan vs. CA (1990) Petitioner claims that the foreclosure Rule 39 applies to ordinary execution In extrajudicial foreclosure of
on his property is invalid because sale. In cases involving extrajudicial mortgage, the property to be
there was no levy. SC held that the foreclosure sale, Act. 3135 should foreclosed need not be levied by the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale was apply. Levy is required under Sec. 15 sheriff from the whole mass of
valid. Extrajudicial foreclosures do of Rule 39, but none is expressly property of the mortgagor because it
not require a levy to be valid. required under Act. 3135. has already been identified or set
apart in the contract of mortgage.
334 - PCIB vs. CA A judgment was left unsatisfied as It is not incumbent upon the Sec 39 Rule 39 provides that after an
the sheriff was unable to collect from garnishee to inquire or to judge for execution against property has
respondent. Sheriff served notice of itself whether the order for the issued, a person indebted to the
garnish to respondent’s banks, one of execution is valid. judgment debtor, may pay to the
which is petitioner. After Mere garnishment of funds belonging officer holding the execution the
ascertaining that there is no to a party upon a court order does amount of his debt or so much
restraining order, petitioner not have the effect of delivering the thereof as may be necessary to
complied. money garnished to the sheriff or the satisfy the execution, and the
SC held that petitioner could not be party to whose favor the attachment officer's receipt shall be a sufficient
faulted for allowing the garnishment is issued. discharge for the amount so paid or
and release of the respondent’s directed to be credited by the
deposits judgment creditor on the execution.
335 - Nudo vs. Caguia (2009) Spouses were sued and while the In case of death of the judgment It is only when there is a denial of
case was pending the husband died. obligor, execution may issue or be due process, as when the deceased is
Wife died after the judgment became enforced against his executor or not represented by any legal
final and executory. Their son claims administrator or successor in representative or heir, that the court
that the judgment is null and void for interest, if the judgment be for the nullifies the trial proceedings and the
failure to implead him after the death recovery of real or personal resulting judgment therein.
of his parents therefore property, or the enforcement of a lien
unenforceable. SC held that the thereon.
judgment in the case is enforceable
against the spouses’ successor-in-
interest. Also petitioner was not
deprived of due process.
336 - Perla Compania vs. A motion for garnishment was filed The trial court may lawfully bind the Through service of the writ of
Ramolete (1991) to be issued against the insurance person of the garnishee or any garnishment, the garnishee becomes
policy of the judgment debtor. person who has in his possession a "virtual party" to, or a "forced
Judgment debtor claims the credits belonging to the judgment intervenor" in, the case and the trial
insurance policy cannot be subject to debtor upon service upon him of the court thereby acquires jurisdiction to
garnishment or execution because writ of garnishment – no need for bind him to compliance with all
court never had jurisdiction over the summons. Neither does the orders and processes of the trial
insurance company. garnishee need not be impleaded as a court with a view to the complete
party to the case. satisfaction of the judgment of the

court.
337 - Solco vs. Provido (2008) The judgment was not satisfied so Sec 9 Rule 39 provides that payment
Solco paid the balance via a check of judgment must be made to
given to and accepted by the RTC’s judgement obligee, his
Clerk of Court. SC held that RTC is representative or the sheriff; giving
allowed to accept the check for the the payment to the Clerk of Court is
purpose of satisfying the balance. still substantial compliance with this
Section.

338 - Ong vs. Tating (1987) SC held that the posting of a bond to Jurisdiction of the trial court to deal The remedy of terceria is without
indemnify the sheriff for damages for with third party claimants’ plea for prejudice to any proper action that a
proceeding with an execution sale relief is not lost upon posting of third-party claimant may deem
despite the existence of third-party indemnity bond. suitable to vindicate his claim to the
claims on the property levied on did Trial Court has plenary jurisdiction property which Sec 17, Rule 39
not caused the Trial Court to lose over the proceedings for the provides that the third-party
jurisdiction to deal with the third- enforcement of its judgments. claimant can file an action distinct
party claimants' plea for relief When the sheriff thus seizes property and separate from that in which the
against what they deemed to be an of a third person in which the judgment is being enforced.
act of trespass by the sheriff. judgment debtor holds no right or
interest, and so incurs in error, the
supervisory power of the Court
which has authorized execution may
be invoked by the third person.
339 – Naguiat v. Court of Appeals Petitioner filed an independent A third-party claimant has the right Remedies are cumulative and any
(2000) action for the annulment of the to bring an independent action to one of them may be resorted to by a
certificate of sale issued in favor of assert his claim of ownership over third-party claimant without availing
private respondent, contending that the properties seized. Claimant may of the others. Thus, the availment of
the property levied upon and sold to also avail of the remedy known as the remedy of terceria is not a
private respondent by virtue of the “terceria”. An action for damages condition sine qua non to the filing of
writ of execution issued was her may also be brought against the a “proper action.” An independent
exclusive property, not that of the officer. action may be resorted to even
judgment obligor. before or without need of filing a
SC held that the petitioner is deemed claim in the court which issued the
a stranger to the action wherein the writ.
writ of execution was issued and is
therefore justified in bringing an
independent action to vindicate her

right of ownership over the subject
property.
340 – Palicte v. Ramolete (1987) Petitioner tried to redeem subject The right of a son, with respect to the Successor in interest” includes one
property. CFI stated that though she property of a father or mother, is also who succeeds to the interest of the
is one of the declared heirs, she does an inchoate or contingent interest, debtor by operation of law.
not qualify as a successor-in-interest because upon the death of the father
who may redeem the real properties or the mother or both, he will have a
sold. right to inherit said conjugal
SC held that she is a legitimate heir property. If any holder of an inchoate
who qualifies as his successor-in- interest is a successor in interest
interest. Petitioner is the daughter of with right to redeem a property sold
one of the declared heirs in a special on execution, then the son is such a
proceeding and qualifies as successor successor in interest, as he has an
in interest. Even with the inchoate right to the property of his
administrator, the heirs should be father.
allowed to redeem redeemable
properties.
341 – Fortunato v. Court of Since the redemption period was A check maybe used for exercise of
Appeals (1991) about to expire, private respondent the right of redemption, the same
issued a check. Sheriff issued a being a right and not an obligation.
certificate of redemption and notified The tender of a check is sufficient to
the counsel of petitioner et al. of the compel redemption but is not in itself
deposit. The counsel rejected the payment that relieves the
check. Petitioner requested the redemptioner from his liability to
sheriff to issue a final deed of sale pay redemption price.
upon failure to redeem the lots.
SC held that private respondent was
able to exercise his right of
redemption on time.
342 – Tolentino v. Court of Petitioner consigned with the Office A formal offer to redeem,
Appeals (1981) of the City Sheriff of Davao a accompanied by a bona fide tender
crossed PNB check for the of the redemption price, although
redemption of the 3 lots, including proper, is not essential where the
the homestead land. Respondents right to redeem is exercised
alleged that they are not legally through the filing of judicial action,
bound to accept such, not being in which was made simultaneously
cash. with the deposit of the redemption
SC held that petitioners were price with the Sheriff, within the
authorized to redeem the properties. period of redemption.
The right to redeem is exercised The filing of the action itself, within
through the filing of judicial action, the period of redemption, is

which was made simultaneously equivalent to a formal offer to
with the deposit of the redemption redeem.
price with the Sheriff
343 – Bacos v. Arcega (2008) In a complaint for illegal dismissal, A mere affidavit to support a third-
LA ruled in favor of respondent. party claim is not enough, as
Sheriff levied 28 sewing machines circumstances and proof supporting
belonging to the empolyer and the third-party claimant’s ownership
scheduled them for public auction. or possession of the levied properties
Petitioner filed with NLRC a Notice of must be specified. Section 16, Rule 39
Third Party Claim, presenting a requires a third-party claimant to
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale make an “affidavit of his title thereto
which was found spurious. Case was or right to the possession thereof,
dismissed. Petitioner argues that stating the ground of such title”.
Section 16, Rule 39, RoC only Corollarily, Section 3, Rule VI of the
requires a third-party claimant to NLRC Manual of Instructions for
submit an affidavit of his title to the Sheriffs provides that “should the
property, and does not require that third party claim be found to be
title of ownership be produced. without factual or legal basis, the
SC ruled otherwrise. sheriff must proceed with the
execution”.
344 – Buado v. Court of Appeals Decision in a slander case ordered If a separate action is the recourse,
(2009) private respondent to pay damages the third-party claimant must
to petitioner. Deputy Sheriffl levied institute in a forum of competent
and sold real property to satisfy this. jurisdiction an action, distinct and
Later, the husband filed a complaint separate from the action in which the
for annulment of certificate of sale. judgment is being enforced, even
SC ruled that the filing of a separate before or without need of filing a
action by respondent is proper. claim in the court that issued the
Conjugal property cannot be held writ.
liable for the personal obligation Only a stranger to the case may file a
contracted by one spouse, unless third-party claim.
some advantage or benefit is shown
to have accrued to the conjugal
partnership. Civil obligation arising
from the crime of slander committed
by respondent cannot redound to the
benefit of the conjugal partnership.

345 – Dilag v. Intermediate Petitioners argued that the levy on Even if the title to the land in the
Appellate Court (1987) execution was void since their name of petitioners was issued just
parents were not the owners of the days ahead of the deed of sale, said
lot sold at the time of the auction, Deed of Sale was, as the Court found,
and that said execution cannot bind simulated and fictitious, fabricated to
them as they were not parties to defraud private respondent. Such
their parents’ case. cannot render the execution sale
The Court denied the petition void.
because the Deed of Sale in favor of
petitioners executed by their parents
was a simulated and fictitious
transaction to defraud respondent
who obtained a money judgment
against the parents.
346 – Campillo v. Court of Appeals Private respondent filed an action to A sale of real estate whether made as
(1984) annul a deed of sale of 2 parcels of a result of a private transaction or of
land. He argued that at the time of a foreclosure or execution sale,
the levy and sale, judgment debtor becomes legally effective against 3rd
wasn’t the owner of the land because persons only from the date of
it was previously sold to him though registration.
he wasn’t able to register it and note
on the title.
SC held that levy and sale at public
auction of the parcels of land were
proper and legal. Under PD 1529, a
private instrument other than a will
does not affect registered land
insofar as 3rd persons are concerned,
until the same is registered.
347 – Pacheco v. Court of Appeals Decision against judgment debtor The claimant who does not file a Note: There was also another
(1987) was rendered and respondent was third party claim to the property claimant who was a purchaser of the
the highest bidder of levied land. being levied upon is not prevented land that was subsequently subject of
Respondent filed ejectment suit from vindicating his claims to the an execution sale. He is not barred
against petitioners who alleged that property by another action. from asserting his ownership in a
they purchased the property. separate action for failure to register
SC held that respondent cannot claim his claim when property was
ownership since debtor was no attached.
longer the owner at the time of The doctrine cited by Ma’am for this
execution. The rule in execution sales case is related to his claim.
states that execution creditor

acquires no better right than what
the execution debtor has over the
property levied upon
348 - Campillo v. CA (1984), supra
349 – Napocor v. Gonong (1989) A judgment became final and The only power of the court in
executory but the attempt at proceedings supplemental to
execution failed. So respondent judge execution is to make an order
issued an order of garnishment authorizing the creditor to sue in the
against petitioner to pay for proper court to recover an
judgment award rendered against indebtedness due to the judgment
one of their creditors. debtor.
SC held that respondent judge The court has no jurisdiction to try
committed GAD in ordering the summarily the question whether the
payment by the alleged third party served with notice of
debtor/petitioner without execution and levy is indebted to
indubitable admission or conclusive defendant when such indebtedness is
proof that the debt existed and was denied. To do so would be to deprive
demandable. the garnishee of property upon
summary proceeding and without
due process of law.
350 – Northwest Airlines v. Court Petitioner, a foreign corporation, A judgment in an action in personam The rule is that the rules on service
of Appeals (1995) filed an action to enforce the in a court of a foreign country having of summons are governed by the law
judgement of a Japanese court jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of the country where judgment was
against respondent, a local of a right as between the parties and rendered.
corporation. RTC dismissed it on the their successors-in-interest. In the absence of proof regarding a
ground that the Japanese decision is The judgment may be assailed by foreign country’s law on summons,
null and void bec. the service of evidence of want of jurisdiction, want the presumption of identity or
summons effected in Manila or of notice to the party, collusion, processual presumption may be
beyond the territorial boundaries of fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. invoked – this means that the foreign
Japan was null and did not confer The party attacking a foreign country’s law on summons is
jurisdiction upon the Tokyo District judgment has the burden of disputing presumed to be similar with the
Court. the presumption of its validity. Philippine law on summons.
SC ruled for petitioner. Since The rule on service of summons on
respondent was admittedly doing foreign corporations is that
business in Japan through its four summons may be served on its
duly registered branches at the time resident agent, or if there is none, on
the collection suit against it was filed, the government official designated
then in the light of the processual by law.
presumption, respondent may be
deemed a resident of Japan, and, as
such, was amenable to the

jurisdiction of the courts therein and
may be deemed to have assented to
the said courts' lawful methods of
serving process.
351 – Asiavest v. PNCC (2001) Petitioner foreign corporation filed a A foreign judgment is presumed to be A valid judgment rendered by a
collection case against respondent valid and binding in the country from foreign tribunal may be recognized
local corporation in High Court of which it comes, until a contrary insofar as the immediate parties and
Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. Judgment showing, on the basis of a the underlying cause of action are
was rendered and respondent was presumption of regularity of concerned so long as it is
unable to pay. Petitioner tried to proceedings and the giving of due convincingly shown that
enforce the judgment here but RTC notice in the foreign forum. 1.) there has been an opportunity for
dismissed such. A judgment, against a person, of a a full and fair hearing before a court
SC held that the Malaysian judgment tribunal of a foreign country having of competent jurisdiction;
can be enforced here by RTC. Since jurisdiction to pronounce the same is 2.) that the trial upon regular
petitioner was able to the existence presumptive evidence of a right as proceedings has been conducted,
and authenticity of the foreign between the parties and their following due citation or voluntary
judgment, said foreign judgment successors in interest by a appearance of the defendant and
enjoys presumptive validity and the subsequent title. under a system of jurisprudence
burden then fell upon the party who The judgment may, however, be likely to secure an impartial
disputes its validity, herein private assailed by evidence of want of administration of justice;
respondent, to prove otherwise. jurisdiction, want of notice to the 3.) and that there is nothing to
Respondent in this case failed to do party, collusion, fraud, or clear indicate either a prejudice in court
so. mistake of law or fact. and in the system of laws under
which it is sitting or fraud in
procuring the judgment.
352 – Garcia v. Recio (2001) Respondent was married to an Our courts do not take judicial notice Note: Court noted that respondent
Australian citizen in Rizal. But of foreign laws and judgments; presented presented a decree nisi or
divorce was filed to and issued by an hence, like any other facts, both the an interlocutory decree which is
Australian family court. divorce decree and the national law actually a conditional or provisional
Respondent who was already an of the alien must be alleged and judgment of divorce which does not
Australian citizen, married proven according to our law on allow remarriage
petitioner, a Filipino. But later on evidence. a. Even after the divorce becomes
petitioner filed an annulment case on absolute, the court may restrict
the grounds of bigamy against remarriage
respondent. b. The herein Australian divorce
SC remanded the case. The decree of decree even contains a restriction
divorce was proven but refused to stating that before the decree
rule on respondent’s legal capacity to becomes absolute, if the party
marry. remarries he commits bigamy
353 – Roehr v. Rodriguez (2002) Petitioner obtained a decree of Before our courts can give the effect
divorce from the CFI of Hamburg- of res judicata to a foreign judgment,

Blankenese which dissolved the it must be shown that the parties
marriage of the parties and granted opposed to the judgment had been
parental custody of the children to given ample opportunity to do so on
him. grounds allowed under Rule 39,
SC held that the decree did not touch Section 48 of the Rules of Court.
on the issue as to who the offending
spouse was. Absent any finding that
private respondent is unfit to obtain
custody of the children, the trial
court was correct in settling the issue
for hearing to determine the issue of
parental custody
354 – Bayot v. Court of Appeals Petitioner, an American citizen and The judgment or final order of a Note: Petitioner was not able to
(2008) private respondent were married in foreign court is binding upon parties refute her American citizenship.
Mandaluyong City. Petitioner later if they do not challenge it based on Thus, she can no longer ask for
initiated divorce proceedings in the the grounds of jurisdiction, lack of nullity of marriage in the Philippines
Dominican Republic, which was notice, collusion, fraud, or clear because the marital bonds had
granted. Later she became a Filipino mistake of law or fact. already been severed in the
citizen and filed for declaration of In Philippine family law, a divorce Dominican Republic.
absolute nullity of marriage on the secured in a foreign country is valid Petitioner lacks a cause of action for
ground of psychological incapacity in as to the alien spouse and the declaration of nullity of marriage,
Muntinlupa. She also prayed for Filipino spouse if the former because such an action presupposes
dissolution of the conjugal successfully obtains it. the existence of a marriage.
partnership and support for herself
and her daughter. SC held that
respondent’s MTD on the grounds of
lack of cause of action and res
judicata because of the prior
judgment of divorce should be
granted. Since both parties had the
opportunity to challenge the foreign
judgment and yet they did not, the
decision made by the Dominican
court is binding
355 – Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas (2010) Petitioner was a Filipino who The foreign divorce decree, after its
acquired Canadian citizenship and authenticity and conformity with the
got a divorce therein. To marry alien’s national law have been duly
another Filipina so he went back to proven according to our rules of
the Phils. petitioner filed a petition evidence, serves as a presumptive
for judicial recognition of foreign evidence of right in favor of the alien
divorce and/or declaration of spouse, pursuant to Section 48, Rule

marriage as dissolved. RTC denied it 39 of the Rules of Court which
and based it on the ground that provides for the effect of foreign
petitioner, an alien spouse, was not judgments.
the proper party to institute the Being the subject of a foreign
action for judicial recognition of the judgment is sufficient to clothe a
foreign divorce decree under Art. 26 party with the requisite interest to
FC as the substantive right it institute an action before our courts
establishes is in favor of the Filipino for the recognition of the foreign
spouse. judgment. Example, in a divorce
SC held that RTC was correct denying situation, the divorce obtained by an
petitioner on such ground. alien abroad may be recognized in
But it also held that instead, the Philippines, provided the divorce
petitioner can have foreign divorce is valid according to his or her
decree recognized under Sec. 48, national law.
Rule 39, RoC.
356 - Oropeza Marketing Respondent bank filed a collection Even though there was no identity of Ma’am: Since the court held in the
Corporation v. Allied Banking suit against pettitoner corporation causes of action in the first and second case that the sale was valid, it
(2002) for non-payment of loan. Pending second cases, the second case still was interpreted to mean that debt in
the collection case, bank discovered constituted res judicata on the first the first case has been paid.
that spouses Oropeza sold to Gold case. This is the conclusiveness of
Commercial the properties judgment aspect of res judicata. Test to determine identity of cause of
mortgaged to them in the loan in the action: whether the same evidence
first case so they filed a second suit would sustain both cases.
for the annulment of the deed of sale.
CA held that the deed of sale was
valid which was upheld by the SC.
357 – St. Aviation Services Co. V. SASC filed a collection suit against Under Rule 39 Section 48, a foreign Service of summons was ruled as
Grand International Airways GIA before the High Court of judgment against a person is valid in this case.
(2006) Singapore for non-payment of presumptively valid and the party
services it rendered. Summons was attacking it has the burden of
served upon GIA extra-territorially overcoming the presumption of its
but the latter still failed to file an validity by showing that it was issued
answer so a judgment by default was with lack of jurisdiction or lack of
rendered in favor of SASC. GIA filed notice.
an MTD asserting that Singaporean
court did not acquire jurisdiction
over its person due to improper
service of summons, therefore the
judgment rendered was void and
unenforceable but the SC denied such
argument.

358 – Philippine Health Providers CIR assessed and demanded from When a minute resolution denies a
Inc. V. CIR (2009) PHPI payment of deficiency taxes. To petition, the challenged decision
support its position that it does not together with its findings of fact and
have to pay said taxes, PHPI cited a legal conclusions are deemed
minute resolution issued by the SC in sustained.
the case of CIR v. PNB which However, with regards to other
effectively affirmed the CA’s ruling cases, it has the following effects:
that health care agreements such as a. RES JUDICATA if same
theirs are not insurance contracts subject matter, issues and
and are therefore not subject to tax. parties
SC held that minute resolution is not b. NOT BINDING if with
a binding precedent in this case. respect to another set of
parties or another subject
matter (even if same parties
and issues)
359 – Mijares v. Ranada (2005) Petitioners were human rights Computation of filing fees regarding
victims during the Marcos era that actions to enforce foreign judgments
filed a class action before the US is governed by Rule 141 Sec. 7(b)(3)
District Court of Hawaii and was involving “other actions not involving
awarded damages in the amount of property.”
$2.25 billion. They sought
enforcement of the final judgment in
RTC Makati but the respondent
countered with an MTD alleging non-
payment of correct filing fees.
Petitioners insisted that Php410 was
the correct filing fee pursuant to Sec.
7(c) Rule 141 since enforcement of
judgment is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. SC ruled that amount
paid was correct since it complies
with Sec. 7 (b)(3).
360 – Policarpio v. Active Bank Active Bank foreclosed mortgage Under Rule 39 Sec. 33, the general
(2008) over land of spouses and applied for rule is that a purchaser of property in
a writ of possession which the TC an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is
granted. Policarpio sought entitled to possession and a WOP
nullification of the WOP claiming that shall be issued by the TC as a matter
she was a third party in possession of of course. However, such is not the
the property contemplated under situation when there is a third party
Rule 39 Sec. 33. SC upheld the bank’s in possession if the property claiming
right to possession by virtue of a right adverse to that of the

evidence they presented since debtor/mortgagor in which case the
Policarpio failed to attend hearing for court should conduct a hearing to
the determination of her right to determine the nature of the adverse
possess the property. possession.
RULE 40: (Appeal from MTC to RTC)

361 – Silverio Jr. v. CA In the intestate proceeding for the An interlocutory order, contrary to a Availing of an improper mode of
settlement of the estate of Beatriz final order, is one that does not appeal does not toll the reglementary
Silverio, the trial court issued an completely dispose of the case and period for filing the correct remedy.
order directing, among others, that still leaves something to be decided
Nelia Silverio-Dee vacate the by the court. It is not the proper
property that is subject of the subject of an appeal and will be
proceedings. After filing an MR of dismissed if assailed through such
said order which was subsequently mode. The proper remedy for
denied, she filed a notice of appeal. assailing an interlocutory order is a
SC dismissed the case because the petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
order being questioned is an
interlocutory order.
362 – McBurnie v. Ganzon (2009) LA declared petitioner to have been Perfection of an appeal in the manner
illegally dismissed by Ganzon’s and within the period permitted by
company and ordered the payment law is mandatory and jurisdictional.
of salary, benefits, damages, etc in The compliance with its
the amount of $900k and Php2M. requirements must be strictly
Finding the award excessive, followed.
respondent filed a memorandum of
appeal and motion to reduce bond
before the NLRC on the last day of
the 10-day period allowed, posting
the amount of P100,000.00 as appeal
bond. NLRC denied the motion but
gave respondent a new 10-day
period to post additional bond that is
adequate for the amount awarded,
but instead of complying, the latter
appealed. SC held that respondent’s
non-compliance merited dismissal of
their appeal.
363 – Francisco v. Permskul Respondent won against petitioner Findings of fact and conclusions of

(1989) in a case for refund of deposit for law adopted must also be contained
rentals before the MeTC. RTC in a statement annexed or attached
affirmed the MeTC via memorandum to the memorandum decision of the
decision which was assailed for non- appellate court. It is also necessary
compliance with constitutional that the decision adopted by the
requirement that decisions state appellate court complied with the
clearly and distinctly the facts and requirements of Article VIII Section
laws from which it is based. SC 14 of the Constitution.
affirmed the validity of RTC
memorandum decision.
364 – Casolita v. CA (1997) Petitioners lost in a recovery of Failure to serve notice of appeal on
possession of property case against adverse party is fatal as such is
private respondents. Some of the tantamount to a deprivation of the
petitioners filed a notice of appeal latter’s right to be informed that a
but failed to serve the same on judgment in his favor is being
private respondent’s counsel. SC challenged.
dismissed appeal.
365 – Casalla v. People (2002) Casalla was found guilty of violating Requirement of notice of hearing
BP22 by the MTC which caused him under the ROC applies to MR filed
to appeal to the RTC which affirmed before the RTC acting in its appellate
the decision of the former. Casalla jurisdiction since ROC applies to all
filed an MR which was denied by the courts, except otherwise provided.
RTC for lack of notice of hearing.
According to Casalla, notice of
hearing does not apply when the RTC
is acting in its appellate jurisdiction.
366 – Enriquez v. CA (2003) Enriquez lost in an unlawful detainer Under Rule 40 Sec. 7 (b), the
case before the MCTC and appealed requirement of filing a memorandum
to RTC. However, she failed to is mandatory upon the appellant and
submit her memorandum which led non-compliance will compel the RTC
the RTC to dismiss her appeal. CA to dismiss the appeal.
and SC upheld the dismissal.
367 – Navarro v. Metropolitan MBTC foreclosed mortgage on Once a judgment becomes final, it is
Bank & Trust Company (2009) Navarro spouses’ property due to no longer subject to change, revision,
default. After 11 years, Clarita amendment or reversal, except only
Navarro sought for declaration of for correction of clerical errors, or
nullity of mortgage and foreclosure the making of nunc pro tunc entries
but RTC. MBTC filed a MTD before which cause no prejudice to any
RTC which was denied, causing it to party, or where the judgment itself is
appeal before CA which granted void. Just as a losing party has the
dismissal of the case on the ground of right to file an appeal within the

laches. CA decision became final and prescribed period, the winning party
executory. Clarita filed another case also has the correlative right to enjoy
before RTC for declaration of nullity the finality of the resolution of his
of TCTs of land. CA ruled that case by the execution and
dismissal due to laches of first case satisfaction of the judgment.
precludes filing of the second case.
SC affirmed dismissal of the CA
pointing out that since first case
wherein ruling of laches was held is
already final and executory, such is
now immutable and is a ground to
dismiss second case.
368 – Banco De Oro-ECPI v. A third party complaint was filed The Doctrine of the Law of the Case
Tansipek (2009) against Tansipek before RTC for applies to both appeal and a Petition
which he was declared in default. for Certiorari. The doctrine is
After his MR of default order was necessary to enable the appellate
denied, he filed a petition for court to perform its duties
certiorari before the CA. However, satisfactorily and efficiently, which
this was dismissed due to non- would be impossible if a question
attachment of assailed orders. After once considered and decided by it
his MR was denied, respondent no were to be litigated anew in the same
longer appealed. Tansipek later on case upon any and every subsequent
appealed the entirety of the main appeal.
case. SC ruled that order of default
was adjudicated with finality by the
CA and already constitutes the law of
the case.
RULE 41: (Appeal from RTC)

369 – Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Petitioners filed an action for AM No. 07-7-12-SC effective
Spouses Amores (2011) quieting of title and reconveyance December 27, 2007 has amended
before the RTC which the Rule 41 Sec. 1 by deleting an order
respondents opposed via MTD on the denying an MNT or MR from the
ground that RTC had no jurisdiction enumeration of non-appealable
since the property involved is a friar orders.
land and petitioners lacked
personality to sue. RTC granted MTD.
Petitioners filed an MR which was

denied. They assailed the dismissal
before the CA via petition for
certiorari. CA dismissed petition
pursuant to Rule 41 Sec. 1 (a). SC did
not reverse CA despite the issuance
of AM No. 07-7-12-SC while the case
was pending before it reasoning that
the CA was merely applying the rule
of procedure in force when it issued
its decision.
370 – Penta Capital Finance Corp. CCC-QC is a franchise of CCC upon The remedy of terceria is available
v. Bay (2012) whom a judgment was rendered and only to a third person other than the
a writ of execution issued against in judgment obligor or the latter’s agent
According to Ma’am, this is a Rule favor of Reynoso. CCC filed a third who claims a property levied on.
39 case. party claim against Reynoso claiming
that property levied was owned by it.
CA ruled in favor of CCC and declared
third party claim proper. SC
reversed and held that CCC is not a
third party but is one and the same
with CCC-QC.
371 – Makati Insurance Co. v. Hon. Petitioner’s case was dismissed Pursuant to Rule 41 Sec. 1(h), an
Reyes (2008) without prejudice by the RTC for order dismissing an action without
non-appearance during pre-trial. prejudice is not appealable but may
Petitioner filed an MR of the order of be assailed via certiorari under Rule
dismissal which was denied by the 65.
court. They then filed a notice of
appeal with the RTC which the latter
denied for being filed out of time.
They went up to the CA on petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing
the dismissal of the appeal. SC held
that notice of appeal was not the
proper remedy in this case.
372 – PNB-Republic Bank v. RTC dismissed petitioner’s complaint The filing of a second notice of appeal
Cordova (2008) but granted respondent’s from a modified decision is a
counterclaim. Upon receiving a copy superfluity because the appeal is
of the decision, petitioner seasonably deemed perfected upon the filing of
filed notice of appeal # 1. RTC upon the first notice of appeal as to the
motion of respondent increased party who filed such.
amount of damages awarded to the

latter which led petitioner to file a
notice of appeal # 2. Respondent
filed an MTD arguing that notice of
appeal # 1 was rendered ineffective
by notice of appeal # 2 which was
then filed out of time. SC held that
appeal was already perfected as to
petitioner upon filing of the first
notice of appeal.
373 – Panolino v Tajala (2010) Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal to the The fresh period rule in Neypes
DENR Secretary was denied for being applies to Rule 40, 41, 42, 43, and 45.
filed out of time, pursuant to the It is not inconsistent with Rule 41;
DENR Admin Order, providing that “judgment or final order” includes an
appeal shall be perfected within the order of denial of MR.
remainder of time from notice of However, the Neypus rule does not
denial of MR. extend to administrative
SC held that case being proceedings.
administrative in nature, the Neypes
rule does not apply. The DENR
Admin Order governs the rule on
appeal.
374 - Abedes v CA (2007) In assailing the appeal under Rule 41 It is axiomatic that a question of law
filed by respondent to CA, one of the arises when there is doubt as to what
issues raised by petitioner is that the law is on a certain state of facts,
such appeal raised only questions of while there is a question of fact when
law, so the CA should have dismissed the doubt arises as to the truth or
the same as the it had no jurisdiction
falsity of the alleged facts.
over pure questions of law (that
jurisdiction is with SC via Rule 45).
SC held that CA has jurisdiction over
the appeal. A review of the records
reveals that respondents, in their
appeal to CA raised mixed questions
of fact and law. Petitioner should not
be allowed to question CA’s
jurisdiction after it has actively
participated in the proceedings
before it.
375 - Lazaro v CA (2000) The respondent’s appeal was being Failure to pay docket and other Sec 4 Rule 41 specifically provides
dismissed for failure to pay the lawful fees within the prescribed that the appellate court docket and
required docket fees. Upon an MR period is a ground for the dismissal other lawful feels should be paid

invoking “interest of substantial of an appeal. The rule is mandatory within the period for taking an
justice”, the CA reinstated the appeal, and jurisdictional. This rule cannot appeal.
without citing specific circumstance be suspended by the mere invocation
or explanation to support its ruling. of “the interest of substantial justice.”
SC ruled that CA erred. witthout any specific circumstance or
any other explanation in support
376 - RP v CA (2005) The OSG sought to appeal the order A petition for the declaration of
of the trial court declaring absentee presumptive death of an absent
spouse presumptively dead, by filing spouse is a summary proceeding
a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The under the Family Code. It is an
RTC disapproved such, noting that no ordinary proceeding which requires
record of appeal was filed and served only a Notice of Appeal.
as required by the rules, the case It is not a special proceeding under
being a special proceeding. the Revised Rules of Court, appeal for
SC held being a summary ordinary which calls for the filing of a Record
proceeding, the filing of a Notice of on Appeal.
Appeal from the trial court’s order
sufficed.
377 - Elepante v Madayag (1991) Trial court dismissed petitioner’s Timeliness of appeal is not only
petition for habeas corpus, for lack of mandatory, but also jurisdictional.
merit. He then filed his petition for A petition for habeas corpus must be
review on certiorari. appealed within 48 hours of receipt
SC ruled that appeal should be of notice of denial; otherwise, it will
dismissed, being filed 13 days from attain finality.
notice, therefore, outside the 48 hour
reglementary period
378 - Sesbreno v CA (1995) To assail CA’s jurisidction, petitioner A question of law which exists 'when
argued that the petition filed before the doubt or difference arises as to
the IAC by respondent raised no what the law is on certain state of
question of fact and only issue to be facts'
resolved bwas whether private A question of fact exists when the
respondent could be held liable for doubt or difference arises as to the
estafa under the facts obtaining in truth or the falsehood of alleged
the criminal case. facts;' or when the 'query necessarily
SC held that there is only a question invites calibration of the whole
of law petition to CA and that should evidence considering mainly the
fall within the jurisdiction of this credibility of witnesses, existence
Court. But it also held that and relevancy of specific
petititioner is estopped raising the surrounding circumstances, their
question of jurisdiction for the first relation to each other and to the
time in a petition before SC when it whole and the probabilities of the

failed to do so in the early stages of situation."
the proceedings and esp. after his
actively participation in CA.
379 - Obando v CA TC granted motion to remove A second MR is not allowed, and
petitioner as administrator in the therefore, does not toll the running
probate proceedings of Spouses of the period to appeal. The period
Figueras, based on falsified will. began to run from the denial of the
Petitioner filed an MR, which was first MR.
denied. He filed an Urgent Motion for
Recondideration, which was denied
for being a second MR. He filed
another MR, and was denied again.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal,
which was denied for being filed
beyond the reglementary period.
SC held that the Notice of Appeal
filed 6 months later, was correctly
denied.
380 - Oro v Diaz (2001) Petitioner filed an MR, which was The approval of the notice of appeal Prior to the amendment of the rule,
dismissed for being pro-forma. He is minesterial duty when the appeal Sec1. Rule 41 provided that no
thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal, is filed on time. Otherwise, the court appeal may be taken from an order
directed against the order denying has discretion to refuse or disallow denying a motion for new trial or
the MR. The appeal was denied for it, in accordance with the rules. reconsideration. This was removed
being filed out of time, since the in 2007. Nevertheless, Sec 9 Rule 37
running of the period was not tolled provides that an order denying an
by the filing of the pro-forma MR. MR/MNT is not appealable. The
SC held that the trial court was proper remedy is an appeal from the
correct in disallowing the appeal, judgement or final order.
because it was filed out of time, and
because it was directed at an Order
denying an MR, instead of at the
judgement or final order disposing
the case.
381 - Hufana v Genato RTC declared the mortgage valid. A TC resolution that, did not merely
2yrs. ater, RTC issued a resolution order something to be done pursuant
declaring the mortgage void and only to a previous final decision, but also
partially granting respondent’s delved on the merits of the claims of
motion for execution for forclousre the parties and resolved issues
on property not covered by determinative of the final outcome of
petitioner’s claim. Petitioner argued the cases, is in effect a final order
that CA shouldn’t have entertained that may be appealed to the CA

respondent’s appeal, the subject under the Rules of Court.
(partial motion for execution) of
which is non-appealable.
SC held that trial court did not
merely grant partial execution but
resolved issues like the validity of
mortgage which is determinative of
the final outcome of the case. As
such, the TC resolution is in effect a
final order that may be appealed to
the CA
382 - Cosmos Bottling Corp v In an illegal dismissal case, the LA Generally, the findings of facts of the
Nagrama (2008) sustained the legality of the CA are conclusive and binding on the
respondent’s dismissal, finding Supreme Court. The Court is not a
abandonment committed. This was trier of facts and does not routinely
affirmed by the NLRC. The CA undertake the re-examination of the
reversed, ruling that the requisites of evidence presented by the
abandonment were not proven. The contending parties during the trial of
petitioner filed petition for certiorari the case
with the SC. One of the exception to this rule
Questions of facts were raised but when the findings of facs of the lower
the SC still took cognizance because courts are confilicting.
the findings of facts were conflicting.
383 - People v Mateo (2004) Ten informations for rape were filed The SC in this case announced that it Before this case, the SC had assumed
against respondent. The lower court is additionally allowing, as a rule, an the direct appellate review over all
found him guilty beyond reasonable intermediate review by the Court of criminal cases, where the penalty
doubt, imposing the penalty of Appeals, before cases are elevated to imposed is death, reclusion perpetua,
reclusion perpetua. The Sol Gen the SC on automatic review. or life imprisonment. This is based
assails the factual findings of the trial A prior determinaton by the CA on on the 1987 Constitution Art VIII Sec
court. The case was forwarded to the factual issues, would minimize the 5 (2)(d). While it requires mandatory
Supreme Court for automatic appeal. possibility of an error of judgment. review by the SC, nowhere has it
SC remanded case to CA. proscribed an intermediate review.
384 - People v Abon (2008) The RTC found Abon guilty of rape, Developments in criminal law and
and sentenced him to suffer death jurisprudence have brought about
penalty. The case was forwarded to changes in the rules on appeal. The
the SC, due to the penalty imposed. In provisions of the Rules of court on
accordance with the ruling in People appeals involving death penalty
v Mateo, the case was remanded to cases are no longer operational.
the CA. The CA affirmed the
conviction
385 - Madrigal Transport v In an insolvency proceeding, The special civil action for certiorari Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a

Lapanday Holding (2004) petitioner filed a complaint for and appeal are two different substitute for lost appeal. It is not
damages, which was dismissed, upon remedies that are mutually exclusive; part of the appeals process, but an
motion by the adverse party. The they are not alternative or independent civil action. Whiel the
petitioner filed a Petition for successive. Basic is the rule that SC may treat it as a Rule 45 appeal, it
Certiorari with the CA. It was certiorari is not a substitute for the may only do so if the petition was
dismissed, on the ground that an lapsed remedy of appeal. filed within the reglementary period
order granting a motion to dismiss for Rule 45.
was final and thus proper subject of
an appeal. SC affirmed CA.
386 - Parel v Prudencio (2011) In a complaint for recovery and A writ of execution may be appealed The remedy or mode of elevation to
possession, the RTC ruled in favor of if appeal a writ of execution is appeal --
petitioner. This was reversed by the a) the writ of execution varies the - via a writ of error or certiorari---
CA. SC affirmed the CA decision. judgment, OR by a special civil action of
Respondent filed a Motion for the b) if there has been a change in the certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus
Issuance of Writ of Execution for situation of the parties making the
unpaid rentals which was granted. execution inequitable or unjust,
Petitioner filed an MR against the c) if the execution is sought to be
order granting the motion for enforced against property exempt
execution. Respondent contested this from execution,
statings that a writ of execution is d) if it appears that the controversy
nonappealable. has never been subject to the
SC ruled for petitioner. While a writ judgment of the court,
of execution cannot be appealed, the e) when the terms of the judgment
instant case fall under one of the are not clear enough and there
exceptions: when there has been a remains room for interpretation
change in the situation of the parties thereof OR
making execution inequitable or f) if it appears that the writ of
unjust. It has to be determined first execution has been improvidently
when Parel actually vacated the issued, or that it is defective in
ground floor of Prudencio’s house for substance, or is issued against the
computation of unpaid rentals (upon wrong party, or that the judgment
reversal of CA or up until execution debt has been paid or otherwise
was granted) satisfied, or the writ was issued
without authority.
RULE 42: (Petition for Review from RTC to CA)

387 - Caton v City of Cebu (2007) Petitioners filed a case for forcible Failure to comply with the Rules is a Sec 2 Rule 42 prescribes the form
entry agaionst MCDP and City of ground for the outright dismissal of and contents of the petiion. Sec 3
Cebu. MTC ruled for them, but RTC an appeal. provides that failure to comply with
reversed. Petitioners then filed a any of the requirements shall be
petition for review with the CA. CA sufficient ground for the dismissal of
dismissed the petiiton fo failure to the petition.
attach copies of the complaint,
answer, position papers filed with
the MTC. SC affirmed CA.
388 - Yu v Samson-Tatad (2011) Petitioner was convicted of estafa. While the Court did not consider in
She filed an MNT, which was denied Neypes the ordinary appeal period in
for lack of merit. A Notice of Appeal criminal cases, since it involved a
was filed, petitioner invoking the purely civil case, it did include Rule
Neypes doctrine. The prosecution 42 on petitions for review from the
moved to dismiss, arguring that the
RTCs to the CA, and Rule 45
Neypes ruling does not apply to
governing appeals by certiorari to
criminal cases.
SC held that the fresh period rule” this Court, both of which also apply
enunciated in Neypes applies to to appeals in criminal cases, as
appeals in criminal cases. provided by Section 3 of Rule 122 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
RULE 43: (Appeals from CTA and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to CA)

389 - Santos v Go (2005) Respondent filed a complaint- DOJ resolutions directing a
affidavit for estafa against the Board prosecutor to file a criminal
Members of Fil-Estate. The City information is not a decision by a
Prosecutor dismissed the complaint. quasi-judicial body which can be
On appeal, the DOJ Secretary subject to a Rule 43 petition.
reversed, and ordered the filing of an
DOJ does not exercise quasi-judicial
information for estafa against
functions in reviewing a public
petitioners. Petitioners filed a
petition for review under R43, prosecutor’s finding regarding the
assailing the DOJ resolution. existence of probable cause. It is
SC held that petition should be likewise not among the enumerated
dismissed as it is not a proper subject agenices under Sec1.
of a Rule 43 petition.
390 - PCGG Chairman Elma vs. Respondents filed petition for An investigating prosecutor is Also, MC 58 of the OP bars an appeal

Jacobi (2012) mandamus, prohibition & certiorari performing functions of a quasi- from the decisions of the SoJ on
against petitioners before the judicial nature in the conduct of a prelim investigations of criminal
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed prelim investigation. However, since cases via a PFR except for offenses
complaint before DOJ, charging he does not make a determination of punishable w/ reclusion perpetua to
respondents w/ falsification & w/ the rights of any party, or pronounce death. Therefore, a party aggrieved
use of falsified docs. DOJ’s dismissed the respondent’s guilt/innocence, an by the DOJ’s resolution cannot appeal
such because there is no probable investigating prosecutor’s function to the OP & is left w/o any plain,
cause. Petititioner now contests still lacks the element of adjudication speedy & adequate remedy.
DOJ’s finding of lack of probable essential to an appeal under R43.
cause.
SC held that appeal cannot be done
via Rule 43. This leaves a certiorari
petition as the only remedial avenue
left. But petitioner must allege DOJ
acted w/ GAD.
391 - Gonzales v. CSC (2002) Petitioner was dropped from the Only judgments, final orders or
rolls of employees for repeated resolutions must be accompanied by
failure to report for work despite due certified true copies of the judgment
notice. On appeal, CA dismissed the appealed from in appeals from quasi-
same for failure to comply with Sec. judicial agencies, per Sec. 6, Rule 43.
6(c), Rule 43 (to attach certified true
copies of the material portions of the
records & supporting papers to the
petition). In his MR, petitioner
attached the necessary papers. But
his MR was later denied.
SC held that the that not all
supporting papers accompanying the
petition should be certified true
copies.
392 – Jaro v.CA (2002) Provincial Adjudicator rendered a The perceived errors committed by
decision in favour of petitioner ruling the DARAB, if at all, merely amount
that respondent was not a tenant to errors of judgment, not errors of
(mere occupants by virtue of jurisdiction. DARAB decision on its
landowner’s generosity). On appeal, face does not show that the DARAB
DARAB ruled that the land in blatantly misapplied the fundamental
question was agricultural & found rules of evidence to the facts of the
substantial evidence to show that case. The DARAB decision was thus
respondent is a tenant of the land. the proper subject of a petition for
review.
393 – Zaragoza v. Noble (2004) Complaint for termination of Supporting documents such as

leasehold relationship before PARAD. criminal informations to support
On appeal, CA dismissed petition for ground of termination of an
being procedurally flawed: Annexes agricultural leasehold contract,
(informations filed against Nobleza) accompanying the petition for review
were merely plain copies n violation of a decision of DARAB, a quasi-
of Rule 43, Sec. 6 (c). judicial agency, need not be certified
SC reversed CA. true copies. Only the copy of the
questioned judgment, order or
resolution is required to be certified
as true.
394 - St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. Petition for certiorari from a “References in the amended Section 9
NLRC (1988) complaint for illegal dismissal. LA of B.P. 129 as to the supposed
dismissed the case because of lack of “appeal” from the NLRC to the SC are
jurisdiction. NLRC reversed and interpreted to mean and refer to
remanded case to LA. Petitioner’s MR petitions for certiorari.
was denied. All such petitions should henceforth
SC did not rule on the petition but be initially filed in the Court of
remanded the case to CA. Appeals in strict observance of the
doctrine on the hierarchy of courts.”
395 - Santos vs. Committee on Petitioner, retired from DAR and re- Section 3 of Rule 43 provides, "[a]n
Claims Settlement (2009) employed in the Office of the Deputy appeal under this Rule may be taken
Ombudsman, tried to avail of early to the CA within the period and in the
retirement under RA 660 but was manner herein provided whether the
denied. He filed a complaint with the appeal involves questions of fact, of
GSIS Board of Trustees but was law, or mixed questions of fact and
denied. He filed petition for review law.” Hence, appeals from quasi-
under Rule 43 with the CA but CA judicial agencies even only on
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. questions of law may be brought to
SC held CA erred in its dismissal. the CA.
RULE 44: (Ordinary Appealed Cases)

396 – Bucad v. CA (1992) Petitioner filed an action for Non compliance with the proper
annulment of sale and cancellation of contents of an appellant’s brief,
title. The court ruled in favor of the particularly paragraphs (b) and (d)
private respondents. So petitioner of Sec. 16, Rule 46, pertaining to the

appealed to the CA, w/c dismissed assignment of errors and statement
the appeal on the ground that it did of facts with page references,
not comply with the proper contents subjects the appeal to dismissal
of an appellant’s brief – it did not pursuant to Sec. 1 (g) of Rule 50.
contain a statement of facts and
assignment of errors paragraphs (b)
and (d) of Sec. 16 of Rule 46.
SC affirmed CA.
397 - Lianga Lumber Co. vs. Lianga Private respondent claims that it has When a party deliberately adopts a
Timber Co. (1977) been its theory even before the trial certain theory and the case is tried
court that the boundary between the and decided upon that theory in the
two concessions is not the political lower court, he will not be permitted
boundary between the provinces of to change his theory on appeal
Agusan and Surigao. But he then because to permit him to do so will
raised the issue of whether the be unfair to the adverse party.
contested boundary falls within A party may change his legal theory
Surigao. Petitioners contested this on appeal only when the factual
new issue that this was not bases thereof would not require
supported by records. presentation of any further evidence
SC disallowed the issue raised by PR by the adverse party in order to
stating that such question could not enable it to properly meet the issue
now be changed by private raised in the new theory.
respondent on appeal.
398 - Del Rosario vs. Bonga (2001) RTC ruled in favor of Mrs. Bonga. CA Issues and arguments not presented
rejected the claim of Elaine that before the trial court cannot be
Bonga had no right to ask for the raised for the first time on appeal.
rescission of the Deed of Conditional Basic considerations of due process
Sale. impel this rule.
a. Elaine asserted that Mr. Bonga had
acquired the property from an
awardee of the NHA w/n 5 yrs from
the award w/o the NHA’s prior
written consent & authority, hence,
the acquisition was void
b. Because Mr. Bonga had no title, he
cannot enter into a sale this is
raised for the first time on appeal
399 - Vina vs. CA (2003) Petitioner convicted for violating The applicable rule is Sec 3 of Rule
Dangerous Drugs Act. Petitioner’s 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
motion for extension of time to file Procedure, w/c requires a 30-day
the appellant's brief denied for being period w/in w/c to file an appellant's

filed late. brief. Sec 7, Rule 44 provides for the
Petitioner: motion for extension was period w/n w/c an appellant's brief
seasonably filed w/n the 45-day must be filed in civil cases, w/c is 45-
reglementary period under Sec 7, days, while Sec 3, Rule 124 provides
Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil when brief for the appellant should
Procedure be filed in criminal cases, w/c is 30
SolGen: the applicable rule is Sec 3 days.
Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, w/c requires a
30-day period
400 - Maricalum Mining Corp. vs. DBP and PNB, which were impleaded GR: If there are several parties, one
Remington Industrial (2008) as co-defendants in a complaint filed party’s successful appeal from a
by Remington, filed separate appeals judgment will not inure to the benefit
(DBP v CA and PNB v CA). Court of the other parties who did not
granted them. Motion for execution appeal.
by Remington was granted. E: If there is a commonality of
Petitioner appealed to the CA, citing interests among the parties, the
the ruling in PNB v CA. But CA successful appeal will inure to the
dismissed. benefit of all the parties.
SC held that petitioner shared a
commonality of interests with DBP
and PNB. Since the banks’ appeals
were granted, its appeal should also
be granted.
RULE 45: (Appeals by Certiorari to the SC)

401 - Conejos vs. CA (2002) Plania filed a complaint for specific The special civil action of certiorari
performance/rescission with cannot be used as a substitute for an
damages against Conejos, w/c was appeal w/c petitioner already lost.
dismissed. RTC reversed. Conejeros’ Certiorari lies only where there is no
MR denied. Conejos filed a petition appeal nor any plain, speedy, &
for review before the CA. CA affirmed adequate remedy in the ordinary
RTC. Hence, the petition for course of law.
certiorari to the SC.
SC held that Conejeros filed the
correct appeal but it was out of time.
402 - People vs. CA (2002) TC found Deutsch, Demeterio & Petition under R45 is different from
Mangubat guilty of estafa. CA the special civil action of certiorari

modified by acquitting Deutsch. under R65. (R45- brings up for
Wilson filed MR but was denied by review errors of judgment; R65-
CA. Demeterio & Mangubat also filed concerns errors of jurisdiction or
MR but also denied. Wilson filed a GAD amounting to lack/excess of
R45 petition against the decision of jurisdiction). However, in this case,
the CA, alleging that the acquittal of the R45 petition may be considered
Deutsch constituted grave abuse of as one for certiorari under R65,
discretion. where it is alleged that the CA has
SC held that Wilson erred in using abused its discretion in its
Rule 45 to allege the GAD by the CA. questioned action.
403 - Oaminal vs. Castillo (2003) Petitioner filed a complaint for As an exception to the general rule,
collection against respondents. In CA, petition for certiorari may be treated
respondents filed petition for as a petition for review under Rule
certiorari, prohib & injunction w/ 45 if the allegations actually aver
prayer for TRO. Before the SC, errors of judgment rather than of
petitioner contends that jurisdiction.
respondents’ recourse to a petition
for certiorari before the CA was
improper because other remedies in
the ordinary course of law were
available to them.
SC allowed respondents’ recourse.
404 - RP vs. CA OSG filed a notice of appeal to the CA. If an appeal is taken from the RTC to
Petitioner contends GAD in not CA and appellant raises only a
dismissing the petition for correction question of law, the appeal should be
of entry for lack of merit & want of dismissed. Instead, a petition for
jurisdiction. Private respondents certiorari under Rule 45 must be
moved for dismissal of the appeal filed.
based on wrong choice of mode of
appeal (petitioner raised only a
question of law). Petitioner argued
that while its appeal raised only a
question of law, the assailed decision,
being a final judgment of the RTC, is
within the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the CA.
RULE 46: (Original Cases)

405 - Mendoza vs. CA (2007) Petitioner filed a case for A court cannot acquire jurisdiction
constructive dismissal before NLRC. over the subject matter of a case
NLRC denied petitioner’s MR. unless the docket fees are paid. Non-
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition compliance with any of the
for certiorari, w/c was dimissed for requirements in the aforementioned
failure to pay the docket and other provision warrants the dismissal of
legal fees. Petitioner alleged that the petition.
when he filed the petition through
registered mail, he enclosed P1030 in
case as docket fee. He prayed that he
be allowed to pay the fee once more.
SC held that rules should not be
applied liberally in this case.
406 - Vital-Gozon v. CA (1992) Dela Fuente filed a case before CSC, The Batasang Pambansa, in
w/c ruled in his favor holding that he conferring on the CA original
is deemed to have retained his jurisdiction over the special civil
previous position. CA granted action of mandamus, among others,
petition insofar as his restoration to as well as over the issuance of
his former position but denied it auxiliary writs or processes, clearly
insofar as the grant of damages. Dela intended that said Court should
Fuente argued that CA has the power exercise all the powers then
to grant damages in a mandamus possessed by it under the Rules of
action Court in relation to said action of
SC agrees that CA has such power. mandamus and auxiliary writs,
including the adjudication of
damages to the petitioner in the
action in appropriate cases.
RULE 47: (Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions)

407 – Phil. Tourism Authority v. RTC rendered a judgment of default Annulment of Judgment under Rule Ma’am: PTA’s counsel probably
Phil. Golf Dev’t. (2010) in favor of PHILGOLF in a collection 47 of the Rules of Court is a recourse withdrew the appeal and filed a
suit due to PTA’s failure to answer equitable in character and allowed petition for annulment of judgment
the complaint. Before PTA’s appeal only in exceptional cases where the because he knew that if the case was
could be perfected, its counsel ordinary remedies of new trial, reviewed on appeal, he would lose
withdrew said appeal and filed a appeal, petition for relief or other the case as only PHILGOLF’s
petition for annulment of judgment appropriate remedies are no longer evidence will be considered (as PTA
instead. SC held that annulment of available through no fault of failed to answer).
judgment was not the proper petitioner.

remedy, as the remedy of appealing
the RTC decision was still available.
408 – Anuran v. Aquino (1918) The niece of Anuran’s deceased Every person adversely affected by a Emphasized by Ma’am in class: A
husband, in collusion with dead judgment has the right to maintain third party can file for petition for
husband’s estate admin., fraudulently an action to have it declared a nullity annulment of judgment.
excluded Anuran from the on the ground of fraud and collusion
administrative proceedings. practiced in the very matter of Note: This is one of those cases
Anuran moved that the order obtaining the judgment when such where side issue (or non-issue) lang
declaring said niece as her husband’s fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the yung doctrine na gusto i-emphasize
sole heir be set aside but this was matters involved in the issues raised ni ma’am.
denied by the court as the alleged at the trial which resulted in such
fradulent order had been entered 6 judgment (e.g. fraudulent collusion
mos. before the date of the motion. between an administrator and a third
SC held that Anuran can file a person resulting in an order or
petition for annulment of judgment. judgment whereby an interested
person is unjustly deprived of his
rights)
409 – Demetriou v. CA (1994) Respondent filed a petition falsely An action to annul a final judgment Extrinsic fraud v. Intrinsic fraud:
alleging that the owner’s duplicate will only succeed if based on Extrinsic fraud – fraudulent act of the
copy was lost and destroyed but extrinsic fraud. The use of a false prevailing party in litigation
petitioners alleged this was affidavit of loss does not constitute committed outside of the trial of the
perjurious as the property had been extrinsic fraud sufficient to warrant case where defeated party has been
validly sold to them and the owner’s the invalidation of a final judgment. prevented from fully exhibiting his
duplicate copy of the title was side of the case, by fraud or
delivered to them. This false claim Why it isn’t extrinsic fraud: deception practiced on him by his
compelled the judge to order the Petitioners here were not kept out of opponent
issuance of a new 2nd owner’s the proceedings because of
duplicate copy & such order respondent’s fraudulent tactic. They Intrinsic fraud – acts of a party in a
eventually became final and had the opportunity to oppose the litigation during the trial (e.g., use of
executory. Petitioners claim that the use of the affidavit and show its forged or false document or perjured
decision is thus null and void falsity since they were parties to the testimony w/c did not affect the
because it is based mainly on the case. The use of a false affidavit of presentation of the case, but did
false representation of the loss is similar to the use during trial prevent a fair and just determination
respondent. of forged instruments or perjured of the case)
SC action to anull must fail since it is testimony.
based on intrinsic fraud.
410 – Arcelona v. CA (1997) Petitioners and their sisters (Olanday If a judgment is void for failure to 3 Remedies to Set Aside Final and
et. al) were co-owners of a fishpond. include indispensable parties, R47 is Executory Judgment:
A contract of lease was executed bet. the proper remedy. 1. By petition for relief from
Olanday et. al. and Tandoc. Private judgment (r38)
respondent Farnacio was appointed - grounds: FAME period: 60 days

by Tandoc as caretaker. After the after, before 6 mos. after the
period of the lease, Tandoc petitioner learns of the judgment.
surrendered the fishpond to the 2. By direct action to annul judgment
lessors. Farnacio filed a civil case for based on extrinsic fraud.
peaceful possession which was 3. By a direct action, as certiorari, or
granted by the RTC. by a collateral attack against the
SC held that since the petitioners, challenged judgment that is patently
indispensable parties being that they void.
were co-owners of the subject
property, were not impleaded in
Farnacio’s case, the RTC judgment
was void, and hence, annullable.
411 – Ancheta v. Ancheta (2004) The RTC granted the petition for the Where a petition for the annulment If a judgment if void Rule 47 is the
declaration of nullity of marriage of a judgment or final order of the correct remedy
filed by the respondent. Petitioner RTC filed under R47 is grounded on
filed with the RTC a petition to annul lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the RTC order based on lack of the defendant/respondent or over
jurisdiction (did not receive the nature or subject of the action,
summons) and extrinsic fraud. CA the petitioner need not allege in the
dismissed because of petitioner’s petition that the ordinary remedy of
failure to allege that: 1. the ordinary new trial or reconsideration of the
remedies of NT, appeal, PFR, or other final order or judgment or appeal
appropriate remedies are no longer therefrom are no longer available
available through no fault of P. 2. that through no fault of his/her own.
the present petition is based only on
the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction. 3. on the
assumption that extrinsic fraud can
be a valid ground, that it was not
availed of, or could not have been
availed of, in a MNT, or PFR.
412 – Ramos v. Combong (2005) Petitioner filed a petition for A petition for annulment of judgment Extrinsic fraud: when there is
annulment of judgment but failed to under Rule 47 requires a statement fraudulent act committed by the
state the material dates to show that of the material dates showing that it prevailing party outside the trial of
the petition was filed on time (4 was filed within the 4-year period the case, whereby the defeated party
years from discovery of alleged fraud prescribed by the Rules. Purpose: To was prevented from presenting fully
[S3, R47]) so the CA dismissed it. show the timeliness of the petition. his side of the case by fraud and
Petitioner argues that since a petition deception practiced on him by the
for annulment of judgment prevailing party”
presupposes that the judgment is
void ab initio, it can be assailed Fraud: 1. fraud that prevents a party

anytime. SC disagreed. from having a trial or presenting his
case before the court 2. fraud that
pertains not to the judgment itself,
but the manner by which it is
secured.
413 – Springfield Dev’t. Corp. v. (BP 129 applied as the DARAB The RTC does not have the power to DARAB decision appealable to CA.
Hon. Presiding Judge (2007) decision was filed with the RTC annul a decision rendered by a court The rule is that where legislation
before the 1997 civpro rules) or quasi-judicial body of equal provides for an appeal from
Petitioner sought to annul a DARAB ranking. This power to annul is not decisions of certain administrative
decision with the RTC. The RTC specifically provided in BP 129 but is bodies to the CA, it means that such
dismissed the case for lack of grounded in jurisprudence (BF bodies are co-equal with the RTC, in
jurisdiction. CA ruled the RTC had no Northwest Homeowners Assoc. v. terms of rank and stature, and
jurisdiction to annul the judgment. IAC). logically, beyond the control of the
SC affirmed. latter.
414 – Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa filed a petition for cancellation Emphasized in class: Jurisprudence 2. One need not be a party to the
Nimfa Sian v. PNB (2007) of mortgage liens with the RTC recognizes denial of due process as judgment sought to be
against PNB which the RTC granted an additional a ground for annulment annulled. What is essential is that it
(dispensing with presentation of of judgment. can prove his allegation that the
evidence). PNB filed a petition for judgment was obtained by the use of
annulment of judgment for lack of Other issues: fraud and collusion and it would be
due process. 1. Even if PNB failed to appeal the adversely affected thereby. Even
SC held that PNB’s action to annul order, they are not barred to annul where there was no fraud and
should be allowed. the order. The TC’s order being null collusion, the SC has allowed parties
and void, it may be assailed at any to file petitions for annulment of
time either collaterally or in a direct judgment to question precisely their
action or by resisting the same in any non-inclusion as parties to the
action or proceeding whenever it is original case.
invoked, unless barred by laches.
415 – Llamas et. al. v. CA (2009) Petitioners were charged and Rule 47 is not applicable to criminal
convicted of other forms of swindling cases. The 2000 Revised Rules of
(under RPC) for knowingly selling a CrimPro did not include R47 in its
mortgaged lot. Petitioners eventually enumeration of civpro rules
sought to annul the RTC and CA’s applicable to criminal cases.
decisions.
416 – RP v. Technological TAFPA filed an action for mandamus In a petition for annulment of Cf. Intestate case in that case, lack
Advocates (2009) w/ damages to compel DENR to pay judgment based on lack of of due process was explicitly
the amount due. RTC treated the case jurisdiction (over subject matter or acknowledged as a ground to annul
as an ordinary action for specific over person of defending party), judgment but in this case the SC did
performance instead as it was based petitioner must show not merely an not include it among the
on a contract. RP filed before the CA a abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but enumeration of the grounds to annul
petition for annulment of judgment an absolute lack of jurisdiction. In (although they did discuss the lack of

which was denied because due this case, as the RTC treated it as a due process issue raised in the case).
process was not violated as RP was case for specific performance, they
able to participate in all proceedings had proper jurisdiction.
and were notified thereof.
417 – Sps. Arcenas v. Queen City The petitioners in this case were Sec. 1, R47 does not allow a direct Sec. 2, R47 i.e.: extrinsic fraud is
Dev’t. Bank (2010) declared non-suited when their recourse to a petition for annulment effectively barred if it could have
counsel failed to show up during the of judgment if other appropriate been raised as a ground in an
pre-trial date. Petitioners filed a remedies are available, such as a available remedial measure.
petition for annulment, claiming that petition for new trial, appeal or a
there was extrinsic fraud on the part petition for relief. If petitioner fails to
of the respondents. avail of these remedies without
SC ruled against petitioner. It held sufficient justification, she cannot
that if was extrinsic fraud, she could resort to the action for annulment of
have filed a petition for relief under judgment under R47.
Rule 38 within the period provided
for by the RoC, but she did not.
RULE 51: (Judgment)

418 – Limkaichong v. COMELEC The SC reversed the COMELEC’s A decision must not only Promulgation (SC) = when the Justice
(2009) decision disqualifying petitioner be signed by the Justices who took submits it to the Clerk of Court for
from running as a candidate. part in the deliberation, but must promulgation.
Petitioner Biraogo argues that the also be promulgated to be considered
decision penned by J. Peralta was a a Decision. Before a decision is
complete turn-around from the signed and promulgated, all opinions
decision penned by J. Reyes and conclusions are not binding,
(unpromulgated though signed by 14 even upon the Justices themselves. A
Justices). member of the court may even
change his decision, as long as the
decision has not been promulgated.
An unpromulgated decision is no
decision at all.
419 – Aklan College Inc. v. Enero Respondents filed a case for illegal The appellate court is accorded a When CA may reverse the decision of
(2009) dismissal. LA found for them but the broad discretionary power to waive the lower tribunal on the basis of
NLRC held the dismissal was valid the lack of proper assignment of grounds other than those raised as
and ordered petitioner to pay errors and to consider errors not errors on appeal (i.e. when change in
respondents’ 13th month pay and SIL assigned. The appellate court may theory on appeal is allowed):
pay. Petitioner Aklan filed a petition also modify an a monetary award 1. Those affecting jurisdiction over
for certiorari before the CA granted by a lower court or tribunal the subject matter;

(respondents did not appeal denial of on the ground that a just, fair and 2. Those that are evidently plain or
their MR), and the CA increased the complete resolution of the case clerical errors within contemplation
amount petitioner has to pay necessarily entails the correct of law;
respondent. Petitioner is assailing computation of these benefits. 3. Grounds consideration of which is
CA’s authority to do this. necessary in arriving at a just
SC sided with CA. GR: a party who does not appeal decision and complete resolution of
from the decision may not obtain any the case or to serve the interest of
affirmative relief from the appellate justice or to avoid dispensing
court other than what he has piecemeal justice;
obtained from the lower tribunal 4. Matters not specifically assigned as
(basis: due process). errors on appeal but raised in TC and
E: If affirmative relief granted by are matters of record having some
lower tribunal is the issue raised on bearing on the issue submitted which
appeal. the parties failed to raise or which
the lower court ignored;
5. Matters closely related to an error
assigned; and
6. Matters upon which the
determination of a question properly
assigned, is dependent.
420 – Go v. CA (2001) The RTC rendered a decision GR: Factual findings of the TC, when 6. when the CA, in making its
acquitting the criminal case & adopted and confirmed by the CA, findings, went beyond the issues of
dismissing the collection suit against are final and conclusive and may not the case and the same is contrary to
petitioner. The CA reversed and be reviewed on appeal.
the admissions of both appellant and
found them civilly liable. The Exceptions:
petitioner is assailing the CA’s 1. when the inference made is appellee;
decision as it was not supported by manifestly mistaken, absurd or 7. when the findings of the CA are
evidence (it made “corrections and impossible; contrary to those of the trial court;
deletions” and found “additional 8. when the findings of fact are
2. when there is GAD.
facts” to complete the story). conclusions without citation of
SC granted petition and affirmed 3. when the finding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or specific evidence on which they are
RTC’s decision.
conjectures; based;
4. when the judgment of the CA is 9. when the CA manifestly
based on misapprehension of facts; overlooked certain relevant facts not
5. when the findings of fact are disputed by the parties and which, if
conflicting; properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion; and
10. when the findings of fact of the
CA are premised on the absence of

evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record.
421 – Natalia Realty v. CA (2003) The SC rendered a decision and If the SC declared the case to be GR: An entry of judgment is needed
ordered the RTC to immediately immediately executory and ordered before a writ of execution could
issue and enforce an alias writ of the remand of records for execution, issue.
execution. Private respondents the judgment obligee need not wait E: if judgment/final order or portion
eventually had to file a motion for for the records to reach the TC before thereof is ordered to be immediately
entry of judgment because the RTC it apply for a writ of execution. execution.
could not act on their motion for
execution as the records of the case
have not yet been remanded to them
from the SC. SC held that RTC could
then already act on the motion.
422 – People v. Cabalquinto This is a rape case whereby a minor The SC decided to withhold the real RA 7610 & RA 9262: The name of the
(2006) was raped by her own father. name of the victim in respect of the offended party (the
recent enactments which expressed women/children) must be withheld
the intention to maintain the and should not be published.
confidentiality of information in
cases involving women and their
children. Any personal circumstances
that may reveal their identity will
also not be disclosed.
423 – Mercury Drug v. Home Dev’t. The HDMF amended its rule Doctrine of Law of the Case: The This doctrine is not applicable in this
Fund (2007) regarding exemptions from the Pag- decision of an appellate court case as it is not a continuation of the
ibig fund coverage, and MD applied becomes binding upon all 1998 case. It is an entirely new case.
for exemption under this new rule subsequent proceedings. Any (Still the Court granted MD’s request
(DENIED). MD went to the RTC to questions involved in that appeal will for exemption for the year 1996).
have the amendment declared void no longer be considered in a
but its case was dismissed (decision subsequent appeal because they are
became final in 1998). The SC already “law”. The law of the case
subsequently nullified said will apply so long as the decision of
amendment in another case so MD the appellate court was on the
again applied for exemption but merits. However, the doctrine is
again the HDMF denied this as the merely procedural and can be
1998 case had already attained disregarded if its application will
finality. The CA partially granted cause injustice.
MD’s petition and granted it
exemption for the years 1997-2005.
MD elevated the case to the SC, as it
wanted 1996 to be included within
the scope of the exemption because

of the doctrine of the law of the case.
424 – Philippine Hawk Corp. vs. RTC adjudged Phil Hawk liable for Only Errors claimed and assigned
Vivian Tan Lee (2010) quasi-delict. will be considered by the Court.
On appeal, CA affirmed the RTC with EXCEPT: (1) errors affecting
modification in the award of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
damages. (2) errors affecting validity of
Hence, this petition for review which judgment appealed from.
assails among others the Additionally, (3) Errors not expressly
modification by the CA of the awards assigned or properly argued, but are
of damages notwithstanding the fact closely related to or dependent on an
that it was only the petitioner that assigned error, may now be
appealed and the respondent did not considered by the Court.
appeal its award. Finally, (4) the appellate court is
SC held that CA can award other clothed with ample authority to
kinds of damages if the only one that review matters, even if they are not
was assigned as an error in the assigned as errors in the appeal, if it
decision of the RTC when appealed to finds that their consideration is
CA was loss of earning capacity and necessary in arriving at a just
moral damages decision of the case.
RULE 53: (New Trial)

425 – Heirs of Montinola-Sanson Petitioner Matilde (substituted by The requisite affidavits which shall
vs. CA (1988) her heirs) filed a Motion for New accompany the Motion for New Trial
Trial with the CA after it had affirmed must state facts and not mere
the Probate Court ruling which conclusions or opinions, otherwise
allowed the probate of the will of the they are not valid.
late Herminia Montinola without her. Any new evidence which are merely
Together with her motion, was the corroborative or cumulative are
affidavit of her son which alleges that generally not grounds for a new trial.
witnesses have been located who Such new evidence must carry
could shed light on the mental state probative weight which could
of the decedent and the undue probably alter the judgment.
influence exerted over her.
CA denied MNT. SC affirmed. In this
case, the affidavit was not substantial
compliance with the requirements of
Rule 53. The alleged new witnesses
were unnamed. They contained

allegations which are mere
conclusions or opinions.
Since the issue of undue influence
over Herminia had already been
brought to light during trial, any new
evidence with respect to this issue
would be merely corroborative and
cumulative, which is not a ground for
MNT.
426 – Navarra vs. CA (1991) Trial court decided in favor of private Newly-Discovered Evidence is
respondent Planters Dev’t Bank and evidence which could not have been
issued a writ of possession of the discovered prior to the trial in the
Mortgaged property of the Spouses court below by the exercise of due
Navarra. diligence and which is of such
CA denied petitioner’s certiorari. character as would probably change
Hence, this Petition for Review under the result.
Rule 45. Things not existing at the time the
They present documents which court rendered its decision, and
would prove that the bank had sold indeed prior to the trial, hence could
the properties to them. not by any kind of diligence have
SC denied the petition. been discovered at all during that
period, and only existed after trial, do
not qualify as newly-discovered
evidence.
The documents presented are of that
kind.
A Motion for New Trial may be
filed only with the trial court under
Rule 37 or with the CA under Rule 53
but never with the SC, since the
Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts.
427 – Cuenca vs. CA (1995) A Motion for New Trial is filed with The rule that MR and MNT may not
the SC by petitioner who was be entertained by the SC seems to
convicted for violation of the Trust have been relaxed in the cases of
Receipts Law. Among the affidavits Helmuth vs. People and People vs.
presented were of the petitioner’s Amparado.
brother who made an admission In those cases, the Court opted to
against interest. brush aside technicalities and despite
Sol Gen also agreed that a New Trial the opposition of the Solicitor
must be granted even at this late a General, and granted new trial to the

stage. convicted accused on the basis of
SC held that such motion should be proposed testimonies or affidavits of
granted. It becomes all the more persons which the Court considered
plausible under the circumstances as newly discovered and probably
considering that the sufficient evidence to reverse the
“People”(SolGen)” does not raise any judgment of conviction.
objection to a new trial.
RULE 56: (Original Cases and Appealed Cases)

428 – Firestone Ceramics vs. CA The consolidated cases involved a Basically, SC En Banc can do
vast tract of land presumptively whatever it wants.
belonging to the Republic of the The action of the court is a legitimate
Philippines. and valid exercise of its Residual
The case was decided by the SC Third Power within the contemplation of
Division. the SC Circular No. 2-89, as amended,
Petitioners filed a Motion to Transfer paragraph 9:
the cases to the En Banc. “All other cases as the court en banc
The Third Division denied Motion by by a majority of its actual
4-1. The En Banc deliberated on membership may deem of sufficient
petitioners’ “Consulta” over the importance to merit its attention.”
Motion to Transfer.
The En Banc voted 9-5 to accept
cases.
There are dissenting opinion
touching upon the lack of cogent
reason to elevate the cases to the En
Banc.
RULE 57: (Preliminary Attachment)

429 – Davao Light vs. CA (1991) Defendants challenge the issuance of A Writ of Preliminary Attachment
the RTC of a writ of prelim may issue ex parte against a
attachment in favor of Davao Light defendant before acquisition of
for lack of jurisdiction over jurisdiction of the latter's person by
defendants. service of summons or his voluntary
CA reversed and discharged the writ submission to the Court's authority.

of attachment. Provided that the Court is satisfied
SC held that such writ is proper. The that the relevant requisites have
summons and a copy of the been fulfilled by the applicant,
complaint, as well as the order and although it may, in its discretion,
writ of attachment and the require prior hearing on the
attachment bond were validly served application with notice to the
on the defendant. defendant.
But the levy on property pursuant to
the writ may not be validly effected
unless preceded, or
contemporaneously accompanied, by
service on the defendant of
summons, a copy of the complaint,
the application for attachment, the
order of attachment, and the
plaintiff's attachment bond.
430 – Mangila vs. CA (2002) Private Respondent Guina filed a Rule 57 on preliminary attachment
Motion for Prelim Attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at
because the petitioner left for Guam. the commencement of the action or
RTC granted application, and issued at any time thereafter.” This phrase
writ of prelim attachment. Petitioner refers to the date of filing of the
moves to discharge the attachment complaint which is the moment that
since according to her the Court has marks “the commencement of the
not yet acquire jurisidiction over her. action.” The reference plainly is to a
SC held that the writ was not time before summons is served on
properly served and issued. Yhe alias the defendant, or even before
summons was served only almost summons issues.
three months after the A distinction should be made
implementation of the writ of between issuance and
attachment. implementation of the writ of
attachment. The former needs not
the jurisdiction over defendant, latter
requires that court has acquired
jurisdiction over defendant.
431 – Magdalena Estate vs. Nieto Defendants were declared in default, In actions strictly in personam,
(1983) after summons were served by personal service of summons, within
publication. The question is whether the forum, is essential to the
the summons were validly served in acquisition of jurisdiction over the
a case involving collection for a sum person of the defendant who does
of money as payment for property not voluntarily submit himself in
sold. court.

SC held that summons by publication Publication cannot confer upon the
cannot confer upon the court court that jurisdiction.
jurisdiction over said defendant. To The proper recourse of a creditor of a
convert the proceeding to one in rem, party, who has concealed himself so
the petitioner must locate properties as not to be served summons, is to
of the defendant and cause them to convert the action into a proceeding
be attached under rule 57, sec. 1(f). in rem or quasi in rem, such that
Such attachment converts the summons by publication may be
proceeding. valid.
432 – Adlawan vs. Torres (1994) Private Respondent sought to collect A writ of attachment can only be Ma’am: Ground is not just copied. It
money from petitioner spouses. granted on concrete and specific has to be justified by factual
Respondent judge issued ex parte grounds and not on general allegations and proof.
writ of attachment. averments quoting perfunctorily the
SC did not grant the writ. This is words of the Rules.
because the respondents merely had Proof of fraud is mandated by
bare allegation that an encumbrance paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 1,
of a property is in fraud of the Rule 57.
creditor. The affidavits by the Thus, the factual basis on defendant's
respondent did not set out facts intent to defraud must be clearly
which must clearly be averred. alleged in the affidavit in support of
the prayer for the writ of attachment
if not so specifically alleged in the
verified complaint.
433 – PB Comm vs. CA, Filipinas SC found no ground for the issuance An order of attachment cannot be
Textile Mills, Villanueva (2001) of the writ. issued on a general averment, such as
The supporting affidavit of petitioner one ceremoniously quoting from a
for the issuance of writ of attachment pertinent rule.
read as follows: The issuance of a writ of attachment
“The instant case is one of those must be construed strictly against
mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 57 of the applicants. This stringency is
the Revised Rules of Court wherein a required because the remedy of
writ of preliminary attachment may attachment is harsh, extraordinary
be issued against the defendants, and summary in nature. If all the
particularly subparagraphs "b" and requisites for the granting of the writ
"d" of said section.” are not present, then the court which
issues it acts in excess of its
jurisdiction.
434 – Ng Wee vs. Tankiansee Petitioner had made several money Factual circumstances of the alleged
(2008) placements with Wincorp Bank. fraud must be sufficiently shown
According to the former, he was because fraudulent intent cannot be

enticed by Wincorp and its officer to inferred from mere non-payment.
roll over his money placements so The applicant must be able to
that the Bank could loan the same to demonstrate that the debtor had
Virata/Power Merge. He found that intended to defraud the creditor.
Virata used Power Merge to obtain The affidavit, being the foundation of
the money placements which he did the writ, must contain such
not intend to pay. Petitioner particulars as to how the fraud was
instituted a complaint for collection committed for the court to decide
and damages. The Judge issued a writ whether or not to issue the writ.
of Attachment. CA reversed. SC held
that RTC acted in excess of its
jurisdiction when it issued the writ of
preliminary attachment against the
properties of respondent. Also in this
case, petitioner has not shown any
specific act or deed to support the
allegation that respondent, as officer
of Wincorp, is guilty of fraud.
435 – Foundation Specialists vs. FSI failed to make payments on time. Fraudulent intent cannot be inferred
Betonval Ready Concrete (2009) Betonval sued for collection for sum from mere nonpayment of the debt
of money and writ of attachment. or failure to comply with the
SC held that attachment was obligation.
improperly issued. Respondent was Hence, mere nonpayment of debt is
not able to sufficiently show the not a ground to ask for preliminary
factual circumstances of the alleged attachment.
fraud.
436 – Leelin vs. Agro Dev’t (1983) When execution against debtor In order that the judgment creditor Sec. 20 is applicable when claiming
returned unsatisfied, petitioner may recover from the Surety on the damages on account of illegal
proceeded to collect from the counterbond, it is necessary attachment. This is available to the
counterbond from respondent (1) that execution be first issued party against whom the attachment
surety. But surety denies its liability against the principal debtor & that was directed, if the decision was in
by claiming that according to Sec. 20, such execution was returned his favor. In that case, notice and
Rule 57, the plaintiff should have unsatisfied in whole or in part; hearing to the attaching creditor and
notified them when the former (2) that the creditor made a demand his surety is required.
presented its evidence during trial. upon the surety for the satisfaction of
SC held that counterbond put up by a the judgment
surety company for the discharge of (3) the surety be given notice and a
an attachment is liable for the money summary hearing in the same action
judgment in favor of the judgment as to his hability for the judgment
creditor. Petitione complied with the under his counterbond.
requirements to make surety liable.

Also surety is also not entitled to
notice during trial.
437 – Tower Assurance vs. Ororama filed a collection for sum of The requirement that execution be
Ororama Supermart (1977) money against Sps. Ong, whose first issued against principal debtor
properties were attached. They filed and that such execution was returned
a counterbond with Towers unsatisfied, is not applicable when
Assurance assuming solidary liability the surety assumed solidary liability.
as surety to discharge attachment. But the surety is still entitled to be
The favorable judgment to Ororama heard before an execution can be
resulted in an order of execution issued against him since he is not a
against Sps. Ongs and their surety. party in the case involving his
Towers Assurance assails the order principal.
of execution against them without
notice to them.
SC held that RTC committed GAD
438 – Uy vs. CA Private respondent Moreno-Anlap The court does not lose jurisdiction
filed a complaint for recovery of sum to issue a writ of attachment upon
of money against Sps. Uy. the perfection of the appeal. The
RTC ruled in favor of Moreno-Anlap. rules specifically state that a motion
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, for a writ of attachment may be filed
while respondents filed a Motion for at the commencement of an action or
Attachment. While the appeal has at anytime thereafter. The trial court
been perfected, RTC allowed the may even issue orders for the
issuance of the writ. protection and preservation of the
SC held that RTC can issue a writ of rights of the parties which do not
preliminary attachment even though involve any matter litigated by the
appeal has been perfected. But in this appeal.
case, RTC erred in issuing such since
there is nothing in the judgment that
would justify the issuance of a writ.
439 – Olib vs. Judge Pastoral and Respondent filed an action for The order of attachment is Where the main action is appealed,
Navia (1990) dissolution of partnership against considered discharged only where the attachment which may have been
Sps. petitioners. She also secured a the judgment has already become issued as an incident of that action, is
writ of attachment. The attachment final and executory and not when it is also considered appealed and so also
bond (as required by writ) executed still on appeal. removed from the jurisdiction of the
by bonding company for respondent The non-payment of premiums for court a quo.
was not renewed so Petitioners filed the attachment bond does not affect A writ of attachment, being an
for discharge of attachment. RTC the its effectivity. incidental or interlocutory and
Judge ruled in favor of petitioners, no auxiliary character, cannot be the
mention of discharge. Petitioners subject of an appeal independently
perfected her appeal. Petitioners still from the principal case.

asks for discharge. They are denied
by CA. SC affirmed this.
RULE 58: (Preliminary Injunction)

440 – Paras vs. Roura (1988) The TRO, issued by the CA against It is well-settled that the life span of a
RTC for conducting the sale, expired. temporary restraining order
Hence, RTC proceeded with automatically expires on the 20th
foreclosure sale. day by the sheer force of law and no
SC held that RTC is not judicial declaration to that effect is
administratively liable. necessary.
441 – Federation of Land Reform Upon the agreement of the parties, The general rule is that the life of a
Farmers vs CA (1976) RTC ordered that the status quo be TRO cannot be extended beyond 20
maintained between DENR and days.
private respondent regarding the The exception is that when the
land dispute. Petitioner (who’s not parties themselves agree to maintain
part of the agreement) filed a motion status quo, the life of the TRO could
to declare without force and effect in effect be extended. RTC should be
the restraining/status quo order deemed as merely exercising its
earlier issued by RTC arguing that inherent power under Sec. 5 (b), Rule
said order had long become functus 135 of RoC "to enforce order in
officio. proceedings before it" in the absence
SC held that judge could extend the of any showing that it has gravely
life of the TRO beyond 20 days if abused its discretion in so doing.
requested by the parties.
442 – Dela Paz vs Adiong (2004) Judge Adiong, RTC Judge of Marawi, The power of the RTC to issue writs
issued the mandamus directing the of injunction has been expressly
sheriffs of Makati and Mandaluyong limited by the BP 129 to be
to serve the WPI ordering petitioner enforceable within the court’s
to issue a check in favor of Pacasum. territorial jurisdiction.
petitioner alleges that the WPI issued
by the Judge without notice and
hearing and served outside the RTC’s
territorial jurisdiction is not valid.
SC held that Judge Adiong is guilty of
gross ignorance of the law and abuse
of authority. WPI is void.
443 – Golden Gate vs IAC (1987) Respondent filed a case seeking to 20-day period of efficacy of a TRO is This case was decided based on a
nullify the City Court decision. On non-extendible and the courts have precedent case. In the current rules,

even date, RTC issued ex parte a TRO no discretion to extend the same, it is explicitly stated that after the
enjoining the sheriff from conducting otherwise the life of such provisional lapse of 20 days, the TRO loses its
the sale at public auction and set the remedy would be only permissive effectivity and is automatically
hearing for the issuance of a WPI. For and not mandatory as intended by vacated.
lack of material time to decide on the the rule.
prayer for WPI, RTC judge issued a
order extending the effectivity of the
TRO for 10 days.
SC held that RTC erred in extending
the period of the TRO for another 10
days.
444 – Miranda vs SC (1999) SC denied the MR filed by petitioner, Injunction cannot be issued by the
hence the SC decision became final Court against itself.
and executor. Petitioner filed a It would be the height of absurdity to
petition for injunction against the expect the court to issue a
implementation of the SC decision provisional remedy against itself.
impleading the SC en banc. Insisting on this is a violation of the
SC denied the petition. very fundamental principle of judicial
due process of law.
445 – Universal Motors vs Rojas Respondent judge issued an order in TRO may be issued only if it appears
(2005) favour of NSSC setting a summary from the facts shown by the affidavits
hearing for the issuance of a TRO or verified application that great or
despite the absence of such a prayer irreparable injury would result to the
in the petition for preliminary applicant before the WPI could be
injunction filed by the latter. The heard and/or issued.
hearing was held and judge
eventually issued the TRO.
SC held that the judge is guilty of
GAD in ordering the hearing and
issuance of a TRO bec such was not
prayed for and no allegation of great
or irreparable injury that would
result to NSSC pending the hearing
on the motion for preliminary
injunction.
446 – Los Banos Rural Bank vs Petitioner foreclosed the land TRO is a temporary preservative
Africa (2002) belonging to the respondents remedy which seeks to protect the
without notice. To protect their applicant’s substantive rights and
rights, respondents amended their interests during the pendency of the
complaint to include the issuance of a principal action. It can only be
TRO and/or a WPI (original resorted to if there is a pressing

complaint is for annulment of title, necessity to avoid irreparable
deed of sale and mortgage). RTC injustice.
granted the TRO but revoked the
same.
SC held that respondents are entitled
to the TRO because they stand to lose
their ancestral home without the
benefit of trial because of the lack of
notice of the foreclosure.
447 – First Global Realty and Before the auction sale, the A writ of preliminary injunction is The right of status quo sought to be
Development Corporation vs San defaulting mortgagors entered into a issued pendente lite to preserve the preserved is the possession of the
Agustin (2002) dacion en pago with petitioner status quo. To be entitled to one, the property by respondent and his right
mortgagee, giving the house (in the applicant must show a prima facie to use it as his dwelling pending the
possession of respondent) as a full right to the relief demanded in the determination of WON the defaulting
payment of the debt. Petitioner complaint debtors had the right to use the
demanded rents from respondent property as payment by way of
and filed a motion for the issuance of dacion en pago.
a writ of possession. The latter
prayed for the issuance of a
TRO/WPI.
SC held that respondent is entitled to
TRO/WPI bec. he has sufficiently
demonstrated that, indeed, he has
such right and that grave and
irreparable injury would befall him
and his family, unless the injunctive
relief is granted pending resolution
of main case.
448 – Developers Group of DGC filed a complaint for For the petitioner to be entitled to
Company vs CA and Shangri-la infringement w/ prayer for WPI, its legal right, which is the basis
(1993) injunction against Shangri-la alleging of its claim, must at least be clearly
that it (DGC) is the proper grantee of established. Being clearly established
the registration for the use of means that it is existent and is not
trademark “Shangri-la” and the S- vitiated by any substantial challenge
logo. or contradiction.
SC held that DGC is not entitled to the
issuance of a WPI. The right of DGC
to the trademark and logo had long
been put into question since the
Shang had filed a complaint 3 years
prior to the infringement case filed

by DGC, and such case is still
pending. DGC was not able to prove
that it sustained injury as a result of
the use thereof by Shangri-La.
449 – Borromeo vs CA and SC held that petitioners are entitled In determining the propriety of the
Equitable Savings Bank (2008) to the issuance of the WPI pending issuance of a WPI, only a “sampling of
determination of whether evidence” is required and it will not
respondent is allowed to foreclose prevent the court from making a
the mortgage. different conclusion after an
It was shown by the affidavits that exhaustive evaluation of evidence in
the lender was EPCIB (parent the main case.
company of respondent) and not EBS
and it is clearly mandated by the law
that only the creditor-mortgagee
may exercise the right to foreclose. It
is, however, emphasized that this
conclusion is based merely on the
initial and incomplete evidence
which is presented only for the
determination of the propriety of the
issuance of a WPI.
450 – Spouses Yap vs International RTC issued a WPI in favor of Issuance of the WPI and its Example of a ground for dissolution:
Exchange Bank (2008) petitioners upon posting of a bond. dissolution (upon posting of a that the respondents are willing to
Respondents raised the question of counter-bond) are two different post a counter-bond, as in this case.
the propriety of the issuance of the things. Sec 6 of Rule 58 provides that
WPI on appeal to the CA and the SC, a WPI may be dissolved based on
both of which affirmed the WPI’s “other grounds” upon an affidavit
validity. Subsequently, RTC recalled submitted by the party enjoined.
and dissolved the WPI and ordered Such grounds are independent of the
the respondent to file a counter- facts relied upon in the issuance of
bond. Petitioners question the the WPI.
validity of the RTC order dissolving
the WPI alleging that its validity had
been upheld by the CA and SC.
SC held that RTC may validly recall
and dissolve the WPI previously
issued.
451 – GG Sportswear & Gidwani vs Petitioner failed to pay its debt which Injunction may be issued only when Try to reconcile this case with
BDO (2010) prompted BDO to foreclose the the plaintiff appears to be entitled to Development Group of Companies vs
mortgage. Petitioner filed an action the main relief he asks in his CA and Shangri-la case.
to annul the foreclosure with a complaint and allegations should

prayer for the issuance of a TRO/WPI show clearly that he has a cause of
on the ground that BDO lost its right action. This means that he enjoys
to foreclose when BDO assigned its some right and that the defendant
loan receivables to PIO. has violated it.
SC held that TRO/WPI cannot be
issued. Petitioners have not
established a right to the main relief
they want, namely, the arrest of the
foreclosure sale after they had
admitted not paying their loans.
452 – Spouses Lago vs Judge Abdul Petitioners charge respondent judge There is a difference between the
(2011) wiith the ff violations: (1) acting on a summary hearing (SH) conducted
case without the same being raffled, during the life of the 72-hour TRO
(2) issuing a 72-hour TRO without and the hearing conducted during the
requiring a bond and without extended 20-day period.
summons to the petitioners, (3) 72-hour TRO SH –
extending the life of the TRO to 20 determination of propriety of
days after the 72-hour period, and extension to 20 days
(4) granting the issuance of a WPI 20-day TRO SH – determination
upon applicant’s posting of a bond of the issuance of a writ of
without requiring/granting the preliminary injunction
petitioners the opportunity to show
cause why the injunction should not
be granted.
SC held that the judge violated the
procedure laid down in Rule 58 of
the ROC. All the allegations are found
to be true and indeed violative of the
ROC.
RULE 59: (Receivership)

453 – Normandy vs Duque Appellant was appointed as a A receiver is a representative of the
receiver of the War Veterans. When court appointed. It is inherent in the
he was discharge, his compensation office of a receiver not only that he
was fixed by the court. One Atty. should act at all times with the
Magno filed a claim in court alleging diligence and prudence of a good
that his help was obtained by the father of a family but should also not
appellant in the term of receivership. incur any obligation or expenditure

Thereafter, appellant filed a claim for without leave of the court. It is the
reimbursement of expenses which he responsibility of the court to
allegedly advanced out of his supervise the receiver and see to it
personal funds. that he adheres to the above
SC held that motion for standard of his trust and limits the
reimbursement cannot be granted. expenses of the receivership to the
The order of the court for the minimum. For these reasons, it is
payment of appellant’s compensation generally the receivership court that
is final (even appellant didn’t object) is in a better position to determine
and he is now stopped from claiming whether a particular expenditure is
any further amount for alleged reasonable and satisfied or not and
clerical services. its ruling thereon may not be
disturbed by SC.
454 – Vivares vs Reyes (2008) Petitioners and respondent who are The power to appoint a receiver is a
the lawful heirs of Severino Reyes, delicate one and should be exercised
had an oral agreement as to the with extreme caution and only under
partition of the properties of the circumstances requiring summary
estate. Petitioners filed a motion to relief or where the court is satisfied
place the properties under that there is imminent danger of loss,
receivership lest the injury thereby caused be far
SC held receivership is not justified. greater than the injury sought to be
Petitioners failed to adduce evidence averted
that respondent fraudulently
transferred properties. Also notice of
lis pendens has been annotated on
the titles of the disputed properties,
the rights of petitioners are amply
safeguarded and preserved.
455 – Alcantara vs Abbas Bacaron Bacaron, mortgagor, asked the court An appointed receiver should be one
(1963) to relieve Alcantara as receiver since who is impartial or disinterested.
the latter failed to recover the tractor
(subject of mortgage petition) from
the lessee. He was appointed receiver
thereafter.
SC disapproved of the appointment.
Bacaron was not disinterested
because his personal interest as
mortgagor would conflict with his
duties to the court and the plaintiff-
mortgagee.
456 – Dolar v. Sundiam SC held in this case that a receiver of Ordinarily, a receiver cannot be put In this case, the properties, by virtue

the property so sold may be on property which is already in of a final and executory judgment,
appointed because the grant of relief custody of the law. However, a court adjudicated in favor of defendant.
is reasonably necessary to secure the of equity has power to appoint a Consequently, they can no longer be
rights of its real owner against any receiver of property which is already said to form part of the, testate estate
danger of loss or material injury to in the hands of an executor or over which the probate court can
him arising from the use by another administrator in cases of manifest validly exercise jurisdiction in
who manifestly cannot acquire any danger of loss or destruction of, or connection with the distribution and
right of dominion thereon because material injury to assets. liquidation of the said estate.
the approving surrogate court had
already lost jurisdiction to authorize
the further sale of such property to
another person.
457 – Central Sawmill v. Alto In a collection suit where there is Receivership in aid of execution See also Sec. 41, Rule 39.
Surety already a final and executory covers properties which are not
judgment, the Court appointed a involved in the main action. It was
receiver in aid of execution of the the duty of the court to appoint a
properties of the judgment debtor receiver to protect and preserve the
which are not involved in the action. company’s assets for the use and
benefit of its creditors. The fact that
judgment had been rendered and
that no part of it has been paid is a
strong reason why a receiver should
be appointed.
458 – Descaller v. CA In a complaint for recovery of parcels The appointment of a receiver is not
of land, the defendant asked the proper where the rights of the
court to appoint a receiver for the parties over the properties are still to
properties in dispute. be determined, and one of the parties
SC ruled against defendant. There is is in possession of the said
no damage on the part of defendant’s properties. The appointment of a
interests if a receiver is not receiver is only justified when the
appointed. His interest may be property is in danger of being
adequately protected by causing his diminished or lost, or if portions of
adverse claim to be annotated at the the property are being occupied by
title. third persons claiming an adverse
title.
459 – Ventosa v. Fernan A receiver was appointed and he Property under receivership is
took possession of an ice plant. The property in custodia legis w/c should
lessee of the plant filed a motion for remain under the administration and
intervention directing the receiver to control of the receiver.
refrain from interfering in the The effect of the appointment of a
management of the plant. receiver is to remove the parties to

SC ruled against the lessee. It held the suit from the possession of the
that there must be hearing to property.
determine who is legally entitled to After the appointment of a receiver,
possession of the ice plant; until such claimants of the property or any
party is adjudged that right, the interest therein may enforce their
property must remain under the claims only by permission of the
control of the receiver. court appointing the receiver.
460 – Pacific Corp. v. Surety Co. The appointed receiver over a A receiver is not an agent or
theater and its equipment entered representative of any party to the
into an indemnity agreement and action, but an officer of the court
executed performance bonds that exercising his functions for the
prevented the execution sale over common benefit of all the parties.
the properties under his control A receiver has no right or power to
without the court’s approval. make any contract binding the
SC held that receiver was personally property or fund in his custody or to
liable under the indemnity pay out funds in his hands without
agreement since it was secured the authority or approval of the
without receivership court’s court. Unauthorized contracts of a
approval. receiver do not bind the court in
charge of receivership. They are the
receiver's own contracts and are not
recognized by the courts as contracts
of the receivership.
RULE 60: (Replevin)

461 – Bachrach Motor Company v. Bachrach seeks to compel the sheriff When the possession of the property
Summers (1921) by way of mandamus to seize the to be foreclosed is disputed, the
property to be foreclosed that was remedy of the creditor is to file an
subject of a chattel mortgage. action for replevin, and not to compel
SC dismissed the case. the sheriff to seize the property.
462 – Fernandez v. International Sps. Fernandez contest the writ of A writ of replevin issued by a RTC or Gen. Provision 3, Interim Rules
Corp. Bank (1999) replevin issued by the RTC of Pasay MTC may be served and enforced relative to the implementation of BP
over their vehicle subject of a chattel anywhere in the Philippines. 129.
mortgage on the ground of lack of (a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition,

jurisdiction as their main office was mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
in Makati and their residence in QC. corpus and injunction issued by a
Sc held the writ is valid. RTC may be enforced in any part of
the region.
(b) All other processes, whether
issued by a RTC or MeTC, MTC, or
MCTC, may be served anywhere in
the Philippines and, in the last three
cases, without a certification by the
judge of the RTC.
463 – Servicewide Specialists v. CA Upon default of the mortgagor, In a suit for replevin, a clear right of
(1995) petitioner-mortgagee sought the possession (on the part of the
foreclosure of the vehicle subject of mortgagee in this case) must be
the chattel mortgage. Mortgagor established. A foreclosure under a
refused to surrender possession of chattel mortgage may properly be
the vehicle and sold it to a third commenced only once it is proven
person. Petitioner-mortgagee filed a that there is a default on the part of
replevin suit against the third person the mortgagor.
without impleading the mortgagor. Hence, the mortgagor is an
SC held that mortgagor must be indispensable party and should be
impleaded without him as impleaded.
indispensable party, the RTC
judgment cannot attain real finality.
464 – Chua v. CA (1993) A dump truck in possession of Chua Where personal property is seized
was seized by virtue of a search under a search warrant and there is
warrant issued by RTC Cebu Branch reason to believe that the seizure will
13. Chua filed a replevin suit to not anymore be followed by the filing
recover possession of the dump truck of a criminal action and there are
in RTC Cebu Branch 8. Replevin was conflicting claims asserted over the
granted. A case for carnapping was seized property, the appropriate
filed against Chua but was dismissed remedy is the filing of an action for
without prejudice to its reopening replevin.
once the issue of ownership is However, where there is still a
resolved. probability that the seizure will be
SC held that Chua’s writ of replevin is followed by the filing of a criminal
not proper. Replevin will not lie for action, or the criminal information
property in custodial egis, e.g., has has actually been commenced, or
been subjected to a seizure pursuant filed, and actually prosecuted, and
to a search warrant. there are conflicting claims over the
property seized, the proper remedy

is to question the validity of the
search warrant in the same court
which issued it and not in any other
branch of the same court.
465 – Stronghold Insurance v. CA Court granted plaintiff’s writ of There are sufficient conditions for
(1992) replevin but when defendant filed a proceeding against the replevin
counter bond to recover possession bond: (1) Plaintiff, in bad faith, failed
of the seized property and court to prosecute the action, and after
ordered its return, plaintiff recovering the property, it
disappeared and was never heard of disappeared,
again. (2) The subject property disappeared
SC held that defendant is entitled to with the plaintiff, despite a court
execution against the replevin bond, order for the return,
the purpose of was to answer for (3) Damages were adjudged due to
damages the defendant may suffer the defendant.
from the wrongful issuance of the
writ. All the necessary conditions for
proceeding against the bond are
present in the case.
466 – Smart Communications v. Pending a case for illegal dismissal The relationship of the parties here
Astorga (2008) with the Labor Arbiter, Smart filed a over the car loan is as creditor and
replevin suit with the RTC against its debtor, not as employer and
dismissed employee, Astorga, to employee. Also the replevin case is a
recover the vehicle subject of the car civil case, the jurisdiction of which is
loan she availed of when she was still with the regular courts and not with
employed. Astorga filed a MTD on the the LA. The question of a party’s right
ground that the RTC has no to possession, which is the issue in
jurisdiction over the replevin suit replevin cases, is outside the
because the subject pertains to a competence of the LA.
benefit arising from an employment
contract; hence, the LA has the
proper jurisdiction over the case. SC
held that RTC had jurisdiction.
467 – Sebastian v. Valino (1993) The sheriff immediately turned over The property seized under a writ of
the properties seized under the writ replevin should not be delivered
of replevin to the plaintiff and immediately to the plaintiff (See Sec.
allowed them to be stored in 4, Rule 60 for the proper procedure).
plaintiff’s warehouse. In enforcing Also, in enforcing the writ, the sheriff
the writ, the sheriff only presented a should not only serve a copy of the
copy of the court order to the counsel court order, but also a copy of the
of the complainant. application, affidavit, and bond (See

SC held sheriff guilty of abuse of Sec. 4, Rule 60).
authority.
RULE 61: (Support Pendente Lite)

468 – Baito v. Sarmiento (1960) An action for support in the RTC was Actions for support remain within An action for support is incapable of
dismissed on the ground of lack of the jurisdiction of the RTC, pecuniary estimation because issue
jurisdiction as the amount claimed regardless of the amount involved, is not the amount but the right to
for support did not fall within the pursuant to the law conferring support.
jurisdictional amount of the RTC. jurisdiction on the RTC (Sec. 44a, RA
SC held jurisdiction is with the RTC. 296, as amended by RA 2613, circa
1960)
469 – Gan v. Reyes (2002) Judgment on support for an Section 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of The money and property adjudged
illegitimate child was executed Court clearly states that, unless for support and education should
pending appeal. ordered by the trial court, judgments and must be given presently and
SC affirmed. in actions for support are without delay because if it had to
immediately executory and cannot wait the final judgment, the children
be stayed by an appeal. The may in the meantime have suffered
immediate execution of all judgments because of lack of food or have
for support makes no distinction missed and lost years in school
between those which are the subject because of lack of funds
of an appeal and those which are not.
470 – Torres v. Teodoro (1957) Despite the order for execution, Having disobeyed the order to pay Since petitioner was ordered to make
petitioner failed to deposit the support although he had the means a deposit each month, the order was
required amounts for support of his to do so, Sec. 6, Rule 63 applies – if a violated he failed to make the
children. Petitioner was held in defendant in an action for support monthly deposit. His previous
indirect contempt. The following appears to have means to pay conviction for his failure to deposit
year, upon motion by the minors, the support and refuses to pay, either an the pension was no bar to his
court ordered his arrest for direct order of execution may be issued or a subsequent conviction.
contempt on the ground of his failure penalty for contempt may be issued,
to provide support. He’ll be held until or both.
he deposits the necessary amounts.
SC held that petitioner was not
convicted and punished twice for the
same offense.
471 – San Juan v. Valenzuela Petitioner challenged the order of the Petition in the SC should be
(1982) RTC in the SC compelling him to give dismissed given that petitioner had
support. Pending resolution of his already presented his willingness to
petition in the SC, he settled in the pay support. It is the RTC, not the SC

RTC his unpaid obligations arising that should rule whether the fixed
from the order of support and sought amount for support should be
the reduction of the fixed monthly modified. The order fixing the
amount. RTC approved the amount of support can be subject to
settlement of his unpaid obligations. modification depending on changing
conditions.
472 – Vasco v. CA (1978) After perfection of the appeal and After the perfection of the appeal, the [Old rule (I think). Judgments for
elevation of the records to the CA, trial court loses its jurisdiction over support can be executed pending
petitioners filed a motion for the case, except to issue orders for appeal according to Sec. 4, Rule 39.]
execution in the RTC to enforce the the protection and preservation of
order of support. the rights of the parties which do not
SC held that the trial court had no involve any matter litigated by the
jurisdiction issue an order for appeal to prove compromises offered
execution pending appeal. An order by the parties prior to the transmittal
for execution pending appeal does of the record on appeal to the
not fall within the said exceptions appellate court, and to permit the
because it is a proceeding involving prosecution of pauper's appeals
the very matter litigated by the Before judgment of the RTC,
appeal. petitioners could have availed of the
provisional remedy of
support pendente lite, w/c they
didn’t.
473 – Vinluan v. CA (1968) In a legal separation case, the Since the order denying support is
petition for support pendente lite interlocutory, plaintiff would have
was denied on the ground that the had to wait for judgment on the
legal separation case was not yet merits before it can avail of a review
resolved. Petitioner filed an orig by appeal which may take months.
action for certiorari in the CA. CA Meanwhile, petitioner and her
ordered the giving of support children needed support to live.
pendent lite. Defendant contests the Hence, an appeal would not have
CA order on the ground that been a speedy and adequate remedy.
petitioner had other plain, adequate
and speedy remedies, i.e., a review by
appeal of the order denying support
pendent lite.
474 – Reyes v. Ines-Luciano (1979) In a legal separation case, petitioner While adultery is a defense in an
contested the order of support on the action for support, the alleged
ground that his wife committed adultery must be established by
adultery and that the amount competent evidence; there was no
ordered was not supported by the evidence presented in this case. In
complaint and evidence for legal determining the amount to be

separation. awarded as support pendente lite it is
SC ruled against petitioner. He did not necessary to go fully into the
not present any evidence to prove merits of the case, it being sufficient
the allegation that his wife had that the court ascertain the kind and
committed adultery with any person. amount of evidence which it may
deem sufficient to enable it to justly
resolve the application in view of the
provisional character of the
resolution to be entered. Mere
affidavits may satisfy the court to
pass upon the application for support
pendente lite.
RULE 62: (Interpleader)

475 - Mesina vs. IAC (1986) Messina and Go are disputing who Respondent bank merely took the This case is just to show what an
between is the owner of the cashier’s necessary precaution not to make a Interpleader is all about
check. The bank refused to encash mistake as to whom to pay and
check and instead filed an therefore interpleader was its proper A vs. B and C Bank v. Go and
interpleader. SC held that Bank remedy. Said validity to the check Medina
correctly filed an interpleader to will depend on the strength of the
leave to the court the resolution of parties' respective rights and titles Bank wants Go and Mesina to fight to
the conflicting claims of Go and thereto determine who owns the check
Mesina to figure out who the owner
of the check is so the Bank will
properly encash the cashier’s check
to the rightful owner
RULE 63: (Declaratory Relief)
*PFDR = Petition for declaratory relief ; DR = Declaratory relief

476 - Santos vs. Aquino (1953) Santos filed a PFDR against a tax DR may only be resorted to before Remedy when assailing tax law using
ordinance. the violation of the ordinance being PFDR – pay the tax and then file
SC held that Santos can no longer assailed. PFDR
avail of DR because there was
already a breach of the ordinance
when he defaulted in payment of tax.

477 - Gomez vs. Palomar (1968) Gomez filed a PFDR to test the The prime specification of an action
constitutionality of the anti-TB for declaratory relief is that it must
Stamp to be used on his mail which be brought "before breach or
was required by AO3 and also with violation" of the statute has been
regard to any other mail that he committed.
might send in the future.
SC held that DR is proper.
478. - Almeda vs. Bathala An ejectment suit was filed against Requisites of an action for PFDR isn’t dismissed even if the
Marketing Ind (2008) Ponciano (a lessee of a lot). Ponciano declaratory relief: ejectment case is still pending. Thus,
then filed a PFDR against his lessors - Subject matter of the controversy: a the same court still has authority to
for adding VAT to his rentals when deed, will, contract or other written decide on PFDR.
the contract stipulated that VAT was instrument, statute, executive order
already inclusive in the rentals. or regulation, or ordinance;
SC held PFDR was the proper - Terms of said documents and the
remedy. All the requisites for an validity thereof are doubtful and
action for declaratory relief are require judicial construction;
present. Ponicano was religously - No breach of the documents in
paying and didn’t commit any question;
contractual breach. - Actual justiciable controversy or the
“ripening seeds” of one between
persons whose interests are adverse;
- Issue must be ripe for judicial
determination; and
- Adequate relief is not available
through other means or other forms
of action or proceeding.
479 - Chamber of Real Estate and CREBA filed PFDR in the SC assailing PFDR should have been filed in the
Builders Association, Inc. v. various DAR AO 01-02 and Memo 88 RTC and not the SC because SC
Secretary of Agrarian Reform which led to a slowdown in its doesn’t have original jurisdiction
(2010) housing projects. over a PFDR even if only questions of
Case was dismissed. law are involved.
RULE 64: (Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of COMELEC and COA)

480 - Chavez vs. Comelec (2004) Chavez lost a case for disqualification Proper remedy is a petition under Rule 64 provides that findings of fact
OTG that he’s a nuisance candidate Rule 64 or a special civil action for of the Commission whose judgment,
before the COMELEC and lost a certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 final order or resolution is assailed,
notice of appeal case in the COMELEC Rules of Civil Procedure. which are supported by substantial

En Banc. Chavez filed a petition for evidence are binding and shall not be
review of judgment under R45. reviewable on appeal.
SC denied outright the petition for
error in the mode of review.
481 - Jumamil vs. Comelec (2007) Respondents filed a Petition for R64 is only for petitions whose Also, you cannot file a R64 petition
certiorari before the COMELEC for subject matters is a final for final orders/resolutions decided
denial of their motion to dismiss in a order/resolution of the COMELEC En by a COMELEC division
previous election protest case. Banc.
SC held that denial of their motion to
dismiss is an interlocutory order
thus cannot be subject to R64
petition.
RULE 65: (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus)
Certiorari
RULE 45 vs. RULE 65
482 - Tagle vs. Equitable PCI Bank Tagle filed a PFRC with prohibition The proper remedy is to file an A Petition for Certiorari, under Rule
(2008) under R65 OTG that the CA appeal by certiorari under R45 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is
committed GAD when it ruled on the before the SC. This was the plain, intended for the correction of errors
merits of the MR case of the original speedy and adequate remedy of of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of
action. Tagle. discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.

Rule 45 Rule 65
Kinds of errors corrected To correct errors of judgment To correct errors of jurisdiction
Manner of Filing Reverse or modify Annul
Kind of power You ask the court to review judgment Power of supervision and control to
below make sure the lower court acts within its
jurisdiction
Continuation/Original Continuation of original action Not a continuation but an original action
Subject matter Final judgment therefore MR is not a Interlocutory order. Here, you are
condition precedent to filing R45 questioning an incident in the principal
action and not the judgment. That is why
as a general rule, MR is a condition
precedent to filing R65 so the lower court
may correct itself
Whom to implead Litigants and not the court You implead litigants and the court. The
court is an indispensable party to the
action
REQUISITES FOR A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS UNDER R65 Grave abuse of discretion’ implies such
UNDER RULE 65: ‘Without jurisdiction’ means that the court acted capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board with absolute lack of authority or want of legal to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power, right or authority to hear and determine simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or
functions; a cause or causes, considered either in general or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice,
(2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted with reference to a particular matter. It means or personal hostility; and such exercise is so
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave lack of power to exercise authority. patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ‘ Excess of jurisdiction’ occurs when the court positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to
of jurisdiction; and transcends its power or acts without any perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and statutory authority; or results when an act, contemplation of law.”
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. though within the general power of a tribunal,
board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and
invalid with respect to the particular proceeding,
because the conditions which alone authorize
the exercise of the general power in respect of it
are wanting.

483 - Chamber of Real Estate and
Builders Associations, Inc. vs. The
Secretary of Agrarian Reform
(2010) (supra)

484 - Fortich vs. Corona PFC was filed by Fortich before SC re: Cf: Error in judgment is reviewable
Corona as DOJ Sec reversing the only by appeal v. error in jurisdiction
decision on a decision that was final which reviewable by certiorari.
and executory. SC held that Corona
committed GAD when it reversed the GR: MR is a condition precedent
decision which had already attained before filing petition under R65
finality. Since decision of Corona is a Epn: Judgment/decision is a patent
patent nullity, no need to file MR and nullity
Fortich may resort to R65
immediately.
485 - Dauz vs. Eliosida (1961) Dauz filed a PFC under R65 when he GR: Where appeal is available,
still had an available remedy of certiorari (and prohibition) doesn’t
appeal. lie
SC held that Certiorari doesn’t lie Epn: The existence of a remedy of
because an appeal was still an appeal doesn’t mean that one cannot
available remedy for him file R65. You may still file if appeal
isn’t a speedy and adequate remedy
anymore.
486 - De Bacang vs. CA (1983) Respondents filed a MTD in the case Action of petitioners was clearly
filed by petitioners against them OTG barred by prescription. Therefore,
that the original case was barred by the respondents had the right to
prescription. MTD was denied. resort to the more speedy and
SC held that certiorari was correctly adequate remedies of certiorari and
filed. prohibition to correct a GAD,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
committed by TC in not granting
their MTD.
487 - Metropolitan Bank vs. A criminal case was filed by Bank The general rule is that a petition for
Veridiano against Ong where he was acquitted. annulment of judgment of acquittal is
Bank filed a PFC against Ong and the sufficient basis to put the accused in
court that acquitted him to nullify the double jeopardy.
judgment of acquittal.
Because of the PFC, double jeopardy
attaches, SC dismissed petition,
488 - PNB vs. The Intestate Estate PNB filed 5 MRs on the same ground If the judgment is on the merits then Problem: If a 2nd MR was filed on a
of Francisco de Guzman (2010) and eventually filed PFRC with SC. only 1 MR is allowed. For different ground, the adverse party
SC held that certiorari was filed out interlocutory orders, there is no limit may oppose it by raising the omnibus
of time. MRs were on the basis of the as to how many MRs you can to file motion rule
same grounds therefore it became because interlocutory orders do not
insufferable despite no express attain finality
prohibition on the number of MRs

one can file for an interlocutory
order. However, since the 2nd-5th MRs
are a rehash of the same arguments,
the reckoning period to file PFC is on
the date of receipt of the denial of the
1st MR.
489 - Santos Et. Al. vs. CA Santos filed PFC before the CA but There are three essential dates that
was dismissed OTG that it failed to must be stated in a petition for
specify the dates of receipt of the certiorari under Rule 65
NLRC decision and date of filing MR. 1. the date when notice of the
SC held PFC was correctly dismissed judgment or final order or Resolution
because Santos failed to show dates was received
when a motion for new trial or 2. when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration was filed and when reconsideration was filed
notice of the denial thereof was 3. when notice of the denial thereof
received; instead he averred that the was received
dates were stated in the body of the
petition. Non-compliance with the material
date rule is tantamount to dismissal
of petition
490 - Bernardo vs. Abalos, Sr. Cruz filed a PFC under R65 without A petition for certiorari under Rule
filing a MR in the COMELEC. 65 can only be resorted to if "there is
SC held that PFC is incorrect because no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
they didn’t exhaust all remedies adequate remedy in the ordinary
available to them at the COMELEC course of law."
level first. Their recourse was not to
thru R65 but to file a reconsideration
to the COMELEC Division and if futile
then raise it to the COMELEC En Banc
as the speediest remedy.
491 - Calim vs. Hon. Jesus Guerero Calim filed a petition for Mandamus Mandamus only applies as a remedy SHOULD BE IN MANDAMUS
(2007) to compel Acoba, Go, etal to reply to when the petitioner’s right is
his letter to change the decision of founded clearly on law. Mandamus is used to compel the
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman. performance of a ministerial duty. It
SC held that mandamus is an cannot control the exercise of
improper remedy. The law states discretion of a public officer who is
that Acoba, Go, etal cannot reply to empowered by law to exercise his
Calim’s letter because this would own judgment.
change the decision of the Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman.
492 – Gadnanan v. Tubungan Respondent appealed COSLAP’s A judgment rendered by a body or COSLAP may resolve land disputes

(2009) decision to RTC who dismissed the tribunal that has no jurisdiction over that involve only public lands or
same due to lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is no lands of the public domain or those
co-equal courts. Due to respondents’ judgment at all. All acts pursuant to it covered with a specific license from
procedural lapse, petitioners contend and all claims emanating from it have the government such as a pasture
that the COSLAP decision had no legal effect. It can never become lease agreement, a timber
become final and executory and that final and executory, hence, an appeal concession, or a reservation grant.
the Court of Appeals should have is out of the question. Such a nullity is
dismissed respondents’ rule 65 correctible only through a petition
petition outright, instread of relaxing for certiorari. A petition for
its rules, taking cognizance of the certiorari that seeks the nullification
petition and then anulling COSLAP’s of a void judgment cannot be
decision. dismissed for timeliness as the same
SC held that CA didn’t err. COSLAP do does not prescribe.
not have jurisdiction over private
unregistered land. Such being void
for being rendered without
jurisdiction, it never attains finality.
493 – Marcos-Araneta v. CA (2008) According to Irene, Benedicto and A petition for certiorari under R65 is
associates held shares for Irene’s limited to reviewing and correcting
benefit. Irene’s husband demanded errors of jurisdiction only. Resolving
reconveyance but was refused. RTC the issue of trust requires the
dismissed Irene’s complaints coz establishment of certain facts based
venue was improperly laid because on evidence. Questions of fact- the
Irene does not actually reside in doubt or difference arises as to the
Ilocos Norte. Irene filed a motion to truth or falsehood of facts or when
admit amended complaint where the query invites the calibration of
plaintiffs were added. RTC denied the whole evidence considering
Irene’s MR but entertained her mainly the credibility of the
amended complaint. Respondents witnesses, the existence and
filed a petition for certiorari under relevancy of specific surrounding
Rule 65 before the CA to nullify the circumstances, as well as their
RTC orders admitting the amended relation to each other and to the
complaint . whole, and the probability of the
SC held that CA overstepped its situation.
boundaries when it did not confine
itself in determining whether or not
there was lack of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion.
494 – Balanguan v. CA (2008) Katherene managed the account of A writ of certiorari will not issue
York for HSBC. It was found that where the remedy of appeal is
there were movements in York’s available to an aggrieved party. An

accounts made using Katherene’s exception to this rule is when the
password. HSBC filed a criminal petition for certiorari was filed
complaint for Estafa and/or Qualified within the reglementary period
Estafa. Asst City Prosec Laborte within which to file a petition for
found no probable cause and review on certiorari. However, if the
recommended dismissal. HSBC decision of the appellate court is
appealed to the Sec of DOJ. The Chief tainted by GAD, then such ruling is
State Prosecutor dismissed the fatally defective and may be
petition. HSBC filed a Petition for questioned even after the lapse of the
Certiorari under Rule 65 before the period of appeal under Rule 45 but
CA. CA granted the petition. still within the period for filing a
SC held that Rule 65 petition is not petition for certiorari.
proper in this case bec. appeal was
not only available but also a speedy
and adequate remedy.
Mandamus

495 – Endona v. Ombudsman More than 4 years after the parties Mandamus is a proper recourse for
(2008) formally offered their evidence, citizens who seek to enforce a public
petitioners filed a MTD against all the right and to compel the performance
cases against them as respondent’s of a public duty, most especially
“inordinate delay” constitutes a when mandated by the Constitution.
violation of their constitutional right Thus, a party to a case may demand
to a speedy disposition of their cases. expeditious action from all officials
But the same remain unresolved. who are tasked with the
Petitioners filed a petition administration of justice.
for mandamus by praying that the
Office of the Ombudsman be ordered
to dismiss the administrative and
criminal cases against them.
SC held that mandamus is the proper
remedy. Respondent acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction by
failing to resolve the administrative
and criminal cases against
petitioners 8 years from the filing of
their complaints- affidavits.

496 – Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee When Lee’s father died, he alleged Mandamus will not lie to enforce
(2010) that his father left a holographic will purely private contract rights, and
to his respondent mother. will not lie against an individual
Respondent filed a petition for unless some obligation in the
mandamus with damages to compel nature of a public or quasi-public
petitioner to produce the will. duty is imposed.
SC held that mandamus is not the The writ of mandamus lies to enforce
proper remedy. the execution of an act, when,
otherwise, justice would be
obstructed; and, regularly, issues
only in cases relating to the public
and to the government.
497 – Henares v. LTFRB (2006) Petitioners challenged the Court to Mandamus is available only to Further, mandamus will not
issue a writ of mandamus compel the doing of an act generally lie from one branch of
commanding respondents LTFRB specifically enjoined by law as a duty. government to a coordinate branch,
and DOT to require public utility for the obvious reason that neither is
vehicles to use CNG as alternative inferior to the other. The need for
fuel. future changes in both legislation
SC held that mandamus will not lie and its implementation cannot be
because there is no law that preempted by orders from this Court,
mandates the respondents LTFRB especially when what is prayed for is
and the DOTC to order owners of procedurally infirm.
motor vehicles to use CNG.
498 – First Philippine Holdings v. Petitioner filed a motion to intervene While mandamus will not lie to
Sandiganbayan (1996) in a sequestration case involving compel a discretionary act, it will
shares of PCIBank alleging that the issue if there is gross abuse of
Romualdez obtained the same from discretion, manifest injustice or
them thru fraud. Sandiganbayan palpable excess of authority
denied petitioner’s motion for equivalent to denial of a settled right
intervention. to w/c petitioner is entitled AND
SC held that a writ of mandamus may there is no other plan, speedy, and
be issued to compel respondent adequate remedy.
court to grant petitioner’s motion for
intervention. Petitioner will be
deprived of a legal remedy to recover
its property with the denial of its
motion for intervention
499 - Chan v. Chan (2008) Respondents called the special board The controversy is intra-corporate in
members' meetin and approved nature, and is primarily governed by
various resolutions intended to save the Interim Rules of Procedure for
Ambassador Hotel's finances. A new Intra-Corporate Controversies.

set of officers were elected and Petitioners were proscribed from
petitioner refused to honor the filing an MR by the express provision
results. Thus he filed a Petition for of these Rules. Because of the
Declaration of Nullity of Special express declaration made by the RTC
Meetings and the Matters Taken Up that the order was immediately
Therein. executory, direct resort to the CA was
SC held that petitioner’s certiorari the most, if not the only, available
petotion was proper. remedy. Thus, considering that there
was no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, petitioners rightly filed
a petition for certiorari before the CA.
RULE 66: (Quo Warranto)

500 – Campos v. Degamo (1962) Degamo and Felino Palarca were When the action is against a person There is also another quo warranto
proclaimed Mayor and Vice Mayor for usurping an office or franchise, cases against respondent pending in
respectively, of the said the complaint shall set forth the SC.
municipality.There was no valid name of the person who claims to be
canvass for the offices of Mayor and entitled thereto, if any, with an
Vice Mayor effected and the averment of his right to the same and
respondents could not legally occupy that the defendant is unlawfully in
the said positions. Petitioners possession thereof. All persons who
prayed that a writ of quo warranto claim to be entitled to the office or
be issued ousting and excluding franchise may be made parties, and
respondents Degamo and Palarca. their respective rights to such office
SC held that the case is premature. or franchise determined, in the same
Petitioners-appellants Campos and action.
Oroc, having been candidates and
elected for the office of councilors
and not for the office of mayor and
vice-mayor, they are not the proper
parties to institute the present
action.
501 – Sison v. Pangramuyen Petitioner filed a petition before the The assertions of the petitioner make
(1978) SC for quo warranto and certiorari the case ultimately a quo warranto
alleging that since at the time of the proceeding. It was filed in order to
appointment in dispute, he was Chief oust respondent from her position
Deputy Assessor exercising because the petitioner was alleging

immediate administrative control that he is the rightful appointee. The
and supervision over respondent nature of the case is determined by
Maliwanag, and inasmuch as he has the allegations and not by its title.
superior educational and
appropriate civil service eligibilities
to those of said respondent, the
appointment or respondent extended
by respondent City Mayor is illegal
and contrary to law being violative of
the rule of next-in-rank.
SC held the quo warranto petition
correctly filed.
502 – Municipality of San Narciso Municipality of San Narciso filed a In the same manner that the failure
v. Mendez (1994) petition for quo warranto against the of a public officer to question his
officials of the Mun. of San Andres, ouster or the right of another to hold
assailling the corporate personality a position within a one-year period
of the latter because its mode of can abrogate an action belatedly
creation is void ab initio. filed, a quo warranto proceeding
SC dismissed quo warranto assailing the lawful authority of a
proceedings. It was filed only 33 political subdivision with great
years after the issuance of the EO imperativeness should be timely
that created the de facto municipal raised. Public interest demands it.
corporation.
503 – Arquero v. CA (2011) Petitioner filed a petition for quo In quo warranto, the petitioner who
warranto with prayer for issuance of files the action in his name must
TRO and / or injunctive writ against prove that he is entitled to the
private and public respondents subject public office. In other words,
before RTC of Palawan. In her the private person suing must show a
petition for quo warranto, petitioner clear right to the contested position.
argued that she was deprived of her Otherwise, the person who holds the
right to exercise her function and same has a right to undisturbed
perform her duties in violation of her possession and the action for quo
security of tenure. CA ruled that warranto may be dismissed. It is not
“petitioner failed to establish her even necessary to pass upon the right
clear legal right to the position of OIC of the defendant who, by virtue of his
of the PINS. She was not appointed appointment, continues in the
but merely designated to the position undisturbed possession of his office.
in addition to her functions as
incumbent PNS school principal. SC
affirmed CA.
504 – General v. Urro (2011) PGMA appointed Urro in place of An acting appointee does not have a

General as NAPOLCOM cause of action for quo warranto
Commissioner. General went to the against a new appointee.
SC via petitions for Quo Quo warranto is a remedy to try
Warranto, and Certiorari and/or disputes with respect to the title to a
Prohibition with urgent prayer for public office. Generally, quo warranto
the issuance of a TRO and/or proceedings are commenced by the
preliminary injunction assailing the Government as the proper party-
appointment. PNoy issued E.O. No. 2: plaintiff. However, under Section 5,
which recalls appointments made or Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an
made effective on/after March 11, individual may commence such
2010. action if he claims to be entitled to
SC held that petitioner’s appointment the public office allegedly usurped by
is temporary in nature (may be another.
removed without hearing or cause)
and he does not have a cause of
action for quo warranto.
RULE 67: (Expropriation)

505 – City of Manila v. Arellano The City of Manila seeks to condemn The power to expropriate is
Law (1950) several parcels of land situated on necessarily subject to the limitations
Legarda Street, City of Manila for the and conditions. Because “the
purpose of subdivision and resale. assertion of the right to take the
The CFI dismissed the expropriation property of one citizen, even for a full
case. SC affirmed the dismissal. It compensation, when the public
held that condemnation of a small interest is NOT promoted thereby, is
property in behalf of 10, 20 or 50 claiming a despotic power, and one
persons and their families does not inconsistent with every just principle
inure to the benefit of the public. Also and fundamental maxim of a free
nearby Arellano College will be government.”
affected.
506 – Export Processing Zone Petitioner filed an MR on the grounds Definition of just compensation:
Authority v. Dulay (1987) that the compensation for a) PDs 76, 464, 794 and 1533: only
expropriated must not exceed the basis in determining the just
maximum amount set by PD 1533. compensation of property in an
TC denied. expropriation case should be its (a)
SC held that TC is correct that the market value as declared by the
valuation in the decree may only owner or (b) as determined by the
serve as a guiding principle or one of assessor, whichever is lower.

the factors in determining just b) Court: Value of the property at the
compensation but it may not time of the taking; fair & full
substitute the court's own judgment equivalent for the loss sustained; all
as to what amount should be the facts as to the condition of the
awarded and how to arrive at such property and its surroundings, its
amount. improvements and capabilities,
should be considered.
507 – Robern Devt. v. Quitain Robern is the registered owner of a Sec. 4, Rule 67 implies that if there Sec. 1, Rule 67 does not require that
(1999) parcel of land which the NPC is are objections and defenses that the complaint be expressly approved
seeking to expropriate. Instead of require the presentation of evidence by the board of directors of a
filing an answer, petitioner and the hearing of arguments, the corporation. In any event, the
countered with a Motion to Dismiss trial court should not immediately authorization is a factual issue that
with isues that cannot be decided issue an order of expropriation. can be determined during the trial.
without a trial of the case on the
merits.
SC held that trial court should not
have issued the assailed Order of
Expropriation which foreclosed any
further objection to the NPC's right
to expropriate and to the public
purpose of the expropriation, leaving
the matter of just compensation as
the only remaining substantial issue.
508 – Lintag v. NPC (2007) NPC filed a complaint for emindent Expropriation of lands consists of
domain to acquire an easement of a two stages: (1) determination of the
right of way over a portion of authority of the plaintiff to exercise
petitioner’s propert. Petitioners the power of eminent domain and the
argued that RA 8974 should be propriety of its exercise in the
employed to determine just context of the facts involved in the
compensation. suit; and (2) determination by the
SC ruled that just compensation is court of the just compensation for the
the value of the land at the time of property sought to be taken.
the filing. It is only upon the completion of
these two stages that expropriation is
said to have been completed. But to
effectuate the transfer of ownership,
it is necessary for the expropriator to
pay the property owners the final
just compensation.
509 – Republic v. Philippine In an expropriation case involving Payment of just compensation is not Ma’am: Order of expropriation
Development and Housing the expansion of the Balintawak Toll a condition sine qua non to the signals the end of the first phase of

Corporation (2007) Plaza of the North Luzon issuance of an order of expropriation expropriation proceedings.
Expressway, the trial court ruled and may be issued after a
against the Republic’s Motion for determination of the authority to
Issuance of Order of Expropriation exercise the power of eminent
and Appointment of Commissioners domain and the propriety of such
holding that just compensation must exercise.
be paid first before order may be
issued. SC disagreed.
510 – Republic v. Far East In an expropriation case involving Payment of just compensation is not
Enterprises Inc. (2009) the expansion of the Balintawak Toll a condition sine qua non to the
Plaza of the North Luzon issuance of an order of expropriation
Expressway, the trial court ruled and may be issued after a
against the Republic’s Motion for determination of the authority to
Issuance of Order of Expropriation exercise the power of eminent
and Appointment of Commissioners domain and the propriety of such
holding that just compensation must exercise.
be paid first before order may be
issued. SC disagreed.
511 – City of Iloilo v. Hon. Petitioner Javellana filed a complaint Order of expropriation and its The court also mentioned in this case
Contreras-Besana (2010) against the City of Iloilo for Recovery consequent writ of possession that the computation of just
of Possession, Fixing and Recovery of become final and executory after the compensation is reckoned from the
Rental and Damages 18 years after a lapse of the period given to appeal. date when the complaint for
writ of possession was granted by Subsequently, the right of the expropriation was filed.
the TC to the City after it presented government to take the subject
proof of depositing Php40k in property can no longer be Ma’am: Compare 6% legal interest in
petitioner’s account. Javellana did questioned. this case with 12 % in Apo Fruits.
not appeal the writ of possession Juxtaposed with Apo Fruits, the case
granted in the expropriation case. SC of City of Iloilo was a regular
upheld possession of City of Iloilo but expropriation case. It was also
ordered it to pay Javellana just decided by a division of the SC.
compensation and exemplary
damages.
512 – Apo Fruits Corporation, et. Petitioners filed a complaint for Just compensation is defined as the The concept of just compensation
al. v. Land Bank of the Philippines determination of just compensation full and fair equivalent of the embraces not only the correct
(2010) before DARAB but the latter failed to property taken from its owner by the determination of the amount to be
adjudicate for years. Because of expropriator. paid to the owners of the land, but
DARAB’s failure to determination also the payment of the land within a
just compensation, petitioners filed a reasonable time from its taking.
complaint for determination of just
compensation before the RTC which The Court also ruled that 12%
determined proper amount to be interest should be imposed if

paid to petitioners. DAR appealed to property is taken for public use
CA and the latter reversed the TC. SC before compensation is deposited
ruled that petitioners’ land was taken with the court having jurisdiction
without just compensation. over the case - the final
compensation must include
interest[s] on its just value to be
computed from the time the property
is taken to the time when
compensation is actually paid or
deposited with the court.
Ma’am: Compared with the case of

City of Iloilo, here the petitioners
voluntarily sold their land to the
government. It is not strictly an
eminent domain case because the
purpose of acquiring the land was for
agrarian reform and not public use.
However, this case was decided by
the SC en banc.
RULE 68: (Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage)

513 – Rehabilitation Finance Corp. Palma executed a mortgage over a The foreclosure of the first mortgage
v. Alto Surety & Insurance Inc. parcel of land in favor of RFC. cannot be considered to have
(1960) Subsequently, a mortgage in favor of terminated or extinguished the rights
Alto was also executed over the same of said junior encumbrancer over the
property RFC foreclosed the property.
mortgage upon Palma’s failure to An interest subsequent to the first
pay. Palma then sold the property to mortgage may only be divested or
the Trinidads within the period of barred by making the holder thereof
redemption. RFC resold property to a party to the proceedings to
Trinidads but eventually foreclose.
consolidated ownership in its name
upon failure of the latter to within
pay the period. However, Alto’s
second mortgage was still annotated
at the back of RFC’s new title, which
the latter sought to cancel. CFI and SC

rejected RFC’s petition for
cancellation.
514 – Tiglao v. Butones (1951) Property was sold at an auction in Notice and hearing of a confirmation Order of confirmation is a final
favor of Tiglao as mortgagee and CFI of a sheriff's sale is essential to the judgment which is subject to appeal.
issued an order confirming the sale. validity of the order of confirmation.
Tiglao moved for the issuance of a Non-compliance with such
writ of possession 4 years later requirement will render the order of
which the defendant opposed confirmation void.
claiming the sale to former was not
valid because he was not given a
notice of the motion for confirmation
nor its hearing. SC upheld the
necessity of such notice.
515 – GSIS v. CFI of Iloilo CFI in this case granted the assignee The right of redemption does not If the mortgagee is not the PNB, a
of the mortgagor a period of 1 year to exist in case of judicial foreclosure of bank or a banking institution (as
redeem a property years after it was a mortgage if the mortgagee is not provided in PNB’s charter and
judicially foreclosed in favor of GSIS the PNB or a bank or banking General Banking Laws), only equity
and confirmed by order of the court. institution. In such case, the of redemption may be availed of by
SC reversed the CFI ruling. foreclosure sale when confirmed by the mortgagor in a judicial
an order of the court shall operate to foreclosure.
divest the rights of all the parties to
the action and to vest their rights in In this case, the court held that GSIS
the purchaser. is not a financial institution as
contemplated under the General
Banking Laws etc. that will entitle
mortgagor to legal redemption.
516 – Cruz v. IAC (1989) Petitioners sued private respondents Equity of redemption under Section 2 Ma’am: Equity of redemption is
for non-payment and for judicial of Rule 68 of the ROC can be modified waivable since it is a property right.
foreclosure of mortgage. However, by a valid agreement of the parties
the parties were eventually able to such as a compromise agreement.
submit to a compromise agreement
which provided for a period for the
mortgagor to pay its obligation.
Respondent was not able to comply
with the agreement so petitioner
moved for a writ of execution.
Respondent mortgagor argued that
this will deprive them their 90-day
equity of redemption under Rule 68.
SC upheld judgment on the comprise
in favor

517 – Spouses Kho v. CA (1991) Days before the expiration of the An injunction to prohibit the
redemption period, the Spouses issuance of a writ of possession
Annulment of Specific Performance during and after the period of
with Preliminary Injunction against redemption may not be issued since
the bank with specific prayer for the the law and jurisprudence are clear
issuance a writ of preliminary that the purchaser at the foreclosure
injunction restraining and enjoining sale is entitled to it.
the defendants from obtaining a writ
of possession. SC ruled against the
spouses.
518 – Roxas v. CA (1993) Petitioner filed complaint for Failure to publish notice of auction
cancellation of foreclosure of sale as required by statute
mortgage and annulment of auction constitutes a jurisdictional defect
sale against respondent bank before which invalidates the sale of the
RTC claiming, among others, that foreclosed property.
foreclosure did not comply with the
requirement of giving written notices
to all possible redemptioners. TC
held in favor of petitioner saying that
the bank failed to comply with Sec. 5,
RA 720 amended by RA 5939
requiring the posting of notice of
foreclosure not only in the
municipality but also in the barrio
where land is located. SC ruled in
favor of petitioner.
519 – Monzon v. Spouses Relova Respondents as junior Rule 68 only applies to judicial The law governing extrajudicial
(2008) encumbrancers are claiming to be foreclosure sales and not foreclosures does not grant to junior
entitled to Php1.6M residue from extrajudicial foreclosure sales. encumbrancers the right to receive
extrajudicial foreclosure of the residue of the purchase price but
petitioner’s property pursuant to only the right to redeem.
Rule 68 of the ROC. SC held that Rule
68 does not apply in this case. Also, residue of proceeds from
foreclosure should not be given to
mortgegee.
520 – De Vera v. Agloro (2005) Ownership of property was After the consolidation of title in the Ma’am: Ex parte motion for writ of
consolidated in favor of BPI after buyer’s name for failure of the possession is non-judicial and
Spouses De Vera failed to redeem the mortgagor to redeem the property, therefore non-litigious.
same within 1 year following an the writ of possession becomes a
extrajudicial foreclosure sale. matter of right and its issuance
Spouses sought suspension of ex becomes a ministerial function of the

parte proceedings for the issuance of court.
a writ of possession in favor of BPI
which the TC denied. TC granted BPI
writ of possession. SC ruled in favor
of bank.
521 – Spouses Arquiza v. CA Following the spouses’ failure to An ex parte petition for issuance of
(2005) redeem the property within 1 year writ of execution is not an initiatory
after an extrajudicial foreclosure pleading. Thus, a certificate of non-
sale, the bank sought the issuance of forum shopping is not required.
a writ of possession via ex parte
petition. The spouses opposed this,
alleging among others that such
should be dismissed for a lack of
certification of non-forum shopping.
SC ruled in favor of the bank.
522 – Flores v. Spouses Lindo TC dismissed petitioner’s complaint Generally, a mortgagee-creditor has The court allowed the collection suit
(2011) for judicial foreclosure of mortgage the option of either filing a personal to proceed in this case because
because the deed of mortgage action for collection of sum of money accordingly, the principle of unjust
executed by respondent wife was or instituting a real action to enrichment under substantive law
void due to husband’s lack of foreclose on the mortgage security. should prevail over the procedural
consent. Petitioner then filed a An election of the first remedy bars rule on multiplicity of suits.
complaint for a sum of money and recourse to the second; otherwise
damages before TC. CA held that the there would be multiplicity of suits. Ma’am: Its strange that the court in
remedies of a creditor are this case ruled on the basis of unjust
alternative; the election of one will enrichment.
bar the exercise of the other. SC
ruled in favor of petitioner.
RULE 69: (Partition)

523 – Roque v. IAC (1988) Petitioner filed a complaint for In instances where the defendant Ma’am: IAC, as held by the SC, was
partition with specific performance, asserts in his answer exclusive title also wrong in that accion
claiming to be the owner of ¾ of the in himself adversely to the plaintiff, reinvindicatoria need not be resorted
land in question. In their answer the court should not dismiss the to in order to resolve the question of
with compulsory counterclaim, plaintiff’s action for partition but ownership as such can be decided in
private respondents assailed the exercise its general jurisdiction and an action for partition.
claim of ownership of petitioner. IAC resolve the question of whether the
ruled that TC should have dismissed plaintiff is co-owner or not.
the complaint for partition of

petitioner because it turned into a
case of ownership. SC overruled the
IAC.
524 – Fabrica v. CA (1986) TC rejected petitioners’ claim in its The issue of ownership must be First judgment in a partition case is a
complaint of ownership over land resolved first before ordering final order which is appealable.
that is the subject of partition. partition where the complaint is
Petitioners appealed to the CA. CA premised on the ownership of the
remanded the case to TC ruling that property to be partitioned. The
order of the latter is unappealable order rejecting one party’s claim of
since it is merely interlocutory. SC ownership is not an interlocutory
held that the TC order was not order but a judgment on the merits
interlocutory and was a judgment on which is a proper subject of appeal.
the merits that can be the subject of
an appeal.
525 – Austria v. Lichauco (2007) Respondents filed a complaint for 2 phases in action for partition: Ma’am: Accounting of rents and
partition before the TC. TC ruled in 1. the determination of whether a profits is only applicable if there is
favor of respondents and co-ownership in fact exists and something to account.
alternatively ordered the partition of partition is proper
the property or the sale thereof. SC 2. commences when it appears that The TC was also wrong in not
ruled that the alternative order of the the parties are unable to agree appointing commissioners as such is
TC was invalid as the partition case upon the partition. In such event, mandatory and in ordering the sale
has only reached the first phase of partition shall be done for the of the property.
the proceeding. parties by the court
RULE 70: (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer)

526 – Calixtro v Gonzales (2008) On the basis on an ejectment case An ejectment suit is an action in
where they weren’t impleaded, personam; judgment is binding only
petitioners filed an injunction to upon parties properly impleaded and
prevent demolition on their houses. given an opportunity to be heard.
SC held that since petitioners had not
been given their day in court, they
cannot be bound by the decision in
the ejectment case.
527 - Bejar v Caluag (2007) Defendant refused to vacate the A complaint for illegal detainer or 4 remedies available to one who has
property despite demands of forcible entry must contain two been deprived of possession of real
plaintiff. The latter filed an unlawful mandatory allegations: (1) prior property: (1) unlawful detainer; (2)
detainer case. Caluag filed a MTD on physical possession of the property forcible entry; (3) accion publiciana;
the ground that the MeTC has no by the plaintiff; and (2) deprivation and (4) accion reinvidicatoria. In

jurisdiction over the case as it of said possession by another by unlawful detainer and forcible entry,
involves the issue of ownership. means of force, intimidation, threat, the only issue is who between the
SC held that MeTC has jurisdiction. strategy or stealth. contending parties has better
The complaint sufficiently allege possession of the contested property.
withholding of possession or refusal An accion publiciana is an action for
to vacate the property. Also, plaintiff recovery of possession in order to
filed his complaint within one year determine the better and legal right
from the date of his last demand to possess, independently of title
upon respondent to vacate.
528 - Francel Realty v CA (1996) Francel Realty Corp filed a complaint While generally speaking a complaint
for unlawful detainer against Sycip, for unlawful detainer falls within the
alleging that the contract with Sycip original and exclusive jurisdiction of
provided that in case of default in the the MTC, this case falls within the
payment of two or more jurisdiction of the HLURB since it
installments, the whole obligation
involves determination of the ground
will become due and demandable
for ejectment in this case requires a
and the seller will then be entitled to
rescind the contract and take consideration of the rights of a buyer
possession of the property. MTC on installment basis of real property,
dismissed the case since jurisdiction which is exclusively cognizable by
is with HLURB. SC agreed. the HLURB.
529 - Del Rosario v Sps Manuel Sps. Manuel own a lot located, which In the complaint for unlawful
(204) they allowed Del Rosario to build his detainer, prior physical possession is
house thereon. Later, respondents not required, as the possession of the
asked Del Rosario to vacate the lot, land was by mere tolerance of the
but Del Rosario refused. He claims respondents and he becomes a
that there should have been an
deforciant occupant the moment he
allegation in the complaint that
is required to leave because he is
respondents have prior physical
possession of the lot and that they bound by his implied promise that he
were ousted therefrom by force, will vacate upon demand.
threat, strategy or stealth.
SC ruled against petitioner.
530 - Buenaventura v Uy (1987) Buenaventura leased to the Uys a The action filed is not forcible entry Distinctions between the two
portion of his lot. However, they but unlawful detainer. When actions:
occupied an area in excess. appellant asked appellees to vacate (1) As to possession: the possession
Buenaventura demanded that Uys the excess portion of the land of the intruder or person who
vacate the excess portion. Upon because of his need for the premises, deprives another of the possession of
refusal to vacate, an action was filed and the appellees refused, their a land or building in forcible entry is
for "forcible entry and detainer" continued possession of the excess illegal from the beginning because
(plaintiff’s counsel apparently forgot became unlawful — the filing of the his entry into or taking possession

the difference). Defendants claims complaint within the one-year thereof is made against the will or
lack of jurisdiction over the subject statutory period makes the case fall without the consent of the former
matter, the complaint not having under the jurisdiction of the City possessor; while in unlawful
been verified and the supposed Court. detainer, the possession of the
forcible entry having taken place detainer is originally legal or lawful
almost 17 years ago prior and lack of The requirement regarding but it becomes illegal after the
cause of action. verification of a pleading is a formal expiration or termination of his right
SC held City Court correctly denied not a jurisdictional requisite. to hold possession of the land or
the motion to dismiss and allowed building by virtue of a contract;
the amendment of the complaint by (2) As to demand to vacate: in
the verification of the same. forcible entry, no previous demand
to vacate is required by law before
the filing of the action; while in an
action for unlawful detainer by a
landlord against his tenant, such
demand is required.
531 - Javier v Veridiano (1994) Javier filed a complaint for forcible The issue in the forcible entry case is
entry against Babol which was prior possession, regardless of who
dismissed. Later Javier instituted a has lawful title over the disputed
complaint for quieting of title (which property. A judgment rendered in a
SC said is an accion reinvindicatoria) case like this is conclusive only on
and recovery of possession against possession, not ownership. It does
Babol and Rosete. not bind the title or affect ownership
SC held that there is no res judicata. of the disputed property.
There is an identity of parties, since An accion reivindicatoria is an action
Rosete was the successor in interest where a plaintiff alleges ownership
of Babol. However, there is no over a parcel of land and seeks
identity of causes of action. In the recovery of its full possession. In
forcible entry case, Javier only contrast, an accion interdictal is one
claimed a better right over the land, where a plaintiff merely alleges proof
without asserting title. In the later of a better right to possess without
case, she expressly alleged claim of title.
ownership.
532 - Baens v CA (1983) Chua Seng filed a case for forcible Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of
entry with the City Court of Manila Court provides that the ONLY
against his lessee Baens. Chua Seng damages that may be recovered in an
was awarded P1,000,00 for action for forcible entry is the "rents"
attorney’s fees. On appeal the CFI or "the reasonable compensation for
awarded actual damages per month, the use and occupation of the
moral damages, exemplary damages premises" or "fair rental value of the
and for attorney's fees. property." Moral, exemplary and

SC held the CFI erred in awarding actual damages are neither "rents"
such. Chua Seng is not entitled to the nor "reasonable compensation for
moral damages, exemplary damages, the use and occupation of the
and actual damages. premises", nor "fair rental value".
533 - Azcuna Jr v CA (1996) The Barcelonas filed an ejectment An agreement for liquidated damages Unlike in Baens, liquidated damages
case against Azcuna, after the latter entitling a party thereto to claim a was awarded in this case, because it
refused to surrender the 3 units stipulated amount by way of was so stipulated in the contract,
leased, after the expiration of the damages other than the damages still which is the law between the parties.
contract. Azcuna was ordered to pay legally due him is valid.
monthly rental and P3k per day as
damages. Azcuna questions the
award of damages.
SC affirmed award of damages. It
merely enforces the contractual
stipulations of the party, that failure
to peaceably deliver the premises,
entitles lessor to charge the lessee
P1k per day as damages w/o
prejudice to other remedies.
534 - Penas Jr v CA (1994) Petitioner notified respondent that The notice giving the lessee the
they were terminating the monthly alternative either to pay the
lease contract and demanded they increased rental or otherwise vacate
vacate or they could continue the land is not the demand
occupying the premises if they will contemplated by the Rules of Court
agree to a new lease contract for a in unlawful detainer cases. When
period of 1 year at an increased after such notice, the lessee elects to
monthly rental rate. Respondent stay, he thereby merely assumes the
failed to abide by the demand, but new rental and cannot be ejected
continued staying and deposited the until he defaults in said obligation
rental payments at the old rate to and necessary demand is first made.
PNB, when the petitioner refused to
accept payments. Later, petitioners The 1y period is reckoned from the
sent another letter to respondent last letter of demand. Right of action
demanding the latter to vacate and to based on previous demands are
pay back rental arrearages. deemed waived.
Petitioners filed an unlawful detainer
case, which was dismissed bec. it was
filed more than 1 year after the
demand.
SC held the case was for unlawful
detainer and was filed 1 month after

the demand made (second letter).
535 - Lim Keih Tong v CA (1991) Lim rented a room in the building of R70 is not only available to the
petitioner which has only one landlord, but also to the
common main door. When found out lessee/tenant, especially if it was the
that his key was no longer landlord that caused the eviction.
compatible with the lock he
requested respondent to provide him Any person deprived of possession of
with the appropriate key, but was any land or building or part thereof,
denied. may file an action for forcible entry
SC held that the action is for forcible and detainer in the proper inferior
entry, not specific performance. Lim court against the person unlawfully
retained the possession of the room depriving or withholding possession
in petitioner's building which he from him.
claimed to have the right to use and
enjoy, but petitioner prevented him
from enjoying his right. Through
stealth, petitioner changed the key to
the main door thus depriving Lim of
the possession of his rented room.
536 - Clutario v CA (1992) The respondents wrote to petitioners Jurisprudence dictates that the
telling them to vacate the apartment acceptance by the lessor of the
owned by the former, but they did payment by the lessee of the rentals
not heed the request. Later, they in arrears does not constitute a
were already in arrears with the waiver of the default in the payment
rentals. Sps Gandia filed a complaint
of rentals as a valid cause of action
for ejectment against petitioners.
for ejectment.
Later, petitioners paid the rents, but
by then they had been in arrears for
9 months.
SC held that petitioners can be
validly ejected by private
respondent. The acceptance by the
lessor of the payment by the lessee of
the rentals in arrears does not
constitute a waiver of the default in
the payment of rentals as a valid
cause of action.
537 - Cursino v Bautista (1989) Cursino defaulted in the payment of It is the landlord's demand for tenant Failure to collect or refusal to accept
his monthly rentals. James (lessor) to vacate the premises, when the payment is not a valid defense. The
demanded that Cursino pay the back tenant has failed to pay the rents on proper course of action is to tender
rental and vacate the premises time and tenant's refusal or failure to payment, give notices, then consign

within a period of 5 days. Cursino vacate, which make unlawful with the court.
then belatedly sent 2 postal money withholding of possession.
orders as payment. Cursino refused
to vacate the premises. He refused to
vacate the premises on the ground he
is not in default (but payments were
not accepted), and that he is
protected under Sections 1 and 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 20.
SC held that CFI is correct in holding
that Cursino’s possession of the
property as lessee was unlawful
538 - Acab v CA (1995) Respondents rented a lot (via a Lease agreements with no specified
verbal agreement), for which they period, but in which rentals are paid
are obliged to pay monthy rentals. monthly, are considered to be on a
After purchasing the lot form thir month-to-month basis. They are for a
father, petitioners informed definite period and expire after the
respondents that they were no last day of any given thirty-day
longer interested in renewing the period, upon proper demand and
lease contract, and asked them to notice by the lessor to vacate.
vacate the premises.
SC held that respondent may legally
be ejected form the property on the
sole basis of the expiration of the
verbal lease agreement, underwhich
rentals are paid monthly.
539 - Bandoy v CA (1989) Sps petitioner sublet spaces of a Where the complaint contains no
residential house and lot to allegation that a demand had been
Empaynado who later failed and made upon the defendant to vacate
refused to pay upon demand. the premises but only an allegation
Petitioners filed a complaint for that a demand was made for
ejectment against Empaynado with payment of the rentals agreed upon,
the certification to file action against it is held that such allegation is
respondent for nonpayment of insufficient to confer jurisdiction
rentals issued by the barangay upon a justice of the peace court.
captain.
SC dismissed the case. The complaint
was defective bec. of its failure to
allege that there was a prior demand
to vacate. The defect was not cured
because no evidence of a prior

demand to vacate was presented in
the trial court. The certification only
stated that no settlement was
reached by the parties in the
barangay level.
540 - Peran v Presiding Judge Upon purchase of the land, petitioner Physical possession of the property is Ma’am: Mere tolerance can be the
(1983) asked the original owner’s niece to not an indispensable requirement for basis for an unlawful detained
remove their house from the lot’s filing an unlawful detainer case. complaint even without written
portion. But she refused. Ejectment demand.
case was dismissed by the CFI since Possession by tolerance is lawful,
issue in illegal detainer is physical with implied promise to vacate upon
possession which the niece has demand. It becomes illegal upon
SC held that CFI erred. The niece was demand to vacate.
in possession but she has not proved
her title to the land NOR her right to
possess the same. Physical
possession of the property by Peran
is not required to file the said case.
541 - Once v Gonzales (1977) Once was ordered to vacate an The rule on supersedeas bond does Note: This case was decided in 1977.
apartment owned by Pana and to pay not apply where there are no back Sec. 19, Rule 70 of 1997 RoC
monthly rental until premises have rentals. Rule 70, Section 8 requires a provides 3 requirements to stay
been vacated. On appeal, Once supersedeas bond only if there are execution pending appeal:
deposited rentals with the court. accrued rentals in arrears. It 1.) appeal has been perfected
Pena filed a motion for execution, for dispenses with that bond if the 2.) supersedeas bond on amount
Once’s alleged failure to file a defeated tenant deposits in court the approved was filed
supersedeas bond. rentals due from time to time. 3.) deposits with appellate court of
SC sided with petitioner. Once's the amount of rent from time to time
timely deposit of the rentals stayed
the execution of the judgment This what Ma’am stated about the
pending appeal. No such bond was case:
necessary because no back rentals “Attorney’s fees need not be covered
were adjudged in the city court's by supersedeas bond”
judgment.
542 - Racaz v Susana Realty Petitioner was the lessee of a portion Rule 70, section 2 requires previous
(1966) of land, paying monthly rent. Later, demand only when the action is “for
he was asked to vacate. A complaint failure to pay rent due or to comply
for ejectment was filed; petitiner with the conditions of his lease.”
denied that the lease was on a month Where the action is to terminate the
to month basis. Petitioner contends lease because of the expiration of its
that the complaint is defective for term, no such demand is necessary.
failure to state when the alleged UD

started, so as to afford basis to The averment that the lease was on a
determine when the cause of action month-to-month basis is equivalent
accrued. to an allegation that the lease expired
at the end of every month. It is
therefore immaterial that rents had
not been paid, since what made
petitioner liable for ejectment was
the expiration of the lease. This being
the case, demand to vacate was
unnecessary.
543 - San Manuel Wood v Judge In an unlawful detainer case, Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Given complainant’s failure to pay
Tupas (1995) judgment against complainant who Court, applies to execution pending periodic deposit of rentals, San
then filed a “Notice of Appeal and appeal in ordinary civil actions. This Manuel should have then the right to
approval of Cash/Superdeas bond” to rule requires good reasons before a move for execution but they filed
stay the execution of the decision. writ of execution can be issued in their motion with the MTCC, not in
This was approved by respondent favor of the prevailing party. Its the appellate court. MTCC had
Judge. It then deposited with the issuance is subject to the sound already lost jurisdiction upon
clerk the rentals due. San Manuel discretion of the court and is usually perfection of RTC appeal.
filed a “Supplemental Motion for not favored because it affects the
Execution Pending Appeal”, which rights of the parties which are yet to
respondent Judge granted, finding be ascertained on appeal.
that they were able to adduce Execution pending appeal of
good/special reasons justifying decisions in ejectment cases are
execution pending appeal. governed by Section 8, Rule 70, and
SC held that the writ of execution not Rule 39. Unlike the latter rule
pending appeal was invalid. Good which requires a showing of good
reasons are not basis for execution reasons for the immediate execution
pending appeal of ejectment cases. of a judgment, judgments in
Also petitioner filed their motion ejectment cases under Rule 70 are
with the wrong court. executed immediately as a matter of
right without need to show good
reason.
544 – Vda. de Ampil v. Alvendia Petitioners pray for a writ directing Where the time for payment under Sec 8 of the Rules "requires as a
(1964) respondent to order execution the contract of leave is not condition sine qua non that the
pending appeal of a Municipal Court specifically declared in the judgment judgment shall make specific findings
decision directing Manuel to vacate of the justice of the peace or as to the existence and the terms of
the premises held by him as lessee. municipal court, the ten-day period the contract. The words 'as found by
Respondent judge found that must be followed. the judgment' are very material."
appellant had been making the (Khim vs. Yan, et al)
monthly deposits exacted by the
appealed judgment & "it cannot,

therefore, be said that the defendant
has failed to make the monthly
deposit on time". SC affirmed. In the
absence of any finding as to the
provisions of the lease contract by
the Municipal Court, the monthly
deposit may be made w/in the first
10 days of each succeeding month.
545 – City of Manila v. CA and City filed ejectment proceedings Execution pending appeal in The Court overturned its previous
Santos (1987) against respondent-lessee for ejectment cases may be availed of by ruling in Cruz v Jugo & held that Rule
refusing increased rates and refusing both lessee and lessor. In either 70 Sec 8 can apply even if it is the
to vacate. Lessor-City appealed situation, however, it is always the lessor who appeals. In this situation,
ruling of CFI in its favor bec it is not lessor (who continue occupying the the lessee must still be the one to file
satsified with the increased rentals. premise) who must pay the the supersedeas bond if he wants to
Lessee-Santos countered that a writ supersedeas bond and deposit the prevent execution pending appeal.
of execution pending appeal could rental fees in court.
not be issued because there was no
supersedeas bond filed, & that the
judgment was conditional.
SC ruled in favor of execution
pending appeal.
546 - San Pedro v. CA (1994) Case #1 – MTC: unlawful detainer Judgment in an ejectment suit
case against Sps. Loresto. Judgment favourable to the plaintiff are
against Spouses to vacate so they immediately executory and the
appealed to RTC. pendency of another action involving
Case #2 – RTC: action for annulment ownership of the subject property
of Ledesma’s title does not abate the ejectment suit or
In Case #1, Ledesma filed a motion bar an execution of a judgment
for execution pending appeal therein.
SC ruled in favor of Ledesma.
547 – Sunflower Neighborhood The petitioner’s members were Persons can be bound by judgment in
Association v. CA (2003) occuppying a portion of the land in the ejectment suit, even if they were
controversy. They were not not impleaded as defendants, only if
impleaded as defendants in the they are shown to be:
unlawful detainer case. They ask that a. trespassers, squatters or agents of
they be excluded from the demolition the defendant fraudulently occupying
& eviction. the property to frustrate the
SC ruled against them since they are judgment;
trespassers & squatters who do not b. guests or other occupants of the
have any right to occupy the land. premises with the permission of the
defendant;

c. transferees pendente lite;
d. sub-lessees;
e. co-lessees; or
f. family members, relatives and
other privies of the defendant.
548 – Floyd v. Gonzales (2008) NOTE: SAME CASE WITH
(SUPRA) 526 – Calixtro v Gonzales. Its Floyd
and Calixtro v. Gonzales
549 - Pagtalunan v. Dela Cruz Patricio (petitioner’s stepfather), In a sale of real property by
(2007) entered into a contract to sell w/ installments, the cancellation of the
respondent. The downpayment was contract to sell must comply w/ the
paid but the monthly installments provisions of the Maceda Law, which
were allegedly stopped w/o any requires a notarial act of rescission &
justification. Respondent averred the refund to the buyer of the full
that they entered into an agreement payment of the cash surrender value
suspending the payment w/in a of the payments on the property.
certain period. Respondent claimed
she did not resume paying her
monthly installment because of the
unlawful acts by Patricio, & the filing
of the ejectment case against her.
Petitioner then filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer.
SC held that there being no valid
cancellation of the Contract to Sell,
the CA correctly recognized
respondent’s right to continue
occupying the property subject of the
Contract to Sell and affirmed the
dismissal of the unlawful detainer
case by the RTC. Macada law is
applicable.
RULE 71: (Contempt)

550 - People v. Godoy (1995) Judge Gacott filed a complaint w/ SC Snide remarks or sarcastic The rule applicable in this case is that
to cite Reynoso & De Leon for innuendoes do not necessarily where the entire case has already
indirect contempt for their article assume that level of contumely which been appealed, jurisdiction to punish
written & published in a newspaper is actionable under Rule 71. for contempt rests w/ the appellate
of general circulation. Accdg to him, court where the appeal completely

article tends to impede, obstruct, transfers the proceedings thereto or
belittle, downgrade & degrade the where there is a tendency to affect
administration of justice . the status quo or otherwise interfere
SC held that that the article is not with the jurisdiction of the appellate
cuntamacious in nature. The article court.
in its entirety will show that the
same does not constitute contempt, (Please see the case digest for a long
but at most, merely constitutes fair discussion of the nature, purpose,
criticism and character of contempt
proceedings.)
551 – Ang v. Judge Castro (1985) Ang lodged w/ the SC an The use of disrespectful or
administrative complaint against contemptuous language against a
Judge Castro for ignorance of the law, particular judge in pleadings
gross inexcusable negligence, presented in another court or
incompetence, etc. proceeding is indirect contempt as it
Respondent judge found him guilty is not tantamount to a misbehavior in
of direct contempt of court. SC held the presence of or so near a court or
that respondent erred in finding Ang judge as to interrupt the
guilty of direct contempt. His acts can administration of justice.
be subject of indirect contempt.
552 – People v. Torio (1982) Appeal from the order of CFI, finding Failure to appear in court for trial is
Judge Estrada guilty of contempt of not a direct contempt, summarily
court for having failed to appear at punishable under Sec 1 of Rule 71,
the scheduled time of the hearing of a for it is not a misbehavior in the
criminal case & sentencing him "to presence of or so near a court or
pay a fine of P50 within 24 hrs from judge as to interrupt the
receipt of the copy of the order.” administration of justice.
SC granted the appeal. The contempt It may, however, constitute an
of court supposedly committed by indirect contempt punishable only
the accused is indirect (not after written charges & hearing
committed in the court) and it is under Sec 3, Rule 71, par. (b).
therefore error on the part of the
court to have summarily punished
him without a formal charge being
first preferred against him and a
hearing conducted in accordance
with law.
553 – Pascua v. Heirs of Simeon Heirs of Simeon won a civil case. 20 Refusal to relinquish properties The proper procedure would have
(1988) parcels of land were levied upon & levied upon to satisfy a judgment been for the sheriff to dispossess
sold at public auction to satisfy the debt will not constitute contempt on them of the premises and deliver the
judgment. Heirs were the highest the ground of disobedience to a possession of said premises to the

bidders. Pascua & Dugay refused to lawful writ of possession. This is heirs. Pascua and Dugay may only be
vacate. Thus, the heirs moved to have because the writ of possession is held in contempt if they return to the
them declared in contempt. Judge directed to the sheriff, not to the premises and execute acts of
Alzate ordered its grant. parties who refused to relinquish ownership or possession or in any
SC held order of judge is improper. properties. manner disturb the heirs’ possession.
554 – Tacardon v. Ang (2005) SC denied petitioners’ Petition. Atty. If the pleading containing derogatory,
Cruz filed a pleading accusing SC offensive or malicious statements is
members to have based their submitted in the same court or judge
decisions not on the rule of law but in which the proceedings are
on the rule of the powerful & the pending, it is direct contempt
influential can be worse than the because it is equivalent to a
most heinous crimes. Cruz filed a misbehavior committed in the
“Manifestation” w/c stated that the presence of or so near a court or
minute resolutions were authored by judge as to interrupt the
someone else not part of the justices. administration of justice.
SC decided to discipline Atty. Cruz
even if the decision of his clients was
already decided.
555 – Regalado v. Go (2007) When CA decision was received, Go Strict compliance w/ the procedural Even if the contempt proceedings
filed a Manifestation to nullify the an guidelines is mandatory considering stemmed from the main case over
earlier compromise agreement he that proceedings against person which the court already has
entered and on the same motion, alleged to be guilty of contempt are jurisdiction, the Rules direct that the
moved that Atty. Regalado be made commonly treated as criminal in petition for contempt be treated
to explain her unethical conduct for nature. independently of the principal action.
directly negotiating with Go without In all other case (not initiated by
the knowledge of his counsel. CA Court), charges for indirect contempt
ordered Atty. Regalado to explain shall be commenced by a verified
why she should not be cited for petition with supporting particulars
contempt. CA held her guilty of such. and certified true copies of
SC held that CA erred. bec the documents or papers involved
manner upon which indirect therein, and upon full compliance
contempt proceeding was in with the requirements for filing
contravention with the mandate of initiatiory pleadings for civil actions
the Rules. It was unverified and in the court concerned.
without any supporting particulars
and documents
556 - Judge Español v. Formoso In the course of the (quieting of title) Use of falsified and forged documents Note: Judge Espanol stated that in
(2007) proceedings, Judge Español, issued is a contumacious act. However, it determining the merits of Sharcon’s
an Order stating that Sharcons, & its constitutes indirect contempt not complaint for quieting title, she also
counsel, Atty. Formoso, have used a direct contempt. Pursuant to Rule 71 looked into the previous decision of
spurious certificate of title & tax Sec 3, such act is an improper Judge Tagle declaring Sharcon’s TCTs

declaration when it filed w/ the RTC conduct w/c degrades the and other supporting documents
its complaint for quieting of title. administration of justice. falsified and that respondents are
Petitioner declared respondents There shoukd be a hearing. responsible therefor.
guilty of direct contempt of court and
ordered their confinement for 10
days in the municipal jail.
SC held petitioners not guilty of
direct contempt.
557 – Arriola v. Arriola (2008) In this case auction had to be Except for indirect contempt Cited Regalado v. Go.
rescheduled because petitioners proceedings initiated motu proprio
refused to include the house standing by order of or a formal charge by the
on the land. Respondent filed an offended court, all charges shall be
Urgent Manifestation and Motion for commenced by a verified petition
Contempt of Court before the RTC, with full compliance with the
praying that petitioners be declared requirements.
in contempt.
SC held that RTC erred in taking
jurisdiction bec respondent didn’t
comply with mandatory
requirements for initiating contempt
proceedings.
558 - Rodriguez v. Blancaflor Judge Blancaflor informed the The power to punish a person in
(2011) petitioners that he was proceeding contempt of court is inherent in all
against them for direct contempt and courts to preserve order in judicial
violation of their oath of office on the proceedings & to uphold the orderly
basis of an Ex-Parte Manifestation. administration of justice.
After the submission of petitioners’ However, judges are enjoined to
respective position papers, Judge exercise the power judiciously &
Blancaflor found them guilty of direct sparingly, w/ utmost restraint, & w/
contempt and imposed on each the the end in view of utilizing the same
penalty of indefinite suspension from for correction & preservation of the
the practice of law and a fine of dignity of the court, & not for
P100,000.00. retaliation/vindictiveness.
SC held that contempt proceedings Such power, being drastic &
are null and void for lack of due extraordinary in its nature, should
process. Grave abuse of authority is not be resorted to unless necessary
also manifested from the excessive in the interest of justice.
penalty imposed on the petitioners.

SPECIAL RULES: (Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data)

559 - In the matter of the Petition Petitioner is a member of Rodriguez prays for the issuance of a 3 other issues discussed by the Court
for the Writ of Amparo &Habeas Kagimungan, a peasant organization temporary protection order. (not included in this reviewer):
Data in favor of Noriel Roriguez affiliated w/ KMP. He claims the Whether former President
 v. GMA (2011) military tagged KMP as an enemy of The protection order is only an Arroyo should be dropped as a
the State under the Oplan Bantay interim relief, it can only be granted respondent on the basis of the
Laya, making its members targets of before a final adjudication of the case presidential immunity from suit.
extrajudicial killings & enforced is made. In any case, it must be Whether the doctrine of
disappearances. Rodriguez was underscored that the privilege of the command responsibility can be used
abducted by military men & was writ of amparo, once granted, in amparo and habeas data cases.
tortured repeatedly when he refused necessarily entails the protection of Whether the rights to life,
to confess to his membership in the the aggrieved party. Thus, since we liberty and property of Rodriguez
NPA. Upon release, he filed a Petition grant the privilege of the writ, there were violated or threatened by
for the Writ of Amparo & Petition for is no need to issue a temporary respondents in G.R. No. 191805.
the Writ of Habeas Data w/ Prayers protection order independently of
for Protection Orders, Inspection of the former. The order restricting
Place, & Production of Documents & respondents from going near
Personal Properties. Petition was Rodriguez is subsumed under the
filed against former Pres. GMA, et al. privilege of the writ.
SC held that petitioner is entitled to
the writs prayed for but not the grant
of interim relief.
560 - Tapuz v. Judge Del Rosario Spouses Sanson filed a complaint No writ of habeas data can be issued
(2008) before MCTC for forcible entry in this case.
against the Tupaz’s. MCTC ruled in
favor of the Sansons. RTC reversed. A petition for a writ of habeas data
While in the CA, sheriff served Notice must show concrete allegations of
to Vacate & for Demolition to the unjustified/unlawful violation of the
Tupazes. Tupazes came before the SC right to privacy related to the right to
praying for R65 Certiorari, issuance life, liberty or security. The
of the writ of Habeas Data & issuance necessity/justification for the
of the writ of Amparo. issuance of the writ, based on the
insufficiency of previous efforts made
to secure information, must also be
shown.
SPECIAL RULES: (Rule on the Writ of Amparo)

561 – Boac v. Cadapan (2011) Armed men abducted Cadapan, An amparo proceeding is not Note difference between:
Empeño & Merino. Having thereafter criminal in nature nor does it 1. Responsibility
heard nothing from the 3, their ascertain the criminal liability of 2. accountability
respective families searched but the individuals or entities involved.
same yielded nothing. During the Neither does it partake of a civil or
pendency of the MR of the Petition administrative suit. Rather, it is a
for Habeas Corpus, Erlinda Cadapan remedial measure designed to direct
& Concepcion Empeño filed before specified courses of action to
this Court a Petition for Writ of government agencies to safeguard
Amparo With Prayers for Inspection the constitutional right to life, liberty
of Place and Production of & security of aggrieved individuals.
Documents. The appellate court
granted the MR in the habeas corpus Contrary to the ruling of the
case & ordered the immediate appellate court, there is no need to
release of Sherlyn, Karen & Merino in file a motion for execution for an
the amparo case. amparo or habeas corpus decision.
Since the right to life, liberty &
security of a person is at stake, the
proceedings should not be delayed &
execution of any decision thereon
must be expedited as soon as
possible since any form of delay,
even for a day, may jeopardize the
very rights that these writs seek to
immediately protect.


CivPro - Mawis - A2015 Cases Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CivPro - Mawis - A2015 Cases Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL PROCEDURE DIGESTS REVIEWER

Dean Soledad Derequito-Mawis

RULE 19: (Intervention)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 1 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 2 of 116

RULE 20: (Calendar of Cases)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

RULE 21: (Subpoena)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 3 of 116

RULE 22: (Computation of Time)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 4 of 116

CA held that the petition was filed

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 5 of 116

RULE 23: (Depositions Pending Action)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 6 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 7 of 116

RULE 24-28: (Other Modes of Discovery)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 8 of 116

RULE 29: (Refusal To Comply with Modes of Discovery)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 9 of 116

RULE 30: (Trial)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 10 of 116

RULE 32: (Trial by Commissioner)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

RULE 33: (Demurrer to Evidence)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 11 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 12 of 116

RULE 34: (Judgment on the Pleadings)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 13 of 116

RULE 35: (Summary Judgment)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 14 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 15 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 16 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 17 of 116

RULE 36: (Judgments, Final Orders and Entry)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 18 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 19 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 20 of 116

RULE 37: (New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 21 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 22 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 23 of 116

RULE 38: (Petition for Relief from Judgment)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 24 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 25 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 26 of 116

RULE 39: (Secs. 1-14 Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments)

CASE TITLE FAST FACTS DOCTRINE NOTES

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 27 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 28 of 116

CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAWS Page 29 of 116