Anda di halaman 1dari 26

JURISDICTION

ERISTINGCOL V. CA Gen. Rule: objection over a case may be varied at any stage of the proceedings, as lack of jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of a case; however, the surety is barred from laches for questioning the jurisdiction 15 years after the action has commenced DUERO V. CA Principle of estoppels cannot be invoked upon because the jurisdiction of the court may be invoked at any time and at any stage of the action GONZAGA V. CA The action of the Gonzaga spouses were barred the principle of estoppels because in the proceedings before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted this cause form the start to finish. It was only when the trial court rendered an unfavorable decision and they raise the issue of jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner effectively waived their right to question the courts jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed. While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity, and may be assailed at any stage, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings in the court which rendered the order or decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction. ESCOBAL V. GARCHITORENA The Presiding Justice of the SB acted in accordance with law when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC (the court of origin); Jurisdictional requirement must be alleged in the Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at the inception of the case continues until the case is terminated; The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because the facts showing the intimate relation between the Office of the offender and the discharge of the official duties are not alleged in the information; Under the law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a position corresponding to the grade salary below 27 the RTC or MTC as the case may be, shall have the jurisdiction over the case. In the case, the petitioner is a Police Senior Inspector with a grade salary of 23. ASIAS EMERGING DRAGON V. DOTC Elements of res judicata can be rightfully set aside in favor of substantial justice.

AGAN V. PIATCO The interpretation of contracts and the determination of whether their provisions violate our laws or contravene any public policy is a legal issue which the court may properly act upon; The SC did not violate the hierarchy of courts; The rule on hierarchy of courts in cases falling within the concurrent jurisdiction of the trial courts and appellate courts generally applies to cases invoking warring factual allegations. For this reasons, litigants are required to repair to the trial courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity of those contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts as they are not trier of facts; When cases brought before the appellate courts do not invoke factual but legal questions, a strict application of the rule of courts is not necessary; The case at bar merely concern with the construction of the Constitution, interpretation of Bill of Rights law and its implementing rules and regulations on undisputed contractual provisions and government actions, and as the cases concern public interest, the SC takes prmary jurisdiction over them. Transcendental importance. The suggested remand of the case at bar to the trial court will stay away from this policy. LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY V. ATIENZA Hierarchy of courts must be respected SERRANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Serrana being a student regent of UP AMBIL JR. V. SANDIGANBAYAN Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Ambil (Provincial Governor) and Apelada (provincial warden) for detaining Mayor Adalim in Ambils house. Both government officials has no authority because such authority is vested to the courts. GARCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN Violations of RA 1379 (Forfeiture of property unlawfully acquired by any public officer) are placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even though the proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty. The court as well considered that Garcia in such forfeiture proceeding is a public officer/employee and the violation of the said law was committed during his incumbency as govt officer/employee and in relation top his office. Hence, Garcia should therefore abandon TUGELIDA

1|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

his erroneous belief that the SB has jurisdiction only over petitions for forfeiture filed against Pres. Marcos, his family, and cronies. LACSON V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY The jurisdiction of the court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over the case; What determines SBs jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender; The factual allegations in the information are controlling because such would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused official duties and the commission of the offense charged; in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office; When there is failure to show in the information that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused, PNP officers, the offense charged is plain murder and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and not the SB.

jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. 1. Not simply the filing of the complaint/appropriate initiatory pleading, but payment of the prescribed docket fees. If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not, accompanied by the payment of the full docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive reglementary period; 2. When the court awards a claim not specified in the pleading or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court to enforce such lien and assess and collect the additional fees. RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS & REALTY DEVT CORP. V. FORMARAN III the docket fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the real property involved therein; Before the Court could conclude that the amt. of docket fee is indeed prohibitive for a party, it would have to look into the financial capacity of aid party. Moreover, even though the court exempts individuals or indigents or party litigants form paying docket fees, it has never extended such extension to a corporate entity. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY V. COBARRUBIAS Payment of the full docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. It is not perfected if only a part of the DF is deposited within the reglementary period and the remainder is tendered at the expiration of the period. In the case at bar, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for non-compliance to pay for the DF in full when she filed her petition for review. This omission is fatal to her cause. Hence, CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubiass PR despite the nonpayment of the requisite DF within the reglementary period. The VA decision had lapsed to finality when the DF was paid. Hence, CA had no jurisdiction to obtain the appeal except to order its dismissal. RELUCIO V. LOPEZ Relucio is not a real party-in-interest in the case because she would not be affected by any judgment in special proceeding filed by Lopez against her husband. A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or inspired by the judgment of the suit. She is not an TUGELIDA

RULE 1-5
ALDAY V. FGU INSURANCE The present doctrine: payment of the correct docket fees with respect to permissive counterclaims in order for the court to be vested with jurisdiction KOREA TECHNOLOGIES V. LERMA Controversial doctrine; The counterclaims of PGSMC were incorporated in its Answer with Compulsory counterclaims in accordance with Sec. 8, Rule 11- the rule that was effective at the time the Answer with counterclaim was filed. Hence, it is not liable to pay filing fee for such counterclaims being compulsory in nature. MERCADO V. CA Return to the doctrine in Alday; Payment of docket fees is not necessary for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM; SMCs counterclaim being related to Mercados claim was COMPULSORY IN NATURE. Consequently, the payment of docket fees was not necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. PROTON PHILS. V. BANQUE NAT IONALE DE PARIS It is not simply the filing of the complaint on appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment of the prescribed docket fees, that vests trial court with

2|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

indispensable party- one without whom there can be no final determination of the cation, nor a necessary party to the case. The compliant made by lopez is against her husband and nowhere in the allegations of the complaint does it appear that relief is sought against Relucio. Lopezs causes of action were all against her husband. DE CASTRO V. CA Artigos compliant is not dismissible for its failure to implead the other co-owners as indispensable parties since the action is based on a contract of agency between Artigo and Constante; The mandatory joinder of action is not applicable in this case; The De Castros admit that the other co-owners are solidarily liable under the contract of agency. By virtue of this solidarity, the agent can recover from any principal the whole compensation or indeminity owing to him by the others. Hence, the creditor (Artigo) can sue any of the solidary debtors. LOTTE PHIL. CO. INC. V. DE LA CRUZ Joinder of indispensable party is mandatory; Its presence is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. Without its presence, the proceeding, judgment, of the court cannot attain finality. Its absence renders all the subsequent actions of the court null and void. 7J is an indispensable party. It is a co-party in the case before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Respondents failed to include it in their petition for certiorari in the CA. hence, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over 7J whose inclusion is necessary for the effective and complete resolution of the case. DELA CRUZ V. JOAQUIN Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when they appear, participated, and presented evidence in the defense of the deceased. When the party to a pending action dies, the claim is not extinguished. It requires substitution of the deceased. To protect every party litigants right to due process; Counsel affects the validity of the decision. CARABEO V. DINGCO The causes of action survives because the case involve primarily and principally property and property rights. Trial court was not informed of the death of Carabeo but its decision being concluded before the petitioner died may be valid and subsisting upon his legal representatives or successors in interest; Death of the party automatically divests his counsel with authority.

NAVARRO V. ESCOBIDO Karen T. Go is a real-party in-interest since she may be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. There is no need to implead her husband to be an indispensable party because the subject property in litigation is co-owned by the spouses. Thus, any of them may bring an action for the recovery of the co-owned property.; Non-joinder of party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order may the action be dismissed. CHINA BANKING CORP. V. OLIVER Oliver 1 is not an indispensable party. Oliver 1s absence from the case does not hampen the trial court in resolving the dispute between Oliver 2 and Chinabank. Chinabanks interest on the loan is distinct and divisible from Oliver 1s interest. Which invokes the land used as a collateral for the oan.; Oliver 2 can do in her complaint without necessarily impleading Oliver 1. Hence, Oliver is not an indispensable party in the case filed by Oliver 2. PACIFIC CONSULTANTS V. SCHONFELD Schonfeld Doctrine While there was indeed an agreement that issues between the parties were to be resolved in the London Court of Arbitration, the venue is not exclusive, since there is no stipulation that the complaint cannot be filed in any other forum other than the Phils; Venue stipulations in the absence of qualifying and restrictive words does not a s a rule, supersedes the gen. rule set forth in Rule 4. Such is considered as merely an agreement which is only permissive rather than exclusive; If the parties have the intention to restrict the venue, there must be an accompanying language clearly and categorically explaining their purpose. In the case, since there are no restrictive words used, it cannot be said that the court of arbitration in London is an exclusive venue to bring forth any complaint arising out of the employment contract.

RULE -9 PLEADINGS AND DEFAULT


BENGUET EXPLORATION V. CA Actionable document The admission of the due execution and genuineness of a document simply means that:

3|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

1. The party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority 2. That at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as to set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it 3. That the document was delivered 4. That any formal requisites by law such as seals, an acknowledgement or revenue stamps, which it lacks are waived by him. MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. V. CA Lease agreement bet. Sabenianos and Manila Bay Club Corp. QUESTION OF LAW- doubt on the difference arises as to WHAT LAW is on certain state of facts; QUESTION OF FACT- doubt arises AS TO THE TRUTH OR THE FALSEHOOD of the alleged facts; There is no question of fact because the facts are admittedly proven. WON the conclusion drawn by the CA form the fact is correct is a question of law which the SC is authorized to pass upon; The facts are undisputed as reflected in Mr. Aquinos testimony declaring that Manila Bay Club indeed failed to comply with par. 22 of the contract requiring Sabenianos be made beneficiaries of the insurance policies and that Manila Bay is well-aware that noncompliance is a ground for termination. BIESTERBOS V. CA (di ko gets doctrine neto sorry.) OAMINAL V. CASTILLO The respondents (Castillo) admitted themesleves to the jurisdiction of the trial court when they filed their pleadings (such as counterclaims, motions, answer and etc.), thus, curing the flaw in the service of their summons (assuming arguendo). Having invoked the trial courts jurisdiction to serve affirmative relief, Castillo et. Al cannot- after failing to obtain the relief prayed forrepudiate the very same authority they have invoked. ASIA CONST. & DEVT CORP. V. CA The purpose of Rule 6 is to permit a defendant to assert an independent claim against a 3rd party which he, otherwise, woulod assert in another action, thus preventing multiplicity if suits. All the rights of the parties concerned will be adjudicated in one proceeding. This is a rule of procedure and it does not create a substantial right. The right file a 3rd party complaint rests in the discretion of the trial court; A 3rd party complaint is actually independent of separate and distinct for the plaintiffs complaint;

It is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant or both, for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the defendant, although the 3rd party defendants liability arises out of another transaction; Does not have to show with certainty that there will be recovery against the 3rd party defendant, it is sufficient to show there is a possibility of recovery. BANCO DE ORO V. TANSIPEK Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case WON said decision is erroneous. The remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved is to seek rehearing. The doctrine is founded on the policy of ending litigation; LAW OF THE CASE- whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between same parties in the same case. REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN Marcos failed to specifically deny each and every allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture in the manner required by the rules; The Marcoses responded by simply saying that they had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations. This particular denial is a NEGATIVE PREGNANT-a denial pregnant with admissions; Hence, the allegations in the petition for forfeiture on the existence of Swiss bank deposits not having been specifically denied by the Marcoses in their answer, were deemed admitted by them. If a defendants denial is a anegative pregnant, it is equivalent to an admission. CANELAND SUGAR CORP. V. ALON NEGATIVE PREGNANT- a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party,-it is a denial preganant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading; Caneland does not dispute its loan obligation with respondent. Canelands bone of contention before the RTC is that PN are silent as to whether they were covered by the MTI and MP on its property. It does not categorically deny that these PN are covered by the security documents. These negative assertions are in fact, negative pregnants.

RULE 10-14 AMENDMENTS AND SUMMONS


REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP. V. CA The Court found no practical disadvantage in ordering the dismissal of the complaint against respondent and TUGELIDA

4|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

for petitioners to refile the same when the latter can clearly amend the complaint on a matter of right. The amendment of the complaint would not prejudice the respondent or delay the action, as this would, in fact simplify the case and expedite its disposition. Indeed, where some but not all defendants have answered, the plaintiff may still amend the its complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely against the non-answering defendant, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants. BIGLANG-AWA V. PHIL TRUST CO. Prior to Biglang-Awas filing of their Motion For leave to amend Complaint, the respondents already filed their Answer with Counterclaim. Hence, since the respondents had already filed their Answer, it follows that Biglang-Awa may no longer amend their complaint against the former as a matter of right. They may do so upon leave of court. Moreover, the amendment sought to be made appears to have drastically altered the cause of action of the parties. Hence, the Motion to Amend is not granted. ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS V. CITY OF URDANETA Sec. 5 of Rule 10 provides that of evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the end of substantial justice will be sub served thereby. Objection need not even rise in this case since the pretrial order already defined the issue WON the contracts are void. Thus, what is needed is the presentation of the parties evidence on the issue. Any evidence of the City of Urdaneta for or against the validity of the contracts will be relevant and admissible. Note that under Sec. 5 Rule 10, necessary amendment to pleadings may be made to cause them to conform to the evidence. DE DIOS V. CA It is only when new causes of action are alleged in an amended complaint foiled before the defendant has appeared in court that a summons must be served on the defendant with the amended complaint. In the case, the amended complaint merely supplemented an incomplete allegation. Its purpose was to merely include the additional information. The cause of action of the respondent was not changed. Hence, no new summons on the amended complaint was necessary. MILLENIUM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORP. V. TAN

Service of summons must be made upon the corporation under Rule 14 Sec. 13 through its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, directors. The rationale is that service must be made on a representative so integrated with the corporation and that he will realize his responsibilities and know what he should do with the legal papers received by him; Petitioner contends that the enumeration is exclusive. However, it is settled that substantial compliance by serving summons in persons other than those mentioned in the above rule may be justified. *Requisites for the application of the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance: 1. There must be actual receipt of the summons by the person served; 2. The person served must sign a receipt or the sheriffs return; 3. There must be actual receipt of the summons by the corporation through the person to whom the summons was actually served. For there to be substantial compliance, actual receipt of summons by the corporation through the person served must be shown. VALMONTE V. CA Service of summons in the manner provided under Rule 14 on extraterritorial service is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play as due process, so that she will be informed of the pendency of the action against her and to protect interest on her property in the Philippines; What gives the court jurisdiction in an ACTION IN REM or QUASI IN REM is that it has jurisdiction over the res; Applying the foregoing rules, the action in the case which is partition and accounting under Rule 69 is in the nature of an action QUASI IN REM. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendants interest in a specific property and not to render judgment against him. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties; Lourdes Valmonte, a nonresident who is not found in the Phils., service of summons must be in accordance with Rule 14 sec. 17. Such service to be effective outside, the Phils must be made either: 1. By personal service; 2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in which copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant;

5|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

3. In any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. The service of summons of LV is dobe through her husband who is her lawyer is not valid. Since the said manner of service of summons is not made upon the order of the court and not made upon prior leave of court. EB VILLAROSA V. BENITO RAMOS V. RAMOS Petitioner Florencio Chanliongco was impleaded in the complaint but not served with summons. However, service of summons upon the estate of the deceased father was sufficient as the estate appeared for and on behalf of all the beneficiaries and heirs of his Father. Service upon the law firm was sufficient notice to all the beneficiaries of the estate. TEH V. CA The trial court deemed it fitting to properly acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by ordering the issuance of alias summons on the petitioner. Evidently, the trial court acted well within its discretion. SANTOS V. PNOC EXP. Since Santos could not be permanently served with summons despite diligent efforts to locate his whereabouts, respondent (PNOC) sought and was granted leave of court to effect service of summons upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, petitioner was properly served with summons by publication. Moreover, even assuming that the service of summons was defective, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by his voluntary appearance in the action by filing the appropriate pleadings. MASON V. CA Rule 14 Sec. 11 did not abandon or render inapplicable the substantial compliance rule. It ruled that the provision states the general rule on service of summons upon corporation and the substantial compliance rule is that exception->NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE! The service of summons through a mere filing clerk of private respondent is INVALID since such is not included in the enumeration under Rule 14 Sec. 11. JOSE V. BOYON The process server hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service without actually exerting any genuine effort to locate the respondents. It did not

mention exactly what efforts if any were taken to find the respondents. The Return merely states the alleged whereabouts of respondents which indicating that such information was verified from a person who had knowledge thereof. A GENERAL STATEMENT that such efforts were made not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons. DOLE PHIL. V. QUILALA Service of summons on a domestic corporation is restricted, limited, and exclusive to the persons enumerated in Rule 14 Sec. 11. Service must be made on the president, managing partner, gen. manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. In this case, the legal assistant receives the alias summons who is not the designated person under the Rules. Hence, the court did not fully acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner. However, under Rule 14 Sec. 20, a defendants voluntary appearance in the action is equivalent to service of summons. Consequently, petitioner having acknowledged the receipt of the summons and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the RTC to secure affirmative relief on its motion for additional time, petitioner effectively submitted voluntarily to the court. MANOTOC V. CA The sheriffs return must show that serious efforts were exerted to personally serve the summons and that said efforts failed. The efforts must be specifically narrated in the Return; The sheriffs return did not conform to the requirement that the summons must be left with a person of suitable age and discretion residing in defendants house or residence. Thus, there are 2 requirements under the rules: 1. Recipient must be a person suitable of age and discretion; 2. Residing in defendants house or residence. In the case, both requirements were not met. The Sheriffs Return lacks information as to the residence, age and discretion of Macky dela Cruz. The only information that it had is that he is the resident caretaker of petitioner. Dela Cruzs refusal to sign the receipt of Summons is a strong indication that e did not have the necessary relation of confidence with petitioner. The substituted service of summons must be faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements of the Rules. Due to the non-compliance of requisites for valid substituted service, the proceedings held before the trial court must be annulled.

6|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

PASCUAL V. PASCUAL Personal service of summons should and always be the first option. It is only when the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to substituted service. In the absence of even the barest compliance with the procedure for a substituted service of summons outlined in the ROC, the presumption of regularity in the performance of public function does not apply. The jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was never vested with the RTC because the manner of substituted service by the process server was apparently invalid and ineffective. As such, there was a violation of Due Process. The Doctrine of Finality of Judgment is only applicable when the judgment or decision is valid.

court. The courts denial of the motion to intervene arising form the strict application of the rule was an injustice to the petitioners hose substantial interest in the subject property cannot be disputed. It is a total disregard of their right to be heard, when on the face of the resolution of CRIO sought to be enjoined, petitioners were the ones directly to be affected. It is well settled that the petitioners are indeed indispensable parties with such an interest in the controversy/subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made in their absence without affecting , injuring their interest. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. SISON The Office of the Ombudsman is not an appropriate party to intervene in the instant case because he has no legal interest in the administrative case. It must remain partial and detached. More importantly, it must be mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an advocate. It is an established doctrine that judge should detach themselves form cases where their decisions are appealed to a high court for review. There is no more need for him to justify further his judgment when it is appealed before the appellate court. ANONUEVO V. INTESTATE ESTATE OF JALANDONI A court has no authority to allow a person, who has an interest in an action for proceeding, to intervene thereon. Consequently, when a court commits a mistake, and allows an uninterested person to intervene in a case-the-mistake is not simply an error judgment, but one of jurisdiction. CHATO V. CA Non-compliance with the condition precedent prescribed by PB 1508 (Lupong Brgy) could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiffs cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity. LEDESMA V. CA PD 1508 mandates the personal confrontation of the parties. Ledesma alleging that her failure to appear before the Brgy. Chairman due to her psychological ailments is devoid of merit. Aince it was concluded that she was on her lucid interval during the pendency of the case and hence, she is not excused for her nonappearance at the Lupons Chairman Office; Not having shown that she is incompetent, she cannot as well be represented by her counsel or even by an attorney-in-fact who is next of kin.

RULE 15-19 MOTIONS TO INTERVENTION


PEOPLE V. PEREZ SAGUID V. CA Sec. 6 Rule 8, the failure of the defendant to file a pretrial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration; The justification of the petitioner that his failure to file a pre-trial brief is justified because he was not represented by counsel is unmeritorious the assistance of lawyers, while desirable is not indispensable. YAO V. PERELLO To allow intervention, it must be shown that: 1. The movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified; 2. Consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights if the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced or whether the intervenors rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. *both the requirements must concur. The 1st is more important that the 2nd. PINLAC V. CA 2001- the summons and the partial decision were published in a local newspaper entered and published in Caloocan and Bulacan. Such newspaper Metropolitan Newsweek is INVALID because it is not a newspaper of general circulation in QC where the property is located. 2003- intervention: In exceptional cases, the court has allowed intervention notwithstanding the rendition of judgment by the trial

7|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

UY V. CONTRERAS While PD 1508 has been repealed by the LGU Code of 1991, the jurisprudence built thereon regarding the referral to the Lupon as pre-condition to the filing of an action in court remains applicable because provisions on prior referral were substantially reproduced in the Code. DE GUZMAN V. OCHOA The ground of defective verification and certification of forum-shopping was deemed waived and could no longer be questioned by the petitioners in the 2nd motion to dismiss. In addition, defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping are not jurisdictional.

answer the request, it was never complied with. Therefore, a summary judgment may be asked. PEOPLE V. WEBB Since the trial had already admitted the exhibits on wic the witnesses would have testified, the taking of depositions would have been unnecessary.; WON THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF SUCH WITNESSES MAY BE ALLOWED IN CRIMINIAL CASES BEFORE THE Phil. Courts. - YES. How to take the testimony of a defense witness who is unale to come to testify in open court because he is a resident of a foreign country? The rule on crimpro is silent. However, the rule on the matter under the rules on civpro may be applied suppletorily; Rule 24 of the ROC, ante, applies in a suppletory character, since the taking of the depositions under Rule 24 and conditional examination of defense witnesses under the Rule 119 are taken under the same circumstances and for the same purpose; that is, the preservation of the material witness testimony; Its denial would amount to deprivation of due process and to the accusers right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his favor which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

RULE 21, 23-32 MODES OF DISCOVERY


DASMARINAS GARMENTS, INC. V. REYES Where the deposition is to be taken in foreign country when the Phils has no secretary or embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent, then obviously it may be taken only before such person or officer as may be appointed by commissioner or under letters rogatory; Deposition may be taken at any time after the institution of any action not only to the period of pretrial or before it; Before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of the RTC; Only by written interrogatories to give defendants (Dasmarinas) the opportunity to crossexamine the witness by serving cross interrogatories. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. CA Failure of party to attend or to serve answer, the court on motion or notice: 1. May strike out any or all part of any pleading of that party; 2. Dismiss the action/proceeding or any part thereof; 3. Enter a judgment by default against that party; 4. And in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses insured by the other including attorneys fees The matter of HOW & WHEN the above sanction should be applied is one that primarily sets on the sound discretion of the court where the case pends. ALLIED AGRI-BUSINESS DEVT CO. INC. V. CA Illustrates summary judgments There is a request for admission but the request was never answered. There was an order form the court to

RULE 33-38 DEMURRER TO RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT


BERNARDO V. CA Demurrer in criminal cases is illustrated. The distinction between criminal and civil cases has been established. When you file a motion for demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, you risk waiving your right to present evidence. RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO. V. DEL ROSARIO CABADOR V. PEOPLE To determine whether the pleading filed is a Demurrer to Evidence or a Motion to Dismiss, the court must consider: 1. The allegations in it made in GF; 2. The stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; 3. The primary objective of the party filing it. Cabador did not know that the prosecution finally made a formal offer of exhibits on the date he filed his Motion to Dismiss. Hence, tested against the criteria laid down in Enojas, Cabador filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. TUGELIDA

8|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

PEOPLE V. SUMINGWA The order granting appellants demurrer to evidence was a resolution of the case on merits, and it amounted to an acquittal. Any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the prescription on double jeopardy. HUN HYUNG PARK V. ENG WONG CHOI If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case. Atty. Brondial disagrees: the civil aspect is deemed instituted together with the criminal case. The case has no qualification ythat the civil aspect must arose form the other source of obligation, not crime. MENDEZONA V. OZAMIS Requisites of newly discovered evidence: 1. The evidence had been discovered AFTER TRIAL; 2. The could not have been discovered and produced during trial even with exercise of reasonable diligence; 3. The evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative, or impeaching and it is of such weight that if admitted would probably alter the result. PADILLA-RUMBAUA V. RUMBAUA Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of the counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial such will result to a non-ending litigation. Mistakes of a lawyer are binding on a client. Motions must comply with Sec 4-6 Rule 15. MESINA V. MEER The SC said that Rule 38 is only available before the MTC and RTC. any court only means the MTC and RTC. It does not extend the SC or CA. the SC and CA are governed by separate rules. GARCIA V. CA The pleadings and exhibits on records reveal that there exist genuine issues on material or pertinent facts sufficient to preclude a rendition of summary judgments. PEOPLE V. LI KAI KIM The ground of newly discovered evidence for a Motion for New Trial is not only available in civil cases but also to criminal cases under Rule 12;

All the 3 requisites of newly discovered evidence must characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at new trial. MERCURY DRUG CORP. V. CA notice to counsel, is notice to client The 60 day period is counted from the date of notice. Hence, when there was already a lapse of period within which to file the petition for relief, the client is already barred from filing such petition. Hence, the rule is that the reglementary period is reckoned from the time the partys counsel receives the notice of decision. For notice to the counsel of the decision is notice to the party for the purpose of Sec. 3 Rule 38

RULE 39 EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS


BANES V. BANES Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstanced demanding urgency outweighs the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. In this case, there is no superior or urgent circumstance that outweighs the damage which respondent would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house. Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending appeal. To do so would make execution revolutionary, the rule rather than the exception. FAJARDO V. QUITALIG Sheriff have immediately implemented the and made a return of the writs after duly serving it upon the defendant. The sheriff is guilty of dereliction of duty because he failed to: 1. Execute the writ within 30 days form his receipt thereof; 2. Submit his report of service within the same period 3. Make periodic reports to the MTCC until the judgment was fully satisfied; 4. Furnish the parties with copies of the reports. The sheriff is primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs originating form the court and its branches. SANTOS V. COMELEC The grant of execution pending appeal was within the discretionary powers of the trial court. On order to obtain the annulment of said orders in a petition for certiorari, it must first be proved that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. TUGELIDA

9|

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

all that was required for a valid exercise of discretion to allow execution pending appeal was that the immediate execution should be based upon good reasons to be stated in the special order. RCBC V. MAGWIN MARKETING CORP. FINAL ORDER-one which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court; INTERLOCUTORY ORDER- one which does not dispose of a case completely but leaves something more to be decided upon; The orders are interlocutory orders and therefore no appeal may be taken from CITY OF ILIGAN V. PRINCIPAL MNGT GROUP 3 requisites for execution of a judgment pending appeal: 1. A motion must be filed by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; 2. There must be good reasons for execution pending appeal; 3. The good reasons must be stated in a special order. Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule. Gen. Rule: to obtain execution: 1. The judgment has become final and executor; 2. The right to appeal has been renounced or waived; 3. The period for appeal has lapsed with an appeal having been filed; 4. Having been filed the, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin. When the period of appeal has not yet expired, the execution of a judgment will be allowed if IN THE COURTS DISCRETION, THERE ARE GOOD REASONS THEREFOR. The good reasons must be stated in the special order. It consists of compelling circumstances. VILLARUEL V. FAJARDO A judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. The exception is whenever circumstance transpires after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. This, however, is not the case here. The Ombudsman issued his Resolution PRIOR TO THE FINALITY of the trial courts decision. Hence, the resolution of the

Ombudsman is not a supervening event to warrant the stay of the execution of the decision of the trial court. MORTA V. BAGAGNAN Heavy workload by the sheriff cannot absolve him. As an officer of the court, he should at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO. V. FELIX Garon failed to present good reasons to justify execution pending appeal. It was her husband who is ill and not her. The posting of the bond standing alone and absent the good reasons required under sec. 2 rule 39 is not enough to allow execution pending appeal. The bond is only an additional factor for the protection of the defendants creditor. FAR EAST BANK V. TOH Old age is a good reason to allow execution pending appeal as any delay in the final disposition of the of the present case may deny private respondent of his right to enjoy fully the money he has with defendant bank. PANOTES V. CITY TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION An action for the revival of the judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previos judgment which has become dormant after the passage of 5 years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It is not intended to reopen any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtors case not the propriety or correctness of the first judgment. Here, the original judgment or the NHA resolution sought to be revived was between Panotes and PROSECOR and not between petitioner and Bumatay and CTDC. To hold CDTC as the successor in interest of the of PROSECOR as the developer of the subdivision is far from reality ac CTDC is simply on the same footing as any lot buyer-member of PVHIA. Strangers to a case like CDTC are not bound by the judgment reentered by a court. It will not divest the rights of a party who has not and never been a party to the litigation. Execution of judgment can be issued only against a party to the action and not against one who did not have his day in court.

RULE 40-56 APPEAL


HEIRS OF SPOUSES RETERTA V. SPOUSES MORES

10 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

FINAL JUDGMENT- one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the court; It is appealable. INTERLOCUTORY- does not finally dispose of a case, indicates that things remain to be done by the court; may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. The proper remedy against the denial of the petitioners motion for reconsideration was an appeal from the final order dismissing the action upon the respondents motion to dismiss. PHIL. BUSINESS BANK V. CHUA Certiorari was not the proper recourse for Chua. The propriety of the SJ (?) may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a petition for certiorari since it imputes error on the lower courts judgment. It is well settled that certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions of law and fact. LATORRE V. LATORRE 3 modes of appeal: 1. Ordinary appeal- rule 41 2. Petition for review- rule 42 3. Petition for review to the SC- rule 45 Questions of law- when there is doubt as to WHAT THE LAW is on a certain set of facts Question of fact- doubt arises as to the TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGED FACTS CATLY V. NAVARRO When p[petitioner sought to assail the decision and order of the trial court, an appeal to the CA was the adequate remedy which he should have availed of instead of filing a petition directly with the SC. Hence, the petition should be denied for the violation of the hierarchy of courts. A prior recourse should have been made to the CA instead of directly to the SC.; A direct invocation the courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. REPUBLIC V. MANGOTARA 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.

LAND BANK OF THE PHIL V. DE LEON Rules of Court do not proscribe the procedure for ordinary appeals as the proper mode of appeal for decisions of special agrarian courts. The failure to mention special agrarian courts in Sec. 1 of Rule 43 cannot be construed to mean that a petition for review is not permissible for decisions of the said specialized courts. Such action merely mentions the quasi-judicial bodies/agencies without exclusivity in its phraseology. Hence, the procedure under Rule 42 for petition for review is to be followed for appeal in agrarian cases. PAL V. CA The SC is not tasked to calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties during the trial all over again. So long as the finding of facts of the CA are consistent with or are not palpably contrary to the evidence on record, the SC shall decline to embark on a review on the probative weight of the evidence of the parties; It is also well established that findings of trial courts on the d=credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal except on very strong and cogent grounds. LPBS COM. INC. V. AMILA The order denying petitioners motion for issuance of TRO is an interlocutory order in an incident which does not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. The remedy against an interlocutory order is not certiorari, but an appeal. Only if there are circumstances that clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal that the remedy of certiorari is allowed, none of this is apparent in the case. ESTINOZO V. CA The Court dismissed the petition because petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the wrong remedy to question the appellate courts issuance. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. Hence, the remedy is appeal and not certiorari as a special civil action.

11 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

RULE 57 PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT


MANGILA V. CA The alias summons was served 3 months after the implementation of the writ of attachment. The grant of provisional remedy of attachment involves 3 stages: 1. The court issues the order granting the application 2. The writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ 3. The writ is implemented For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power or authority to to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issued by the Court will not bind the defendant. The alias summons belatedly served on the petitioner cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on petitioner without first obtaining jurisdiction over her person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service, or by publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service. CHUIDIAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time the applicants cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a counter bond. 4 years he kept silent and did not exercise any of the remedies available to the defendant whose property or asset has been attached. It is rather too late in the day for petitioner to question the propriety of the issuance of the writ. Any interest in the proceeds of the letters of credit may earn while the case is being litigated would redound to the benefit of whichever party will prevail, the government included. DU V. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE A notice of levy on attachment on the property is a superior lien over that of the unregistered right of a

buyer of a property in possession pursuant to a deed of conditional sale. Indeed, the subsequent sale of the property to the attaching creditor must, of necessity, retroact to the date of levy. Registration is an operative fact that conveys and binds lands covered by Torrens Title. DM WENCESLAO V. READYCON TRADING Posting of a counter bond is not tantamount to a waiver of the right to damages arising from a wrongful attachment. Both the RTC and CA found no reason to rule that READYCON was not entitled to issuance of the writ. Neither do we find now that the writ is improper or illegal. If WENCESLAO suffered damages as a result, it is merely because it did not heed the demand letter of the respondent in the first place. WENCESLAO could have averted such damage if it immediately filed a counter bond or a deposit in order to lift the writ at once. It did not, and must bear its own loss, if any, on that account. TORRES V. SATSATIN Belated service of summons does not create a defect in the enforcement of the writ. The writ of attachment can be dissolved by a counter bond. A motion to dissolve the attachment is not allowed under sec, 13 rule 57 otherwise the hearing would be tantamount to a trial on the merits considering that the wpa was issued upon a ground which is the same as the applicants cause of action. The court should not approve the bond posted by the petitioners despite the fact that not all the requisites for its approval are complied with. Otherwise the bond 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 summons is served on the defendant or even before summons issues. When the sheriff or other proper officers commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the applicants affidavit and attachment bond and of order of the attachment as explicitly required under sec. 5 of rule 57 but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of the complaint. 2 ways of discharging the attachment: 1. File a counter bond (speedier way of discharging the writ) 2. Irregularly or improvidently issued Belated service of summons does not cure the defect in the enforcement of the writ. METRO INC. V. LARAS GIFTS AND DECORS INC. TUGELIDA

12 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time the applicants cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a counter bond. The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because intent cannot be inferred form the debtors mere nonpayment of the debt or failure to comply with the obligation. It is clear that the respondents amended complaint of fraud is not only alleged as a ground for the issuance of the writ of pa but it is also the core of respondents complaint. Since the writ of pa is properly issued, the only way it can be dissolved is by filing a counterbond.

cause an irreparable injury to or violate the right of the losing candidate so as to justify the issuance of TRO to maintain the status quo. LAGROSAS V. BRISTOL-MYERS In the case, the CA issued the writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of the writ of execution and notices of garnishment pending final resolution of this case or unless the writ is sooner lifted by the Court. By its decision, it also ordered the discharge of the TRO cash bond and injunction cash bond. Thus, both conditions of writ of injunction are both satisfied. The injunction bond is intended to protect Lagrosas against loss or damage by reason of the injunction only. Contrary to Lagrosas claim, it is not a security for the judgment award by the labor arbiter. JENOSA V. DELARIARTE Since the petitioners present complaint is one for injunction, and injunction is the strong arm of equity, petitioners must come to court with clean hands. This is so because among the maxims of equity are: 1. He who seeks equity must do equity 2. He who comes into equity is must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequent stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have inequity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by the court of equity on the ground that his conduct has not been inequitable, unfair, and dishonest or fraudulent or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. Here, petitioners having reneged on their agreement without any justifiable reason, come to court with unclean hands. The Court may deny the litigant relief if his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, dishonest as to the controversy in issue.

RULE 58 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION


IDOLOR V. CA In the case, the requirement of injunctive relief is not controlling. Idolor has no right on the property because his right already expired. Prohibitory injunction is wanted by Idolor. Mandatory injunction takes place because there is already consolidation. Idolor has no more propriety right to speak of over the foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction. It appears that the mortgaged property has been sold in public auction. Petioner had 1 year from the registration of the sheriffs sale to redeem the property but she failed to exercise her right. thus, spouses de Guzman are now entitle to conveyance and possession of the foreclosed property. GUSTILO V. REAL Before an injunctive relief be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: 1. There must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected 2. The act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right The onus probandi is on the movant to show that there exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined. Further, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent a serious damage. In this case, complainant had been duly proclaimed as the winning candidate for punong brgy. He had taken his oath of office. Unless his election was annulled, he was entitled to all rights of said office. We do not see how the complainants exercise of such brights would

RULE 59 RECEIVERSHIP
AGUILAR V. MANILA BANKING CORP On the arguments relating to the effect of respondents receivership, petitioners brought this matter for the first time in the RTC in their Ominibus Motion 14 years after the respondent was placed under receivership and was ordered to close operation. The belated invocation of such circumstance speaks strongly of the staleness of her claim. Besides, it would be absurd to adopt petitioners position that they are not obliged to pay interest in TUGELIDA

13 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

their obligation when the respondent was placed under receivership. When a bank is placed under receivership, it would only not be able to do new business, that is, to grant new loans or to accept new deposits. However, the receiver of the bank is in fact obliged to collect debts owing to the bank which debts form part of the assets of the bank. Thus, petitioners obligation to pay interest subsists when respondent was placed under receivership. The respondents receivership is an extraneous circumstance and has no effects on the petitioners obligation. LARROBIS JR V. PHIL. VETERANS BANK The period within which a bank was placed under receivership and liquidation proceedings does not constitute a fortuitous event which interrupted the prescriptive period in bringing actions. In both receivership and liquidation proceedings, the bank retains its juridical personality notwithstanding the closure of its business and may even be sued as its corporate existence is assumed by the receiver or liquidator. The receiver or liquidator meanwhile acts only for the benefit of the bank but for its creditors as well. KORUGA V. ARCENAS

HAO V. VALDEZ NAVARRO V. ESCOBIDO It does not require that the applicant should make a prior demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for writ of replevin. More importantly, Navarro no longer in the position to claim that a prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligation or return the leased motor vehicles. Navarros position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is therefore totally unmeritorious. BAUTISTA V. SULA Under the ROC, the property seized under a writ of replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff. This is because a possessor has every right to be respected in its possession and may not be deprived of it without due process. The purpose of the 5 day period in Sec 6 Rule 60 is to give defendants in a replevin case a chance to require the return of the property by filing a counter bond. By hastily deciding to release the seized property to the plaintiff/applicant without waiting for the courts order, respondent patently abused his authority. Under Sec. 5 Rule 60, complainants may require the return of the vehicle by: 1. Posting a counter-bond in double the value of the vehicle and 2. Serving Glor with a copy of the counter bond. Both requirements must be complied with before the vehicle is delivered to Glor. Under Sec. 6, Rule 60, vehicle shall be delivered to Glor only under the following instances: 1. If within 5 days after the taking of the vehicle, complainants do not object to the sufficiency of the bond or of the surety or sureties thereon; 2. If within 5 days after the taking of the vehicle, complainants object to the sufficiency of the bond and the trial court affirms its approval of Glors bond or approves a new bond or; 3. If within 5 days after the taking of the vehicle, complainants require the return of the vehicle and their bond is objected to and found insufficient and they do not forthwith file an approval bond. In the instant case, the complainants duly complied with all the requirements.

RULE 60 REPLEVIN
SMART COMMUNICATIONS V. ASTORGA RTC has jurisdiction. Replevin is a civil case. It does not arise from a labor dispute. *pending the labor case, payable thru installment through salary deductions. The CA also set aside the NLRCs order for the return of the company vehicle holding that this issue is not essentially a labor concern, but is a civil in nature, and thus, within the competence of the regular courts to decide. It added that the matter had not been fully ventilated before the NLRC, but the regular court. The SC denied the CA. the RTC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over the suit and acted well within its discretion in denying Astorgas motion to dismiss. SMARTs demand for the payment of the market value of the car or in the alternative, the surrender of the car, is not a labor, but a civil dispute. It involves the relationship of debtor and creditor rather than employee-employer relations. As such, the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. CALLEJA V. PANDAY

14 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

RULE 61 SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE


DE ASIS V. CA The Court is not persuaded that the dismissal with prejudice of the 1st action has the effect of res judicata on the subsequent case of support. The New Civil Code provides that the allowance for support is provisional because the amount may bbe increased or decreased depending upon the means of the giver and the needs of the recipient; and that right to receive support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a 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 parties and future support cannot be a subject of compromise. This being true, it is indisputable that the present action for support can be brought; notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against the same defendant was dismissed. And it also appearing that the dismissal of the case was not adjudication upon the merits as heretofore shown, the right of herein plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit for support and the acknowledgment is available as her needs arise. Once the needs of the plaintiff arise, she has the right to bring an action for support, for it is only then that her cause of action accrues. Hence, the first dismissal cannot have the force and effect of and cannot bar the filing of another action, asking for the same relief against the same defendant. The second action for support may prosper. PEOPLE V. MANAHAN LOPEZ V. CA MONTEFALCON V. VASQUEZ As filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation. Under Article 195 of the Family Code a parent is obliged to support his illegitimate child. The amount is variable. There is no final judgment thereof as there it shall be in proportion to the resources of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduce or increased proportionate according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person obliged to support. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. LIM V. LIM

The obligation for legal support passes on to the ascendants not only upon default of the parents but also for the latters inability to provide sufficient support. Grandchildren cannot demand support directly form their grandparents if they have parents who are capable of supporting them. This is so because we have to follow the order of support under Arty. 199. The inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children shifts a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree, both in the paternal and maternal lines. However, petitioners paternal concurrent obligation extends only to their descendants (grandchildren by blood).

RULE 62 INTERPLEADER
ETERNAL GARDENS V. IAC Sec.2 Rule 62- petitioner has no interest in the subject matter. Interpleader- is necessary in order to know to whom the property should go; so that the court can direct the parties to deposit the SM to a court or to any bank. The essence of an interpleader, aside form the disavowal of interest in the property in litigation on the part of the petitioner, is the deposit of the property or funds in controversy with the court, it is a rule founded on justice and equity. WACK-WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB V. LEE WON Interpleader is a compulsory counterclaim which if not rose is deemed waived (Rule 9) otherwise you are allowing a collateral attack which is not allowed. You have to attack a judgment frontally not collaterally. Because the case was against WWG, hence the latter must set up a counterclaim which is compulsory. In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the Corporation had already been made independently liable in the civil case (there was already a case) and therefore, its present application for interpleader would be in effect a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case; the appellee Lee had already established his rights to membership fee certificate 201 in the aforesaid civil case and therefore this interpleader suit would compel him to establish his rights anew and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued to final judgment in the civil case, its action of interpleader was filed inexcusably late, for which reason it is barred by laches or unreasonable delay. PASRICHA V. DON LUIS DIZON REALTY

15 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

16 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES


MERALCO V. PHIL. CONSUMERS FOUNDATION Requisites in a declaratory relief: 1. There must be a final judgment 2. The court which rendered the final judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties 3. It must be a judgment or order in the merits 4. There must be between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action The relitigation of the same issue in a civil case cannot be sanctioned under the principle of res judicata. Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. In res judicata, the judgment in the first action is considered conclusive as to every matter offered and received therein, as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose, and all other matters that could have been adjudges therein. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the ff. requisites must concur: 1. There must be a final judgment or order 2. The court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties 3. It must be a judgment or order on the merits 4. There must be between the two cases identity parties, subject matter and causes of action. Such requisites are present in the two cases. The first case is about specific performance while the second one is about declaratory reliefs which are both directed to only one relief. The doctrine of res judicata applies considering that the parties were litigating for the same thing and more importantly, the same contentions. Hence, it can no longer be challenged. VELARDE V. SJS Justiciable controversy - An existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination. The SJS petition for declaratory relief fell short of a test. It failed to allege an existing controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Further, the petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal right of the petitioner was violated by the respondents therein and what particular act or acts of the latter were In breach of its rights, the law or the Constitution. Indeed, SJS merely speculated or anticipated without factual moorings.

The petition also fails to state a cause of action and hence, should be dismissed outright. However, in special civil actions for declaratory relief, the concept of a cause of action under ordinary civil actions does not strictly apply. The reason for this exception is that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising there under. Nevertheless, a breach for violation should be impending, imminent or at least threatened. The petition filed by the SJS before the RTC discloses no explicit allegation that it had any legal right in its favor that it sought to protect. TAMBUNTING V. SPS. SUMABAT The respondent institution of The civil case in the CFI did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period because as discussed, the court lacked jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief, all proceedings therein without legal effect. Thus, the petitioners can enforce its right under the mortgage including its foreclosure on the 10th year from the dismissal of the civil case. Thereafter, their right to do so was already barred by prescription. ALMEDA V. BATHALA MARKETING On the 10th year there is already a breach. Hence, it must be converted to an ordinary action not for declaratory relief that is cognizable under the RTC. Therefore, an ordinary action of unlawful detainer must be filed. Requisites of an action for declaratory relief; 1. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order, or regulation, or ordinance 2. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction 3. There must have been no breach of documents in question 4. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one between persons whose interests are adverse 5. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination 6. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding The foregoing requisites are present in the case REYES V. ORTIZ In the case, the petitioners assailed via declaratory relief the orders of the trial court denying their motions to suspend proceedings. This recourse by the TUGELIDA

17 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

petitioners cannot be countenanced since a court order is not one of those subjects to be examined under Rule 63. Such subject matters to be examined under the said rule is exclusive. Hence, court orders or decisions cannot be a subject matter of declaratory relief. MALANA V. TAPPA An action for declaratory relief presupposes that theer has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of the rights arising there under. Since the purpose of declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed or contract for their guidance for the enforcement thereof or compliance therewith and not to settle issues arising form an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only BEFORE the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the state where another relief is immediately available and supplies the need for a forum of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights and a commission of wrongs. In the case, the petitioners complaint for quieting of title was filed after petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate the subject property. Hence, the proper remedy for them is the filing of an action publiciana or reinvidicatoria.

the Court to resolve the issues raised in the petition for certiorari- does not impress. Section 7 Rule 65 provides that a petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding of the case. This rule must be strictly adhered to by appellate and lower courts notwithstanding the possibility that the proceedings undertaken by them tend or would render nugatory the pending petition before the SC. PINEDA V. CA UP BOARD OF REGENTS V. LIGOT-TELAN Matter of admitting students is within the ambit of academic freedom and therefore, beyond the province of the courts to decide. Hence, it is clear that the lower court should have restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction over the petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never used in doubtful cases, a showing of clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. By virtue of the writ issued, the Universitys exercise of academic freedom was peremptorily curtailed. TUAZON V. RD OF CALOOCAN Marcos is not subject to certiorari because he is not a judicial officer. There is a usurpation of the juridical function which does not belong to him. Hence, even if you are not a judicial officer, you can be under certiorari if you exercised judicial functions. SECURITY BANK CORP. V. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY Material dates required to be stated in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are: 1. The date of receipt of the notice of the judgment or final order or resolution 2. The date of filing of the motion for new trial or for reconsideration 3. The date of receipt of the notice of denial of the motion. When Security Bank furnished the CA with the copy of the trial courts Oder bearing the stamped date of its receipt, it showed its willingness to rectify its omission. Security Bank in effect, substantially complied with the Rules. The rationale for requiring the statement of material dates is to determine the timeliness of filing of the petition. Clearly, the Security Bank filed the MR in the trial court on time. Security Bank also filed the petition TUGELIDA

RULE 64 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OF COMELEC AND COA RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS
MALLARI V. GSIS The petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period. Hence, it lacks merit. It is improper and tardy for being made beyond the 60 day period limitation defined in Sec 4, Rule 65. The 60 day period is inextendible because the limitation has been prescribed to avoid any unreasonable delays that violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. GONZALES V. TOLENTINO Respondents justification for the delay in resolving the motion for inhibition- in deference to the authority of

18 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

before the CA within the reglementary period. The Court reiterates that there is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The failure to comply with the rule on the statement of material dates in the petition may be excused since the dates are evident form the records. TORRES. JR. V. AGUINALDO It is only where the decision of of the Justice Secretary, or the trial court, as the case may be, is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that the CA may take cognizance of the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whose decision may then be appealed to the SC by way of petition for review on certiorari. Grave abuse of discretion - Such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is rquivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Secretary of Justice did not whimsically and capriciously exercise his discretion. His findings were grounded on sound statutory and factual basis. LIBERAL PARTY V. COMELEC Without jurisdiction - The court acted with absolute lack of authority. Excess of jurisdiction - When the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority Grave abuse of discretion - Implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary, despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The supervisory jurisdiction of the court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for

the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court-on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari, where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact-a mistake of judgment-appeal is the remedy. The most common ground cited in the petition that, if properly established, would constitute grave abuse of discretion is the alleged unwarranted action of the en banc in acting on the registration of the NP-NPC when the COMELECs own Rules of Procedure provided that registration is under the jurisdiction of the Division of the First Instance. This error is more than error of law. If this cited ground is correct, then the en banc acted without the legal authority and thereby committed a jurisdictional transgression. It action being ultra vires, is a nullity. Another allegation of ultra vires act is that of the COMELEC, by appropriate freedom ordered a cut off date for the registration of parties, yet approved the resolution of NP-NPC long after this cut-off date has passed without any valid justification or reason for suspending the rule. For the en banc to so act was not a mere error of law. The grant of registration was ana ct outside mandatory legal parameters and was therefore done when the COMELEC no longer had the authority to act on it. In the sense, it is a proper allegation of grave abuse of discretion under Rule 64 In the Courts view, these jurisdictional challenges to the en banc Resolution, if established constitute ultra vires acts that would render the Reso void. ANGELES V. SECRETARY OF JUCTICE It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or to which s substantial doubt exists. It is nonetheless likewise available to compel action, when refused in matters involving judgment and discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either. The writ of mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioners legal right to performance of the particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. Under Rule 65, a clear right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. If her right is clear and the case is meritorious, objections rising merely technical questions will be TUGELIDA

19 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

disregarded. But where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, mandamus cannot be issued. The issuance of the LRA of the decree of registration is not purely ministerial duty. The RD cannot be compelled by mandamus to comply with RTC Order since there was a reason to question the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs. The requirements under Rule 65 for the issuance of mandamus not having been proven by petitioner to exist, the Court dismiss the petition for lack of merit. DE CASTRO V. JBC Requisites of mandamus: 1. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded 2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act because it is mandated by law 3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law 4. The act to be performed is ministerial not discretionary 5. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the Presidents mandatory 90 day period to appoint is ministerial, but the selection of the candidates is lies within the discretion of the JBC. The object of the petitions for mandamus herein should only refer to the duty to submit to the President the list of nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary, because the in order to constitute an unlawful neglect of duty, there must be an unjustified delay in performing that duty. For mandamus to lie against the JBC, therefore, there should be an unexplained delay on its part in recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is, in submitting the list to the President. Ministerial act - An officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority. Without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. Discretionary - If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed. Accordingly, the Court finds no sufficient ground to grant the petitions for mandamus and to issue a writ of mandamus against the JBC. The actions for that purpose is premature because the JBC still has sufficient time

within which to submit the list of nominees to the President to fill the vacancy created by compulsory retirement of CJ Puno. Only the President can appoint the CJ. Hence, Sorianos petition for prohibition which proposes to prevent JBC from intervening in the process of nominating the successor of CJ Puno lacks merit.

RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO


MENDOZA V. ALLAS A judgment quo warranto does not bind the respondents successor in office even though such successor may trace his title to the same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim. In the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by petitioner solely against Allas. What was threshed out before the trial court was the qualification and right of petitioner to the contested position as against respondent Allas not against Olores. CALLEJA V. PANDAY Subject matter is not public office but a private office. Hence, it is not a subject of quo warranto and must be dismissed. LOKIN JR. V. COMELEC Intra-party list dispute Election protest - Proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. It is strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning candidate based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities. It can only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for in the preceding elections. Special civil action for quo warranto - Questions of disloyalty to the State or of ineligibility of the winning candidate. The objective of the action is to unseat the ineligible person from the office, but not to install the petitioner in his place. Any voter may initiate the action, which is, strictly speaking not a contest where the parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated even if the respondent may be unseated. The controversy involving Lokin is neither an election protest nor an action for quo warranto, for it concerns a TUGELIDA

20 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

very peculiar situation in which Lokin is seeking to be seated as the second nominee of CIBAC. Lokins case is not one in which a nominee of a particular party list organization thereby wants to unseat another nominee of the same party list organization. Neither does an action for quo warranto lie, considering that the case does not involve the ineligibility and disloyalty of CruzGonzales to the Phils., or some other cause of disqualification. Lokin correctly brought the special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to seek the review of resolution of the COMELEC notwithstanding the oath and assumption of office by Cruz-Gonzales. The constitutional mandated is implemented by by Rule 64 which provides for the review of the judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA. As Rule 64 states, the mode of review is by petition for certiorari in accordance with Rule 65 to be filed in the SC within a limited period of 30 days. Undoubtedly, the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Lokins petitions for certiorari and for manadamus against the COMELEC.

NPC has no right to invoke Sec. 1 Rule 17, a plaintiff loses his right under this rule to move for the immediate dismissal of the complaint once the defendant had served on the plaintiff the answer or a motion for summary judgment before the plaintiff could file his notice of dismissal of the complaint. Pobres motion to dismiss/answer filed and served way ahead of NPCs motion to dismiss takes the case out of Sec 1 Rule 17 assuming the same applies. ASIAS EMERGING DRAGON V. DOTC Corporation, stockholders, incorporators powers in business in the phils (Gokongwei, Henry Sy, Lucio Tan) More on certiorari, prohibition, mandamus An exception to Rule 67 2 precedent cases in connection with NAIA 3: 1. Agan v. PIATCO (null and void) 2. Republic v. Guingoyon (same decision) Propriety of PIATCO in entering the contract AED- wants to replace PIATCO, bidders in the construction of NAIA 3 (government property) 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 RA 8974 ASSESSED VALUE- very minimal (changed in AED) Action for manadamus and certiorari brought by AEDthe SC denied on the procedural lapses. 1. It is filed beyond the period; it must be filed within 60 days.

RULE 67 EXPROPRIATION
CITY OF MANILA V. SERRANO 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 of other remedies. NAPOCOR V. CA Sec. 1 Rule 17 in relation to expropriation (doctrinal) Sec. 1 Rule 17 (notice to dismiss which is to be filed before answer) is not applicable to the case. It has no ground because it is the plaintiff who files the notice. A plain reading of section 1 Rule 17 of the 1964 ROC makes it obvious that this rule is not intended to supplement Rule 67 of the same Rules. While sec.1 Rule 17 speaks of the service of answer for summary judgment the Rules then did not require the filing of an answer or summary judgment in eminent domain cases. In lieu of an answer,, sec. 3 Rule 67 required the defendant to file a single motion to dismiss where he should present all of his objections and defenses to the taking of his property for the purpose specified in the complaint. In short, expropriation cases under Sec. 3 of Rule 67, the motion to dismiss took the place of the answer. (If you do not fill it, then you are objecting. Rule 17 does not apply.)

RULE 68 FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE


SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS V. CA Replevin is the principal issue. It is preparatory to foreclosure. In a suit for replevin, a clear right of possession must be established. A foreclosure under a chattel mortgage may properly be commenced only once there is default on the part of the mortgagor of his obligation secured by the mortgage. The replevin in this case has been resorted to in order to pave the way for the foreclosure of what be to show firstly, the existence of the chattel mortgage and secondly, the default of the mortgagor. These requirements must be shown because the validity of the plaintiffs exercise of the right of foreclosure is in evidently dependent thereon. Laus, being an indispensable party must be impleaded in the complaint for replevin and damages. That the petitioner cannot locate Laus, the mortgagor, is no

21 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

excuse for resorting to a shortcut. It could have properly availed of substituted service of summons.

22 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

UNION BANK OF THE PHILS. V. CA Petitioner was actually not without remedy to correct what it perceived and supposed was an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the SEC without having recourse immediately to the CA. such procedure being available could have been resorted to by the petitioner which, however it chose to forego. Furthermore, by taking up the matter with the SEC it could have obtained an injunction which it similarly sought from the appellate court via its petition for certiorari because said body has been empowered by Sec. 6 PD No. 902 to issue preliminary or permanent injunctions whether prohibitory or mandatory., in all cases it has jurisdiction. ARDIENTE V. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF It is settled that personal notice to the mortgagor in an extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary. Hence, not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. The issue of lack of publication of notice cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK V. VELOSO The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. They constitute the right to repurchase. Where the right to repurchase was properly exercised, there was an unequivocal tender of payment for the full amount of the repurchase price. Otherwise, the offer to redeem is ineffectual. In order to effect redemption, the judgment debtor must pay the purchaser the redemption price composed of the following: 1. The price which the purchaser paid for the property 2. Interest of 1% per month on the purchase price 3. The amount of any assessments of taxes which the purchaser may have paid on the property after the purchase and 4. Interest of 1% per month on such assessments and taxes. Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but a question of payment or valid tender of the full redemption price within said period.

rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. In the case, since Rufo lost ownership of the property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot form their father. Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the property owned in common. It seeks a severance of the individual interests of each co-owner, vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific property and giving each one a right to enjoy his estatae without supervision or interference forms the other. In other words, the purpose of partition is to put an end to co ownership, an objective which negates the claim of the petitioners. FELICIANO V. CANOZA The heirs of Doroteo and Esteban did not participate in the extrajudicial partition executed by Salina with the other compulsory heirs. Undeniably, the said deed was fraudulently obtained as if deprived the known heirs of Doroteo and Esteban of their shares in the estate. A deed of extrajudicial partition executed without including some of the heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same is fraudulent and vicious. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of fraud could be instituted. Such action for the annulment of the said partition however must be brought within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud. MANGAHAS V. BROBIO The remedy suggested by the CA is not proper. An action for partition implies that the property is still owned in common. Considering that the heirs had already executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and waived their shares in favor of the respondent, the properties are no longer under a state of co ownership; there is nothing more to be partitioned, as ownership had already been merged in one person.

RULE 69 PARTITION
BALUS V. BALUS The rights to a persons succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the property and transmissible

RULE 70 UNLAWFUL DETAINER AND FORCIBLE ENTRY


SARMIENTA V. MANALITE FORCIBLE ENTRY - An action to recover the possession of a property form the defendant whose occupation thereof is illegal from the beginning as he is TUGELIDA

23 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

required possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, stealth UNLAWFUL DETAINER - An action for the recovery of possession from the defendant whose possession of the property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract (expressed or implied) with the plaintiff, but became illegal when he continued his possession despite the termination of his right there under. In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege and prove that he was a prior physical possession of the property until he was deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means provided in sec. 1 rule 70. In unlawful detainer, there must be an allegation in the complaint that of how the possession of defendant started or continued by virtue of lease or any contract and that defendant holds possession of the land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, expressed or implied. Causes of action for unlawful detainer: 1. Initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff 2. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession 3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof 4. Within 1 year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. In an unlawful detainer case the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties. Since the only issue involved is the physical or material possession of the premises, that is possession de facto and not possession de jure the question of ownership must be threshed out in separate action. CALARA V. FRANCISCO When a complaint for unlawful detainer arises from the failure of the buyer on installment basis of real property to pay based on a right to stop paying monthly amortizations under PD 957, the determinative question is exclusively cognizable by the HLURB, therefore, the question of the right to collect the monthly amortizations must be determined by said agency.

Where the law confines in an administrative office quasi-judicial functions, the jurisdiction of such office prevails over the court. CARBONILLA V. ABIERA The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceeding is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and and possession de jure. Petitioner failed to prove that respondnets possession was based on his alleged tolerance. He did not offer any evidence or evn only an affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that they tolerated respondents entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice. Plaintiff must at least show overt acts indicative of his or his predecessors permission to occupy the subject property. In addition, plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right form the very start of the possession- form entry to the property. In any event, petitioner has some other recourse. He may pursue recovering possession of his property by filing an accion publiciana which is a plenary action intended to recover the better right to possess or accion reinvidicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property. MODESTO V. URBINA Accion publiciana - An ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. - Also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70. The objective is to recover possession and not ownership. It is only after the property has been declared alienable and disposable that private persons can legally claim possessory rights over it. While there is actual possession of the land for 33 years by the Modestos, this occupation could not give rise to possessory rights while the property is remains a government land that had not been declared alienable and disposable. Mere declaration of land for the purposes of taxation purposes does not constitute possession thereof nor is it proof of ownership in the absence of the claimants actual possession.

24 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA

LA CAMPANA DEV. CORP. V. LEDESMA As to damages, since the only issue raised in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases is that of rightful possession, the damages recoverable in these cases are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, i.e. those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. Simply put, the damages in sec. 8 rule 70 is limited to rent or fair rental value for the use and occupation of the property. FERRER V. RABACA The perfection of an appeal by itself is not sufficient to stay the execution of the judgment in an ejectment case. The losing party should likewise file a supersedeas bond executed in favor of the plaintiff to answer for rents, damages, and costs if judgment of the court requires it, he should likewise deposit the amount of the rent before the appellate court from the time during the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise execution becomes ministerial and imperative. It is basic rule in ejectment cases that the execution of judgment in favor of the plaintiff is a matter of right and mandatory. Indeed, the respondent judge should have granted the plaintiffs motion for immediate execution considering that the defendant did not file the sufficient supersedeas bond despite having appealed. Granting the plaintiffs motion for immediate execution became his ministerial duty upon the defendants failure to file the sufficient supersedeas bond. To issue writs of execution upon motions of the plaintiffs in actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer when the defendant has appealed but has not filed a sufficient supersedeas bond.

The courts and other tribunals vested with the power of contempt must exercise the power to punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise. SEC suspended respondent Manalaysay from the practice of law; such power is vested in the Supreme Court. ESPANOL V. FORMOSO The imputed use of a falsified document more so when the falsity of the document is not apparent on its face, merely constitutes indirect contempt. Thus following sec. 3 rule 71, a contemner may be punished only after a charge in writing has been filed and an opportunity has been given to the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. Moreover, settled is the rule that a contempt proceeding is not a civil action but a separate proceeding of a criminal nature in which the court exercises limited jurisdiction. Perforce, petitioner judge erred in declaring summarily that respondents are guilty of direct contempt and ordering their incarceration. She should have conducted a hearing with notice to respondents. SISON V. CAOIBES, JR. Judges should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and preservation not for retaliation and vindication. The respondent judge should have refrained from ordering the arrest and detention of the complaint, since the incident involved his own son and the matter is very personal to him. The act complained against must be any of those specified in sec. 3 Rule 71 otherwise there is no contempt of court which requires that the person obstructed should be performing a duty connected with judicial functions. As such, the respondent judge acted oppressively and vindictively. MONTENEGRO V. MONTENEGRO Indirect contempt may either be initiated: 1. Motu propio by the court by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt 2. By the filing of a verified petition complying with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings. In the case, the trial court initiated the proceedings for indirect contempt by issuing two orders directing the TUGELIDA

RULE 71 CONTEMPT
YASAY V. RECTO The real character of the proceedings in contempt cases is to be determined by the relief sought or by the dominant purpose. The proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial. In the case, the contempt is criminal, imposed to vindicate the dignity and power of the Commission hence, as in criminal proceedings an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of or exoneration from charge of contempt.

25 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt. The contemptuous act in the case was the petitioners 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. Petitoners 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.

26 |

brondial civil procedure case doctrines 2012

TUGELIDA