[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.

0, 2016]
(Notes in red are opinions of the lecturers, of authors on the subject, or of the reviewee.
Cited provisions are from the Rules of Court unless otherwise provided.)

REMEDIAL LAW
Substantive & remedial law, distinguished
SUBSTANTIVE LAW
Creates/defines/regulates rights re:
(a) Life, liberty, property
(b) Powers of agencies/instrumentalities for
the administration of public affairs
Violation: gives rise to a cause of action
Creates vested rights
Prescriptive in application
SC cannot enact substantive laws

REMEDIAL (PROCEDURAL) LAW

Prescribes methods of enforcing rights &
obligations created by substantive law
Does not create vested rights
Retroactive in application
SC is empowered to promulgate remedial laws

Rules on retroactivity of laws (cf. Art. 4, CC)

GR:
Lex prespicit, non respicit, i.e. laws shall have no retroactive effect
XPN: [TEEN CRIP] (tfw racist mnemonic)
1. Tax law
2. Emergency laws
3. When the law expressly provides
4. Laws creating new substantive rights
5. Curative statutes
6. Remedial law
7. Interpretative statutes
8. Penal law favorable to the accused, provided he/she is not a habitual criminal
XPN to XPN: No retroactivity where such would result in:
1. Impairment of obligation of contracts
2. Ex post facto law

NATURE OF PHILIPPINE COURTS

Court: organ of govt, belonging to the judicial department, whose function is the application of
law to controversies brought before it, & public administration of justice (Blacks Law Dictionary)
Hierarchy of courts (Case: St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC)
GR:
A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it
SC = court of last resort (& must remain so to satisfactorily perform its functions)
XPN: SC may disregard hierarchy if warranted by the nature & importance of the issues raised
in the interest of speedy justice & to avoid future litigations (i.e. where the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts)
Judicial stability (Cases: Lapu-Lapu Devt vs. GMC, Villasi vs. Garcia)
GR:
No court has the authority to:
1. Interfere by injunction w/ the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

2. Pass upon/scrutinize/declare as unjust a judgment of another court
XPN: Where a 3rd party claimant is involved (terceria)
Primary jurisdiction
Case: Villaflor vs. CA courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question w/in the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, esp. where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge/experience in determining technical
& intricate matters of fact

JURISDICTION
Adherence to jurisdiction (Case: )
GR:
1. Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings/events
although of a character w/c would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance
2. The court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case
XPN: Jurisdiction may be ousted where:
1. A subsequent statute expressly prohibits continued exercise of jurisdiction
2. A penal law is repealed by a subsequent law
3. Accused is deprived of his constitutional right(s) (e.g. right to counsel)
4. The statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment
5. Proceedings in court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated/abandoned/declared void
6. Appeal has been perfected
7. Provided for by curative statutes

SUPREME COURTS RULE-MAKING POWER

Art. VIII, Sec. 5, CONST. (SCs rule-making power)
SC has the power to promulgate rules re:
1. Protection & enforcement of constitutional rights
2. Pleading, practice, & procedure in all courts
3. Admission to the practice of law
4. The Integrated Bar
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged
Limitations on the rule-making power
The rules so promulgated shall: [SUN]
1. Provide a simplified, inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
2. Be uniform for all courts of the same grade
3. Not [DIM] diminish/increase/modify substantive rights
Power to amend/suspend procedural rules
Cases: (a) Makati Insurance vs. Reyes SC has the power to amend/repeal/establish new
rules for a more simplified & inexpensive process, & speedy disposition of cases
(b) CIR vs. Mirant Pagbilao SC can do this when
- The purpose of justice requires it, or
- When compelling reasons so warrant
(c) Sarmiento vs. Zaratan compelling reasons include
- Existence of special/compelling circumstances

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

-

Merits of the case

Cause not entirely attrib. to fault/negligence of party favored by suspension
Lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous & dilatory
Other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby

R1 S6 (interpretation of the RoC)

GR:
Liberal construction (in order to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy, &
inexpensive disposition of every action & proceeding)
XPN: Strict construction of the ff.:
1. Reglementary periods
2. Rule on forum shopping
3. Service of summons
R143 (applicability of the RoC)
GR:
The RoC shall not apply to the ff. cases: [NICOLE]
1. Naturalization
2. Insolvency
3. Cadastral
4. Others not provided for therein
5. Land registration
6. Election
XPN: The RoC can apply to the above:
1. Only by analogy or suppletorily, &
2. Wherever practicable & convenient

SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Sec. 1, RSP (applicability)
(see corresponding sections in Civil [above] & Criminal Procedure re: jurisdiction of MTCs)
Sec. 3, RSP (allowed pleadings)
1. Complaints
2. Compulsory counterclaims
3. Cross-claims
4. Answers thereto
Sec. 19, RSP (prohibited pleadings)
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint/information
XPN: Where the ground is:
(a) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; or
(b) Failure to comply w/ prior referral to Lupong Tagapamayapa for conciliation
(cf. Sec. 18, RSP) noncompliance can lead to dismissal w/ prejudice
2. Motion for bill of particulars
3. Motion for new trial/ reconsideration/reopening of trial
4. Petition for relief from judgment
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings/affidavits/any other paper
6. Memoranda
7. Petition for certiorari/prohibition/mandamus against any interlocutory order by the court
8. Motion to declare defendant in default

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

9. Reply
10. 3rd party complaints
11. Interventions
Sec. 6, RSP (effect of defendants failure to timely answer the complaint)
Period to answer: 10 days from service of summons (cf. Sec. 5, RSP)
Effect of failure to answer: the court, motu proprio or on motion of plaintiff, shall render judgment
as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint & limited to what is prayed for
w/o prejudice to R18 S4 (re: non-appearance of party = excused if (a) there is valid
cause therefor, or (b) he/she has a representative fully authorized in writing) in case
there are 2+ defendants
Sec 7, RSP (effect of failure to appear in preliminary conference)
1. Plaintiff fails to appear:
(a) Cause for dismissal of the complaint
(b) Defendant = judgment on counterclaim (if any); apply Sec. 6 (see previous page)
(c) All cross-claims shall be dismissed
2. Sole defendant fails to appear: apply Sec. 6 (see previous page)

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
Covered cases
All disputes involving parties who actually reside in same city/municipality
GR:
No authority if parties actually reside in barangays of diff. cities/municipalities
Civil
XPN Where such barangays adjoin each other
:
Criminal Offenses punishable by imprisonment of 1 yr. or fine of P5K (Sec. 508, LGC)
Procedure
[WATCH THIS SPACE]
Cases with no prior barangay conciliation/mediation reqt
1. One party is
(a) The govt (or any subdivision/instrumentality thereof)
(b) Public officer/EE; dispute relates to performance of his/her official functions
2. Dispute involves real property located in different cities/municipalities
XPN: Parties agree to submit dispute to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon
3. Any complaint by/against corporations/partnerships/other juridical entities
4. Where parties actually reside in barangays of diff. cities/municipalities (see above)
5. Offenses w/
(a) Max. penalty of imprisonment > 1 yr. or fine > P5K (see above)
(b) No private offended party
6. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice
(a) Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention
(b) Habeas corpus
(c) Actions coupled w/ provisional remedies
(d) Actions w/c may be barred by prescription
7. Any class of disputes w/c the President may determine
(a) In the interest of justice; or

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

(b) Per recommendation of the Secretary of Justice
8. Disputes arising from the CARP
9. Labor disputes
10. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise (Adm. Circ. 14-93, par. 11)
Rules on venue
SAME BARANGAY
[1
]

DISPUTES BETWEEN
PERSONS ACTUALLY
RESIDING IN

DIFFERENT
BARANGAYS W/IN
SAME CITY/MUN.

[2
]

DISPUTES INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY OR

ANY INTEREST THEREIN

[3
]

WORKPLACE/ON-CAMPUS DISPUTES

Lupon of said barangay

1. One respondent only: barangay
where the respondent resides
2. Multiple respondents: barangay
where any of the respondents
actually resides, at the election
of the complainant
Barangay where the real property
(or the larger portion thereof) is
situated
Barangay where such workplace or
institution is located

Repudiation of compromise agreement

Context
BARANGAY
COMPROMISE

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
CONCILIATION
AGREEMENT
1. Who: any party to the settlement
2. Where: w/ the Lupon chairman
3. When: w/in 10 days from the date of the amicable settlement
4. How: by filing a statement of repudiation, sworn to before the Lupon chairman, on the
ground of vitiated consent (i.e. fraud, violence, intimidation)
Effect of repudiation: sufficient basis for issuance of certification to file action (Sec. 418, LGC)

2016 REVISED PROCEDURE ON SMALL CLAIMS

[WATCH THIS SPACE]

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Life of a civil action
1. Complaint
(a) Cause of action (R2)
(b) Jurisdiction (BP 129, RA 7691)
(c) Venue (R4)
(d) Parties (R3)
(e) Preparation of complaint (R6-9)
(f) Filing, payment of docket fees (R1+)
[ Provisional remedies (R57-61) ]
[
Modes of discovery (R23-29)
]
(g) Amendment (R10)
[
Dismissal by plaintiff (R17)
]
5

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

2. Summons (R14)
(a) Motion for bill of particulars (R12)
(b) Motion to dismiss (R16)
3. Answer (R6)
(a) No answer Default (R9 S3)
(b) W/ answer:
- No specific denial(s) no issues Judgment on the pleadings (R34)
-W/ specific denials:
i. Counterclaim // Cross-claim (R6)
ii. 3rd party complaint [terceria] (Ibid.)
iii. Intervention (R19)
iv. Reply (R6)
4. Pre-trial (R18)
5. Trial (R30)
[
Demurrer to evidence (R33)
]
6. Judgment
7. Post-judgment remedies
W/IN PERIOD TO APPEAL
AFTER PERIOD TO APPEAL
1. Motion for new trial (R37)
1. Petition for relief (R38)
2. Motion for reconsideration (Ibid.)
2. Annulment of judgment (R47)
3. Appeal (R40-43, 45; R46-56)
3. Certiorari (R65)
4. Collateral attack
8. Execution (R39)
COMPLAINT!
1. Action (R1) may, among others, be
(a) Civil or criminal
CIVIL
CRIMINAL
One by w/c a party sues another for:
2. Enforcement/protection of a right
3. Prevention/redress of a wrong
Kinds:
One by w/c the State prosecutes a
1. Ordinary: governed by the rules on
person for an act/omission punishable by
ordinary civil actions (R1-61)
2. Special (SCA): governed by the law
rules on ordinary civil actions,
subject to specific rules for SCAs
(R62-71)
(b) Real or personal
1. Affects title to
2. Recovering possession of
REAL PROPERTY OR ANY
3. Partition of
INTEREST THEREIN
4. Condemnation
5. Foreclosure of mortgage on
Real * [also covers accion publiciana, reivindicatoria, & the like (of course)]
Case: Heirs of Concha vs. Lumocso actions for reconveyance of, or
cancellation/quieting of title over realty = real actions
GR:
Per R.A. 7691, consider assessed value for real actions
XPN: EXPROPRIATION RTC (see subsequent pages)

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

1. Recovery of
(a) PERSONAL PROPERTY
(b) DAMAGES
2. ENFORCEMENT/RESCISSION of contract
(c) In rem, in personam, or quasi in rem
IN REM
IN PERSONAM
QUASI IN REM
Against:
Against
a
particular Against
an
individual
1. The thing itself
person on the basis of although the purpose of
2. All who might be his/her personal liability; the suit is to subject
minded to make an judgment so rendered will his/her interest in a
objection of any sort bind him/her personally
particular property to the
vs. the right sought to
Jurisdiction over the obligation burdening the
be established
person of defendant property; judgment will be
(i.e. against the world)
= MANDATORY!
conclusive between the
Case: Lucas vs. Lucas
parties only
petitions directed against
the res w/c concerns the
status of a person (e.g.
adoption, annulment of
marriage, correction of
entries in birth certificate)
are in rem!
Case: Banco Espaol Filipino case actions in rem/quasi in rem may not always
remain that way throughout the case; when the defendant appears in the action, the
action becomes in personam as well!
Thus, all interested parties are notified in the manner prescribed for in
personam actions (to comply w/ due process reqs.) (see Summons)
Persona
l

--- What is the basis of my action? --1. Cause of action (R2) act/omission by w/c a party violates the right of another
[Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action! (R2 S1)]
Sources of cause of action: sources of OBLIGATION (cf. Art. 1157, CC)
Right of action: right of plaintiff to bring action & to prosecute same to final judgment
Requisites:
(a) Cause of action
- Legal right of plaintiff
- Correlative obligation of defendant
- Act/omission of defendant in violation of said right
(b) Compliance w/ all the conditions precedent for bringing the action
(c) Right to bring & maintain the action in the person instituting it
[i.e. for there to be right of action, there must be a cause of action!]
Lack of cause of action as ground for dismissal?
Case: PNB vs. Sps. Rivera lack of cause of action is not a ground for a motion to
dismiss (cf. R16); what is mentioned in R16 is failure to state a cause of action, w/c is
a different thing; lack of cause of action can only be gleaned after the plaintiff has
presented his/her evidence (akin to insufficiency of evidence that may warrant
demurrer)
7

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

Re: splitting & joinder: one cause of action = one suit

NO SPLITTING, BUT THERE CAN BE JOINDER!
JOINDER (R2 S5)
Rules on joinder of causes of action:
1. Compliance w/ rules on joinder of parties (see Parties for requisites)
GR:
Compliance is REQUIRED!
XPN: No need to join parties if there is only 1 P & only 1 D!
Dean Rianos example:
- 1 P, 1 D
- 3 debts
- 3 causes of action
Here, a maximum of 3 cases can be filed, but P can go with
one case only, w/ the 3 causes of action JOINED in said
case, as there is only 1 defendant!
2. Exclude [SCAs] or [actions governed by special rules] from joinder!
Dean Rianos example: where there are 3 debts, 2 of w/c are ordinary
civil actions, & the remaining one being covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure, all 3 CAN BE JOINED (the 3rd debt loses its
being summary upon joinder) (cf. Sec. 1, last par., RSP)
3. Same parties, different venues/jurisdictions = joinable in the RTC, provided:
(a) One of the causes of action lies w/in the RTCs jurisdiction; &
(b) Venue lies therein
4. All are principally money claims = aggregate amount is basis of jurisdiction
Also referred to as: TOTALITY RULE!
SPLITTING
Splitting can warrant DISMISSAL of actions thus split, on the ff. grounds:
1. If both are pending litis pendentia
2. If one has been resolved res judicata
Re: divisible obligations: each default = one separate cause of action
BUT, if, for example, there are 5 defaults so far & a case has only been filed
@ the 6th default, said case should include previous defaults
Effect of cause of action on jurisdiction: a cause of action may have main & incidental
parts; the main part determines w/c court has jurisdiction
Cases: (a) CGR Corp. vs. Dreyes
(b) Heirs of Bautista vs. Lindo
--- So, I have a right of action. To which court should I go? --2. Jurisdiction
Expanded definition of jurisdiction
Case: Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice not only the power to hear, try, & decide a
case, but also the power to execute the judgment until the final disposition thereof, or
full & complete service of sentence by the accused

Aspects of jurisdiction
CIV
CRIM
(a) Subject matter:* power to deal w/ the general subject
involved in the action (CrimPro: over the offense)
(b) Parties: power over parties in a case, & to determine
their rights/liabilities (CrimPro: over the accused only)

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

(c) Issues: power to try & decide issues
- Raised in the pleadings (Reyes vs. Diaz)
- Agreed upon in a pre-trial order
- Tried by the parties implied consent (R18 S2)
- Waived into existence, i.e. conferred by failure to
object to the presentation of evid. on a matter not
raised in the pleadings (R10 S5)
(d) Res: over property in litigation; acquired by
- Actual or constructive seizure by the court, thereby
placing it in custodia legis; or
- Provision of law w/c recognizes the power to deal
w/ property w/in its territorial jurisdiction
(e) Territory: in CrimPro that a criminal case should be
filed in the place where the crime is committed (XPN:
Art. 2, RPC)
* Jurisdiction over the subject matter is SUBSTANTIVE in origin!
Implications: 1. Conferred by law
2. Not subject to agreement/waiver
3. Material allegations of the complaint determine jurisdiction
i.e. primary purpose of the complaint re: relief being sought
Cases (a) Marazona vs. RTC of Baguio, Russel vs.
:
Vestil, Heirs of Sebe vs. Heirs of Sevilla the
facts in the complaint are controlling, not its title!
(b) Penta Pacific Realty vs. Ley Construction in
real actions, the assessed value must be
assessed in the complaint (PH courts cannot
take judicial notice of assessed values of realty!)
(c) Gomez vs. Montalban [re: DIALeC claims
(see subsequent pages)] include interest for
purposes of determining jurisdiction if [1] primary
& inseparable component of a cause of action,
and [2] already determinable @ time of filing the
complaint (in this case, respondent expressly
agreed to pay a specified interest)
[B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691] Civil jurisdiction of the courts
(for a discussion on criminal jurisdiction, see Criminal Procedure)
[A] SUPREME COURT
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs.
(a) CA
(b) CTA
(c) COMELEC en banc
(d) COA
(e) Sandiganbayan
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ CA:
- Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs.
i.
NLRC, under the Labor Code
9

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

Case: St. Martin Funeral Home vs. CA must follow doctrine of hierarchy of
courts; must file w/ CA first, otw. SC shall dismiss!
ii.
Civil Service Commission (CSC)
iii.
Quasi-judicial agencies
iv.
RTCs & other lower courts (must also file w/ CA first)
- Petitions for issuance of writ of kalikasan (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
(b) W/ CA & RTC: petitions for
- Habeas corpus & quo warranto
- Certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. lower courts/other bodies
(c) W/ CA, Sandiganbayan, & RTC: petitions for
- Amparo
- Habeas data, where the action involves public data or govt office
(d) W/ RTC: actions affecting ambassadors/other public ministers & consuls
APPELLATE
1. Petitions for review on certiorari vs.
(a) CA
(b) CTA en banc
(c) Sandiganbayan
(d) RTC in cases
- Where no question of fact is involved & the case is one involving the:
i.
Constitutionality/validity of a treaty, intl/executive agreement, law, PD,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
ii.
Legality of taxes/imposts/assessments/tolls; penalties rel. thereto
iii.
Jurisdiction of the lower court (i.e. being put at issue)
- Where only errors or questions of law are involved
2. Special civil action of certiorari filed w/in 30 days vs. COMELEC/COA
[B] COURT OF APPEALS
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: actions for annulment of judgment of RTC based on
(a) Extrinsic fraud
(b) Lack of jurisdiction
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ SC:
- Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs.
i.
NLRC
ii.
CSC
iii.
Quasi-judicial agencies
iv.
RTCs & other lower courts
- Petitions for issuance of writ of kalikasan
(b) W/ SC & RTC: petitions for
- Habeas corpus & quo warranto
- Certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. lower courts/other bodies
(c) W/ SC, Sandiganbayan, & RTC: petitions for
- Amparo
3. Habeas data, where the action involves public data or govt office
APPELLATE
1. Final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, awards of
(a) RTC
- In the exercise of both original & appellate jurisdictions
- As Family Court

10

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

-

On questions of constitutionality/validity of tax, jurisdiction involving questions of fact

w/c should be appealed first w/ the CA
- Appeals from RTC in cases appealed from MTC not as matter of right
(b) MTC in the exercise of its delegated jurisdiction
2. Appeals from:
(a) CSC
(b) Quasi-judicial agencies
(c) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
(d) Ombudsman (in admin. discip. cases) (Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman)
[C] SANDIGANBAYAN
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive: cases involving violations of Eos 1, 2, 14, & 14-A (s. 1986)
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ SC:
- Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction, & other
ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (including quo warranto) arising in
cases falling under Eos 1, 2, 14, & 14-A
(b) W/ SC, CA, & RTC: petitions for
- Amparo
- Habeas data, where the action involves public data or govt office
[D] COURT OF TAX APPEALS (see notes on Taxation)
[E] REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive:
(a) Subject of litigation = incapable of pecuniary estimation
- [expropriation] Case: Brgy. San Roque vs. Pastor incapable of
pecuniary estimation (regardless of the value of the subject property);
w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC
- [reformation of instrument; consolidation of ownership] both
incapable of pecuniary estimation! (purpose of latter = registration)
(b) Sum-of-money cases: > P300K (P400K in MMLA)
- Cases where the demand (exclusive of [DIALeC] damages, interest,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, & costs of suit), or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds
- Actions in admiralty & maritime juris. damage/claim exceeds
- Matters of probate gross value of estate exceeds
(c) Real actions: assessed value > P20K (P50K in MMLA)
XPN: forcible entry & unlawful detainer = MTC (see next page)
(d) Cases not w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (RTCs are courts of
general jurisdiction!)
(e) Civil actions/special proceedings falling w/in the exc. orig. jurisdiction of:
- Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court
- Court of Agrarian Reforms
(f) Intra-corporate controversies (Sec. 5.2, SRC)
2. Concurrent:
(a) W/ SC, Sandiganbayan, & CA: writs of amparo & habeas corpus
(b) W/ SC: actions affecting ambassadors/other public ministers & consuls
(c) W/ SC & CA: petitions for

11

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

- Habeas corpus & quo warranto
- Certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus vs. lower courts/other bodies
(d) W/ MTC cases involving violations of envi. & other related laws, etc.
APPELLATE
GR:
All cases decided by lower courts in their resp. territorial jurisdictions
XPN: Decisions of lower courts re: delegated jurisdiction (see below)
As if they have been decided by the RTC itself!
SPECIAL (Sec. 23, B.P. 129)
SC may designate certain RTC branches to try exclusively criminal, agrarian,
juvenile & domestic relations, & urban land reform cases not falling w/in the
jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body, & other special cases in the interest of
justice
FAMILY COURTS
Exclusive/Original:
1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus re: minor(s)
2. Petitions for adoption of children & revocation thereof
3. Complaints for annulment & declaration of nullity of marriage & those
referring to marital status & property relations of spouses or those living
together under different status/agreements, & petitions for dissolution of CPG
4. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
5. Summary judicial proceedings under FC
6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent, or
neglected, petitions for voluntary/involuntary commitment of children;
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority, & other cases
cognizable under P.D. 603 (Child & Youth Welfare Code), EO 56, s. 1986 (re:
protective custody of sexually exploited children c/o DSWD), & rel. laws
7. Petitions for constitution of family home
[F] METROPOLITAN/MUNICIPAL [CIRCUIT] TRIAL COURTS
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
1. Sum-of-money (DIALeC, admiralty, probate): P300K (P400K in MMLA)
2. Real actions: assessed value P20K (P50K in MMLA)
3. Summary procedure:
(a) Forcible entry/unlawful detainer (irrespective of damages/unpaid rentals)
DONT LOOK AT THE ASSESSED VALUE!
(b) Other cases where total amt. of the claim P100K (P200K in MMLA)
4. Inclusion/exclusion of voters
DELEGATED
Cadastral & land registration cases, provided
1. No controversy/opposition; &
2. Contested lots valued > P100K
SPECIAL
Petitions for habeas corpus (in the absence of all RTC judges)
Jurisdiction re: ProvRem: ALL COURTS have jurisdiction over provisional remedies in
principal actions w/in their jurisdiction (being ancillary actions!)
First opportunity to question lack of jurisdiction: MOTION TO DISMISS
BUT the court can motu proprio dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (R9 S1)
Grounds for motu proprio dismissal: (a) Lack of jurisdiction
(b) Litis pendentia

12

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

Familiarize yourself with these (c) Res judicata
grounds, youre gonna see them (d) Prescription
again very, very soon
--- Lets say Ill have to file my case w/ the RTC. Which one, though? --3. Venue (R4) place/geographical area where an action is to be filed & tried
Jurisdiction vs. venue
JURISDICTION
VENUE
Conferred by law
For parties convenience
Procedural, thus:
1. Waivable
Substantial, thus:
2. Can be subject of agreement
1. Cannot be waived
Court takes cognizance if:
2. Cannot be subject of agreement
(a) In writing; &
(b) Before institution of action
There can be no motu proprio dismissal
re: improper venue court cannot take
the cudgels for the parties; wait for MTD
Court can motu proprio dismiss a case on
Contra: SumProc court can motu
the ground of lack of jurisdiction
proprio dismiss under any of the
grounds for MTD (w/c, of course,
includes improper venue)
Re: personal & real actions
(a) Real where property (or any part thereof) is located
(b) Personal residence of plaintiff/defendant, or where a non-resident defendant
may be found, at the option of the plaintiff [same rule in culpa aquiliana cases]
Case: Samson case re: reconveyance of real property = look @ primary purpose
(cf. material allegations) to determine if personal or real
Re: stipulations on venue
- RESTRICTIVE/EXCLUSIVE
Shall alone restrictive; other words of exclusivity needed (e.g. only)
- PERMISSIVE venue stipulated, considered in addition to the venues in the RoC
Cases: (a) Briones vs. CA attacking a contracts validity renders the person
attacking same unbound by its stipulation(s) on venue
(b) Sweet Lines case stipulations on venue in contracts of adhesion may
not be honored by the court if inconvenient/oppressive
Venue in civil & criminal cases
VENUE IN CIVIL CASES
VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES
Case: Heirs of Lopez vs. de Castro R117 S3 (venue is jurisdictional, i.e.
venue is not a matter of jurisdiction (i.e. venue & jurisdiction are one) an
venue & jurisdiction are different things)
information filed in a place other than
where the offense was committed may be
quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the
offense charged
--- Now, who should I implead? ---

13

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

4. Parties (R3)
Who may be parties to a civil action?
- Natural persons
- Juridical persons
- Entities authorized by law (note corporations by estoppel; can only be sued)
[+] Representative parties (e.g. executors, guardians, administrators, agents, etc.)
Cases (a) Resident Marine Mammals of Taon Strait case the petition
:
contained the phrase represented by and joined in i.e. natural
persons were included among the animal plaintiffs
(b) Oposa vs. Factoran representing generations yet unborn
[* see also: citizens suit (re: rules in envi. cases)]
Real party-in-interest: [RPI] one who
(a) Stands to be benefited/injured by the judgment; or
(b) Is entitled to the avails thereof
Kinds 1. INDISPENSABLE PARTY: for whom joinder is compulsory, i.e. should be
:
impleaded for there to be final determination of the suit
Case: Divinagracia vs. Padilla in a case for partition of real
property, co-owners = indispensable (distinguish from ejectment;
only 1 party need file/is enough!)
2. NECESSARY PARTY: not indispensable; case can go on w/o him/her
(e.g. joint debtors) but: if a necessary party is not impleaded, an
explanation must be given to the court
* If person impleaded/pleading is not RPI, action can be dismissed
Ground: FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
Joinder of parties (S6)
(a) Same transaction/event/series of transactions
(b) Common question of law/fact
Class suit (S12): there is common/general interest in the subject matter of the action
No class suit if the claims/interests are individualized
Dean Rianos actual physical facts/bodies test: e.g. in a plane crash scenario,
the bereaved cannot file a class suit. Why? Kanya-kanyang patay.
Cases: (a) Mathay case lot-owners interest, only up to the extent of their lots
(b) Juana Complex I Homeowners Association vs. PhilEstate Land
common inconvenience (e.g. road closure lengthening travel time to
SLEX) can be a ground to sustain a class suit
Death of a party (S16 [see also S17?])
Q What is the court supposed to do when it learns/is notified of a partys death?
:
A: The court will have to look into the nature of the case
(a) Personal between the parties: court must DISMISS!
(b) Action to recover property (whether personal or real): the case SURVIVES!
(cf. R3 S20, R87 S1)
- Re: recovery of sum of money arising from debt implead the estate
(not the executor/administrator!) via R86 (claims against the estate)
- Re: recovery of property/ interest therein (or enforcement of lien on said
prop., or damages) executor/administrator may be impleaded (but let
us not get too ahead of ourselves; this is SpecPro already)

14

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

--- Time to make a pleading! --5. Pleadings, etc. (R6-13)

Q: Should pleadings be under oath?
A: GR:
NO!
XPN: When otherwise required by law/RoC
Dean Rianos rule of thumb lahat ng Latin!
[+prohibition, SumProc, FE/UD, kalikasan, other envi. actions, etc.]
Effect of absence of verification: mere FORMAL defect; could be remedied
Re: prayer/relief: SPECIFIC & GENERAL (i.e. all such other relief just & equitable)
(i.e. general relief = pansalo sa specific relief na nakalimutang isama)
Certification against forum shopping (S5)
(a) Required only for INITIATORY PLEADINGS (permissive counterclaim = initiatory)
(b) Failure to include/comply, not curable by amendment
Merely a cause for dismissal (i.e. motion required)
CONTRA: actual forum-shopping [if willful & deliberate (S5, par. 2):
ground for summary dismissal + constitutes direct contempt]
In other words: failure to comply w/ the certification reqt is different
from & independent of the act of forum-shopping itself!
What about false certification? (i.e. no other case filed, but there is one)
- Ground for dismissal?

- Administrative liability?
- Criminal liability?
PERJURY!
- Contempt?
Indirect contempt! [i.e. either show cause order or
actual petition for contempt]
Q Who should certify?
:
A: 1. Plaintiff(s)
If there are multiple plaintiffs:
GR:
ALL MUST SIGN
XPN: One can certify if plaintiffs are bound by a common cause of action
2. Re: corporations
Who sues for the corporation: BoD (Sec. 23, CorpCode)
Who certifies: person authorized by the BoD (via board resolution) to sue
for the corporation (e.g. corporate officer, a lawyer)
Case: Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. vs. CIR [Velasco!] if anyone below
- President
- Chairman of BoD
- General manager (or acting general manager)
- Labor specialist (in labor cases)
- HRD
signs a certification w/o previous BoD authorization, the reso. requirement
MAY BE DISPENSED W/ (because they know if the corp. has filed the same
suit in some other court/tribunal) [i.e. liberal interpretation]
BUT, ideally, per CorpCode, there should be a board resolution!
What can be alleged?
(a) ULTIMATE FACTS only these can be alleged (as a rule)
(b) EVIDENTIARY FACTS to be omitted; evidence is for trial, not for pleadings

15

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

XPN: 1. Small claims
req'd to make statements re: evid.
2. Environmental cases
* [CONCLUSIONS (e.g. herein defendant maliciously committed maliciously
is a conclusion) cannot be alleged] Why? Because the court not any of the
parties is the one authorized to make conclusions!
Remedy: motion to strike out conclusion(s) (rarely used for some reason)
* Re: averments of: 1. FRAUD/MISTAKE must be stated w/ particularity
[Interplay w/ ObliCon & Nego different kinds of
fraud (causante/incidente) = different remedies]
2. CONDITION(S) OF THE MIND (e.g. malice, intent,
knowledge) may be averred generally
Effect if pleading is unsigned: produces NO LEGAL EFFECT (R7 S3)
How cured: party can ASK THE COURT to allow him/her to sign the pleading
(on the ground[s] of mere inadvertence & lack of intent to delay)
Re: jurisdiction over the parties
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT***
(a) Voluntary appearance in court &
Filing*
of
complaint/petition/other
submission to its authority; or
initiatory pleading + payment of docket (b) Service of summons (or some other
coercive process) upon him/her (see
fees**
Summons in later pages)
[* material element = filing in/for his/her behalf, not actual presence of plaintiff]
** Cases: GSIS vs. Heirs of Caballero & Korea Tech vs. Lerma for the
trial court to acquire jurisdiction over counterclaims (permissive or
compulsory) & cross-claims, payment of docket fees is also reqd
[*** non-essential in in rem/quasi in rem actions as long as juris. over res is had]
Amendment of [any] pleading (R10)
Case: Swagman Hotels & Travel, Inc. vs. CA a premature complaint (i.e.
no cause of action) cannot be cured by amendment!
Kinds of amendment
(a) AS A MATTER OF RIGHT before a responsive pleading is served
Reminder: MTD pleading, let alone a responsive pleading!
- If what is to be amended is a REPLY: w/in 10 days after it is served
- For whatever reason you want (kasi nga as a matter of right)
- Ministerial on the part of the court to admit, i.e. compellable by mandamus
- Can even be done to correct error[s] of jurisdiction
Case: Bautista & Rosel vs. Maya-Maya Cottages
Q The RTC dismissed a sum-of-money case motu proprio for lack of
:
jurisdiction. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, plaintiff right then &
there! amended the complaint so that the sum claimed reaches the
threshold amount. Can amendment of the complaint still be made here?
A: YES. The dismissal is not yet final. An order of dismissal DOES NOT
DISMISS THE CASE; it has to become final. Plaintiff has 15 days to react.

16

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

Dean Rianos bonus: if you are the defendant in the above case, and
you know that the court has no jurisdiction, do not file MTD; instead
1. File an ANSWER (lack of jurisdiction = AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE)
- Why? To cut off plaintiffs right to amend as a matter of right!
- Answer having been filed, should plaintiff ask for leave of
court to amend & be granted such, the court will then be
acting on a complaint over w/c it has NO JURISDICTION
(leaving it no recourse but to dismiss)
2. Ask for PRELIMINARY HEARING on your affirmative defense
The court will know if there is no jurisdiction, & dismiss!
(b) AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION (i.e. requires leave of court) after a responsive
pleading is served (or the 10-day period re: reply expires), for substantial
amendments (Case: Buenaventura vs. Buenaventura e.g. changing ones
cause of action or adding a new one)
Sole ground for denial: motion was made to DELAY the action (Case:
Citystate Savings Bank vs. Aguinaldo that a proposed amendment is
substantial is not a bar to amend provided it is not meant for delay!)
(c) BY IMPLICATION (i.e. by consent; to conform to evidence) (R10 S5) brought
about by failure to object to ISSUES NOT MENTIONED IN THE PLEADINGS
If the other party timely objects, the court will sustain; if the party who
brought up the issue not mentioned in the pleadings moves to amend, such
would be subject to the courts discretion
CONTRA: CrimPro! (R110 S8-9, re: qualif., aggrav. circumstances) when not
alleged, even if not objected to, will not amount to an amendment of the
complaint/information (i.e. will not be considered)
Basis: Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 CONST. (accuseds right to be informed)
--- What if I want to dismiss my own complaint? Can I do that? --6. Dismissal of complaint by plaintiff (R17)
BY NOTICE (notice of dismissal) (S1) a matter of right before service of
responsive pleading (or motion for summary judgment) court shall confirm
dismissal by issuing an order of dismissal
* Dismissal in this manner is W/O PREJUDICE! (i.e. should plaintiff decide later
on to refile the case, he/she could do so, & he/she could dismiss the case
again should he/she want to; by then, thats the end of it)
Two-dismissal rule: where plaintiff has once dismissed in a competent court
an action based on/including the same claim, & he/she dismissed the action
again, the complaint CANNOT BE REFILED ANYMORE!
BY MOTION (MTD, to secure leave of court) (S2) after service of resp. pleading
No prejudice to defendants right to prosecute counterclaim (permissive or
compulsory); defendant can still pursue whether in the same action or a
different one
Dean Rianos pro-tip re: dismissals/counterclaims dismissal of the complaint
is ALWAYS w/o prejudice to the counterclaim, mapa-R17 (incl. S3 []) o R16!
DUE TO FAULT OF PLAINTIFF (S3)
Grounds (a) Failure to appear on date of presentation of evidence in chief
(b) Failure to prosecute for unreasonable length of time (non prosequitur)
:
(c) Failure to comply w/ RoC or any order of the court

17

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

Case: Shimizu Phils. vs. Magsalin dismissals of actions under S3 not expressly
stating whether they are w/ or w/o prejudice are held to be w/ prejudice
--- How will the person I filed a case against know that I filed a case against him/her? --7. Summons (R14)
Who issues? Clerk of court (S1)
Who serves? (a) Sheriff
(b) Deputy sheriff
(c) Other proper court officer
(d) Any suitable person auth. by the court (justifiable reasons) (S3)
Purposes: (a) Compliance w/ procedural due process reqs.
(b) To obtain jurisdiction over:
- Person of defendant (in in personam actions)
- Res (in in rem/quasi in rem actions)
(see discussion re: in rem/quasi in rem/in personam in prev. pages)
Modes
(a) VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE (VA)* equivalent to service of summons (S20)
[* amounts to a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court]
GR:
Case: Carballo vs. Encarnacion appearance of defendant in whatever
form w/o expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court = VA
XPN: 1. Case: French Oil Machinery Co. vs. CA filing of an answer to
object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person VA
2. MTD grounded upon lack of jurisdiction over person of defendant (on
its own, or together w/ other grounds) VA (S20, 2nd sentence)
(b) Valid service of summons
- SERVICE IN PERSON (S6)
i. Find the person specified, & give it to him/her anywhere; or
ii. Tender it to him/her if there is refusal to accept/sign
GR:
STRICT INTERPRETATION of provisions on summons
XPN to liberal interpretation doctrine!
XPN: When defendant him/herself prevented normal service in person
upon him/her, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE can be considered
Case Marcos-Manotoc vs. CA there must be compliance w/ the ff.:
:
(a) exertion of honest-to-goodness efforts to serve defendant in
person w/in a reasonable time (go back to his/her house again
& again if you have to!), & (b) specifying same in the return, in
order to make use of the 2nd mode of service of summons
- SUBSTITUTED SERVICE (S7)
WHERE?
TO WHOM?
One who (a) resides therein, and
Defendants residence
(b) is of sufficient age & discretion
One who is (a) competent, and (b)
Defendants place of business
[apparently] is in charge
* Special instances of personal service
i. PRISONERS (S9) effected by officer having management of the
jail/institution (deemed deputized as special sheriff for the purpose)
ii. MINORS*/INSANE/INCOMPETENTS (S10) served upon

18

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

1. Legal guardian, if any
The person himself + 2. If none, guardian ad litem
(Applied for by plaintiff!)
[* service may also be made on either of minors parents]
* Service upon juridical entities (not in the syllabus but what the hell)
i. Private: 1. DOMESTIC (S11) service may be made upon the ff.:
(a) President
(b) Managing partner
(c) General manager
(d) Corporate secretary
(e) Treasurer
(f) In-house counsel
2. FOREIGN (w/c has transacted business in PH) (S12)
(a) Resident agent (designated in accordance w/ law for
purposes of receiving summons)
(b) If none, govt official designated to that effect
(c) Any of the entitys officers/agents w/in PH
ii. Public (S13) depends on the defendant
(a) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: SolGen
(b) PROVINCE/CITY/MUNICIPALITY/ETC.: executive head or such
other officer(s) as as the law or the court may direct
- Re: EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE; SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION*
[* in a newspaper of gen. circ., & in such place & for such time as ordered]
i. In rem/quasi in rem both modes are ALLOWED!
ii. In personam
GR:
NO summons by publication!
XPN: 1. Defendants identity/whereabouts are unknown (S14)
2. Defendant originally resides in PH; temporarily out (S16)
(a) Copy sent via reg. mail in last known address
(b) Leave of court reqd!
More on extraterritorial service (S15)
i. Modes 1. Personal service outside PH, w/ leave of court
2. By publication (see item 2 @ XPN above)
:
3. Any other means the judge may consider sufficient
ii. NO extraterritorial service in in personam actions vs. non-residents
not found in PH at the time of service of summons
Remedy: convert the action into one quasi in rem by attaching
the property of the defendant (i.e. preliminary attachment);
doing so allows recourse to extraterritorial service
--- The other party just moved for a bill of particulars. The hell is that? --8. Motion for bill of particulars [BoP] (R12)
Purpose: para sa kalinawan; i.e. to help defendant prepare an intelligent pleading
Options of court re: motion: (a) Deny outright
(b) Grant outright
(c) Set for hearing (i.e. hearing not mandatory!)
--- What if the other party wants to have the case dismissed? Howd they do it? ---

19

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

9. Motion to dismiss [MTD] (R16)
Omnibus motion rule (R15 S8) [& XPNs]
GR:
A motion attacking a pleading/order/judgment/proceeding SHALL INCLUDE
ALL AVAILABLE OBJECTIONS; those not included are DEEMED WAIVED
XPN: Non-waivable defenses in civil actions (R9 S1)
(a) Lack of jurisdiction
Well, hello there told you well see em again
(b) Litis pendentia
(c) Res judicata
(d) Prescription
(for their counterparts in criminal cases, see Criminal Procedure)
Hypothetical admission rule (Case: Municipality of Hagonoy vs. Dumdum) when
MTD is filed, material allegations of the complaint & inferences that may be fairly
deduced from them are DEEMED HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITTED
MTD vs. demurrer to evidence
MOTION TO DISMISS (R16)
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (R33)
Grounded on preliminary objections
Based on insufficiency of evidence
May be filed by any defending party against May be filed only by the defendant against the
whom a claim is asserted to
complaint of the plaintiff
Should be filed w/in the time for but prior to! May be filed only after the plaintiff has
the filing of the answer of the defending completed the presentation of his/her evidence
party to the pleading asserting the claim
1. If denied, defendant answers []
1. If denied, defendant may present his/her
2. If granted, plaintiff may appeal, or, if a
evidence
subsequent case is not barred, he/she 2. If granted, but on appeal, the order of
may refile the case
dismissal is reversed, defendant loses the
right to present evidence
Grounds for MTD (S1)
(a) Lack of jurisdiction over
- Person of the defendant
- Subject matter of the claim
(b) Improper venue
(c) Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
(d) Litis pendentia
(e) Res judicata
(f) Prescription
(g) Failure to state a cause of action
(h) Extinguishment of claim/demand (i.e. payment, waiver, abandonment, etc.)
(i) Unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds
(j) Non-compliance w/ condition precedent for filing the claim
Re: refiling of a dismissed case
Q Can the case be refiled?
:
A: If dismissal is w/o prejudice
GR:
Plaintiff may refile!
XPN: Where the ground for dismissal is:
(a) Res judicata
(b) Prescription
(c) Extinguishment of claim/demand
(d) Unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds
20

[HEARTBREAK NOTES] [CivPro] [v.1.0, 2016]

in w/c case, no more refiling (i.e. dismissed w/ prejudice)
Recourse if MTD not granted
(a) RIGHTLY: just file an ANSWER
(b) WRONGLY: MR R65 (certiorari)
Order granting MTD (i.e. dismissal order) = final in character
Remedy: APPEAL! (S5, R41 S1; Case: Gamboa vs. Teodoro)
[cf. R65 S1 there must be no appeal as remedy]
--- How would the other party ans oh. --10. Answer (R6 S4-5) pleading in w/c defending party sets forth his/her defenses
Kinds of defenses
(a) NEGATIVE: where there is a SPECIFIC DENIAL of material averments
(b) AFFIRMATIVE
No answer Default (R9 S3)
W/ answer:
- No specific denial(s) no issues Judgment on the pleadings (R34)
-W/ specific denials:
i. Counterclaim // Cross-claim (R6)
ii. 3rd party complaint [terceria] (Ibid.)
iii. Intervention (R19)
iv. Reply (R6)
11. Pre-trial (R18)
12. Trial (R30)
[

Demurrer to evidence (R33)

13. Judgment
14. Post-judgment remedies
W/IN PERIOD TO APPEAL
1. Motion for new trial (R37)
2. Motion for reconsideration (Ibid.)
3. Appeal (R40-43, 45; R46-56)

1.
2.
3.
4.

15. Execution (R39)

21

AFTER PERIOD TO APPEAL

Petition for relief (R38)
Annulment of judgment (R47)
Certiorari (R65)
Collateral attack