CIVPRO Atty Brondial REM2 Case Doctrines 2012

JURISDICTION AGAN V.
PIATCO
The interpretation of contracts and the determination
ERISTINGCOL V. CA of whether their provisions violate our laws or
Gen. Rule: objection over a case may be varied at any contravene any public policy is a legal issue which the
stage of the proceedings, as lack of jurisdiction affects court may properly act upon;
the very authority of the court to take cognizance of a The SC did not violate the hierarchy of courts;
case; however, the surety is barred from laches for The rule on hierarchy of courts in cases falling within
questioning the jurisdiction 15 years after the action has the concurrent jurisdiction of the trial courts and
commenced appellate courts generally applies to cases invoking
warring factual allegations. For this reasons, litigants are
DUERO V. CA required to repair to the trial courts at the first instance
Principle of estoppels cannot be invoked upon because to determine the truth or falsity of those contending
the jurisdiction of the court may be invoked at any time allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties.
and at any stage of the action Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision
cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts
GONZAGA V. CA as they are not trier of facts;
The action of the Gonzaga spouses were barred the When cases brought before the appellate courts do not
principle of estoppels because in the proceedings invoke factual but legal questions, a strict application of
before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted the rule of courts is not necessary;
this cause form the start to finish. It was only when the The case at bar merely concern with the construction of
trial court rendered an unfavorable decision and they the Constitution, interpretation of Bill of Rights law and
raise the issue of jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner its implementing rules and regulations on undisputed
effectively waived their right to question the court’s contractual provisions and government actions, and as
jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed. the cases concern public interest, the SC takes prmary
“While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction over them. Transcendental importance. The
jurisdiction is a total nullity, and may be assailed at any suggested remand of the case at bar to the trial court
stage, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings in the will stay away from this policy.
court which rendered the order or decision will bar such
party from attacking its jurisdiction. LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY V. ATIENZA
Hierarchy of courts must be respected
ESCOBAL V. GARCHITORENA
The Presiding Justice of the SB acted in accordance with SERRANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
law when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Serrana being a
(the court of origin); student regent of UP
Jurisdictional requirement must be alleged in the
Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at AMBIL JR. V. SANDIGANBAYAN
the inception of the case continues until the case is Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Ambil (Provincial
terminated; Governor) and Apelada (provincial warden) for
The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because the facts detaining Mayor Adalim in Ambil‘s house. Both
showing the intimate relation between the Office of the government officials has no authority because such
offender and the discharge of the official duties are not authority is vested to the courts.
alleged in the information;
Under the law, even if the offender committed the GARCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a Violations of RA 1379 (Forfeiture of property unlawfully
position corresponding to the grade salary below 27 the acquired by any public officer) are placed under the
RTC or MTC as the case may be, shall have the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even though the
jurisdiction over the case. In the case, the petitioner is a proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the
Police Senior Inspector with a grade salary of 23. illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty.
The court as well considered that Garcia in such
ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON V. DOTC forfeiture proceeding is a public officer/employee and
Elements of res judicata can be rightfully set aside in the violation of the said law was committed during his
favor of substantial justice. incumbency as gov’t officer/employee and in relation
top his office. Hence, Garcia should therefore abandon
1 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

his erroneous belief that the SB has jurisdiction only jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
over petitions for forfeiture filed against Pres. Marcos, action.
his family, and cronies. 1. Not simply the filing of the
complaint/appropriate initiatory pleading, but
LACSON V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY payment of the prescribed docket fees. If the
The jurisdiction of the court is defined by the filing of the initiatory pleading is not,
Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition accompanied by the payment of the full docket
must appear in the complaint or information so as to fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
ascertain which court has jurisdiction over the case; within a reasonable time but in no case beyond
What determines SB’s jurisdiction is the official position the applicable prescriptive reglementary period;
or rank of the offender; 2. When the court awards a claim not specified in
The factual allegations in the information are controlling the pleading or if specified the same has been
because such would indicate the close intimacy left for determination by the court, the
between the discharge of the accused official duties and additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a
the commission of the offense charged; in order to lien on the judgment.
qualify the crime as having been committed in relation It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court to
to public office; enforce such lien and assess and collect the additional
When there is failure to show in the information that fees.
the charge of murder was intimately connected with
the discharge of official functions of the accused, PNP RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS & REALTY DEV’T CORP. V.
officers, the offense charged is plain murder and within FORMARAN III
the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and not the SB. the docket fees for a real action would still be
determined in accordance with the value of the real
RULE 1-5 property involved therein;
Before the Court could conclude that the amt. of docket
ALDAY V. FGU INSURANCE fee is indeed prohibitive for a party, it would have to
The present doctrine: payment of the correct docket look into the financial capacity of aid party. Moreover,
fees with respect to permissive counterclaims in order even though the court exempts individuals or indigents
for the court to be vested with jurisdiction or party litigants form paying docket fees, it has never
extended such extension to a corporate entity.
KOREA TECHNOLOGIES V. LERMA
Controversial doctrine; ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY V. COBARRUBIAS
The counterclaims of PGSMC were incorporated in its Payment of the full docket fee is an indispensable step
Answer with Compulsory counterclaims in accordance for the perfection of an appeal. It is not perfected if only
with Sec. 8, Rule 11- the rule that was effective at the a part of the DF is deposited within the reglementary
time the Answer with counterclaim was filed. Hence, it period and the remainder is tendered at the expiration
is not liable to pay filing fee for such counterclaims of the period.
being compulsory in nature. In the case at bar, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for
non-compliance to pay for the DF in full when she filed
MERCADO V. CA her petition for review. This omission is fatal to her
Return to the doctrine in Alday; cause. Hence, CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias’s PR
Payment of docket fees is not necessary for a court to despite the nonpayment of the requisite DF within the
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a reglementary period. The VA decision had lapsed to
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM; finality when the DF was paid. Hence, CA had no
SMC’s counterclaim being related to Mercado’s claim jurisdiction to obtain the appeal except to order its
was COMPULSORY IN NATURE. Consequently, the dismissal.
payment of docket fees was not necessary for the RTC
to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. RELUCIO V. LOPEZ
Relucio is not a real party-in-interest in the case
PROTON PHILS. V. BANQUE NAT IONALE DE PARIS because she would not be affected by any judgment in
It is not simply the filing of the complaint on special proceeding filed by Lopez against her husband. A
appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment of the real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited
prescribed docket fees, that vests trial court with or inspired by the judgment of the suit. She is not an

indispensable party- one without whom there can be no
final determination of the cation, nor a necessary party NAVARRO V. ESCOBIDO
to the case. The compliant made by lopez is against her Karen T. Go is a real-party –in-interest since she may be
husband and nowhere in the allegations of the benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. There
complaint does it appear that relief is sought against is no need to implead her husband to be an
Relucio. Lopez’s causes of action were all against her indispensable party because the subject property in
husband. litigation is co-owned by the spouses. Thus, any of them
may bring an action for the recovery of the co-owned
DE CASTRO V. CA property.;
Artigo’s compliant is not dismissible for its failure to Non-joinder of party is not a ground for the dismissal of
implead the other co-owners as indispensable parties an action. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to
since the action is based on a contract of agency obey the order may the action be dismissed.
between Artigo and Constante;
The mandatory joinder of action is not applicable in this CHINA BANKING CORP. V. OLIVER
case; Oliver 1 is not an indispensable party. Oliver 1’s absence
The De Castros admit that the other co-owners are from the case does not hampen the trial court in
solidarily liable under the contract of agency. By virtue resolving the dispute between Oliver 2 and Chinabank.
of this solidarity, the agent can recover from any Chinabank’s interest on the loan is distinct and divisible
principal the whole compensation or indeminity owing from Oliver 1’s interest. Which invokes the land used as
to him by the others. Hence, the creditor (Artigo) can a collateral for the oan.;
sue any of the solidary debtors. Oliver 2 can do in her complaint without necessarily
impleading Oliver 1. Hence, Oliver is not an
LOTTE PHIL. CO. INC. V. DE LA CRUZ Joinder indispensable party in the case filed by Oliver 2.
of indispensable party is mandatory;
Its presence is necessary to vest the court with PACIFIC CONSULTANTS V.
jurisdiction. Without its presence, the proceeding, SCHONFELD “Schonfeld Doctrine”
judgment, of the court cannot attain finality. Its absence While there was indeed an agreement that issues
renders all the subsequent actions of the court null and between the parties were to be resolved in the London
void. 7J is an indispensable party. It is a co-party in the Court of Arbitration, the venue is not exclusive, since
case before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. there is no stipulation that the complaint cannot be
Respondents failed to include it in their petition for filed in any other forum other than the Phils;
certiorari in the CA. hence, the CA did not acquire Venue stipulations in the absence of qualifying and
jurisdiction over 7J whose inclusion is necessary for the restrictive words does not a s a rule, supersedes the
effective and complete resolution of the case. gen. rule set forth in Rule 4. Such is considered as
merely an agreement which is only permissive rather
DELA CRUZ V. JOAQUIN than exclusive;
Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when they If the parties have the intention to restrict the venue,
appear, participated, and presented evidence in the there must be an accompanying language clearly and
defense of the deceased. When the party to a pending categorically explaining their purpose. In the case, since
action dies, the claim is not extinguished. It requires there are no restrictive words used, it cannot be said
substitution of the deceased. To protect every party that the court of arbitration in London is an exclusive
litigant’s right to due process; venue to bring forth any complaint arising out of the
Counsel affects the validity of the decision. employment contract.
CARABEO V. DINGCO RULE -9

The causes of action survives because the case involve
PLEADINGS AND DEFAULT
primarily and principally property and property rights.
Trial court was not informed of the death of Carabeo
BENGUET EXPLORATION V. CA
but its decision being concluded before the petitioner
Actionable document
died may be valid and subsisting upon his legal
The admission of the due execution and genuineness of
representatives or successors in interest;
a document simply means that:
Death of the party automatically divests his counsel
with authority.

1. The party whose signature it bears admits that It is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the
he signed it or that it was signed by another for defendant or both, for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim
rd
him with his authority against the defendant, although the 3 party
2. That at the time it was signed it was in words defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction;
and figures exactly as to set out in the pleading Does not have to show with certainty that there will be
rd
of the party relying upon it recovery against the 3 party defendant, it is sufficient
3. That the document was delivered to show there is a possibility of recovery.
4. That any formal requisites by law such as seals,
an acknowledgement or revenue stamps, which BANCO DE ORO V. TANSIPEK
it lacks are waived by him. Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of
the case WON said decision is erroneous. The remedy of
MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. V. CA the party deeming himself aggrieved is to seek
Lease agreement bet. Sabenianos and Manila Bay Club rehearing. The doctrine is founded on the policy of
Corp. ending litigation;
QUESTION OF LAW- doubt on the difference arises as to LAW OF THE CASE- whatever is once irrevocably
WHAT LAW is on certain state of facts; QUESTION OF established as the controlling legal rule of decision
FACT- doubt arises AS TO THE TRUTH OR THE between same parties in the same case.
FALSEHOOD of the alleged facts;
There is no question of fact because the facts are REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN
admittedly proven. WON the conclusion drawn by the Marcos failed to specifically deny each and every
CA form the fact is correct is a question of law which allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture in the
the SC is authorized to pass upon; manner required by the rules;
The facts are undisputed as reflected in Mr. Aquino’s The Marcoses responded by simply saying that they had
testimony declaring that Manila Bay Club indeed failed no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
to comply with par. 22 of the contract requiring as to the truth of such allegations. This particular denial
Sabenianos be made beneficiaries of the insurance is a NEGATIVE PREGNANT-a denial pregnant with
policies and that Manila Bay is well-aware that non- admissions;
compliance is a ground for termination. Hence, the allegations in the petition for forfeiture on
the existence of Swiss bank deposits not having been
BIESTERBOS V. CA specifically denied by the Marcoses in their answer,
(di ko gets doctrine neto sorry.) were deemed admitted by them. If a defendant’s denial
is a anegative pregnant, it is equivalent to an admission.
OAMINAL V. CASTILLO
The respondents (Castillo) admitted themesleves to the CANELAND SUGAR CORP. V. ALON
jurisdiction of the trial court when they filed their NEGATIVE PREGNANT- a form of negative expression
pleadings (such as counterclaims, motions, answer and which carries with it an affirmation or at least an
etc.), thus, curing the flaw in the service of their implication of some kind favorable to the adverse
summons (assuming arguendo). Having invoked the trial party,-it is a denial preganant with an admission of the
court’s jurisdiction to serve affirmative relief, Castillo et. substantial facts alleged in the pleading;
Al cannot- after failing to obtain the relief prayed for- Caneland does not dispute its loan obligation with
repudiate the very same authority they have invoked. respondent. Caneland’s bone of contention before the
RTC is that PN are silent as to whether they were
ASIA CONST. & DEV’T CORP. V. CA covered by the MTI and MP on its property. It does not
The purpose of Rule 6 is to permit a defendant to assert categorically deny that these PN are covered by the
rd
an independent claim against a 3 party which he, security documents. These negative assertions are in
otherwise, woulod assert in another action, thus fact, negative pregnants.
preventing multiplicity if suits. All the rights of the
parties concerned will be adjudicated in one RULE 10-14
proceeding. This is a rule of procedure and it does not
rd
create a substantial right. The right file a 3 party
AMENDMENTS AND SUMMONS
complaint rests in the discretion of the trial court;
rd REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP. V. CA
A 3 party complaint is actually independent of
The Court found no practical disadvantage in ordering
separate and distinct for the plaintiff’s complaint;
the dismissal of the complaint against respondent and

for petitioners to refile the same when the latter can Service of summons must be made upon the
clearly amend the complaint on a matter of right. The corporation under Rule 14 Sec. 13 through its president,
amendment of the complaint would not prejudice the manager, secretary, cashier, agent, directors. The
respondent or delay the action, as this would, in fact rationale is that service must be made on a
simplify the case and expedite its disposition. Indeed, representative so integrated with the corporation and
where some but not all defendants have answered, the that he will realize his responsibilities and know what he
plaintiff may still amend the its complaint once, as a should do with the legal papers received by him;
matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely Petitioner contends that the enumeration is exclusive.
against the non-answering defendant, but not as to However, it is settled that substantial compliance by
claims asserted against the other defendants. serving summons in persons other than those
mentioned in the above rule may be justified.
BIGLANG-AWA V. PHIL TRUST CO. *Requisites for the application of the Doctrine of
Prior to Biglang-Awa’s filing of their Motion For leave to Substantial Compliance:
amend Complaint, the respondents already filed their 1. There must be actual receipt of the summons by the
Answer with Counterclaim. Hence, since the person served;
respondents had already filed their Answer, it follows 2. The person served must sign a receipt or the sheriff’s
that Biglang-Awa may no longer amend their complaint return;
against the former as a matter of right. They may do so 3. There must be actual receipt of the summons by the
upon leave of court. Moreover, the amendment sought corporation through the person to whom the summons
to be made appears to have drastically altered the was actually served.
cause of action of the parties. Hence, the Motion to For there to be substantial compliance, actual receipt of
Amend is not granted. summons by the corporation through the person served
must be shown.
ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS V. CITY OF URDANETA
Sec. 5 of Rule 10 provides that of evidence is objected VALMONTE V. CA
to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the Service of summons in the manner provided under Rule
issues raised by the pleadings, the court may allow the 14 on extraterritorial service is not for the purpose of
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying
if the presentation of the merits of the action and the with the requirements of fair play as due process, so
end of substantial justice will be sub served thereby. that she will be informed of the pendency of the action
Objection need not even rise in this case since the pre- against her and to protect interest on her property in
trial order already defined the issue WON the contracts the Philippines;
are void. Thus, what is needed is the presentation of the What gives the court jurisdiction in an ACTION IN REM
parties’ evidence on the issue. Any evidence of the City or QUASI IN REM is that it has jurisdiction over the res;
of Urdaneta for or against the validity of the contracts Applying the foregoing rules, the action in the case
will be relevant and admissible. Note that under Sec. 5 which is partition and accounting under Rule 69 is in the
Rule 10, necessary amendment to pleadings may be nature of an action QUASI IN REM. Such an action is
made to cause them to conform to the evidence. essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s
interest in a specific property and not to render
DE DIOS V. CA judgment against him. The judgment entered in these
It is only when new causes of action are alleged in an proceedings is conclusive only between the parties;
amended complaint foiled before the defendant has Lourdes Valmonte, a nonresident who is not found in
appeared in court that a summons must be served on the Phils., service of summons must be in accordance
the defendant with the amended complaint. with Rule 14 sec. 17.
In the case, the amended complaint merely Such service to be effective outside, the Phils must be
supplemented an incomplete allegation. Its purpose made either:
was to merely include the additional information. The 1. By personal service;
cause of action of the respondent was not changed. 2. By publication in a newspaper of general
Hence, no new summons on the amended complaint circulation in which copy of the summons and
was necessary. order of the court should be sent by registered
mail to the last known address of the
MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORP. V. TAN defendant;

3. In any other manner which the court may deem mention exactly what efforts if any were taken to find
sufficient. the respondents. The Return merely states the alleged
The service of summons of LV is dobe through her whereabouts of respondents which indicating that such
husband who is her lawyer is not valid. Since the said information was verified from a person who had
manner of service of summons is not made upon the knowledge thereof. A GENERAL STATEMENT that such
order of the court and not made upon prior leave of efforts were made not suffice for purposes of complying
court. with the rules of substituted service of summons.
EB VILLAROSA V. BENITO DOLE PHIL. V. QUILALA

Service of summons on a domestic corporation is
RAMOS V. RAMOS restricted, limited, and exclusive to the persons
Petitioner Florencio Chanliongco was impleaded in the enumerated in Rule 14 Sec. 11. Service must be made
complaint but not served with summons. However, on the president, managing partner, gen. manager,
service of summons upon the estate of the deceased corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
father was sufficient as the estate appeared for and on In this case, the legal assistant receives the alias
behalf of all the beneficiaries and heirs of his Father. summons who is not the designated person under the
Service upon the law firm was sufficient notice to all the Rules. Hence, the court did not fully acquire jurisdiction
beneficiaries of the estate. over the petitioner. However, under Rule 14 Sec. 20, a
defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action is
TEH V. CA equivalent to service of summons. Consequently,
The trial court deemed it fitting to properly acquire petitioner having acknowledged the receipt of the
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by summons and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the
ordering the issuance of alias summons on the RTC to secure affirmative relief on its motion for
petitioner. Evidently, the trial court acted well within its additional time, petitioner effectively submitted
discretion. voluntarily to the court.
SANTOS V. PNOC EXP. MANOTOC V. CA

Since Santos could not be permanently served with The sheriff’s return must show that serious efforts were
summons despite diligent efforts to locate his exerted to personally serve the summons and that said
whereabouts, respondent (PNOC) sought and was efforts failed. The efforts must be specifically narrated
granted leave of court to effect service of summons in the Return;
upon him by publication in a newspaper of general The sheriff’s return did not conform to the requirement
circulation. Thus, petitioner was properly served with that the summons must be left with a person of suitable
summons by publication. Moreover, even assuming that age and discretion residing in defendant’s house or
the service of summons was defective, the trial court residence. Thus, there are 2 requirements under the
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner rules:
by his voluntary appearance in the action by filing the 1. Recipient must be a person suitable of age and
appropriate pleadings. discretion;
2. Residing in defendant’s house or residence.
MASON V. CA In the case, both requirements were not met. The
Rule 14 Sec. 11 did not abandon or render inapplicable Sheriff’s Return lacks information as to the residence,
the substantial compliance rule. It ruled that the age and discretion of Macky dela Cruz. The only
provision states the general rule on service of summons information that it had is that he is the resident
upon corporation and the substantial compliance rule is caretaker of petitioner. Dela Cruz’s refusal to sign the
that exception->NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE! receipt of Summons is a strong indication that e did not
The service of summons through a mere filing clerk of have the necessary “relation of confidence” with
private respondent is INVALID since such is not included petitioner. The substituted service of summons must be
in the enumeration under Rule 14 Sec. 11. faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed
requirements of the Rules. Due to the non-compliance
JOSE V. BOYON of requisites for valid substituted service, the
The process server hastily and capriciously resorted to proceedings held before the trial court must be
substituted service without actually exerting any annulled.
genuine effort to locate the respondents. It did not

PASCUAL V. PASCUAL court. The court’s denial of the motion to intervene
Personal service of summons should and always be the arising form the strict application of the rule was an
first option. It is only when the said summons cannot be injustice to the petitioners hose substantial interest in
served within a reasonable time can the process server the subject property cannot be disputed. It is a total
resort to substituted service. In the absence of even the disregard of their right to be heard, when on the face of
barest compliance with the procedure for a substituted the resolution of CRIO sought to be enjoined,
service of summons outlined in the ROC, the petitioners were the ones directly to be affected. It is
presumption of regularity in the performance of public well settled that the petitioners are indeed
function does not apply. indispensable parties with such an interest in the
The jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was controversy/subject matter that a final adjudication
never vested with the RTC because the manner of cannot be made in their absence without affecting ,
substituted service by the process server was injuring their interest.
apparently invalid and ineffective. As such, there was a
violation of Due Process. The Doctrine of Finality of OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. SISON
Judgment is only applicable when the judgment or The Office of the Ombudsman is not an appropriate
decision is valid. party to intervene in the instant case because he has no
legal interest in the administrative case. It must remain
RULE 15-19 partial and detached. More importantly, it must be
mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an advocate. It
MOTIONS TO INTERVENTION
is an established doctrine that judge should detach
themselves form cases where their decisions are
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
appealed to a high court for review. There is no more
need for him to justify further his judgment when it is
SAGUID V. CA
appealed before the appellate court.
Sec. 6 Rule 8, the failure of the defendant to file a pre-
trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear
ANONUEVO V. INTESTATE ESTATE OF JALANDONI
at the pre-trial. The remedy of the defendant is to file a
A court has no authority to allow a person, who has an
motion for reconsideration;
interest in an action for proceeding, to intervene
The justification of the petitioner that his failure to file a
thereon. Consequently, when a court commits a
pre-trial brief is justified because he was not
mistake, and allows an uninterested person to
represented by counsel is unmeritorious the assistance
intervene in a case-the-mistake is not simply an error
of lawyers, while desirable is not indispensable.
judgment, but one of jurisdiction.
YAO V. PERELLO
CHATO V. CA
To allow intervention, it must be shown that:
Non-compliance with the condition precedent
1. The movant has a legal interest in the matter in
prescribed by PB 1508 (Lupong Brgy) could affect the
litigation or otherwise qualified;
sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of action and make
2. Consideration must be given as to whether the
his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of
adjudication of the rights if the original parties
lack of cause of action or prematurity.
may be delayed or prejudiced or whether the
intervenor’s rights may be protected in a
separate proceeding or not. LEDESMA V. CA
st PD 1508 mandates the personal confrontation of the
*both the requirements must concur. The 1 is more
nd parties. Ledesma alleging that her failure to appear
important that the 2 . before the Brgy. Chairman due to her psychological
ailments is devoid of merit. Aince it was concluded that
PINLAC V. CA
she was on her lucid interval during the pendency of the
2001- the summons and the partial decision were
case and hence, she is not excused for her non-
published in a local newspaper entered and published in
appearance at the Lupon’s Chairman Office;
Caloocan and Bulacan. Such newspaper “Metropolitan
Not having shown that she is incompetent, she cannot
Newsweek” is INVALID because it is not a newspaper of
as well be represented by her counsel or even by an
general circulation in QC where the property is located.
attorney-in-fact who is next of kin.
2003- intervention:
In exceptional cases, the court has allowed intervention
notwithstanding the rendition of judgment by the trial

UY V. CONTRERAS answer the request, it was never complied with.
While PD 1508 has been repealed by the LGU Code of Therefore, a summary judgment may be asked.
1991, the jurisprudence built thereon regarding the
referral to the Lupon as pre-condition to the filing of an PEOPLE V. WEBB
action in court remains applicable because provisions Since the trial had already admitted the exhibits on wic
on prior referral were substantially reproduced in the the witnesses would have testified, the taking of
Code. depositions would have been unnecessary.;
WON THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF SUCH
DE GUZMAN V. OCHOA WITNESSES MAY BE ALLOWED IN CRIMINIAL CASES
The ground of defective verification and certification of BEFORE THE Phil. Courts. - YES.
forum-shopping was deemed waived and could no How to take the testimony of a defense witness who is
nd
longer be questioned by the petitioners in the 2 unale to come to testify in open court because he is a
motion to dismiss. In addition, defective verification and resident of a foreign country? The rule on crimpro is
certification of non-forum shopping are not silent. However, the rule on the matter under the rules
jurisdictional. on civpro may be applied suppletorily;
Rule 24 of the ROC, ante, applies in a suppletory
RULE 21, 23-32 character, since the taking of the depositions under
Rule 24 and conditional examination of defense
MODES OF DISCOVERY
witnesses under the Rule 119 are taken under the same
circumstances and for the same purpose; that is, the
DASMARINAS GARMENTS, INC. V. REYES
preservation of the material witness’ testimony;
Where the deposition is to be taken in foreign country
Its denial would amount to deprivation of due process
when the Phils has no secretary or embassy or legation,
and to the accuser’s right to compulsory process to
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent,
secure the attendance of witness in his favor which are
then obviously it may be taken only before such person
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
or officer as may be appointed by commissioner or
under letters rogatory;
Deposition may be taken at any time after the RULE 33-38
institution of any action not only to the period of DEMURRER TO RELIEF FROM
pretrial or before it; JUDGMENT
Before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of
the RTC; Only by written interrogatories to give BERNARDO V. CA
defendants (Dasmarinas) the opportunity to cross- Demurrer in criminal cases is illustrated. The distinction
examine the witness by serving cross interrogatories. between criminal and civil cases has been established.
When you file a motion for demurrer to Evidence
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. CA without leave of court, you risk waiving your right to
Failure of party to attend or to serve answer, the present evidence.
court on motion or notice:
1. May strike out any or all part of any pleading of RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO. V. DEL ROSARIO
that party;
2. Dismiss the action/proceeding or any CABADOR V. PEOPLE
part thereof; To determine whether the pleading filed is a Demurrer
3. Enter a judgment by default against that party; to Evidence or a Motion to Dismiss, the court must
4. And in its discretion, order him to pay consider:
reasonable expenses insured by the 1. The allegations in it made in GF;
other including attorney’s fees 2. The stage of the proceeding at which it is filed;
The matter of HOW & WHEN the above sanction should 3. The primary objective of the party filing it.
be applied is one that primarily sets on the sound Cabador did not know that the prosecution finally made
discretion of the court where the case pends. a formal offer of exhibits on the date he filed his Motion
to Dismiss. Hence, tested against the criteria laid down
ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEV’T CO. INC. V. CA in Enojas, Cabador filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
Illustrates summary judgments ground of violation of his right to speedy trial, not a
There is a request for admission but the request was demurrer to evidence.
never answered. There was an order form the court to

All the 3 requisites of newly discovered evidence must
PEOPLE V. SUMINGWA characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at
The order granting appellant’s demurrer to evidence new trial.
was a resolution of the case on merits, and it amounted
to an acquittal. Any further prosecution of the accused MERCURY DRUG CORP. V. CA
after an acquittal would violate the prescription on “notice to counsel, is notice to client”
double jeopardy. The 60 day period is counted from the date of notice.
Hence, when there was already a lapse of period within
HUN HYUNG PARK V. ENG WONG CHOI which to file the petition for relief, the client is already
If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by barred from filing such petition. Hence, the rule is that
the court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence the reglementary period is reckoned from the time the
on the civil aspect of the case. Atty. Brondial disagrees: party’s counsel receives the notice of decision. For
“the civil aspect is deemed instituted together with the notice to the counsel of the decision is notice to the
criminal case”. The case has no qualification ythat the party for the purpose of Sec. 3 Rule 38
civil aspect must arose form the other source of
obligation, not crime. RULE 39
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS
MENDEZONA V. OZAMIS
Requisites of newly discovered evidence:
BANES V. BANES
1. The evidence had been discovered AFTER TRIAL;
Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior
2. The could not have been discovered and
circumstanced demanding urgency outweighs the
produced during trial even with exercise of
damages that may result from the issuance of the writ.
reasonable diligence;
In this case, there is no superior or urgent circumstance
3. The evidence is material and not merely
that outweighs the damage which respondent would
corroborative, cumulative, or impeaching and it
suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house. Merely
is of such weight that if admitted would
putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her
probably alter the result.
plea for execution pending appeal. To do so would
make execution revolutionary, the rule rather than the
PADILLA-RUMBAUA V. RUMBAUA exception.
Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the
proceedings in the trial court as a result of the
FAJARDO V. QUITALIG
ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of the counsel
Sheriff have immediately implemented the and made a
do not qualify as a ground for new trial such will result
return of the writs after duly serving it upon the
to a non-ending litigation. Mistakes of a lawyer are
defendant.
binding on a client. Motions must comply with Sec 4-6
The sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty because he
Rule 15.
failed to:
1. Execute the writ within 30 days form his receipt
MESINA V. MEER
thereof;
The SC said that Rule 38 is only available before the
2. Submit his report of service within the same
MTC and RTC. “any court” only means the MTC and
period
RTC. It does not extend the SC or CA. the SC and CA are
3. Make periodic reports to the MTCC until the
governed by separate rules.
judgment was fully satisfied;
4. Furnish the parties with copies of the reports.
GARCIA V. CA
The sheriff is primarily responsible for the speedy and
The pleadings and exhibits on records reveal that there
efficient service of all court processes and writs
exist genuine issues on material or pertinent facts
originating form the court and its branches.
sufficient to preclude a rendition of summary
judgments.
SANTOS V. COMELEC
The grant of execution pending appeal was within the
PEOPLE V. LI KAI KIM
discretionary powers of the trial court. On order to
The ground of newly discovered evidence for a Motion
obtain the annulment of said orders in a petition for
for New Trial is not only available in civil cases but also
certiorari, it must first be proved that the trial court
to criminal cases under Rule 12;
gravely abused its discretion.

all that was required for a valid exercise of discretion to Ombudsman is not a supervening event to warrant the
allow execution pending appeal was that the immediate stay of the execution of the decision of the trial court.
execution should be based “upon good reasons to be
stated in the special order”. MORTA V. BAGAGNAN
Heavy workload by the sheriff cannot absolve him. As
RCBC V. MAGWIN MARKETING CORP. an officer of the court, he should at all times show a
FINAL ORDER-one which disposes of the subject matter high degree of professionalism in the performance of
in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or his duties.
action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce
by execution what has been determined by the court; STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO. V. FELIX
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER- one which does not dispose of Garon failed to present good reasons to justify
a case completely but leaves something more to be execution pending appeal. It was her husband who is ill
decided upon; and not her.
The orders are interlocutory orders and therefore no The posting of the bond standing alone and absent the
appeal may be taken from good reasons required under sec. 2 rule 39 is not
enough to allow execution pending appeal. The bond is
CITY OF ILIGAN V. PRINCIPAL MNG’T GROUP only an additional factor for the protection of the
3 requisites for execution of a judgment pending defendant’s creditor.
appeal:
1. A motion must be filed by the prevailing party FAR EAST BANK V. TOH
with notice to the adverse party; Old age is a good reason to allow execution pending
2. There must be good reasons for execution appeal as any delay in the final disposition of the of the
pending appeal; present case may deny private respondent of his right
3. The good reasons must be stated in a special to enjoy fully the money he has with defendant bank.
order.
Execution pending appeal is the exception to the PANOTES V. CITY TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT
general rule. CORPORATION
Gen. Rule: to obtain execution: An action for the revival of the judgment is no more
1. The judgment has become final and executor; than a procedural means of securing the execution of a
2. The right to appeal has been renounced or previos judgment which has become dormant after the
waived; passage of 5 years without it being executed upon
3. The period for appeal has lapsed with an appeal motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to
having been filed; reopen any issue affecting the merits of the judgment
4. Having been filed the, the appeal has been debtor’s case not the propriety or correctness of the
resolved and the records of the case have been first judgment. Here, the original judgment or the NHA
returned to the court of origin. resolution sought to be revived was between Panotes
When the period of appeal has not yet expired, the and PROSECOR and not between petitioner and
execution of a judgment will be allowed if IN THE Bumatay and CTDC. To hold CDTC as the successor in
COURT’S DISCRETION, THERE ARE GOOD REASONS interest of the of PROSECOR as the developer of the
THEREFOR. The good reasons must be stated in the subdivision is far from reality ac CTDC is simply on the
special order. It consists of compelling circumstances. same footing as any lot buyer-member of PVHIA.
Strangers to a case like CDTC are not bound by the
VILLARUEL V. FAJARDO judgment reentered by a court. It will not divest the
A judgment that has acquired finality becomes rights of a party who has not and never been a party to
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be the litigation. Execution of judgment can be issued only
modified in any respect except only to correct clerical against a party to the action and not against one who
errors or mistakes. The exception is whenever did not have his day in court.
circumstance transpires after the finality of the decision
rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. This, RULE 40-56
however, is not the case here. The Ombudsman issued
APPEAL
his Resolution PRIOR TO THE FINALITY of the trial
court’s decision. Hence, the resolution of the
HEIRS OF SPOUSES RETERTA V. SPOUSES MORES
10 | b r o n d i a l c i v i l p r o c e d u r e c a s e d o c t r i n e s 2 0 1 2 TUGELIDA
FINAL JUDGMENT- one that finally disposes of a case,
leaving nothing more to be done by the court; It is LAND BANK OF THE PHIL V. DE LEON
appealable. Rules of Court do not proscribe the procedure for
INTERLOCUTORY- does not finally dispose of a case, ordinary appeals as the proper mode of appeal for
indicates that things remain to be done by the court; decisions of special agrarian courts.
may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of The failure to mention special agrarian courts in Sec. 1
an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final of Rule 43 cannot be construed to mean that a petition
judgment rendered in the case. for review is not permissible for decisions of the said
The proper remedy against the denial of the petitioner’s specialized courts. Such action merely mentions the
motion for reconsideration was an appeal from the final quasi-judicial bodies/agencies without exclusivity in its
order dismissing the action upon the respondent’s phraseology. Hence, the procedure under Rule 42 for
motion to dismiss. petition for review is to be followed for appeal in
agrarian cases.
PHIL. BUSINESS BANK V. CHUA
Certiorari was not the proper recourse for Chua. The PAL V. CA
propriety of the SJ (?) may be corrected only on appeal The SC is not tasked to calibrate and assess the
or other direct review, not a petition for certiorari since probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties
it imputes error on the lower court’s judgment. It is well during the trial all over again. So long as the finding of
settled that certiorari is not available to correct errors facts of the CA are consistent with or are not palpably
of procedure or mistakes in the judge’s findings and contrary to the evidence on record, the SC shall decline
conclusions of law and fact. to embark on a review on the probative weight of the
evidence of the parties;
LATORRE V. LATORRE It is also well established that findings of trial courts on
3 modes of appeal: the d=credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect
1. Ordinary appeal- rule 41 and will not be disturbed on appeal except on very
2. Petition for review- rule 42 strong and cogent grounds.
3. Petition for review to the SC- rule 45
Questions of law- when there is doubt as to WHAT THE LPBS COM. INC. V. AMILA
LAW is on a certain set of facts The order denying petitioner’s motion for issuance of
Question of fact- doubt arises as to the TRUTH OR TRO is an interlocutory order in an incident which does
FALSITY OF THE ALLEGED FACTS not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the
proceedings. The remedy against an interlocutory order
CATLY V. NAVARRO is not certiorari, but an appeal. Only if there are
When p[petitioner sought to assail the decision and circumstances that clearly demonstrate the inadequacy
order of the trial court, an appeal to the CA was the of an appeal that the remedy of certiorari is allowed,
adequate remedy which he should have availed of none of this is apparent in the case.
instead of filing a petition directly with the SC. Hence,
the petition should be denied for the violation of the ESTINOZO V. CA
hierarchy of courts. A prior recourse should have been The Court dismissed the petition because petition for
made to the CA instead of directly to the SC.; certiorari under Rule 65 is the wrong remedy to
A direct invocation the court’s original jurisdiction to question the appellate court’s issuance. A petition for
issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a petition for
there are special and important reasons therefore, certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive
clearly and specifically set out in the petition. remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or
any other adequate remedy. Hence, the remedy is
REPUBLIC V. MANGOTARA appeal and not certiorari as a special civil action.
MANALOTO V. VELOSO III

The respondent timely filed his appeal of the Resolution
due to the FRESH PERIOD RULE. Such rule standardize
the appeal period provided in the Rule and to do away
with the confusion as to when the 15 day appeal period
should be counted.
RULE 57 buyer of a property in possession pursuant to a deed of
conditional sale. Indeed, the subsequent sale of the
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
property to the attaching creditor must, of necessity,
retroact to the date of levy. Registration is an operative
MANGILA V. CA
fact that conveys and binds lands covered by Torrens
The alias summons was served 3 months after the
Title.
implementation of the writ of attachment.
The grant of provisional remedy of attachment involves
DM WENCESLAO V. READYCON TRADING
3 stages:
Posting of a counter bond is not tantamount to a waiver
1. The court issues the order granting the
of the right to damages arising from a wrongful
application
attachment.
2. The writ of attachment issues pursuant to the
Both the RTC and CA found no reason to rule that
order granting the writ
READYCON was not entitled to issuance of the writ.
3. The writ is implemented
Neither do we find now that the writ is improper or
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that the
illegal. If WENCESLAO suffered damages as a result, it is
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
merely because it did not heed the demand letter of the
obtained. However, once the implementation of the
respondent in the first place. WENCESLAO could have
writ commences, the court must have jurisdiction over
averted such damage if it immediately filed a counter
the person of the defendant for without such
bond or a deposit in order to lift the writ at once. It did
jurisdiction, the court has no power or authority to to
not, and must bear its own loss, if any, on that account.
act in any manner against the defendant. Any order
issued by the Court will not bind the defendant.
TORRES V. SATSATIN
The alias summons belatedly served on the petitioner
Belated service of summons does not create a defect in
cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the
the enforcement of the writ.
enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce
The writ of attachment can be dissolved by a counter
such a coercive process on petitioner without first
bond. A motion to dissolve the attachment is not
obtaining jurisdiction over her person. The preliminary
allowed under sec, 13 rule 57 otherwise the hearing
writ of attachment must be served after or
would be tantamount to a trial on the merits
simultaneous with the service of summons on the
considering that the wpa was issued upon a ground
defendant whether by personal service, substituted
which is the same as the applicant’s cause of action.
service, or by publication as warranted by the
circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of The court should not approve the bond posted by the
summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of petitioners despite the fact that not all the requisites for
jurisdiction over her person because the law does not its approval are complied with. Otherwise the bond
allow for retroactivity of a belated service. should be rejected.
A party to a suit may at any time after the filing of the
complaint may avail. The reference is to a time before
CHUIDIAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
summons is served on the defendant or even before
When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground
summons issues.
which is at the same time the applicant’s cause of
When the sheriff or other proper officers commences
action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or
implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential
dissolved is by a counter bond.
that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the
4 years he kept silent and did not exercise any of the
applicant’s affidavit and attachment bond and of order
remedies available to the defendant whose property or
of the attachment as explicitly required under sec. 5 of
asset has been attached. It is rather too late in the day
rule 57 but also the summons addressed to said
for petitioner to question the propriety of the issuance
defendant as well as a copy of the complaint.
of the writ.
2 ways of discharging the attachment:
Any interest in the proceeds of the letters of credit may
1. File a counter bond (speedier way of
earn while the case is being litigated would redound to
discharging the writ)
the benefit of whichever party will prevail, the
2. Irregularly or improvidently issued
government included.
Belated service of summons does not cure the defect in
the enforcement of the writ.
DU V. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE
A notice of levy on attachment on the property is a
METRO INC. V. LARA’S GIFTS AND DECORS INC.
superior lien over that of the unregistered right of a
When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground cause an irreparable injury to or violate the right of the
which is at the same time the applicant’s cause of losing candidate so as to justify the issuance of TRO to
action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or maintain the status quo.
dissolved is by a counter bond.
The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must LAGROSAS V. BRISTOL-MYERS
sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the In the case, the CA issued the writ of preliminary
alleged fraud because intent cannot be inferred form injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of
the debtor’s mere nonpayment of the debt or failure to execution and notices of garnishment “pending final
comply with the obligation. It is clear that the resolution of this case or unless the writ is sooner lifted
respondent’s amended complaint of fraud is not only by the Court. By its decision, it also ordered the
alleged as a ground for the issuance of the writ of pa discharge of the TRO cash bond and injunction cash
but it is also the core of respondent’s complaint. bond. Thus, both conditions of writ of injunction are
Since the writ of pa is properly issued, the only way it both satisfied.
can be dissolved is by filing a counterbond. The injunction bond is intended to protect Lagrosas
against loss or damage by reason of the injunction only.
RULE 58 Contrary to Lagrosas claim, it is not a security for the
judgment award by the labor arbiter.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
JENOSA V. DELARIARTE
IDOLOR V. CA Since the petitioner’s present complaint is one for
In the case, the requirement of injunctive relief is not injunction, and injunction is the strong arm of equity,
controlling. Idolor has no right on the property because petitioners must come to court with clean hands. This is
his right already expired. Prohibitory injunction is so because among the maxims of equity are:
wanted by Idolor. Mandatory injunction takes place 1. He who seeks equity must do equity
because there is already consolidation. 2. He who comes into equity is must come with
Idolor has no more propriety right to speak of over the clean hands.
foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a The latter is a frequent stated maxim which is also
writ of injunction. It appears that the mortgaged expressed in the principle that he who has done
property has been sold in public auction. Petioner had 1 inequity shall not have inequity. It signifies that a
year from the registration of the sheriff’s sale to litigant may be denied relief by the court of equity on
redeem the property but she failed to exercise her right. the ground that his conduct has not been inequitable,
thus, spouses de Guzman are now entitle to conveyance unfair, and dishonest or fraudulent or deceitful as to the
and possession of the foreclosed property. controversy in issue.
Here, petitioners having reneged on their agreement
GUSTILO V. REAL without any justifiable reason, come to court with
Before an injunctive relief be issued, it is essential that unclean hands. The Court may deny the litigant relief if
the following requisites be present: his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, dishonest as to
1. There must be a right in esse or the existence of the controversy in issue.
a right to be protected
2. The act against which injunction to be directed
is a violation of such right RULE 59
The onus probandi is on the movant to show that there RECEIVERSHIP
exists a right to be protected which is directly
threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, AGUILAR V. MANILA BANKING CORP
there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is On the arguments relating to the effect of respondent’s
material and substantial and that there is an urgent and receivership, petitioners brought this matter for the
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious first time in the RTC in their Ominibus Motion 14 years
damage. after the respondent was placed under receivership and
In this case, complainant had been duly proclaimed as was ordered to close operation. The belated invocation
the winning candidate for punong brgy. He had taken of such circumstance speaks strongly of the staleness of
his oath of office. Unless his election was annulled, he her claim.
was entitled to all rights of said office. We do not see Besides, it would be absurd to adopt petitioner’s
how the complainant’s exercise of such brights would position that they are not obliged to pay interest in
their obligation when the respondent was placed under HAO V. VALDEZ
receivership. When a bank is placed under receivership,
it would only not be able to do new business, that is, to NAVARRO V. ESCOBIDO
grant new loans or to accept new deposits. However, It does not require that the applicant should make a
the receiver of the bank is in fact obliged to collect prior demand on the possessor of the property before
debts owing to the bank which debts form part of the he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior
assets of the bank. Thus, petitioner’s obligation to pay demand is not a condition precedent to an action for
interest subsists when respondent was placed under writ of replevin. More importantly, Navarro no longer in
receivership. The respondents’ receivership is an the position to claim that a prior demand is necessary,
extraneous circumstance and has no effects on the as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had
petitioner’s obligation. received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding
that he either pay his unpaid obligation or return the
LARROBIS JR V. PHIL. VETERANS BANK leased motor vehicles. Navarro’s position that a
The period within which a bank was placed under demand is necessary and has not been made is
receivership and liquidation proceedings does not therefore totally unmeritorious.
constitute a fortuitous event which interrupted the
prescriptive period in bringing actions. In both BAUTISTA V. SULA
receivership and liquidation proceedings, the bank Under the ROC, the property seized under a writ of
retains its juridical personality notwithstanding the replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the
closure of its business and may even be sued as its plaintiff. This is because a possessor has every right to
corporate existence is assumed by the receiver or be respected in its possession and may not be deprived
liquidator. The receiver or liquidator meanwhile acts of it without due process.
only for the benefit of the bank but for its creditors as The purpose of the 5 day period in Sec 6 Rule 60 is to
well. give defendants in a replevin case a chance to require
the return of the property by filing a counter bond.
KORUGA V. ARCENAS By hastily deciding to release the seized property to the
plaintiff/applicant without waiting for the court’s order,
RULE 60 respondent patently abused his authority.
Under Sec. 5 Rule 60, complainants may require the
REPLEVIN
return of the vehicle by:
1. Posting a counter-bond in double the value of
SMART COMMUNICATIONS V. ASTORGA
the vehicle and
RTC has jurisdiction. Replevin is a civil case. It does not
2. Serving Glor with a copy of the counter bond.
arise from a labor dispute.
Both requirements must be complied with before the
*pending the labor case, payable thru installment
vehicle is delivered to Glor.
through salary deductions.
Under Sec. 6, Rule 60, vehicle shall be delivered to Glor
The CA also set aside the NLRC’s order for the return of
only under the following instances:
the company vehicle holding that this issue is not
1. If within 5 days after the taking of the vehicle,
essentially a labor concern, but is a civil in nature, and
complainants do not object to the sufficiency of
thus, within the competence of the regular courts to
the bond or of the surety or sureties thereon;
decide. It added that the matter had not been fully
ventilated before the NLRC, but the regular court.
complainants object to the sufficiency of the
The SC denied the CA. the RTC rightfully assumed
bond and the trial court affirms its approval of
jurisdiction over the suit and acted well within its
Glor’s bond or approves a new bond or;
discretion in denying Astorga’s motion to dismiss.
SMART”s demand for the payment of the market value
complainants require the return of the vehicle
of the car or in the alternative, the surrender of the car,
and their bond is objected to and found
is not a labor, but a civil dispute. It involves the
insufficient and they do not forthwith file an
relationship of debtor and creditor rather than
employee-employer relations. As such, the dispute falls approval bond.
In the instant case, the complainants duly complied
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
with all the requirements.
CALLEJA V. PANDAY
14 | b r o n d i a l c i v i l p r o c e d u r e c a s e d o c t r i n e s 2012 TUGELIDA
RULE 61 The obligation for legal support passes on to the
ascendants not only upon default of the parents but
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE
also for the latter’s inability to provide sufficient
support. Grandchildren cannot demand support directly
DE ASIS V. CA
form their grandparents if they have parents who are
The Court is not persuaded that the dismissal with
st capable of supporting them. This is so because we have
prejudice of the 1 action has the effect of res judicata to follow the order of support under Arty. 199.
on the subsequent case of support. The New Civil Code The inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently
provides that the allowance for support is provisional provide for their children shifts a portion of their
because the amount may bbe increased or decreased obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree, both
depending upon the means of the giver and the needs in the paternal and maternal lines. However,
of the recipient; and that right to receive support petitioner’s paternal concurrent obligation extends only
cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a to their descendants (grandchildren by blood).
third person; neither can it be compensated with what
the recipient owes the obligator. Furthermore, the right
to support can not be waived or transferred to third RULE 62
parties and future support cannot be a subject of INTERPLEADER
compromise. This being true, it is indisputable that the
present action for support can be brought; ETERNAL GARDENS V. IAC
notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against Sec.2 Rule 62- petitioner has no interest in the subject
the same defendant was dismissed. And it also matter.
appearing that the dismissal of the case was not Interpleader- is necessary in order to know to whom the
adjudication upon the merits as heretofore shown, the property should go; so that the court can direct the
right of herein plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit parties to deposit the SM to a court or to any bank.
for support and the acknowledgment is available as her The essence of an interpleader, aside form the
needs arise. Once the needs of the plaintiff arise, she disavowal of interest in the property in litigation on the
has the right to bring an action for support, for it is only part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or
then that her cause of action accrues. Hence, the first funds in controversy with the court, it is a rule founded
dismissal cannot have the force and effect of and on justice and equity.
cannot bar the filing of another action, asking for the
same relief against the same defendant. The second WACK-WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB V. LEE WON
action for support may prosper. Interpleader is a compulsory counterclaim which if not
rose is deemed waived (Rule 9) otherwise you are
PEOPLE V. MANAHAN allowing a collateral attack which is not allowed. You
have to attack a judgment frontally not collaterally.
LOPEZ V. CA Because the case was against WWG, hence the latter
must set up a counterclaim which is compulsory.
MONTEFALCON V. VASQUEZ In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper
As filiation is beyond question, support follows as a because the Corporation had already been made
matter of obligation. independently liable in the civil case (there was already
Under Article 195 of the Family Code a parent is obliged a case) and therefore, its present application for
to support his illegitimate child. The amount is variable. interpleader would be in effect a collateral attack upon
There is no final judgment thereof as there it shall be in the final judgment in the said civil case; the appellee
proportion to the resources of the giver and the Lee had already established his rights to membership
necessities of the recipient. It may be reduce or fee certificate 201 in the aforesaid civil case and
increased proportionate according to the reduction or therefore this interpleader suit would compel him to
increase of the necessities of the recipient and the establish his rights anew and because the Corporation
resources or means of the person obliged to support. allowed itself to be sued to final judgment in the civil
Support comprises everything indispensable for case, its action of interpleader was filed inexcusably
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, late, for which reason it is barred by laches or
education and transportation in keeping with the unreasonable delay.
financial capacity of the family.
PASRICHA V. DON LUIS DIZON REALTY
LIM V. LIM
RULE 63 The petition also fails to state a cause of action and
hence, should be dismissed outright. However, in
DECLARATORY RELIEF
special civil actions for declaratory relief, the concept of
AND SIMILAR REMEDIES a cause of action under ordinary civil actions does not
strictly apply. The reason for this exception is that an
MERALCO V. PHIL. CONSUMERS FOUNDATION action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has
Requisites in a declaratory relief: been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of
1. There must be a final judgment rights arising there under. Nevertheless, a breach for
2. The court which rendered the final judgment violation should be impending, imminent or at least
must have jurisdiction over the subject matter threatened. The petition filed by the SJS before the RTC
and the parties discloses no explicit allegation that it had any legal right
3. It must be a judgment or order in the merits in its favor that it sought to protect.
4. There must be between the two cases identity
of parties, subject matter, and causes of action TAMBUNTING V. SPS. SUMABAT
The relitigation of the same issue in a civil case cannot The respondent institution of
be sanctioned under the principle of res judicata. The civil case in the CFI did not interrupt the running of
Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially the prescriptive period because as discussed, the court
acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by lacked jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief,
judgment. In res judicata, the judgment in the first all proceedings therein without legal effect. Thus, the
action is considered conclusive as to every matter petitioners can enforce its right under the mortgage
offered and received therein, as to any other admissible including its foreclosure on the 10th year from the
matter which might have been offered for that purpose, dismissal of the civil case. Thereafter, their right to do
and all other matters that could have been adjudges so was already barred by prescription.
therein. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the ff.
requisites must concur: ALMEDA V. BATHALA MARKETING
1. There must be a final judgment or order th
On the 10 year there is already a breach. Hence, it
2. The court rendering it must have jurisdiction
must be converted to an ordinary action not for
over the subject matter and the parties declaratory relief that is cognizable under the RTC.
3. It must be a judgment or order on the merits Therefore, an ordinary action of unlawful detainer must
4. There must be between the two cases identity be filed.
parties, subject matter and causes of action. Requisites of an action for declaratory relief;
1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a
Such requisites are present in the two cases. The first deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
case is about specific performance while the second one statute, executive order, or regulation, or
is about declaratory reliefs which are both directed to ordinance
only one relief. The doctrine of res judicata applies 2. The terms of said documents and the validity
considering that the parties were litigating for the same thereof are doubtful and require judicial
thing and more importantly, the same contentions. construction
Hence, it can no longer be challenged. 3. There must have been no breach of documents
in question
VELARDE V. SJS 4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy
Justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one between persons
- An existing case or controversy that is whose interests are adverse
appropriate or ripe for judicial determination. 5. The issue must be ripe for judicial
The SJS petition for declaratory relief fell short of a test. determination
It failed to allege an existing controversy or dispute 6. Adequate relief is not available through other
between the petitioner and the respondents. Further, means or other forms of action or proceeding
the petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal The foregoing requisites are present in the case
right of the petitioner was violated by the respondents
therein and what particular act or acts of the latter REYES V. ORTIZ
were In breach of its rights, the law or the Constitution. In the case, the petitioners assailed via declaratory
Indeed, SJS merely speculated or anticipated without relief the orders of the trial court denying their motions
factual moorings. to suspend proceedings. This recourse by the
petitioners cannot be countenanced since a court order the Court to resolve the issues raised in the petition for
is not one of those subjects to be examined under Rule certiorari- does not impress. Section 7 Rule 65 provides
63. Such subject matters to be examined under the said that a petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the
rule is exclusive. Hence, court orders or decisions course of the principal case unless a TRO or a writ of
cannot be a subject matter of declaratory relief. preliminary injunction has been issued against the
public respondent from further proceeding of the case.
MALANA V. TAPPA This rule must be strictly adhered to by appellate and
An action for declaratory relief presupposes that theer lower courts notwithstanding the possibility that the
has been no actual breach of the instruments involved proceedings undertaken by them tend or would render
or of the rights arising there under. Since the purpose of nugatory the pending petition before the SC.
declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties PINEDA V. CA
under a statute, deed or contract for their guidance for
the enforcement thereof or compliance therewith and UP BOARD OF REGENTS V. LIGOT-TELAN
not to settle issues arising form an alleged breach Matter of admitting students is within the ambit of
thereof, it may be entertained only BEFORE the breach academic freedom and therefore, beyond the province
or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it of the courts to decide. Hence, it is clear that the lower
refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical court should have restrained itself from assuming
remedy for ending controversies that have not reached jurisdiction over the petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus
the state where another relief is immediately available is never used in doubtful cases, a showing of clear and
and supplies the need for a forum of action that will set certain right on the part of the petitioner being
controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation required. It is of no avail against an official or
of obligations, an invasion of rights and a commission of government agency whose duty requires the exercise of
wrongs. discretion or judgment. By virtue of the writ issued, the
In the case, the petitioner’s complaint for quieting of University’s exercise of academic freedom was
title was filed after petitioners already demanded and peremptorily curtailed.
respondents refused to vacate the subject property.
Hence, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an TUAZON V. RD OF CALOOCAN
action publiciana or reinvidicatoria. Marcos is not subject to certiorari because he is not a
judicial officer. There is a usurpation of the juridical
RULE 64 function which does not belong to him. Hence, even if
you are not a judicial officer, you can be under certiorari
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
if you exercised judicial functions.
ORDERS OF COMELEC AND COA
SECURITY BANK CORP. V. INDIANA AEROSPACE
UNIVERSITY
RULE 65 Material dates required to be stated in the petition for
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, certiorari under Rule 65 are:
MANDAMUS 1. The date of receipt of the notice of the
judgment or final order or resolution
MALLARI V. GSIS 2. The date of filing of the motion for new trial or
The petition for certiorari was filed beyond the for reconsideration
reglementary period. Hence, it lacks merit. It is 3. The date of receipt of the notice of denial of the
improper and tardy for being made beyond the 60 day motion.
period limitation defined in Sec 4, Rule 65. The 60 day When Security Bank furnished the CA with the copy of
period is inextendible because the limitation has been the trial court’s Oder bearing the stamped date of its
prescribed to avoid any unreasonable delays that receipt, it showed its willingness to rectify its omission.
violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy Security Bank in effect, substantially complied with the
disposition of their cases. Rules.
The rationale for requiring the statement of material
GONZALES V. TOLENTINO dates is to determine the timeliness of filing of the
Respondent’s justification for the delay in resolving the petition. Clearly, the Security Bank filed the MR in the
motion for inhibition- in deference to the authority of trial court on time. Security Bank also filed the petition
before the CA within the reglementary period. The the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a
Court reiterates that there is ample jurisprudence judgment of the lower court-on the basis either of the
holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal
of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of soundness of a decision. Even if the findings of the court
procedure. are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case,
The failure to comply with the rule on the statement of such correction is normally beyond the province of
material dates in the petition may be excused since the certiorari, where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but
dates are evident form the records. of an error of law or fact-a mistake of judgment-appeal
is the remedy.
TORRES. JR. V. AGUINALDO The most common ground cited in the petition that, if
It is only where the decision of of the Justice Secretary, properly established, would constitute grave abuse of
or the trial court, as the case may be, is tainted with discretion is the alleged unwarranted action of the en
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of banc in acting on the registration of the NP-NPC when
jurisdiction that the CA may take cognizance of the case the COMELEC’s own Rules of Procedure provided that
in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whose registration is under the jurisdiction of the Division of
decision may then be appealed to the SC by way of the First Instance. This error is more than error of law. If
petition for review on certiorari. this cited ground is correct, then the en banc acted
Grave abuse of discretion without the legal authority and thereby committed a
- Such capricious and whimsical exercise of jurisdictional transgression. It action being ultra vires, is
judgment as is rquivalent to lack of jurisdiction. a nullity.
The abuse of discretion must be grave as where Another allegation of ultra vires act is that of the
the power is exercised in an arbitrary or COMELEC, by appropriate freedom ordered a cut off
despotic manner by reason of passion or date for the registration of parties, yet approved the
personal hostility and must be so patent and resolution of NP-NPC long after this cut-off date has
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive passed without any valid justification or reason for
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty suspending the rule. For the en banc to so act was not a
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of mere error of law. The grant of registration was ana ct
law. outside mandatory legal parameters and was therefore
The Secretary of Justice did not whimsically and done when the COMELEC no longer had the authority to
capriciously exercise his discretion. His findings were act on it. In the sense, it is a proper allegation of grave
grounded on sound statutory and factual basis. abuse of discretion under Rule 64
In the Court’s view, these jurisdictional challenges to
LIBERAL PARTY V. COMELEC the en banc Resolution, if established constitute ultra
Without jurisdiction vires acts that would render the Reso void.
- The court acted with absolute lack of authority.
Excess of jurisdiction ANGELES V. SECRETARY OF JUCTICE
- When the court transcends its power or acts It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel
without any statutory authority performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but
Grave abuse of discretion not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty.
- Implies such capricious and whimsical exercise Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in
of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or substantial dispute or to which s substantial doubt
excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exists. It is nonetheless likewise available to compel
exercised in an arbitrary, despotic manner by action, when refused in matters involving judgment and
reason of passion, prejudice or personal discretion in a particular way or the retraction or
hostility and such exercise is so patent or so reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive either.
duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the The writ of mandamus can be awarded only when the
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation petitioners’ legal right to performance of the particular
of law. act which is sought to be compelled is clear and
Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of complete. Under Rule 65, a clear right is a right which is
errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of
The supervisory jurisdiction of the court over the law. If her right is clear and the case is meritorious,
issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for objections rising merely technical questions will be
disregarded. But where the right sought to be enforced within which to submit the list of nominees to the
is in substantial doubt or dispute, mandamus cannot be President to fill the vacancy created by compulsory
issued. retirement of CJ Puno.
The issuance of the LRA of the decree of registration is Only the President can appoint the CJ. Hence, Soriano’s
not purely ministerial duty. The RD cannot be petition for prohibition which proposes to prevent JBC
compelled by mandamus to comply with RTC Order from intervening in the process of nominating the
since there was a reason to question the rights of those successor of CJ Puno lacks merit.
requesting for the issuance of the TCTs.
The requirements under Rule 65 for the issuance of RULE 66
mandamus not having been proven by petitioner to
QUO WARRANTO
exist, the Court dismiss the petition for lack of merit.
MENDOZA V. ALLAS
DE CASTRO V. JBC
A judgment quo warranto does not bind the
Requisites of mandamus:
respondent’s successor in office even though such
1. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act
successor may trace his title to the same source. This
demanded
follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto
2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform
itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but
the act because it is mandated by law
always against the person to determine whether he is
3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the
constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any
performance of the duty enjoined by law
act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he
4. The act to be performed is ministerial not
lays claim. In the case at bar, the petition for quo
discretionary
warranto was filed by petitioner solely against Allas.
5. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy,
What was threshed out before the trial court was the
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
qualification and right of petitioner to the contested
law. position as against respondent Allas not against Olores.
The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before
the start of the President’s mandatory 90 day period to
CALLEJA V. PANDAY
appoint is ministerial, but the selection of the
Subject matter is not public office but a private office.
candidates is lies within the discretion of the JBC. The
Hence, it is not a subject of quo warranto and must be
object of the petitions for mandamus herein should
dismissed.
only refer to the duty to submit to the President the list
of nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary, because
LOKIN JR. V. COMELEC
the in order to constitute an unlawful neglect of duty,
Intra-party list dispute
there must be an unjustified delay in performing that
Election protest
duty. For mandamus to lie against the JBC, therefore,
- Proposes to oust the winning candidate from
there should be an unexplained delay on its part in
office. It is strictly a contest between the
recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is, in
defeated and the winning candidate based on
submitting the list to the President. Ministerial act
the grounds of electoral frauds and
irregularities. It can only be filed by a candidate
- An officer or tribunal performs in a given state
who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and
of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience
has been voted for in the preceding elections.
to the mandate of a legal authority. Without
Special civil action for quo warranto
regard to or the exercise of his own judgment
- Questions of disloyalty to the State or of
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act
ineligibility of the winning candidate. The
done.
objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible
Discretionary
person from the office, but not to install the
- If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer
petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate
and gives him the right to decide how or when
the action, which is, strictly speaking not a
the duty shall be performed.
contest where the parties strive for supremacy
Accordingly, the Court finds no sufficient ground to
because the petitioner will not be seated even if
grant the petitions for mandamus and to issue a writ of
the respondent may be unseated.
mandamus against the JBC. The actions for that purpose
The controversy involving Lokin is neither an election
is premature because the JBC still has sufficient time
protest nor an action for quo warranto, for it concerns a
very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be NPC has no right to invoke Sec. 1 Rule 17, a plaintiff
seated as the second nominee of CIBAC. Lokin’s case is loses his right under this rule to move for the
not one in which a nominee of a particular party list immediate dismissal of the complaint once the
organization thereby wants to unseat another nominee defendant had served on the plaintiff the answer or a
of the same party list organization. Neither does an motion for summary judgment before the plaintiff could
action for quo warranto lie, considering that the case file his notice of dismissal of the complaint. Pobre’s
does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of Cruz- motion to dismiss/answer filed and served way ahead
Gonzales to the Phils., or some other cause of of NPC’s motion to dismiss takes the case out of Sec 1
disqualification. Rule 17 assuming the same applies.
Lokin correctly brought the special civil action for
certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON V. DOTC
resolution of the COMELEC notwithstanding the oath Corporation, stockholders, incorporators powers in
and assumption of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The business in the phils (Gokongwei, Henry Sy, Lucio Tan)
constitutional mandated is implemented by by Rule 64 More on certiorari, prohibition, mandamus An
which provides for the review of the judgments, final exception to Rule 67
orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA. As Rule 2 precedent cases in connection with NAIA 3:
64 states, the mode of review is by petition for 1. Agan v. PIATCO (null and void)
certiorari in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the 2. Republic v. Guingoyon (same decision)
SC within a limited period of 30 days. Undoubtedly, the Propriety of PIATCO in entering the contract
Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokin’s AED- wants to replace PIATCO, bidders in the
petitions for certiorari and for manadamus against the construction of NAIA 3 (government property)
COMELEC. Regard to deposit (rule 67) on expropriation 100% of
the market value. It does not apply to others but only to
infrastructure projects of the government pursuant to
RULE 67 RA 8974
ASSESSED VALUE- very minimal (changed in AED) Action
EXPROPRIATION
for manadamus and certiorari brought by AED-the SC
denied on the procedural lapses. 1. It is filed beyond the
CITY OF MANILA V. SERRANO
period; it must be filed within 60 days.
Expropriation (deprivation of private property and one
of the highest rights of an individual in the Constitution)
should be the last resort. If there are other means of
achieving public use, such must be utilized; Exhaustion RULE 68
of other remedies. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGE
NAPOCOR V. CA
Sec. 1 Rule 17 in relation to expropriation (doctrinal) SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS V. CA
Sec. 1 Rule 17 (notice to dismiss which is to be filed Replevin is the principal issue. It is preparatory to
before answer) is not applicable to the case. It has no foreclosure. In a suit for replevin, a clear right of
ground because it is the plaintiff who files the notice. possession must be established. A foreclosure under a
A plain reading of section 1 Rule 17 of the 1964 ROC chattel mortgage may properly be commenced only
makes it obvious that this rule is not intended to once there is default on the part of the mortgagor of his
supplement Rule 67 of the same Rules. While sec.1 Rule obligation secured by the mortgage. The replevin in this
17 speaks of the “service of answer for summary case has been resorted to in order to pave the way for
judgment” the Rules then did not require the filing of an the foreclosure of what be to show firstly, the existence
answer or summary judgment in eminent domain cases. of the chattel mortgage and secondly, the default of the
In lieu of an answer,, sec. 3 Rule 67 required the mortgagor. These requirements must be shown
defendant to file a single motion to dismiss where he because the validity of the plaintiff’s exercise of the
should present all of his objections and defenses to the right of foreclosure is in evidently dependent thereon.
taking of his property for the purpose specified in the Laus, being an indispensable party must be impleaded
complaint. In short, expropriation cases under Sec. 3 of in the complaint for replevin and damages. That the
Rule 67, the motion to dismiss took the place of the petitioner cannot locate Laus, the mortgagor, is no
answer. (If you do not fill it, then you are objecting. Rule
17 does not apply.)
excuse for resorting to a shortcut. It could have properly
availed of substituted service of summons.
UNION BANK OF THE PHILS. V. CA rights and obligations existing at the time of his death,
Petitioner was actually not without remedy to correct as well as those which have accrued thereto since the
what it perceived and supposed was an erroneous opening of the succession. In the case, since Rufo lost
assumption of jurisdiction by the SEC without having ownership of the property during his lifetime, it only
recourse immediately to the CA. such procedure being follows that at the time of his death the disputed parcel
available could have been resorted to by the petitioner of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his
which, however it chose to forego. Furthermore, by heirs may lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and
taking up the matter with the SEC it could have respondents never inherited the subject lot form their
obtained an injunction which it similarly sought from father.
the appellate court via its petition for certiorari because Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance of a
said body has been empowered by Sec. 6 PD No. 902 to determinate portion of the property owned in common.
issue preliminary or permanent injunctions whether It seeks a severance of the individual interests of each
prohibitory or mandatory., in all cases it has jurisdiction. co-owner, vesting in each of them a sole estate in a
specific property and giving each one a right to enjoy his
ARDIENTE V. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF estatae without supervision or interference forms the
It is settled that personal notice to the mortgagor in an other. In other words, the purpose of partition is to put
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary. an end to co ownership, an objective which negates the
Hence, not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. claim of the petitioners.
The issue of lack of publication of notice cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. FELICIANO V. CANOZA
The heirs of Doroteo and Esteban did not participate in
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK V. VELOSO the extrajudicial partition executed by Salina with the
The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient other compulsory heirs. Undeniably, the said deed was
that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to fraudulently obtained as if deprived the known heirs of
do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied Doroteo and Esteban of their shares in the estate. A
by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. They deed of extrajudicial partition executed without
constitute the right to repurchase. Where the right to including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of
repurchase was properly exercised, there was an and consent to the same is fraudulent and vicious.
unequivocal tender of payment for the full amount of Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of fraud
the repurchase price. Otherwise, the offer to redeem is could be instituted. Such action for the annulment of
ineffectual. the said partition however must be brought within 4
In order to effect redemption, the judgment debtor years from the discovery of the fraud.
must pay the purchaser the redemption price
composed of the following: MANGAHAS V. BROBIO
1. The price which the purchaser paid for the The remedy suggested by the CA is not proper. An
property action for partition implies that the property is still
2. Interest of 1% per month on the purchase price owned in common. Considering that the heirs had
3. The amount of any assessments of taxes which already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and
the purchaser may have paid on the property waived their shares in favor of the respondent, the
after the purchase and properties are no longer under a state of co ownership;
4. Interest of 1% per month on such assessments there is nothing more to be partitioned, as ownership
and taxes. had already been merged in one person.
Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a
matter of intent but a question of payment or valid RULE 70
tender of the full redemption price within said period.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
AND FORCIBLE ENTRY
RULE 69
PARTITION SARMIENTA V. MANALITE
FORCIBLE ENTRY
BALUS V. BALUS - An action to recover the possession of a
The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from property form the defendant whose occupation
the moment of his death. In addition, the inheritance of thereof is illegal from the beginning as he is
a person consists of the property and transmissible
required possession by force, intimidation, Where the law confines in an administrative office
threat, strategy, stealth quasi-judicial functions, the jurisdiction of such office
UNLAWFUL DETAINER prevails over the court.
- An action for the recovery of possession from
the defendant whose possession of the CARBONILLA V. ABIERA
property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment
contract (expressed or implied) with the proceeding is: who is entitled to the physical possession
plaintiff, but became illegal when he continued of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and
his possession despite the termination of his and possession de jure.
right there under. Petitioner failed to prove that respondnet’s possession
In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege and prove that was based on his alleged tolerance. He did not offer any
he was a prior physical possession of the property until evidence or evn only an affidavit of the Garcianos
he was deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the attesting that they tolerated respondents’ entry to and
means provided in sec. 1 rule 70. occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation
In unlawful detainer, there must be an allegation in the of tolerance will not suffice. Plaintiff must at least show
complaint that of how the possession of defendant overt acts indicative of his or his predecessor’s
started or continued by virtue of lease or any contract permission to occupy the subject property. In addition,
and that defendant holds possession of the land or plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of
building after the expiration or termination of the right tolerance have been present right form the very start of
to hold possession by virtue of any contract, expressed the possession- form entry to the property.
or implied. In any event, petitioner has some other recourse. He
Causes of action for unlawful detainer: may pursue recovering possession of his property by
1. Initially, possession of the property by the filing an accion publiciana which is a plenary action
defendant was by contract with or by tolerance intended to recover the better right to possess or
of the plaintiff accion reinvidicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of
2. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon real property.
notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the
termination of the latter’s right of possession MODESTO V. URBINA
3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in Accion publiciana
possession of the property and deprived the - An ordinary civil proceeding to determine the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof better right of possession of realty
4. Within 1 year from the last demand on independently of title.
defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff - Also used to refer to an ejectment suit where
instituted the complaint for ejectment. the cause of dispossession is not among the
In an unlawful detainer case the sole issue for grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
resolution is physical or material possession of the or when possession has been lost for more than
property involved independent of any claim of one year and can no longer be maintained
ownership by any of the parties. Since the only issue under Rule 70. The objective is to recover
involved is the physical or material possession of the possession and not ownership.
premises, that is possession de facto and not possession It is only after the property has been declared alienable
de jure the question of ownership must be threshed out and disposable that private persons can legally claim
in separate action. possessory rights over it.
While there is actual possession of the land for 33 years
CALARA V. FRANCISCO by the Modestos, this occupation could not give rise to
When a complaint for unlawful detainer arises from the possessory rights while the property is remains a
failure of the buyer on installment basis of real property government land that had not been declared alienable
to pay based on a right to stop paying monthly and disposable.
amortizations under PD 957, the determinative Mere declaration of land for the purposes of taxation
question is exclusively cognizable by the HLURB, purposes does not constitute possession thereof nor is
therefore, the question of the right to collect the it proof of ownership in the absence of the claimant’s
monthly amortizations must be determined by said actual possession.
agency.
LA CAMPANA DEV. CORP. V. LEDESMA The courts and other tribunals vested with the power of
As to damages, since the only issue raised in forcible contempt must exercise the power to punish for
entry or unlawful detainer cases is that of rightful contempt for purposes that are impersonal because
possession, the damages recoverable in these cases are that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges
those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere as persons but for the functions that they exercise.
possessor, i.e. those caused by the loss of the use and SEC suspended respondent Manalaysay from the
occupation of the property and not the damages which practice of law; such power is vested in the Supreme
he may have suffered but which have no direct relation Court.
to his loss of material possession. Simply put, the
damages in sec. 8 rule 70 is limited to rent or fair rental ESPANOL V. FORMOSO
value for the use and occupation of the property. The imputed use of a falsified document more so when
the falsity of the document is not apparent on its face,
FERRER V. RABACA merely constitutes indirect contempt. Thus following
The perfection of an appeal by itself is not sufficient to sec. 3 rule 71, a contemner may be punished only after
stay the execution of the judgment in an ejectment a charge in writing has been filed and an opportunity
case. The losing party should likewise file a supersedeas has been given to the accused to be heard by himself
bond executed in favor of the plaintiff to answer for and counsel. Moreover, settled is the rule that a
rents, damages, and costs if judgment of the court contempt proceeding is not a civil action but a separate
requires it, he should likewise deposit the amount of proceeding of a criminal nature in which the court
the rent before the appellate court from the time exercises limited jurisdiction. Perforce, petitioner judge
during the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise erred in declaring summarily that respondents are guilty
execution becomes ministerial and imperative. of direct contempt and ordering their incarceration. She
It is basic rule in ejectment cases that the execution of should have conducted a hearing with notice to
judgment in favor of the plaintiff is a matter of right and respondents.
mandatory. Indeed, the respondent judge should have
granted the plaintiff’s motion for immediate execution SISON V. CAOIBES, JR.
considering that the defendant did not file the sufficient Judges should exercise their contempt powers
supersedeas bond despite having appealed. Granting judiciously and sparingly with utmost restraint, and with
the plaintiff’s motion for immediate execution became the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for
his ministerial duty upon the defendant’s failure to file correction and preservation not for retaliation and
the sufficient supersedeas bond. vindication.
To issue writs of execution upon motions of the The respondent judge should have refrained from
plaintiffs in actions for forcible entry or unlawful ordering the arrest and detention of the complaint,
detainer when the defendant has appealed but has not since the incident involved his own son and the matter
filed a sufficient supersedeas bond. is very personal to him.
The act complained against must be any of those
specified in sec. 3 Rule 71 otherwise there is no
RULE 71
contempt of court which requires that the person
CONTEMPT obstructed should be performing a duty connected with
judicial functions. As such, the respondent judge acted
YASAY V. RECTO oppressively and vindictively.
The real character of the proceedings in contempt cases
is to be determined by the relief sought or by the MONTENEGRO V. MONTENEGRO
dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded Indirect contempt may either be initiated:
as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment 1. Motu propio by the court by issuing an order or
and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or any other formal charge requiring the
remedial. respondent to show cause why he should not
In the case, the contempt is criminal, imposed to be punished for contempt
vindicate the dignity and power of the Commission 2. By the filing of a verified petition complying
hence, as in criminal proceedings an appeal would not with the requirements for filing initiatory
lie from the order of dismissal of or exoneration from pleadings.
charge of contempt. In the case, the trial court initiated the proceedings for
indirect contempt by issuing two orders directing the
petitioner to show cause why he should not be
punished for indirect contempt.
The contemptuous act in the case was the petitioner’s
refusal to attend a hearing d=for his examination as
judgment obligor, upon motion by the respondent
Teresa. It must be pointed out that the purpose of Sec
36 rule 39 is to provide the judgment oblige a remedy in
case where the judgment obligor continues to fail to
comply with its obligation under the judgment.
Petitoner’s refusal to be examined without justifiable
reason constituted indirect contempt which is civil in
nature.
Section 7 rule 71 provides for the indefinite
incarceration in civil contempt proceedings to compel a
party to comply with the order of the court. This may be
resorted to where the attendant circumstances are such
that the non-compliance with the court order is an utter
disregard of the authority of the court which ahs then
no other recourse but to use its coercive power. The
punishment is for the benefit of the complainant or a
party tto asuit who has been injured. Its object is to
compel performance of the orders or decrees of the
court, which the contemptor refuses to obey although
able to do so.
BPI V. CALANZA
To be considered contemptuous, an act must be clearly
contrary to or prohibited by the order of the court or
tribunal. A person cannot for disobedience be punished
for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or
required to be done is clearly and exactly defined so
that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as
to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required.

CIVPRO Atty Brondial REM2 Case Doctrines 2012

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 Atty Brondial REM2 Case Doctrines 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISDICTION AGAN V.

1 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

2 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

CARABEO V. DINGCO RULE -9

3 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

4 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

5 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

EB VILLAROSA V. BENITO DOLE PHIL. V. QUILALA

SANTOS V. PNOC EXP. MANOTOC V. CA

6 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

7 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

8 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

9 | brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012 TUGELIDA

MANALOTO V. VELOSO III

You might also like