Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
33Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CIVPRO Ratio Reviewer

CIVPRO Ratio Reviewer

Views: 362 |Likes:
Published by saintkarri
cases assigned by Dean
cases assigned by Dean

More info:

Published by: saintkarri on Apr 20, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

01/02/2013

pdf

text

original

CIVPRO Ratio Reviewer | Dean MVFL AY 2009-2010, 2nd Semester
Page1 of20
UP Law 2012
DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GENERAL
Galuba v. Laureta

In order to reject an amicable settlement already entered
into, it must be done in accordance with Section 13 of P.D.
1508 (it must be repudiated within 10 days from the date of
the settlement).

P.D. 1508 does not provide for a judicial procedure for the
annulment of an amicable settlement.
Morata v. Go

The conciliation process at the barangay level, prescribed by
PD 1508 as a pre-condition of filing a complaint in court, is
compulsory not only for cases falling under the exclusive
competent of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts, but
for actions cognizable by the regional trial courts as well.

Royales v. IAC

The non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process
may make the complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the
ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity, EXCEPT
where the defendants failed to object to the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court over the case in their answer and
even during the entire proceeding.

The remedy is a MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground of
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT
lack of jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION
Javier v. CA
EO 247 granted POEA jurisdiction over all claims of overseas
contract workers.

A case cannot have a civil aspect cognizable by the regular
court and at the same time a labor aspect cognizable by the
labor tribunal, and the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at
anytime and at any stage of the action.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION:
Agencies vested with the power to exercise quasi-judicial
functions over disputes specified in the statute granting the
same shall have jurisdiction to hear such cases, not the
regular courts.

PRIMARY JURISDICTION

EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES

Jurisdiction of the
tribunal
Condition precedent
Determines the authority
of the court
Does NOT go into the

authority of the court
Motion to dismiss for
LACK OF JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER

Motion to dismiss for FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT

Does NOT prescribe

Must be seasonably filed
or else deemed waived
(before filing an answer)

Santos v. NW

The jurisdiction of a case involving international
transportation within the territories of two contracting parties
is governed by the Art. 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention:

\u00b3An action for damages must be brought at the option of the
plaintiff:

1. In the territory of one of the high contracting parties, either
before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of his
principal place of business, or

2. Where he has a place of business through which the
contract has been made, or
3. Before the court at the place of destination.\u00b4

The Warsaw convention establishes jurisdiction in the
international sense, while the domestic law is applied to
determine the specific court in a country that has proper
jurisdiction pursuant of Art 28(1).

Such jurisdiction cannot be left to the consent or agreement
of the parties whether or not such agreements are explicitly
prohibited.
** This doctrine is SUI GENERIS

Lopez v. NW

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and is not made to depend upon
allegations in the answer or the motion to dismiss, and
continues until the case is finally terminated.

While jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings as the same is
conferred by law, a party may be barred from raising it on the
ground of laches or estoppel.

Posterior changes in the doctrine canNOT retroactively be
applied to nullify a prior final ruling in the same proceeding
where prior adjudication was had, whether the case should be
civil or criminal in nature.

Bulao v. CA
Allegations set forth in the complaint determine the nature of
action.
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy

A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative reliefagain s t his opponent and, after obtaining or
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question the same
jurisdiction

Abalos v. CA

Once a party to a case submits to the jurisdiction of the court
and participates in the trial on the merits of the case, he
cannot thereafter, upon a judgment unfavorable to his cause,
take a total turn about and say that the condition precedent
of compliance with P.D. No. 1508 had not been met.

Flores v. Mallare Philipps

Where 2 or more plaintiffs sue one defendant in a single
complaint or 1 plaintiff sues several defendants in a single
complaint, based on several causes of action for or against
each, respectively, the TOTALITY RULE applies only where:
1. The causes of action arose from the same series of

transactions; and

2. There is a common question of fact or law among them. There must be a PROPER JOINDER OF PARTIES in order for the totality rule to apply.

Ortigas and Co. v. CA

Appellate jurisdiction over cases involving PURELY LEGAL
QUESTIONS is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court and
cases erroneously brought to it shall be sent to the proper
court for hearing as if it was originally brought before it as
prescribed by the Judiciary Act.

The Court of First Instance shall dismiss a case on appeal if
tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction EXCEPT when
the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial
without an objection to its jurisdiction as provided in Sec. 11,
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.

Dy v. CA
CIVPRO Ratio Reviewer | Dean MVFL AY 2009-2010, 2nd Semester
Page2 of20
UP Law 2012

In a civil case decided under the RULES OF SUMMARY
PROCEDURE, the immediate execution of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court may not be effected unless prior notice of
the judgment or order had been served on the losing party
and proof of such service accompanies the motion for
execution of the judgment.

Manchester Development Co. v. CA
The court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon:
1.
The filing of the complaint; and
2.
The payment of the proper docket fees.
3.
Certificate to file action.

An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will NOT vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts in the amended pleading.

Sun Insurance v. Asuncion

It is not only the filing of the complaint, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.

Bgy. San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Fransisco
Pastor

The issue of EXPROPRIATION is primarily the right of the
government to expropriate, which is NOT CAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION, and recovery of just compensation
is merely incidental to the expropriation proceedings.

Therefore, jurisdiction of ALL expropriation proceedings are with the regional trial courts, regardless of the value of the subject property.

Spouses Diu v. Ibajan

The pendency of an action questioning the ownership of
property will not divest the city or municipal trial court of its
jurisdiction over the ejectment case and neither will it bar the
execution of a judgment thereon.

It is incorrect for the RTC to dismiss a forcible entry case on
appeal on the ground that it can only decide the issue of
possession after the issue of ownership would have been
resolved elsewhere.

Zabat v. CA

The Courts cannot set aside administrative decisions on
matters within their executive jurisdiction except upon proof
of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.
Parties must first avail of all the means afforded by
administrative processes prior to seeking the intervention of
the court.

Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. NTC

Findings of fact of administrative tribunals (e.g. NTC) will be
accorded respect, and on occasion, even finality, by reason of
their acquired expertise on specific matters within their
particular jurisdiction.

\u00b3Tribunals with special competence\u00b4 (e.g. NTC) have primary
jurisdiction over matters within its expertise.
Rivera v. Santiago

The allegations in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of the court. The court need not go beyond such allegations (i.e. prove them) in order to determine the issue of jurisdiction.

When TENANCY is averred as a defense and is shown, prima
facie to be a real issue, the MTC must dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction as the issue of tenancy is properly under
the jurisdiction of the the DARAB.

DAR v. Cuenca

All controversies on the implementation of the CARP fall under
the jurisdiction of the DAR, even though they raise questions
that are also legal or constitutional in nature.

Southern Cross v. Cement Manufacturers

The phrase \u00b3in connection with\u00b4 in Sec. 29 of the SMA
pertains both to the imposition and non-imposition of the S.M.
and the jurisdiction upon appeal lies with the CTA.

SPECIAL PROCEDURAL RULES
Del Rosario v. CA

All types of ejectment cases are now under summary
procedure regardless of WoN the issue of ownership is pleader
by a party. Under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure,
the adjudication of cases can be done on the basis of
affidavits and position papers.

RULE 2: ACTIONS IN GENERAL
Joseph v. Bautista

Where there is only ONE wrong/ONE injury arising from
SEVERAL WRONGFUL ACTS, there is only ONE CAUSE OF
ACTION, regardless of the number of rights violated.

Other related ratios:
Recovery under one remedy bars the recovery under the
other.

Full payment made by some and their subsequent release
resulted in the extingushment of the liability of the other
solidary debtors

City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery

The filing of a seaparate action for the claim for a surcharge
(when there was already an action for the claim of the
deficiency), which arose from the same action violating the
same right duty correlative, constitutes a splitting of the
cause of action.

The filing of separate complaints for several reliefs arising
from a single Cause of action constitutes a splitting up of a
cause of action and is prohibited by Section 2, Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court.

Bayang v. CA

The land in dispute in one civil case, and the income from that
land being claimed in another civil case arise from the same
cause of action. Therefore, the filing of the second case
constitutes a splitting of the cause of action.

Enriquez v. Ramos

Where the TWO COMPLAINTS are based on TWO DISTINCT
DEBTS (one for payment of check in Manila and the other for
foreclosure of mortgage to satisfy debt in Quezon City), there
are TWO DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION and therefore, the
rule against splitting of a single cause of action does not
apply.

Cuevas v. Pineda

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES DOCTRINE:
The jurisdiction of an administrative agency to resolve issues
which are within its competence and expertise cannot be
rejected after it has been invoked.

RULE 3: PARTIES
Filipinas Industrial Corporation v. San Diego
Rule 3, Sec. 2: Every action must be brought in the name of
the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.

A REPRESENTATIVE is one who does not stand to be benefited
or be injured by the judgment, therefore, the action may not
be brought in his name.

CIVPRO Ratio Reviewer | Dean MVFL AY 2009-2010, 2nd Semester
Page3 of20
UP Law 2012

The consequence of the action being brought in the name of a
representative or one who is NOT a real part in interest:
MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground of FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION

LACK OF CAUSE OF
ACTION
Failure of the pleadings;
manner of pleading
Failure of the cause of

action
There is/may be a cause
of action but it was not
pleaded property

There was no problem in
the pleading, but the
facts alleged lead to the
conclusion that there is
NO cause of action

Aranico-Rabino v. Aquino
Failure to include INDISPENSIBLE PARTIES is ground for
dismissal of the complaint.
Laperal Development Corporation v. CA

A PROPER PARTY is one which ought to be party if complete relief is to be accorded as between those already parties but even if it was not impleaded.

The court may still validly proceed with the case if the party
was not an indespensable party but only a proper party.
Barfel Development Corporation v. CA

Joinder of admittedly PROPER PARTIES is PERMISSIVE, that
judgment will be decreed even if all the parties are not
present if the court will be able to proceed to a decree and do
justice to the parties already before it, without injury to those
who are absent but equally interested in the litigation and
who cannot conveniently be made parties to the suit.

Interest existing in some other persons whom the process of
the court cannot reach will not prevent a decree upon the
merits.

Oposa v. Factoran

CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint (the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology) is of common and general
interest to not just to several individuals but to all citizens of
the Philippines.

The standing of the petitioners to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based upon the concept of
INTERGENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY regarding the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.

Mathay, et al. v. Consolidated Bank

An action does NOT become a class suit merely because it is
designated as such in the pleadings.
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the
ATTENDING FACTS and the existence of which, which should
be ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT:

1. The existence of a subject matter of common interest, and

2. The existence of a class and the number of persons in the
alleged class, in order that the court can determine whether
the members of the class are so numerous as to make it
impracticable to bring them all before the court and

3. The claimants actually before it adequately represent the
class and the subject matter of general or common interest.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services v. CA

The consent of the state to be sued must emanate from
statutory authority, hence from a legislative act and without
such consent, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
public respondents.

RULE 4: VENUE
Diaz v. Adiong
The objection to improper venue, although mandatory, must
be seasonably raised, otherwise the same is deemed waived.
The petitioner, having submitted his person to the jurisdiction
of the court, may no longer raise it.
PLEADINGS
In General
Gerales v. CA

Pleadings and remedial laws should be LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED in order that the litigants may have ample
opportunity to prove their respective claims. Possible denial of
substantial justice due to technicalities should be avoided.

The courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default
because default judgments are generally frowned upon,
unless it clearly appears that the reopening of the case it
intended for delay.

Complaint
Tantuico v. Republic

The remedy for a complaint with unclear/general allegations
is a MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

Metropolitan Bank v. Quilts

The complaint must allege the ULTIMATE FACTS upon which
the plaintiff bases his cause of action.
Bare statements of CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, not sustained by
a statement of facts, does NOT aid in the setting forth of a
cause of action.

Mathay v. Consolidated Bank

A complaint must state ULTIMATE FACTS constituting the
three essential elements of a cause of action:
1. The existence of a legal right in the plaintiff,
2. The correlative duty in the defendant, and
3. the act/omission of defendant in violation of the plaintiff\u00b6s

right.

Otherwise, the complaint must succumb to a motion to
dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, such that one is entitled to
something or an act is unlawful wrong, add nothing to the
pleading, it being necessary to plead specifically the facts
upon which such conclusion is founded.

Answer
Donato v. CA

GENERAL RULE: The genuineness and due execution of the
instrument is deemed admitted unless the adverse party
under oath, specifically denies them.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. The adverse party does NOT appear to be a PARTY to
the instrument.
2. Non-compliance of the order for an inspection of the
original.
PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines

Failure to specifically deny the due execution and genuineness
of an instrument amounts to a JUDICIAL ADMISSION which is
conclusive and, consequently, the instrument need not be
presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an
admitted fact.

RIGHT OF ACTION: the right to presently enforce a cause of
action and it is vested only upon the fulfillment of the

Activity (33)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Weks Enriquez liked this
Anne Andam liked this
agent_ros liked this
melchor1925 liked this
blaksquid liked this
ljpolca 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)//-->