This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Summary Procedure Cases: 1. Inc.460 SCRA 5. Joinder of parties C. 390 SCRA 263 14. Venue of actions: real and personal actions E. Dingco.Rules I to 5 (inc.350 SCRA 2. Parts of a Pleading Verifi cation and Certifi cation C.Inc. 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure) A. Oliver. 386 SCRA 301 9.464 SCRA 576 11.464 SCRA. Carabeo vs. CA * 569 SCRA 4. Alday vs. vs. Default . Co. vs. Kinds of Pleadings Complaint and Answer Defenses: Negative and Affirmative Counterclaims : Cornpulsory and Permissive Reply B.626 SCRA 649 7. Joaquin. F'GU Insurance .China Banking Corp. vs. Lotte Phil. Formaran IJl. Cobamrbias.De laCruzvs. Lopez. CA. 373 SCRA 578 8.Navarro vs. Relucio vs. Rules 6-9 .. Mercado vs. Allegations in Pleadings Actionable Docurnenls Specific denial D. Escobido.578 SCRA 283 6. Proton Pilipinas vs. Corp. St. 591 10. necessary parties ' Class suit Death or separation of a party Transfer of interest Contractual Money claims D.516 SCRA III. Schonfeld . De la Cru2. Korea Technologies Inc. Actions: meaning and commencement B. vs. One suit for a single cause if action Splitting a single cause of action Joinder of causes vs. Ruby Shelter Builders & Realty Dev. vs. De Castro vs. Effect of Failure to Plead Waiver of Defenses and Objections.Pleadings atrd Default A. Parties to Civil Actions Indispensable parties vs. Pacific Consultants vs. Lerma * 542 SCRA 3. 606 SCRA I l3. Louis University. 647 SCRA 200 l2. Banque Nationale de Paris .
Who serves 4. by publication iii. Phil. personal ii. 533 SCRA 2g IV. Oaminalvs. proof Priorities in Modes of Service E.4I3 SCRA 5.vs. Castilla. Trust Co. 3. Voluntary Appearance Cases: I. Time/Period for Filing Responsive pleadings Answer Reply C. completeness. vs. CA. on natural persons: prisoners. & Dev. entities without juridical personality 6. to whom addressed . . Banco de Oro vs. 566 SCRA 219 . Alon. Asia Const. substituted service c.1. 458 SCRA 750 6. What is summons 2.245 SCRA 3" Biesterbos vs. completeness. 351 SCRA 2. proof Service: Mode.i . vs. service in person b.:. unknown. Kinds of summons: a. Benguet Exploration Inc. CA. CA.vs. :l: -ii I . Summons 2. Bill of Particulars D. Tansipek.41l SCRA 4. Amendments and Supplemental pleadings Kinds of Amendments Amendments vs. Corp. Judgments and other papers Distinction between Filing and Service Filing: Manner.. minors/incompetents. Supplemental pleadingg B. Filing and Service of Pleadings. any mode 5. extraterritorial i. Caneland Sugar Corp.406 SCRA 190 8. Manila Bay Club Corp. City of Urdaneta.. on corporations: public or private. domestic or foreign b. 550 SCRA Asean Pacific Planners Vs. On whom served a.. Who issues. CA. Proofs of service F. 593 SCRA 456 7. Biglang-awa vs. Sandigqnbayan. Rules 10 to 14 : Amendments to Summons A. Republic vs. 1.
401 SCRA l0. CA.Santos vs. Discussion on Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Sec.A.3. Valmonte vs. requirements.Chapter VII. Corp. Title One. 315 SCRA 541 2.dis c ov ery me o s ur e s Failure to appear at the pre-trial Failure to file pre-trial briefs .M. Ramos.237 SCRA 167 De Guzman Jr.* 566 SCRA l.Jurisdiction over the subject matter vs. Quilala . Tan. 211 SCRA 753 Uy vs. 399 SCRA 9. CA. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Govemment Code of l99L) Cases: 1.B.vs. CA. Ledesma vs.Mason vs.Manotoc vs. Litis Pendentia 3. 212 SCRA 4. CA. & Com. Contreras.499 SCRA l5.. jurisdiction over the persons of the parties 2. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. 03-1-09 of the Supreme Court effective August 16. vs. vs. Heirs of Fernando Vinzons vs. Book III of R. omnibus motions B.A. Pascual * 607 SCRA 288 (121412009) 1 Rules I5 to 19 : Motions to [ntervention A. CA. failure to state a cause of action 4. Notice of Lis Pendens vs. Villarosa vs. 326 SCRA 7. No. CA. 413 SCRA l2. CA .Dole Phil vs. Dismissal oIActions Dismissal Upon Notice f)ismissal Upon Motion Failure to Prosecute D. laches Note. 4. PNOC Exp. 648 SCRA 677 C. Ramos vs. 399422. Lack of cause of action vs. Bar by prior judgment vs. Motions : definitions.557 SCRA l4.Jose vs. CA. Prescription vs.2004 " Guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre+rial and use of - dep os it i o n. Pre-Trial . conclusiveness ofjudgment 5. Teh vs. E. 382 5. Boyon. 252 SCRA 6. 3.Pascual vs. De Dios vs.312 SCRA 8. 414 SCRA 13. Benito. Motion to Dismiss Grounds Distinctions: l. Millenium lnd. Oohoa.
5 of R-30. A. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories (5-6) 4. Sison. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things (R-27) 6. Eflects of errors and irregularities (S-29) 2. People vs. Sec.3. CA. Summons B. 636 SCRA VI.Rule on Judicial Affidavit (A. 403 SCRA 3. Deposition upon written examination (S-15) d. Modes of Discovery ( R-23 to 29) 1. Use of depositions (S-4) b. CA. Sec. Sec.11.Interuention Who may intervene When to intervene Cases: 1. Yao vs.. I I of R-L19. Officers to take depositions (S-10. Depositions before Actions or pending Appeai (R-24) 3.414 SCRA 4.12) c. Intestate Estate of Jalandonl.397 SCRA 2. Rules of Summary procedure . Sec. Saguid vs. 612 SCRA 6. Subpoena vs. Office of the Ombudsman vs. l-4 of RI lB.M. Effect to failure to file and selve request for admission (S- 2s) 5.4) Order of Trial (S-5) D. Jan. repealing Sec. Depositions Pending Action (-23) a.R"efusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery (R-29) c. Trial (R-30/ Note: Proposed Rulesfor Hearing ard Adjudicating Disputes. Rules 21123 to 32 :Modes of Discovery ' . Interrogatories to Parties (R-25) a. Consolidation or Severance (R-31) Consolidation (S-1) Severance (S-2) E. Perello. Pinlac vs. 2013 Notiee (S-1) Adjournments and Postponement (5-2. Admission by Adverse Party (R-26) a. Trial By Comrnissioner (R-32) Distinguish liom trial with Assessors r . 4 of R-|32. 12-8-8-SC) effective. Deposition upon written intepogatories (S-25) e. Physical and Mental Examination (R-28) . I of R-tt6. Anonuevo vs. l.E. 410 SCRA 5. Perez.
Radiowealth Finance Co.SeparatejuJgments'(S-a) . Rumbaua.238 SCRA 88 4. Judgment on the Pleadings (R-34) C.In Civil and Criminal actions B.Mercury Drug Corp.Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal (S-2) . Sumingwa. 299 SCRA 5. vs.Iudgments against entities without personality (5_6) F.Time for filing Petition (S-3) Preliminary Injurrction (S-5) Cases: 1. CA. vs. Del Rosario. Reyes. Dasmariflas Garments. Demurrer to Evidence (R-33) . New Trial or Reconsideration (R-37) .Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp.8) G.Summary J udgment (R-3 5) D. People. .602 SCRA 760 4. Entry of Judgment and Final Orders (R-36) . vs. 335 SCRA 288 3. CA. vs.Grounds for New Trial (S-1) Grounds for Reconsideration (S-1) .312 SCRA 573 6. Vs. People vs Webb.Several judgments (S-4) . CA. O2amis -376 SCRA 482 (New Trial or Reconsideration) 7. CA.7. Cabadorvs. Relief from JudgmentS (R-38) .Petition for Relief from Judgment (S-1) . 515 SCRA 6. Insular Life Assurance Co. 461 SCRA 369 l3. Inc. Padilla-Rumbaua vs..Effects of a Grant or Denial (S-6. Hun Hyung Park vs.596 SCRA (NT/MR) 8. Allied Agri-Business Development Co. De Mangueffa vs.td. 225 SCRA 622 (lgg3) 2.383 SCRA 625 (Relief) 9. CA. 98 SCRA 768 3. Fundamentals of Depositions .People vs Li Ka Kim. 603 SCRA 638 5. Vda. Inc. Bernardo vs. T. Risos. Rules 33 to 38 : Demurrer to Relief from Judgment A.Fernandez vs.Cases: 1. 458 SCRA 454 . 563 SCRA 499 VII. 336 SCRA 475 l0. . Mesina vs Meer. Garcia vs. People vs.278 SCRA 782 2.335 SCRA 567 l2. vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Eng Won Choi. Mendezona vs..429 SCRA 169 1l. CA.
Discretionary (S-2) a. 417 SCRA 9. Villaruel vs. Modes "rJ. Kinds of Execution a. when party is dead (S_7) 2. Matter of right/ministerial (S_ I) B. Magwin Marketing Corp. Judgment: principal vs. stay ofdiscretionary execution (S_3) not staved bv appear (s-4) C.fudgment .. principal Management Group.VIl. Felix - 50g SCRA . Redernption 1. CA. equity of redemption . Perez vs. surety (S_46) J. 3. effect of redemption (S_29) Other remedies to fully satis$r. Santos vs. CA. Bagagnan. COMELEC. l. when judgment is for specific act (S_10) 4. city of Iligan vs. Banes vs. Rule 39 . Examination of obligor ofjudgment obligor (S_37) 3. 407 scRA 6. Banes. Properties exempt from execution (S_13) E. Sale of ascertainable interest (S_42) I. By motion (5-6) 2. inpersonam 3.Execution of Judgments A.By independent acrion (3_6) b. when judgment is for money (5-6) 3. CTDC . RCBC vs.St2 SCRA l2. 4[5 SCRA 8.374 SCRA 2.400 SCRA 3.399 SCRA 4. 46 r SCRA 312 10.Stronghold Insurance vs. Manner of Execution l. Serrano vs. Morta vs. the right of redemption vs. euitalig. Appointment of a receiver (S-41) 4. Fajardo vs. Effect of foreign judgment (S-4g) H. 464 SCRA g9 Cases: l l. Examination ofjudgment obligor (5_36) 2. 1. Execrrtion Sale (S-17 to 26) G. when it is a special judgment (S_l l) D. 402 SCRA 5. orpia. D'Annoured Security and Investigation Agency vs.Panotes vs.lx*tfents [. resjudicata K. in rem 2. Third Party Claim (S-16) F.4l2 SCRA 7. Fernando. Effect ofjudgment (S-47) l.
LPBS Com. Record on Appeal Perfection of Appeal C. Rules 40 to 56 . Republic vs. Manaloto vs. PAL vs. De Leon. 655 SCRA 580 2.6L2 SCRA 76 14. Petition for Review from RTC to CA How appeal taken Failure to comply with requirements Perfection of APPeal D.4l7 SCRA 9.Land. Business Bank vs. Reterta vs. DevelopmentBank. Sec. Mores. Anacay . 634 SCRA 3. Amila 544 SCRA l0. Period Contents. Phil.. Sps. Q.. Heirs of Sps.620 SCRA 5. 399 SCRA 8. Effects H. People's Broadcasting vs. Latorre. 617 SCRA 4.Bank of the Phil. Mangotara. Appeal from MTC to RTC Perfection of ApPeal f)ocket Fees Appeals from Orders of Dismissal B.587 SCRA 724 12. Republic vs. of Labor. Briefs F.624 SCRA 6. Inc. Cases: 1. Catly vs. Latorre vs. vs. Marmo vs. Ordinary Appealed Cases to CA. CA.62l SCRA l1 - - . Technological Advocate .Appeals A.IX. CA 544 SCRA 1l . Veloso 1II.Appeal by Certiorari Distinguish Rule 45 from Rule 65 Contents of Petition Requirements/Effect G. Dismissal of Appeal (R-50) Grounds 'oMaterial Data" Rule ..Estinozo vs. Arcenas vs. Chua. Navarro. vs. Appeal from RTC to CA Modes of Appeal Notice of Appeal vs.632 SCRA T. . Annulment of Judgment Coverage.606 SCRA 232 (lll27l09) 13. Grounds. Appeal from CTA & QJA to CA Contents of Petition Action on Petition Effects of Appeal Note: The Court of Tax Appeals has been elevated to the level of CA E.C.
Inc. Republic vs. vs.Estinozo vs. Chua. Appeal from CTA & QJA to CA Contents of Petition Actrbn ort Peitron Effects of Appeal Note:The Court of Tax Appea\shasbeen e\e'vatedto\he\e've\ of CA. Briefs F. LPBS Com. . Appeal from RTC to CA Modes of APPeal Notice of Appeal vs.lX. Sps. E. Dismissal of ApPeal (R-50) Grounds "Material Data" Rule Cases: Heirs of Sps. Annulment of Judglnent Coverage. 621 SCRA 11 1. Technological Advocate . Latorre vs. Marmo vs. Period Contents. Petition for Review from RTC to CA How appeal taken Failure to comply with requirements Perfection of ApPeal D. 655 SCRA 580 2. of Labor. 634 SCRA 3. Appeal from MTC to RTC Perfection of ApPeal Docket Fees Appeals from Orders of Dismissal B. Veloso l[l.612 SCRA 76 14. Development Bank. -. PAL vs. CA . Ordinary Appealed Cases to CA. Reterta vs.LandBank of the Phil. Catly vs... Phil.544 SCRA 11. Arcenas vs. Effects H.587 SCRA 724 12. Business Bank vs. Amila * 544 SCRA l0.632 SCRA T. Q. 399 SCRA B. Mangotara.624 SCRA 6. APPeal trY Certiorari Distinguish Rule 45 from Rule 65 Contents of Petition Requirements/Effect G.606 SCRA 232 (lll27l09) 13. Manaloto vs. vs. Republic vs. 620 SCRA 5. Latorre. People's Broadcasting vs. 617 SCRA 4.C.417 SCRA 9. Grounds. Sec. De Leon. CA. Record on Appeal Perfection of APPeal C. Mores.APPeals A.. Navarro. Anacay . Rules 40 to 56 .
Readycon Trading. 387 SCRA 2. Third Party Claim 6.X. 329 SCRA 542 SCRA 2. 590 SCRA t. Smart Communications vs. Du vs. fermination and ComPensation Cases: Aguilarvs. Third party Claim 4. Preliininary Iniunction 1. Replevin 1. Judgment and Damages Cases: L Orosa vs.S49 SCRA 3. Bristol-Myers - 565 SCRA 4. Sandiganbayan. Real. Phil. Manner of Attaching 4.. Astorga 3.440 SCRA 34 3.M. Satsatin. Veterans Bank. Torres vs. D. Rules 57 to 6l - Provisional Remedies A. vs. Jenosa vs. Requirements 3. Damages Cases: 1. E. Requirements 3. Jr. 588 SCRA . Grounds 3. Preliminary Attachment 1. Grounds 2. Delariarte. CA. Lanobis. Claim for Damages Cases: 1. Requirements 3. Chuidian vs. When writ may issue 2.605 SCRA 6. vs.432 SCRA 4. When writ may issue 2. Discharge of Attachment 5. Wenceslao vs. CA.353 SCRA 3. Requirements 4. Gustilo vs. 606 SCRA B. Power of Receiver 4. Metro Inc. Definition.. Lagrosas vs. Receivership 1. Vargas. CA. Classes 2. Lara's Gifts and Decors Inc. Hao vs. Rivera vs. 433 SCRA 5. Andres . Koruga vs. 630 SCRA C. ManilaBanking Corp-502 SCRA3l3 SCRA 2. 352 SCRA 2.555 SCRA 4. Idolor vs. Stronghold Insurance. Arcenas. Mangilavs.
Procedure: comment. Bathala Marketing Ind' . 606 SCRA 6. Requisites 3. procedure. Don Luis Dizon Realty. What is ana action for interpleader 2. Lim. Velarde vs. TaPPa.A262 2. Support Pendente lite i. 548 SCRA B. Kinds l. 315 SCRA 3. Requirements. Parties and Effects 3.'CA. 374$CP. 165 SCRA 2. Enforcement 4. Procedure Cases: EtemalGardens vs. Similarities and Differences between C and P 2.70 SCRA 3. Malanavs. hearing Order 3. Sumabat*9116/2005 ' 4. SJS * 428 SCRA 3. Navamo vs. Tambunting vs. Nature.600 SCRA 189 Judgments and Final orders of GOMELEC and What is the distinctive nature of this action c. Pasricha vs. Manahan. Mandamus: grounds. De Asis vs. 2. requisites. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies 1.5. IAC. People vs. Bautista vs. Application 2. Ortiz. Consumers Fndation. Wack-wack Golf & Country Club vs' Lee Won. 303 SCRA '2. 628 SCRA 1 (Aug' 2010) 6. Montefalcon vs. Review of coA - D. Reyes vs.Special Civil Actions A. damages i:l ::i t0 .434 SCRA 597 4. Rules 62'71. Sula. Lopezvs. Lim vs. Phil. 530 SCRA F. 604 SCRA 691 XI. Sps. Escobido. Restitutiort Cases: 1.Interpleader 1.542 SCRA 470 5. Almeda vs. MERALCO vs. Conversion into ordinary Action ' Cases: 1. CA. Certiorari. Vasquez -554 SCRA 5. Prohibition and Mandamus (R-65 1. Parties 3.
436 SCRA 1 11 .Cases: 2. 614 SCRA 478 11. Ardiente vs. Tuazon vs. 318 SCRA 2. 621 SCRA 385 F. Equity of redemption vs. of Justice. Who may expropriate 7. Veloso. National Power Corp.611 SCRA 32 Gonzales vs. Servicewide Specialists vs. COMELEC. RD of Caloocan City. 4. Callejavs.vs. Judgment for Cost Case: 1. 1. Judiciatr and Bar Council. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (R-68) Di stinguish j udicial from extraj udicial fbreclosure i. 3. The right of Eminent Domain 6. Tolentino. UP Board of Regents vs. 436 SCRA 655 4. 611 SCRA 179 3.46l SCRA 260 (Material data rule) 7. Indiana Aerospace University. 227 SCRA 5. Pineda vs. Security Bank Corp. Provincial Sheriff.2008 G. Period 3. Jorres. vs. Thejudgment . 461 SCRA 599 9. Court of Appeals.vs. CA. Asia's Emerging Dragon vs. 359 SCRA 2. Panday.302 SCRA 2. Jr. Deficiencyjudgment Cases: 1. Quo Warranto (R-66) 1. 483 SCRA 3.436 SCRA 3. The complaint 2. Jr. 635 SCRA 274 4. 620 SCRA 10 Angeles vs. vs. DOTC. Two stages in expropriation 1. 157 SCRA 6. City of Manila vs.'CA. Serrano. COMELEC. CA. GSIS . Aguinaldo. April 18. Allas. Ligot-Telan. Parties 2. LiberalParty vs. Lokin. Limitations 4. 615 SCRA 666 E. Mendozavs. Right of redemption 1. Sec. BPI Family Savings Bank vs. Expropriation (R-67) 'Cases: 5. Mallari vs. Unionbank of the Philippines vs. 311 SCRA 3. De Castro vs.
Rule of Commissioners 5. Abiera..'lheOrder 3.63l SCRA Modesto vs. Partition (R-69) 1. Appeals Cases: 1. Francisco. Brobio.610 I. Feliciano vs. Procedure 3.. Balus vs. 625 SCRA La Campana Dev. Islands vs. Calanza. 313 SCRA 2. accion reivindicatoria and accion interdictal 2. Judgment. Ledesma. nature. 2. Kinds. Montenegro. 634 SCRA 35 1 [. Distinction between UD and FE 3. 4. vs. Rabaca.633 SCRA hmbrondial l2 . Canoza.429 SCRA 258 4. Inc. Manalite H. Formoso. 431 SCRA 415 5. The complaint 2. Mangahas vs. Corp. 6. Distinction between accion publiciana. Contempt (Rule 71) l. Bank of the Phil. Thejudgment Cases: SCRA 178 2.632 SCRA Calara vs. Sarmienta vs. 3.629 SCRA Ferrer va. Caoibes.525 SCRA 3. grounds 2. character as immediately executory 6. Ways to stall execution ofjudgment 7. Recto. The padies. Urbina.629 SCRA 550 3. Judgment and Review Cases: l Yasay vs.H. Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry (R-70. 5. Stages of Partition 4. Procedure (summary procedure) 5. Sison vs.633 SCRA Carbonilla vs. Montenegro vs.A. grounds (rent control law) 4. Rent Control Law of 2005) 1. 632 SCRA J. Espanol vs. Jr. Balus.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?