Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
47Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Update on Remedial Law

Update on Remedial Law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 712 |Likes:
Published by jojitus
REMEDIAL LAW UPDATES...
REMEDIAL LAW UPDATES...

More info:

Published by: jojitus on Apr 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UPDATE ON REMEDIAL LAW(Discussion on 2003 Decisions of the Supreme Court on Remedial Law)I. CIVIL PROCEDUREA. Jurisdiction
1. Departure From
Tijam v. Sibonhanoy
 
 Atuel v. Valdez, 403 SCRA 517, June 10, 2003
Even if the parties never questioned the jurisdiction of the DARAB as in fact theyactively participated in the proceedings thereof, the SC nonetheless ruled upon the issue of  jurisdiction and pronounced the DARAB to have no jurisdiction because there was no tenancyrelationship between the parties. The High Court ruled, contrary to
Tijam v. Sibonhanoy,
thatestoppel cannot confer upon a court or a tribunal a jurisdiction that it does not have under thelaw.
Note:
Just about 6 months before
 Atuel v. Valdez,
the SC in
Gonzaga v. CA, G.R. No.144025, Dec. 27, 2002
ruled that petitioner having invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court,cannot after receiving an adverse verdict, claim that that court had no jurisdiction for thesubject matter of the suit properly belongs to the HLURB. The High Court reiterated the
 Sibonhanoy
doctrine.Similarly, a year earlier, in the case of 
 Alcantara v. Commission on Settlement of Land  Problems (COSLAP), G.R. No. 145838, July 20, 2001,
the SC ruled that petitioner is inestoppel from questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP after participating actively n the proceedings before said commission by filing an answer and a motion for reconsideration of thedecision of the latter without raising the issue of jurisdiction.2. Jurisdiction over an Action for Expropriation (
Rule 67, RCP
) 
 Bardellon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003
An action for expropriation is one whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimationand it is, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.3. Jurisdiction over Matters Pertaining to the Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person (
Rules 73-91, RRC) 
 Arbolario v. CA, G.R. No. 129163, (April 22, 2003)
An ordinary court hearing an action for recovery of possession of a realty has no jurisdiction to make determinations re the heirs of a decedent, proof of filiation, the estate of the decedent and claims against it. Only a probate court in a special proceeding for thesettlement of the estate of a deceased person can resolve those questions.
Note:
The same ruling was made in
 Natcher v. CA, G.R. No. 133000, Oct. 2, 2001
where a regular court was resolving the question of the alleged advancement of property made by the decedent to one of his heirs. The SC ruled that the regular court had no jurisdiction over the issue. It belongs to the probate court.4. Custom's Seizure and Detention of Imported Merchandise 
 Zuño v. Judge Cabredo, A.M. RTJ-1779, April 30, 2003
 
Update on Remedial Law Page
A regular court does not have jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedingsundertaken by the Deputy Collector of Customs. The action of this official is reviewable by theCollector of Customs whose action is reviewable by the Court of Tax Appeals.
B. Docket Fees (S.C. Res. en banc, April 4, 19987, AM 085-3-001) 
 RCBC v. Magwin Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 152878, Aug. 5, 2003
When an order of dismissal of complaint is reconsidered and the case is reinstated, the plaintiff is not required to pay another docket fee.
C. Actions (Rule 2, RCP) 
 Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656, April 20, 2003
The three kinds of actions:1. Action in personam — it is an action which is lodged against a person based on personal liability and seeks a personal judgment. The decision rendered therein is called judgment in personam which is binding only between the parties.2. Action in rem — it is an action directed against a res or the thing itself instead of a person and seeks a judgment enforceable against the whole world. The decision is called judgment in rem.3. Action quasi-in-rem — it is an action which names a person as defendant but itsobject is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation or anaction pertaining to the status of a person. The decision which is called judgment quasi-in-remis binding only between the parties.
Notes:
a) An action for declaration of the nullity of marriage is an action quasi-in-rem. b) Two kinds of quasi-in-rem actions: (R 
ule 14, Sec. 15)
1) Defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affectsthe personal status of the plaintiff;2) Defendant does not reside and not found in the Philippines and the subject of thesuit is a property in the Philippines in which the defendant has a claim or lien or interest, actualor contingent or in which the relief demanded consists wholly or in part, in excluding thedefendant from any interest thereat or the property is attached within the Philippines.
C. Death of a Party (Rule 3, Sec. 16, RCP) 
 Brioso v. Reli-Mariano, G.R. No. 132765, Jan. 37, 2003
During the pendency of the case, defendant died. His lawyer filed a Notice of Death.Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion for Substitution of Deceased Defendant. The court admittedthe motion. Decision was rendered ordering the defendants and heirs of deceased defendant to pay plaintiff damages and to surrender the lot in question to him.Was there proper substitution of parties?2
 
Update on Remedial Law Page
Held:
There was no proper substitution of deceased defendant and, therefore, theheirs of the deceased defendants are not bound by the decision. The court did not comply withRule 3, Sec. 16, RCP which requires that upon receipt of the Notice of Death of a party, itshould issue an order directing the deceased legal representative or heirs to appear for thedeceased. The order of the court admitting the motion for substitution of party does not complywith the rule.
Notes:
a. If heirs of original party are also original parties over whom the court had alreadyacquired jurisdiction over their person, a formal order of substitution is not necessary. b. Even if there is no formal substitution of deceased party of the heirs actively participated on the hearing as witnesses who gave evidence in support of the deceased's cause,the defect is cured.
D. Compulsory Counterclaim (Rule 6, Sec. 7, RCP)
Requisites of a compulsory counterclaim:1. it arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that isthe subject matter of the opposing party's claim;2. it does not require the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction;3. the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.Test to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory:1. Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims absent thecompulsory counterclaim rule?3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well asdefendant's counterclaim?4. Is there any logical relations between the claim and the counterclaim?
E. Forum Shopping (S.C. Cir. No. 28-91 and S.C. Cir. No. 04-94) 
1.
UP v. Susi, G.R. No. 130912, Feb. 14, 2003
Susi claimed part of the titled Diliman campus of UP on the strength of a certificate of title in her name.She tried several times to fence and occupy said portion of the UP campus but wasrepulsed. So she filed an action for damages and injunction with prayer for a TRO and WPIagainst UP and some of its officials.UP filed an action for cancellation of the title of Susi over said property.
Issue:
Is there forum shopping?
Held:
 None. UP could not have raised as counterclaim the cancellation of title on thedamage suit because the court would not have jurisdiction thereof. Cancellation of title can3

Activity (47)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
lex libris liked this
lex libris liked this
Pasian Brent liked this
jhlim liked this
Apple Marie liked this
lengjavier liked this
Glory Be liked this
muyrong liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->