Doctrines

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

CASE DOCTRINES FOR REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW

Based on GSA Syllabus Gomez v. Montalban | G.R. No. 174414


Compiled doctrines from 4B 2020 Block Digest
Since the interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable
GENERAL PRINCIPLES component of the cause of action, not merely incidental
thereto, and already determinable at the time of filing of
Supreme Court the Complaint, it must be included in the determination of
which court has the jurisdiction over petitioner’s case.
FUCC v. PPMC |GR No. 178799

The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and a direct Heirs of Bautista v. Francisco Lindo| G.R. No. 20823
invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to issue a
writ of certiorari should be allowed only when there are (1) An action is incapable of pecuniary estimation if the
special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
out in the petition. sum of money, and where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
Ampong v. CSC | GR No 167916 sought. (2) An action to enforce a right provided by law,
such as the right to repurchase under section 119 of the
The jurisdiction over disciplinary actions of a court Public Land Act, is akin or analogous to one of specific
personnel, even for acts committed prior to employment, performance, and is, therefore, incapable of pecuniary
is exclusive to the Supreme Court except when there is estimation and cognizable by the RTC.
estoppel.
Gochan v. Gochan | G.R. No. 146089
Court of Appeals
Where a complaint is entitled as one for specific
Crispino v. Tansay | G.R. No. 184466 performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance of a
deed of sale for a parcel of land, its primary objective and
In an ordinary appeal, the Court of Appeals may receive nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and, thus,
evidence when a motion for new trial is granted based on is deemed a real action.
newly discovered evidence.

Regional Trial Court


Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts CIVIL PROCEDURE

Union Bank v. Maunlad Homes, Inc. | G.R. No. 190071 Rule 2 – Cause of Action

A defendant in an ejectment suit may not divest the MeTC Swagman v. CA | G.R. No. 161135
of its jurisdiction by merely claiming ownership of the
property. The METC, in order to resolve the issue of Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of
possession, may provisionally resolve the issue of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect
ownership of the property. cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual
of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental
Regalado v. Dela Rama | G.R. No. 202448 complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued
cause of action is not permissible.
Courts cannot simply take judicial notice of the assessed
value, or even market value of the land, to determine Ceroferr v. CA | G.R. No. 139539
whether they have jurisdiction over the case.
If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis
Sebastian v. Ng | G.R. No. 164594 by which the complaint can be maintained, the same
should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that
The intent of Section 417 of the LCG was to grant
may be assessed by the defendants.
jurisdiction over the enforcement of
settlement/arbitration awards to the city or municipal BPI v. Vda. De Coscolluela | G.R. No. 167724
courts regardless of the amount.
Where no action is brought until more than one is due, all
Barangay Lupon that are due must be included in one action; and that if an
action is brought to recover upon one or more that are due
Racpan v. Barroga-Haigh | G.R. No. 234499
but not upon all that are due, a recovery in such action will
be a bar to a several or other actions brought to recover
Where an action or complaint is coupled with provisional
one or more claims of the other claims that were due at the
remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
time the first action was brought.
delivery of personal property, and support pendente lite,
it is exempt from barangay conciliation proceedings.
UMALE v. CANOGA | G.R. 167246
Chua v. Beltran |468 SCRA 358
Two cases do not have substantially identical causes of
action if the cause of action in the second case did not exist Since a misjoined party plaintiff has no business
at the time of filing of the first case. participating in the case as a plaintiff, it is not necessary
for such party to comply with all the requirement expected
Salvador v. Patricia, Inc.| G.R. No. 195834 of the main plaintiff, such as making a certification against
forum shopping.
An ordinary suit and a special civil action may not be
asserted in one pleading. In case of misjoinder, the court Sumaljag v. Literato | G.R. No. 149787
must sever the causes of action and litigate it separately.
If you substitute a party after death, the substitution must
Pantranco v. Standard Insurance | G.R. No. 140746 be to an heir or legal representative in order to protect the
interest of the estate. However, if the substitution had
Under the Totality Rule, where the claims in all the causes actually been done before death, the transfer to a non-heir
of action are principally for recovery of money, the could have been allowed.
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Sps. Algura v. City of Naga | G.R. No. 150135

Rule 3 – Parties to Civil Actions As to indigent litigants, If the applicant for exemption
meets the salary and property requirement under Sec. 19
Law firm of Laguesma v. COA| G.R. No. 185544 Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory;
on the other hand, when the application does not satisfy
The net effect of upholding or setting aside the assailed one or both requirements, then the application should not
COA rulings would be to either allow or disallow the be denied outright, instead the court should apply the
payment of legal fees to the law firm law firm thus it does indigency test under Sec. 21, Rule 3.
not have a mere incidental interest, it is a real party-in-
interest. Crisologo v. JEWM | G.R. No. 196894
The rule is that in a Rule 65 petition, the person aggrieved
under Section 1 pertains only to one who was a party in Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals | G.R. No. 154096
the proceedings before the court a quo. The exception is
when there will be a denial of due process to the persons Conveyance of shares of stock is a personal action that
whose interests are indispensable to the final disposition may be commenced where the principal or any of the
of the case. principal plaintiffs reside. The ground of improperly laid
venue must be raised seasonably, else, it is deemed
waived.
Rule 4 – Venue of Actions
Hi-Yield Realty v. CA | G.R. No. 168863
BPI v. Hontanosas | G.R. No. 157163 Where a corporation is an injured party, its power to sue
is lodged with its board of directors or trustees. However,
Where the main cause of action of the plaintiffs is to annul an individual stockholder may be permitted to institute a
a contract, having no allegations with regard to ownership derivative suit on behalf of the corporation in order to
and possession of the property, the case is a personal protect or vindicate corporate rights whenever the officials
action and such action shall be filed before a court with of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued,
proper jurisdiction in the place where the principal or hold control of the corporation. The venue of derivative
plaintiff resides. suits is the court of the place where the corporation holds
its principal office.
BPI v. Sps. Yujuico | G.R. No. 175796
PBCOM v. Lim| G.R. No. 158138
An action to recover the deficiency after extrajudicial
foreclosure is a personal action. A restrictive stipulation on the venue of actions contained
in a promissory note applies to the surety agreement
Gochan v. Gochan | G.R. No. 146089 supporting it, because the nature of the two contracts and
the factual circumstances surrounding their execution are
Where a complaint is entitled as one for specific intertwined or interconnected.
performance but nonetheless prays for the issuance of a
deed of sale for a parcel of land, its primary objective and Sps. Ochoa v. China Banking | G.R. No. 192877
nature is one to recover the parcel of land itself and, thus,
is deemed a real action.
Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court (Venue of Actions), Philtranco v. Paras | G.R. No. 161909
cannot be made to apply to a Petition for Extrajudicial
Foreclosure because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to A defendant in a contract action may join as third-party
venue of actions, which an extrajudicial foreclosure is not. defendants those who may be liable to him in tort for the
Rule 6 – Kinds of Pleadings plaintiff's claim against him, or even directly to the
plaintiff.
Financial Building v. Forbes Park | G.R. No. 133119

If the defending party decides to file a Motion to Dismiss,


Rule 7 – Parts of a Pleading
he will lose his compulsory counterclaim; but if he opts to
set up his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his
Sps. Munsalud v. NHA | G.R. No. 167181
ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his
Answer.
Insufficiency in form and substance, as a ground for
dismissal of the complaint, should not be based on the title
Banco de Oro VS. CA | G.R. No. 160354
or caption, especially when the allegations of the pleading
A party who fails to interpose a counterclaim although support an action.
arising out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence of the plaintiff's suit but which Mid-Pasig Land. v. Tablante | G.R. No. 162924
did not exist or mature at the time said party files his
answer is not thereby barred from interposing such claim The Court held that the following officials or employees of
the company can sign the verification and certification
in a future litigation.
without need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of
the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation,
Asian Construction. v. CA & Monark. | G.R. No. 160242 (3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager, (4)
Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a
For a third-party complaint to prosper, there must be a labor case.
causal connection between the claim of the plaintiff in his
complaint and a claim for contribution, indemnity or other
relief of the defendant against the third-party defendant.
Rule 8 – Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
Far East Marble v. CA | G.R. No. 94093 Spouses Gaza v. Lim | G.R. No. 126863

Ultimate facts are the essential facts which either form the 3 modes of specific denial are contemplated by Rule 8,
basis or primary right and duty or which directly make up Section 10 namely: 1) by specifying each material
the defendant’s wrong acts or omissions, while allegation of the fact in the complaint, the truth of which
evidentiary facts are those which tend to prove or establish the defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable,
said ultimate facts. setting forth the substance of the matters which he will
rely upon to support his denial; 2) by specifying so much
Filipinas Textile v. CA | G.R. No. 119800
of an averment in the complaint as is true and material and
When an action or defense is founded upon a written denying only the remainder; 3) by stating that the
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient
pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse the complaint, which has the effect of a denial.
party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth
what he claims to be the facts.
Rule 9 - Effect of Failure to Plead
Casent Realty v. Philbanking| G.R. No. 150731
Monzon v. Sps. Relova| G.R. No. 171827
Where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable
document, a Reply specifically denying it under oath must The effects of default are followed only in 3 instances: (1)
be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of when there is an actual default for failure to file responsive
the document will be deemed admitted. pleading, (2) failure to appear at pre-trial conference, and
(3) refusal to comply with modes of discovery under Sec.
Malayan Insurance v. Regis Brokerage | G.R. No. 172156 3(c) of Rule 29.

A document that serves as a basis of the plaintiff’s cause Gomez v. Montalban| G.R. No. 174414
of action or defendant’s defense must be attached to the
complaint or answer, as the case may be. Failure to attach The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery
the document to the complaint will be dismissed for thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to
failure to state a cause of action. set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable When the cause of action alleged in the complaint is
negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense. vaguely or obscurely pleaded such that there is a need to
clarify the basis of the action, the remedy available to a
Gajudo et. al. v. Traders Royal Bank | G.R. No. 151098 party is to file a motion for Bill of Particulars so that the
defendant can intelligently prepare a responsive pleading.
An order of default does not automatically entitle the
complainant to the reliefs prayed for, nor does it excuse Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Marcos, Jr. | G.R. No.
complainant from establishing their claims for damages 148154
by preponderance of evidence.
When the allegations in the complaint are couched in
general terms and fail to state the ultimate facts, a Motion
Rule 10– Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
for Bill of Particular is the proper remedy for the perceived
PPA vs. Gothong & Aboitiz| G.R. No. 158401 ambiguity or vagueness in the complaint.

Under the new rules, the amendment may now


substantially alter the cause of action or defense.
Rule 14 – Summons
Marcos-Araneta v. CA | G.R. No. 154096
Potenciano II v. Barnes | G.R. No. 159421
Even after a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by the
Summons must be personally given to the DEFENDANT
defendant, the plaintiff may still amend his pleading as a
matter of right since a Motion to Dismiss is not a and not to his or her counsel. In case of failure, substituted
responsive pleading. service may be resorted to but the rules on substituted
service must be strictly complied with. Giving a copy of
the summons to a messenger of a law firm, which was not
even the counsel of the defendant, cannot in any way be
Rule 12 - Bill of Particulars construed as equivalent to service of summons on the
defendant.
Bantillo v. IAC | G.R. No. 75311
Manotoc v. CA and Trajano | G.R. No. 130974
The following are required to effect valid substituted Before the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure expressly
service: (1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service; (2) provided for the manner of substituted service to be used
Specific Details in the Return (3) A Person of Suitable Age in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the statutory
and Discretion (4) A Competent Person in Charge. A requirements of substituted service must be followed
substituted service of summons on an alleged caretaker of strictly, faithfully, and fully but frowns upon an overly
the defendant is invalid if the former is not residing in the strict application of the Rules.
defendant's house or residence.
Montefalcon et al v. Vasquez| GR No. 165016
Guanzon v. Arradaza | G.R. No. 155392
An overseas seafarer may be validly served summon
The fact of failure to effect personal service and the through substituted service to acquire jurisdiction over his
subsequent substituted service as shown in the sheriff’s person.
return meets the requirements set by the Rules of Court
and due process clause. BPI v. Sps. Santiago | G.R. No. 169116

Garcia v. Sandiganbayan | G.R. No. 171381 The service of summons to an officer not included in the
enumeration in the Rules will not bind the private juridical
A husband, who was being detained, may not receive entity. However, upon the issuance and the proper service
summons for his wife and children because the residence of new summons, whatever defect attended the service of
of the latter is not the place of detention, where substituted the original summons, was promptly and accordingly
service must be effected. cured.

Domagas v. Jensen | G.R. No. 158407 Valmonte v. CA|G.R. No. 108538

Dwelling house or residence refers to the place where the The service of summons to a nonresident defendant in
person named in the summons is living at the time when action quasi in rem can be made “in any other manner
the service is made, even though he may be temporarily which the court may deem sufficient,” in which case, a
out of the country at the time. prior leave of court and subsequent court order directing
the manner which the court deemed sufficient are
Robinson v. Miralles| G.R. No. 163584 necessary.
Rule 16 - Motion to Dismiss case existed at the time of the filing of the complaint or
answer with counterclaim, as the case may be.
Valientes, v. Ramas| G.R. No. 157852
MID PASIG LAND VS. CA| G.R. No. 153751
Laches need not be specifically pleaded and may be
Where there are two pending cases, the general rule is
considered by the court on its own initiative in
that the second case filed should be dismissed but the
determining the rights of the parties.
rule is not a hard and fast one, as the "priority-in-time
Westmont Bank v. Funai | G.R. No. 175733 & 180162 rule" may give way to the criterion of "more appropriate
action."
A dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may be
Sps. Rasdas, et al. v. Jaime Estenor | G.R. No. 157605
raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through a
motion to dismiss, while a dismissal for lack of cause of A trial court cannot conduct a preliminary hearing on a
action may be raised any time after the questions of fact motion to dismiss after the said motion has been denied.
have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions
or evidence presented by the plaintiff. Rule 17 - Dismissal of Actions

Aquino v. Quiazon | G.R. No. 201248 Dael v. Sps. Beltran | G.R. No. 156470
Dismissal is ipso facto upon notice. It is not filed through
In a preliminary hearing on a MTD or affirmative defense,
motion but through mere notice.
the parties are allowed to present evidence except when
the motion is based on insufficiency of the statement of the Shimizu v. Magsalin | G.R. No. 170026
cause of action, which must be determined on the facts
The fundamental test for non prosequitur (failure to
alleged in the complaint and no other.
prosecute) is whether, under the circumstances, the
plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in
Intramuros Administration v. Contacto | G.R. No.
152576 failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
Padilla v. Globe Asiatique | G.R. No. 207376
In determining identity of cause of action, it is important
to determine whether the cause of action in the second The rule now is, if the dismissal of the complaint
somehow eliminates the cause of the counterclaim, then
the counterclaim cannot survive. Conversely, if the Sps. Crisologo v. JEWM Agro-Industrial | G.R. No.
counterclaim itself states sufficient cause of action then it 196894
should stand independently of and survive the dismissal
(1) In an action for the cancellation of memorandum
of the complaint.
annotated at the back of a certificate of title, the persons
considered as indispensable include those whose liens
appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No.
Rule 19 – Intervention
1529. (2) In case of indispensable parties who have not
Mactan-Cebu Airport v. Minoza | G.R. No. 186045 been impleaded, it is the duty of the trial court following
the rule on joinder of indispensable parties, to simply
The interest of an intervenor must be actual, substantial,
recognize them, with or without any motion to intervene.
material, direct, and immediate, and not simply
contingent or expectant. Otherwise, the proceedings
would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive,
and interminable. Rule 31 - Consolidation or Severance
Pacana-Contreras v. Rovila Water. | G.R. No. 168979 Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils.| G.R. No.
175380
The Court has the authority to order the inclusion of an
indispensable party at any stage of the proceedings. If the A case for issuance of a writ of possession and the
plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite proceedings for the nullification of extra-judicial
the order of the court, then the court may dismiss the foreclosure cannot be consolidated since not only will the
complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with a lawful very purpose of consolidation (which is to avoid
court order. unnecessary delay) be defeated but the procedural matter
of consolidation will also adversely affect the substantive
Malvar v. Kraft Food Phils., Inc. | G.R. No. 183952 right of possession as an incident of ownership.
A Motion for Intervention to Protect Attorney’s Rights
may be granted by the Courts as a measure of protecting
the counsel’s right to its stipulated professional fees that Rule 33 - Demurrer to Evidence
would be denied under the compromise agreement. Casent Realty v. Philbanking Corp. | G.R. No. 150731
Judicial admissions should be considered in resolving a mortgaged is admitted, it is proper to move for a summary
demurrer to evidence. judgment.
Rule 36 - Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof
Rule 35 - Summary Judgments
Shimizu v. Magsalin | G.R. No. 170026
Doris U. Sunbanun vs. Aurora B. Go| G.R. No. 163280
Even a dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute must
In moving for a judgment on the pleadings without comply with the requirements that the same clearly state
offering proof as to the truth of one’s own allegations and
the facts and the law upon which it is based.
without giving the opposing party the opportunity to
introduce evidence, the petitioner is deemed to have
Republic v. Nolasco | G.R. No. 155108
admitted the material and relevant averments of the
complaint, and to have rested the motion for judgment
The final judgment as rendered is the judgment of the
based on the pleadings of the parties.
court irrespective of all seemingly contrary statements in
the decision.
COMGLASCO v. Santos Car Check Center | G.R. No.
202989
Obra v. Badua | G.R. No. 149125
A defense which is based on an interpretation of law can
What can be enforced by a writ of execution under Rule 39
be resolved through a review of the pleadings.
are the dispositions in the decretal portion of the decision
or the fallo; since the case was dismissed, there was
GSIS v. Prudential |G.R. No. 165585 & 176892
nothing to enforce or implement.
A judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer
Rule 39 - Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
to the issue depends solely on the legal interpretation of
the effect of non-payment of an insurance premium.
Roman Catholic Archbishop Caceres v. Abella| G.R. No.
143510
Evangelista v. Mercator Finance | G.R. No. 148864
In a case for ejectment, any finding of the court of the court
When no genuine issue is raised by petitioner, as when the
regarding the issue of ownership is merely provisional
existence of the loan and the fact of the property being
and not conclusive.
RCPI v. Rodriguez | G.R. Nos. L-59311 & L-59320 Action. The complaint should then be filed with the RTC
of the place where the realty is located.
Execution pending appeal of moral and exemplary
damages is not proper since liabilities with respect these Cardinal v. Asset| G.R. No. 149696
damages as well as the exact amounts remain uncertain
and indefinite pending resolution by the Court of Appeals Judgment for sum of money cannot be executed by issuing
and eventually the Supreme Court. a writ of possession over a real property.

Stronghold Insurance v. Felix| G.R. No. 148090 Villasi v. Garcia |G.R. No. 190106

The mere filing of a bond by a successful party is not a For a third-party claim or a terceria to prosper, the
good reason to justify execution pending appeal as a claimant must first sufficiently establish his title or right to
combination of circumstances is the dominant possession of the property.
consideration which impels the grant of immediate
execution. Fermin v. Esteves | G.R. No. 147977

GSIS vs. (PGAI)) | G.R. No. 165585 and G.R. No. 176982 Due process requires that a court decision can only bind a
party to the litigation and not against one who did not
Impending sanctions filed by foreign underwriters/ have his day in court. The remedy of terceria under
reinsurers against an insurer do not constitute a “good
Section 43, Rule 39 is available to a third person other than
reason” to grant an execution pending appeal if the
the judgment obligor or his agent who claims a property
insurer failed to substantiate its claim.
that has been levied on.
Adelaida Infante v. Aran Builders, Inc. | G.R. No. 156596 Republic v. Yahon | G.R. No. 201043

The venue for a revival of action depends on the nature of The VAWC Law is an exception to the general rule that
the prayer for revival. In a case where the original action money received as pension, support or gratuity from the
was for specific performance and damages, the action to government is exempt from execution.
revive which now focused on the delivery of certain real
property arising from the judgment is considered a Real Res Judicata
Republic v. Yu | G.R. No. 157557
Rasdas v. Estenor | G.R. No. 157605
A party cannot enforce a right based on a contract which
the Court has nullified in a judgment that has become
In order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as
final and executory as this is barred by res judicata
to a particular matter in another action between the same
through the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be
Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan| G.R. No. 173148 identical. Identity of cause of action is not required but
merely identity of issues.
For purposes of assessing whether res judicata exists, a
person who fails to intervene in one action but PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
nevertheless participates as a witness therein and
subsequently files another action involving the same Rule 57 - Preliminary Attachment
parties and the same subject matter, will be considered as
PCL INDUSTRIES V. CA | G.R. No. 147970
a party in the case in which he was a witness in
determining whether there is identity of parties. Non-payment of a debt when it falls due is not, of itself,
Mallion v. Alcantara | G.R. No. 141528 proof of fraud that would warrant the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment.
(1) The test to determine whether the causes of action are
identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will Metro, Inc. v. Lara’s Gifts (LGD) | G.R. No. 171741
sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the
facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. (2) A If the basis for the application for a writ of attachment is a
previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration ground which is at the same time the applicant’s cause of
of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bars a action, the attachment cannot be discharged or dissolved,
subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the except by filing a counter-bound, because this would have
ground of lack of marriage license – a party is not at liberty the effect of pre-judging the main case.
to split up his demands, and prosecute it by piecemeal or
present only a portion of the grounds upon which a special Torres v. Satsatin | G.R. No. 166759
relief is sought and leave the rest to the presentment in a
second suit if the first fails. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after
or simultaneous with the service of summons on the
defendant because the court must first acquire jurisdiction
over the defendant.
Rule 58 - Preliminary Injunction
Lim v. Lazaro | G.R. No. 185734
Filipino Metals v. Secretary of DTI| G.R. No. 157498
While the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of
time within which an attachment lien shall continue to A law need not be declared unconstitutional first before a
subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, writ of preliminary injunction may be granted as long as
jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the petitioners are able to that they have an ostensible right to
debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued on the final relief prayed for in their complaint.
the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner Borja v. Zorayda Salcedo | A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746
provided by law.
A presiding judge belonging to a multi-sala station has no
Olib v. Pastoral | G.R. No. 81120 authority to issue a 72 hr. TRO ex-parte and is duty bound
to conduct a summary hearing before issuing a TRO.
The correct interpretation of Rule 57, Section 19, of the
Rules of Court is that the order of attachment is considered Solid Builders v. China Banking | G.R. No. 179665
discharged only where the judgment has already become
final and executory and not when it is still on appeal. 1) In such a case where the complainant-movant’s right is
doubtful or disputed, the issuance of an injunctive writ is
Traders Royal Bank v. IAC | G.R. No. L-66321 not proper. (2) Foreclosure of mortgaged property is not
an irreparable damage that will merit for the debtor-
The remedies that may be availed of by a person who mortgagor the extraordinary provisional remedy of
claims to be the owner of property levied upon by preliminary injunction.
attachment are (1) to lodge a third-party claim with the
sheriff, and (2) if the attaching creditor posts an indemnity
bond in favor of the sheriff, to file a separate and
independent action to vindicate his claim. These remedies
are not exclusive, but cumulative.
Rule 60 – Replevin Lui Enterprises v. Zuellig Pharma | G.R. No. 193494

Rivera v. Vargas | G.R. No. 165895 An interpleader complaint may be filed by a lessee against
those who have conflicting claims over the rent due for the
The writ must also satisfy proper service, in the same property leased. This remedy is for the lessee to protect
manner as service of summons, in order to be valid and him or her from "double vexation in respect of one
effective. liability." He or she may file the interpleader case to
extinguish his or her obligation to pay rent, remove him or
her from the adverse claimants’ dispute, and compel the
Rule 61 - Support Pendente Lite parties with conflicting claims to litigate among
themselves.
Lam v. Chua| G.R. No. 131286

The right to support is of such nature that its allowance is


essentially provisional; judgment for support does not Rule 63 - Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
become final.
Aquino v. Malay, Aklan| G.R. No. 211356

In determining the propriety of a certiorari petition, it is


Rule 62 – Interpleader the nature of the act to be performed, rather than of the
office, board, or body which performs it, that determines
Makati Development v. Tanjuatco|G.R. No. L-26443 whether a particular act is a discharge of judicial or quasi-
judicial functions.
(1) Inferior courts are not bound to follow Rule 63 (Now
62) in dealing with cases of interpleading but may apply
thereto the general rules on procedure applicable to
ordinary civil action in said courts. (2) An action for Rule 64 - Review of Judgments and Final Orders and
interpleader is NOT incapable of pecuniary estimation if Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the
sum of money is the issue unless the main action is Commission on Audit
incapable of pecuniary estimation like performance of an
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC | G.R. No. 205728
obligation.
Direct resort to the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition A Motion for Reconsideration is necessary prior to filing a
is proper in cases which are of transcendental importance special civil action of certiorari except if the case falls
and involves constitutional rights. under the recognized exceptions that must be clearly
shown by the petitioner.

Concepcion vs. COMELEC |G.R. No. 178624


Rule 65 – Certiorari
A person aggrieved by any act of a tribunal, board or
Aquino v. Malay, Aklan | G.R. No. 211356 officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
In determining whether the writ is directed against a abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi- jurisdiction may file a petition for certiorari.
judicial functions, it is the nature of the functions, rather
However, the term "person aggrieved" is not to mean that
than the office, board, or body, which is essential.
any person who feels injured by the lower court’s order or
decision can question the said court’s disposition via
Villanueva v. JBC | G.R. No. 211833
certiorari. The "person aggrieved" referred to under
Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action
While JBC is not a tribunal exercising a quasi-judicial
of certiorari pertains to one who was a party in the
function, petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is still proper
proceedings before the lower court.
based on the expanded concept of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. WWC v. People | G.R. No. 161106
Clark Investors v. Secretary of Finance| G.R. No. 200670
Where a search warrant is applied for and issued in
Although the SC, the Court of Appeals and the Regional anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order
Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of quashing the said warrant ends the judicial process; thus,
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas such order is considered as final order where an appeal
corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the may be properly taken therefrom.
petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
Kalipunan. v. Robredo | G.R. No. 200903
Cervantes v. CA| G.R. No. 166755
A writ of prohibition only lies against the tribunal, In an expropriation proceeding, once the first order [re:
corporation, board, officer or person’s exercise of judicial, determination of the authority & propriety of the exercise
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. A writ of of eminent domain] becomes final and no appeal thereto
mandamus will only issue to compel an officer to perform is taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can
a ministerial duty. It will not control a public officer’s no longer be questioned.
exercise of discretion as where the law imposes upon him
Masikip v. City of Pasig | G.R. No. 136349
the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any
manner in which he is required to act precisely because it The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent
is his judgment that is to be exercised, not that of the court. domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be
of a public character. The ascertainment of the necessity
must precede or accompany and not follow, the taking of
Mandamus the land.
Calim v. Guerrero | G.R. No. 156527 Republic v. Ortigas and Co. Ltd. | G.R. No. 171496

Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise 1. The court’s order in an expropriation proceeding
of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes denying the Republic’s motion for reconsideration
upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise his of the decision granting the property owner the
judgment in reference to any matter in which he is authority to sell its property to the government is
required to act. not an interlocutory order because it completely
disposed of a particular matter.
UY KIAO ENG v. NIXON LEE | G.R. No. 176831 2. Section 50 of PD 1529 does not apply in a case that
is the proper subject of an expropriation
The remedy of a writ of mandamus is of public character
proceeding.
and will not lie when there are sufficient remedies
available.

Rule 69 – Partition
Rule 67 – Expropriation
Butiong v. Plazo | G.R. No. 187524
NHA v. Heirs of Guivelondo | G.R. No. 154411
An action for partition does not preclude the settlement of sublessee; (e) a co-lessee or (f) a member of the family,
the issue of ownership. In fact, the determination as to the relative or privy of the defendant.
existence of the same is necessary in the resolution of an
Sps. Tirona, et. al v. Alejo | G.R. No. 129313
action for partition.
In actions for forcible entry, two allegations are mandatory
Quintos v. Nicolas | G.R. No. 210252
for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: (1) Allege
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17, Sec. 3 cannot his prior physical possession of the property; and (2) That
defeat the right of a co-owner to ask for partition at any he was deprived of his possession by means of force,
time, provided there is no actual adjudication of intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth. The phrase
ownership of shares yet. “thereby depriving said owners of the possession of the
same” is not tantamount to an averment of prior physical
possession.
Rule 70 - Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Mangaser v. Ugay | G.R. No. 204926
Zacarias v. Anacay, Et al. | G.R. No. 202354
Possession can be acquired by juridical acts or acts to
For illegal or unlawful detainer, it is essential that the which the law gives the force of acts of possession such as
plaintiff’s supposed acts of tolerance must have been donations, succession, execution, and registration of
present right from the start of the possession which is later public instruments, inscription of possessory information
sought to be recovered. titles and the like.

Sunflower Neighborhood Association v. CA | G.R. No. Union Bank v. Maunlad Homes, Inc. | G.R. No. 190071
136274
The authority granted to the MeTC to preliminarily
The judgment in an ejectment case is still binding on a resolve the issue of ownership to determine the issue of
person who was not impleaded when he or she is: (a) a possession ultimately allows it to interpret and enforce the
trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently contract. To deny the MeTC jurisdiction over a complaint
occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a merely because the issue of possession requires the
guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of interpretation of a contract will effectively rule out
the defendant; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) a unlawful detainer as a remedy.
Quesada v. Bonanza| G.R. No. 207500 Rule 37
Rule 70, Section 20 requires the concurrence of two Bernaldez v. Francia | G.R. No. 143929
conditions: First, the lessor must first make a written
For purposes of granting new trial, the offering party must
demand for the lessee a) to pay or comply with the
conditions of the lease and b) to vacate the premises; show that he exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to
Second, the lessee fails to comply with the demand within locate the newly discovered evidence before or during
the given period. trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.
Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon |G.R. No. 178925
In a motion for new trial based on newloy discovered
Rule 71 - Contempt
evidence, the concept of due diligence has both a time
Inonog v Judge Ibay | A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175 component and and a good faith component. Due
diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably
To be considered indirect contempt, the act must be clearly and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the
contrary to or prohibited by order of the Court, or
totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.
manifestly attended with malice and/or bad faith or
improper motivation to delay the proceedings of the court. CANSINO v. CA | G.R. No. 125799

Regalado v. Go| G.R. No. 167988 A motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 cannot be
used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence.
Even if the contempt proceedings stemmed from the main
case over which the court already acquired jurisdiction, Rule 38/Rule 47
the Rules direct that the petition for contempt be treated Alma Jose v. Intra Strata | G.R. No. 155316
independently of the principal action. Consequently, the
necessary prerequisites for the filing of initiatory In a petitioner for annulment of judgment, it is only
pleadings, such as the filing of a verified petition, extrinsic fraud, not lack of jurisdiction, which is excluded
attachment of a certification on non-forum shopping, and as a valid ground for annulment "if it was availed of, or
could not have been availed of, in a motion for new trial
the payment of the necessary docket fees, must be
or petition for relief."
faithfully observed
Alaban v. CA and Provido | G.R. No. 156021
Failure to provide personal notice to non-compulsory CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
heirs in a probate of will proceeding does not constitute
extrinsic fraud that would sustain an action for annulment
of judgment. Personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of
procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.
Spouses Benatiro v. Heirs of Cuyos | G.R. No. 161220

Denial of due process is an additional ground for an


annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
Gomez v. Montalban | G.R. No. 174414

In order to properly avail the remedy of Petition for Relief,


the judgment subject thereof should be final and executory
and it should be based on an extrinsic or collateral fraud,
mistake of fact, or excusable negligence imputable to the
party.

You might also like