quo warranto ( by what authority)

in the objet is to determine the right of person in the exercise of franchise an

d out office of person if claim is well founded
Under the 1997 RCP
it is commenced by filing verifired petition against the following person
Sec 1
person who usurps public office
the law does not allow attack of corporation; you can file instead quo warranto
corporation de facto ;it exists as such but certain prob in the formation of cor
p so that you can attack not by means of collateral but quo warranto proceeding
petitioner can be RP rep by SOlgen or prosecutor by fiscal or private person can
be petition if person is entitled to the office but deprived by office since it
was unlawfully usurp, he can file quo warranto
if quo warranto position which is filed by Solgen; venue can be in RTC in city o
f Manila; CA or Sc as far as venue is concern. Sec 7 Rule 66
PLease take note of that
GR quo warranto is filed in the place where petitioner resides
another thing that you have to determine in connection as to petitioner or perso
n who would file the quo warranto one decision of SC said that perivate person i
s allwed to file quo warranto without intervention of office solgen.
if private person who filed; he can do so without need Solgen; however he may be
rep by solgen or prosecutor who will file in his behalf
it can be filed by Solgen in behalf and there is leave of court
- depends on who the petitioner is.
prescriptive period in relation to public office is one year after cause of such
ouster or the right of petitioner to hold such office or position
you are also allowed to file action of damages within one year from the entry of
judgement in that particular petitioner for quo warranto
Quo warranto under Election Laws is link always to protest. if election protes
t, which court has jurisdiction?
Municipal- RTC
Brgy- MTC
the major difference quo warranto in
cause of action
in quo warranto- the grounds would be ineligibility or disloyalty to RP
in election protest- irregularity in the conduct of the election
just for whatever purpose since quo warranto can be appointive or elective offic
e; and these are major distinction
quo warranto in elective office
OMnibus Election
issue is always eligibility of perso elected

tribunal findsout winnig candidate is ineligible; he is unseated

file within 10 days after proclamation
brought to the Comelec, RTC, of 1st level
can be filed by any voter
candidate is not eligible
quo warranto in appointive office
can be filed by any voter
candidate is not eligible
Rules of Court Rule 66
legality of the occupancy of the office by virtue legal appointive
one year from the time ouster or right of office arouse
SC, CA RTC
petitioner is always is entitled to office
refer to regalado book
quo warranto against corp
these are in the provision of corp code
there are prvate corp organized under philippine laws
de jure and de facto and corp null and void ab initio
the difference
de facto -fails to comply with the certain requirements not mandatory
ex; failure to register in SEC

Rule 67 Expropriation
distinguish if local or national govt filing the expropriation proceeding
if local - LGC Sec 19
if National- ROC
National GOvt infrastructure projects govered by RA 8974
National Grid Corp of Phil is not National Govt; it is private corp but authoriz
ed to apply for expropriation based on their charter
Local Government Unit have been filing
Under Sec 19 RA 8974
there must be ordinance passed by respective local sangunihan authorizing local
chief executive to file the corresponding expropriatin procedding (Important) ;
resolution is not enough
for public welfare or benefit of poor
payment of just compensation; before they file expropriation proceeding; there m
ust be a valid offer but the offer was not accepted (important)
Epza vs Dulay matter of determining whether there is just compensation is a matt
er of descretion to the court.
2 stages:
1) determine the authority of plaintiff to the expropriation (appeallable) this
Special Civil Action where law allows multiple appeals; there must be record on
appeal

condemnationafter issuing order of condemnation

2) determination of just compensation ( appoint not less than 3 commisioner who
will aid in determination of Just compensation)
will it prevent to court with the stage?
No, there is restitution of decision is reversed
How is it commenced?
Sec 1
commenced by filing verified complaint
state with certaintly the right of plaintiff
describe the
answer of defedant; if no objection
if failed to allege defenses; considered as waived but may file leave of court t
o file amended complaint
Sec 3 counterclaim cross 3rd party shall not be allowed in anwer or subsequent p
leading
if no defense; he need not file answer ; he may file notice of appearance that h
e offers no objection
if the defendant did not file answer; is he deprived of taking part in subsequen
t proceeding?
No, he ccan still participate in the determination of just compensation
Sec 2 Rule 67
entry of applicant is allowed upon filing of complain if applicant was able to d
eposit with the proper govt agency anamount equivalent to the sume of assessed v
alue
IF Local Govt- 15% equivalent value for purpose of taxation
If National Govt applicant- they must pay the entire value of property sought to
be expropriated
Under RA 8974
Expropriation for infasructure; Courts are not allowed to issue TRO only SC
note that in this RA law says Nat Govt upon filing of complaint and to gain entr
y; Nat Govt 100% value of property based on the zonal value of BIR
as determined by Sec 7 RA
(if question does the specify if the applicant is nat govt or local; qualify)
be that as it may Sec 2 or RA 8974; there must be notice to defendant before cou
rt issued writ of possession; there
biglang awa case
moment the applicant comply with the
it becomes ministerial for the court to issue the corresponding writ of possessi
on so applicant can gain entry; it constitute as if it is advance payment
if the court after trial after merits that there
expropriation- is one where law allows multiple appeals
after court issued order even appeal will not prevent the courtfrom proceeding f
rom 2nd stage this is now determination of just compensation
In connection with this ascertainment; Court shall appoint not more than 3 commi
ssioner
if party objects; given 10 days from service of order of appointment and parties
during during proceeding are allowed to present evidence to prove amount

appointment of commisioner is appeallable

in fact under the rule after presentation of evidence,they should make report wi
thin 6days although it may be extended
The court may either accept the report, reject, accept part or reject the part.
if court accepts it shall render judgment base on report
Court may appoint again; court considers the best interest; if accepted by court
is appeallabe
What is just compensation?
aside from payment, court may order payment of interest
what is the effect if court rendered judgement but no payment, does it automatic
ally owner of the land recover possession of property
5 years from the finality of judgment
Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
judicial foreclosure under rule 68
extra- judicial foreclosure under act no 3135
what is mortgage? accessory to principal contract
what is principal contract? loan??
wheere lies the diffence betweeen prcedural req real estate mortgage and chatte
l mortgage for purpose of validity?
real estate mortgage is unregistered is still valid
registration is only to effect 3rd party
chattel mortgage- ifn not reg in chattel mortgage registry; failure to do do it
becomes null and void
Article 319 RPC if you bring the personal prop to another place other the place
where it should be; then you committed crime under Art 319
If loan is covered by loan mortgage, what is the remedy of mortgagee in case of
non payment
1) collection of sum of money
2) foreclosure (either judicial or extra judicial)
what is req so we can avail of extrajudicial mortgage?
it must be stipulated in the contract in case of non payment extra judicial may
be resorted to. take that out you can only avail judicial foreclosure.
- it is not true that only non payment will justify foreclosure; if there is oth
er violation of any condition in the contract.
how come that in case of non payment you rally haveto resort to foreclosure of m
ortgage?
can there be stipulation that in case of non payment ownership shall be automati
cally transfered?
no, pactum commissorium is not allowed including upset price or TPO like public
auction since normally the highest bidder wins
Are you familiar with Drag net clause or blanket mortgage clause is allowed to
secure past present and future indebtedness is allowed
and legal
modes of real mortgage

extra judicial
judicial
is concept of legal redemption and equity of redemption, where lies the differe
nce?
what are the requiement?
date
assigment
name and residences
description mortgage property (sec 1 Rule 68)
foreclosure suit is file like ordinary civil action
this is judicial foreclosure, if in
ld contain ascertainment amount due
roved by court, order not less than
f entry important!! (Sec 2 if court

case you won and court renders judgment shou

to plaintiff, interest and other charges app
90 or not more than 120 days from the date o
grant judgment)

are legal redemption and equity of redemption, can these be exercise by mortgago
r?
are these allowed in extrajuducial foreclosure?
it is equity - juducual foreclosure not unless it involoves banks
in extra judicial - legal redemption
when can the mortgagr exercise equity of redemption? not less than 90 days but n
ot more than 120 days as long as the court did not confirm yet the sale
legal redemption- within 1 years from registration of sherrif cert of sale befor
e registry of deeds in place where proprty located.
if mortgagor failed to redeem; definitely, he may file for sale
Sec 3 Rule 68
there mnust be a motion before sale
in connection with motion of sale, is it required that mortgagor be notified?
what is the effect if motion is granted by the court, would it mean the sale be
comes null and void? no. it can be granted without notice
difference in terms of motion for sale of property which can be done in parte as
compared to motion for confirmation of sale; this can be done with notice to pa
rties
very important! it is cut off for exercise of equity of redemption there has to
be notice and hearing then the order
in the light of particular concept on confirmation would be question whether aft
er sale the priceeds of the sale are less than the total indebtedness or liabili
ty of mortgagor what will happen if there is excess
when after the sale of mortgage sale it is found out the proceeds are less than
the total ; deficiency judgment; according to rules if there is deficiency after
sale was made the law says plaintiff is allowed to file a motion forpurpose oof
proceeding against the defendant as to balance. this can be made through a moti
on to recover the balance; motion only since it is not allowed that mortgagee is
allowed an independent action for purpose of recovery of deficiency; if there i
s surplus should be returned to mortgagor
bsta remeber there can be no independent action; the judgement of court is apple
allable; if there is surplus it should be returned to the mortgagor
the decision of court is final the sale is confirmed the right of equity of rede
mption has lapsed without mortgagor exercising the same the mortagor can file a
motion for execution

a certified true copy is necessary to register where property is located because

exept mortgages involving bank; xcept in the exercise judicial foreclosure also
extra judicial
but it can be extend as long as sale is not confirmed by court
judicial foreclosure only equity of redemption
1is governed by rule 68 ROC while extra judicial governed act 3135
2) judicial forcesure involves filing action while extra judicial is not ( forec
losure done by notary public)
3) JF- there can be in deficiency judgment but there can be no judgment of defic
iency in extra JF
4) JF deficiency recovery can be done tru motion whhile ExJF can be done through
independent action
For emphasis never forget distinction the exercise of right of equity and legal
redemption
Partition
at the outset; presupposes the existence of co ownership because a party who fil
ed a case who is is absolute owner; it should be dismissed.
it can be quiting of title , recovery of property since it presuppose the existe
nce of co ownership of two or more persons
No co owner shall remain or oblige to remain in the co owner
it necesitates partition; co owner may demand at any time partition
Article 494. 495 1084 Civil Code exception
there is agreement that property be undivided for a period of 10 years
donated proprty and testator prohibited by donor
prohibited by law
property cannot be divided
another important principle in connection with prescription; the right to demand
partition and to file an action cannot be barred by orescription as long as co
ownership exist.
There might instances where co owner can acquire ownership tru presciption depen
ding you are in good faith and bad faith but should that he is open continuous
there are two ways property be partitioned
agreement of parties
if some and not all did not agree with the partition the co owner files an actio
n under rule 69 ROC ( this is a consequence if there is refusal on the part of t
he co owner)
in terms of procedure, I repeat the frst way is to let the party go in agreement
. Sec 12 Rule 69
it should be filed by co-owner and include all co owners otherwise it will resul
t multiplicity of suits all who have interest since they are considered as indes
pensible party.

governed by ordinary civil action , complaint summons answer reply Preliminary C

onference etc and court
the court will determine if there exist co ownership once determine there exist
co ownership after trial
that partition is not prohibited refer to art Article 494. 495 1084 Civil Code e
xception
if proven order of partition which is final and appeallable; one case where mult
iple appeals can be allowed
wheere should be filed?
RTC incapable of pecuniary estimation
recovery of ownership reconveyance quiting of title accion publiciana accion rei
nvindicatoria if ultimate objective to recover ownership depnds upon the assesse
d value- jurisdiction
venue - place where the property is located
For the last time for brain damaging exam! recovery of ownership reconveyance q
uiting of title accion publiciana accion reinvindicatoria if ultimate objective
to recover ownership depnds upon the assessed value- jurisdiction
venue - place where the property is located
in the partition action epecially if prop is earning fruits civil natural fruits
what i fthis is building are you going to involve that in prayer in partition?
Yes. accounting since it is not allowed to proceed an independent action.
After court found out that partition isproper because parties are co owners subj
ect of complaint
court now will issue order for accounting that the proceeds or fruits is not int
erlocutory and final order and appeallable (take note of that!)
two order that can be subjectof appeals
actually in order that the court in his decision will direct parties by themselv
es will partition the prop that is part of judgement and if they agree submit t
o the court
shall be registered in the
appointment of 3 commisioners presuppose they did not come into agreement
before the commissioner found out that property cannot be divided so difficult t
he court may order to assign the prop to one co owner pero he has obligation to
pay the co owners.but if one disagrees they can also asks that prop be sold in w
hich case the court will order commissioner to order the sale of property.
report of commisioner ;there must be hearing
Sec 7 mandates a hearing must be made based on court appointed commissioner
we pressume there was hearing ; court issue order of partition

at the end of the day, there are 3 stages in action for partition

1) order of partition wheere propriety of co owner is determined

2) judgement has to include accounting of fruits and income of property
3) judgment in partition
all of these three are considered final order
can party determine compel expenses incurred the death of parents, any expenses
chargeable against estate, can it be considered in actionfor partition
No, they may file separate Action for settlement of Estate. Figuracion vs Vda de
Figuracion Gr. 154322 Aug 22, 2006 (check this out!)
if there are issues chargeable against estate, aprtition is not remedy instead t
o file a separate action for settlement of estate
and that winds up Rule 69
unlawful detainer and focible entry are accion interdictal -within the jusridict
ion of MTC and summary procedure applies
issue of physical possession, although the law takes into account the ownership
Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
these are 2 kinds of accion interdictal together with publiciana and reinvindica
toria
Within the exclusive jurisdiction of 1st level court; venue is where the propert
y is situated; governed by rules on summary procedure
I told that in FE and UD cases the only issue there is on physical possession. A
lthough if there is a need for court to consider issue of ownership,in order to
resovethe issue of physical possession, court is allowed to do so under Rule 70
ROC
If the Issue is ownership and it is the meat of controversy; then FE and UD is n
ot proper.
It can be reinvindicatoria or publiciana ( this is my one of the favorite rule)
Even if another case is filed and that case involves questions ownership
If another case is file and involves questions of ownership, will it further pre
vent continue the case
There can be no res judicate . cannot move to dismiss on litis pendentia
that will never affect UD or FE nor will even affect non forum shopping which sh
ould be attach in initatory pleading since they are different causes of action t
herefore no violation of non forum shopping.
Distinguish FE and UD
1st level Court can issue writ of preliminary injunction or TRO for UD and FE an
d exception to preliminary injuctionthat act is to be otehrwise preliminary inju
nction is not proper since this is continuing.

FE- possession is illegal from beeginning since defendant entered tru FISTS
UD- possession is legal from beginning; it becomes illegal when demand was sent
to vacate despite this defendant refuses to vacate and therefore illegal
FE- must alleged in complaint that plaintiff was in prior physical possession of
the property. if not alleged it is fatal to the complaint and even be dismissed
.( dont forget that!)
FE- demand is not required , the entry is ilegal from beginning
UD- demand to pay and vaccate is required since you count the prescriptive perio
d of one year to file UD case from receipt ofthe last demand. although there is
a case in the book of regalado if only reminders.
FE- prescriptive period is 1 year from date of actual entry
by the defendant however, when the entry is by means of stealth the period is co
unted from demand to vacate upon learning of the entry.
falure to do so; remedy a remedy now is Publiciana or reinvindicatoria.
UD -prior demand to pay and vacate is a requisite so as to comply with the rules
exceptions:
if purpose is to terminate the lease contract by reason of expiry of term but fa
ilure to pay rental or comply with the terms
2) purpose is not for ejectment but for enforcement of the terms of contract
3) defendant is not a tenant but mere intruder
so pls take note of the distinction of the two actually four major distinction
I repeat for the last ; it should be a demand to pay the rent and vacate or enfo
rcement of the terms and vacate
In UD case, would always invlve possession by mere tolerance.
dont file forcible entry instead unlawful detainer
But recent decision SC said if ground for UD case is by tolerance plaintiff must
prove that tolerance was from the beginning of entry because if entry is tru FI
STS tapos upon knowing tolerated UD will not prosper. ( who knows it might be as
ked!!!) look for jurisprudence
Ten Realty dev cor
GR.410484
Munoz vs CA
Sansora casey
Oral demand is sufficient?
No, demand must be in writing.
In case of land -15 days
Building- 5 days
Sec 2 Rule 70
Is defense of ownershio be raised of defendant is UD and FE in his answer?
Simply because defendant raises ownership,

Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined in the allegation of the complain

t and not on allegation of the answer
except:
where tenancy is raised; court is allowed to conduct the preliminary hearing to
determine the veracity of the allegation
In summary procedure , Motion to dismiss is prohibited, except lack of jurisdict
ion over the subject matter or failure to comply with the condition precdent.
Tenancy means court has no jurisdiction since it is with DARAB
Ownership is issue court will not divest its jurisdiction, court is allowed to
Sec 16
issue of posses cannot be resolve without resolveing ownership
issue of owneship to determine the issue of possession
we pressumetha tplaintifff won the cse; proedure
defendant can appeal within 15 days from receipt of the judgement , in other cas
es appeal will stay the cses except certiorari under rule 65 otherwise TRO
in UD or FE, appeal will stay the execution? no. he has to comply with the foll
owing
1) he should perfect appeal
2) supersedeas bond total amount awarded. cash? pde.
3) while the case on appeal with RTC, deposit periodically the adjudged rentals
as adjudged by the court
Failure to comly with requisites, Plaintiff is allowed to file a motion to execu
te.
IF the court did not award rental, there is no basis to pay.
MTC The order of RTC which affirmed Decision, what is the remedy?
Petition for review under Rule 42
Would the pendency of petition before CA stay the execution of judgment?
you are paying rental and bond. NO. applicable appeal from MTC to RTC but not RT
C to CA (unless Court issues TRO )
it can be subject to motion to execution.
To whom would judgment bind?
person impleaded as defendant? pwede ba?
will it only bind the decision to the defendant?
GR. it will not
Notes 11
Except:
Subleasee, Guests, successor in interest, trespassers, memeber of the family, se

rvants and employees, squatters, transferees pendente lite

If basis of entry contract of lease, you really have to send a demand letter to
vacate ; if no demand letter there is automatic implied of new lease whch was en
tered into by plaintiff and defendant.
tacita reconducion
Art 1670 Art1682 Art 1687 CC take note of that
and that winds up unlawful detainer and forcible entry